By: Shino

Shino — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:11:00 +0000

I think the weirdest point is why to do that, at all. Why not just make a single movie and then skip to Silmarillion? Silmarillion has enough material for like trilogy based on Quenta Silmarillion, plus three extra movies based on Akalabeth, Valaquenta and Ainulindale.
Though nevermind, they will probably do that too. Movie industry execs are a greedy bunch.

By: Shadowydreamer

Shadowydreamer — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:05:00 +0000

The Hobbit movies, just like the LOTR movies before them, were based on J. R. R. Tolkein’s work. Not a literal retelling. (But then, is any movie version?) Do I think the story told could have been done in two rather than three? Probably. Do I think it’s a horror amongst horrors that it was done in three? Not to the point that I’m not willing to put down the money.

The Hobbit WAS a very point to point story. I first read it at age seven. It didn’t get any more complex as it and I aged.

Jackson added Tauriel under the guise of “This is a male heavy story — females should get some screen time!” so he created a female Aragorn. Then he went and ruined it with the daft lust triangle. So, one step forward, one immediately backwards. I don’t have any problem with his trying to balance the genders somewhat (Women are 50% of the population, someone should tell Hollywood.) but he could have found better ways to do it!

Sir Ian McKellen wasn’t happy with the filming. He spent a good chunk acting to pictures on sticks in front of a green screen. A paraphrase of him says “This isn’t why I became an actor.” He wanted to act with people, not sit by himself talking to sticks. I have sympathy for him.

Over all.. do I think it was a waste of time and money? No. I’d give it a 6.5 – 7 out of 10. It wasn’t as good as LOTR, but it was still enjoyable. It was nowhere near as the Star Wars prequels. Jar Jar know whats I means?

Comments on: Stupid Fat Hobbitses

By: Shino

By: Shadowydreamer