How dare you call her superfluous! :)
The first two movies where too damn long. The director is in serious need of an editor and someone to say STOP!
He has destroyed the Hobbit which is supposed to be a short children’s story. It would have been better if he had had ONE 2-3 hour movie that followed the book precisely.
Hell, I fell asleep at the second movie. Never did se the whole thing. Too much CGI too much superfluous crap!
The original Hobbit was for Children. But after Tolkien started on the novel “The Hobbit 2” - which became the “Lord of The Rings”, he went back and changed the tenner and tone of “The Hobbit” to match the LOTR. Any edition of “The Hobbit” before the second edition - 5th impression is for Children.
Yes. The fight scenes are way too long in both movies.
While I agree that having three movies of the Hobbit was too much, there was no way to tell the whole story in a single 2 hour movie, without leaving practically everything about the book on the cutting room floor.
But I'm in the minority of viewers who thought the FIRST Hobbit film was much better and stronger than the second. To this day I can't understand why the first film got mediocre reviews while the second got glowing reviews.
Virtually all the complaints from the first film were "too long!" (a valid complaint) and "ahhh I hated the frame rate in the IMAX theater it hurt my eyes and made my sick this film sucks!" (an invalid complaint -- you didn't have to watch it in IMAX and it looked completely normal on DVD. Then I believe the second film also had the double frame rate at IMAX showings, but nobody complained the second time around). The first film had most of the memorable scenes from the novel -- Gollum's appearance with the riddles game was perfectly done, the trolls encountering Bilbo was great, the Misty Mountains song was extreme memorable, etc. The returning characters for LOTR stepped back into their roles seemlessly, and the new characters like the Dwarves, were great as we were introduced to them.
The second film suffered from "middle chapter" syndrome, IMO. It dragged on forever and didn't go anywhere. The scenes with Smaug were engaging, the rest of the film, not so much. Legolas shows up for no other reason but to pad the film and make it more LOTR-like, Radgast the Brown returns from the first film but has nothing to do this time around, Gandalf's quest is somewhat interesting but doesn't go anywhere or get resolved, etc., etc. Even the Smaug story, which is supposed to be the highlight of the film, doesn't reach a climax and the character just flies off with a lame "To be continued..." fade for no other reason but so they add more to the third film.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why everyone else liked the second chapter and disliked the first one. If the first one had just been trimmed a bit around the edges to remove unnecessary material like the "Frodo and Old Bilbo" framing story, it would have been ideal and possibly the best of the five "Middle Earth" movies.
Me too. And I've been a fan of JRR for 50 years.
Greatly admired PJ's work in LORT, though I didn't agree with all his story changes.
The Hobbit has been a huge mess.
PJ is a huge talent, but really needs to work under the supervision of an adult.
I saw the first two, and didn;t like how it was being stretched from what could have been one long movie into apparently three long movies. A disappointment compared to “The Lord of the Rings”; I don’t even know if I’ll pay to see the last one.
Correct. The hobbit was a short book. Understandable to make 3 movies from TLOTR trilogy. But this hobbit thing by Jackson is strictly a payday thing. Despicable.
How dare you call her superfluous! :)
There are two shortened 3 hour fan edits of the Hobbit, with the non tolkien stuff removed. I prefer the one called there and back again to the trilogy.