when the first hobbit i saw it in theaters. all 3d and double frame rate per second. it did the impossible and made me think is this better than the lord of the rings? had awesome action scene nice dialogues and even a hint of sauron plot. but then the second came out and there was just nothing to it. the dragon scene was disappointing. i remember when i read the book the hobbit. the dragon was awesome. they like told bilbo oh dont feel bad about being outwitted dragons are very clever. anyway what peter jackson does is trilogies. when ever people asked me which of the three lord of the rings movies i liked best i always said its one 12 hours movie. so maybe the hobbit too is is one 12 hours movie and it will come together. haven't watched the trailer for the batlle of the five armies cause i dont watch trailers for movies that might be good. maybe there is a battle to rival that of the third lord of the rings. wouldn't that be something. and i wonder of the ending. would he do the same ending that never ends thing. could be nice
expectation of the third hobbit
- Thread starter misterwolf999
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My expectation is that it'll be a long, drawn-out, uninteresting special-effects setpiece showcase like the last one that won't hold my interest for more than about two minutes at a stretch. The whole thing should really have been two movies at most.
It'll probably be like the previous two; decent fantasy romps that people will decry because it doesn't meet the insanely high bar set by the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
And for the record, Smaug's depiction in the second film is freaking awesome.
I wish they would dial it back with the ridiculous action segments though. They feel like something out of a video game and drain all the tension out of the scene. It's hard to take the forces of evil seriously when they're so easily dispatched in various crazy and contrived fashions.
And for the record, Smaug's depiction in the second film is freaking awesome.
I wish they would dial it back with the ridiculous action segments though. They feel like something out of a video game and drain all the tension out of the scene. It's hard to take the forces of evil seriously when they're so easily dispatched in various crazy and contrived fashions.
I've enjoyed the first two installments so far, and I expect to enjoy battle of the five armies as well. The things that have bothered me the most so far mostly happened in the second one--too much focus on the doomed romance between Kili (or Fili?) and the elf-lady, and the barrel sequence took just a bit too long. I did, however, like seeing Thorin slowly start to get consumed by the gold, Bilbo and the dwarves they are characterizing are growing into their characters nicely, and I can't wait to see more Gandalf and Radagast.
I am kind of glad it isn't just a verbatim rendition of the Hobbit. If I want the Hobbit, I'll read the book. Like the way they did LotR, their goal doesn't seem to be putting Tolkien's The Hobbit on screen, their goal is to put their interpretation of the Hobbit on screen. And I'm fine with that. People made the same sort of complaints about too much focus on X or too many changes to character Y in Lord of the Rings, but they're still great experiences. And the main thing hamstringing the Hobbit I think is that it has to meet LotR's standard, which would be difficult even if the story were in any way like LotR.
So, yeah. My expectation is more of the same, and I'm fine with that. I hope we get a few more songs though, that's one thing I really missed in the second one.
I am kind of glad it isn't just a verbatim rendition of the Hobbit. If I want the Hobbit, I'll read the book. Like the way they did LotR, their goal doesn't seem to be putting Tolkien's The Hobbit on screen, their goal is to put their interpretation of the Hobbit on screen. And I'm fine with that. People made the same sort of complaints about too much focus on X or too many changes to character Y in Lord of the Rings, but they're still great experiences. And the main thing hamstringing the Hobbit I think is that it has to meet LotR's standard, which would be difficult even if the story were in any way like LotR.
So, yeah. My expectation is more of the same, and I'm fine with that. I hope we get a few more songs though, that's one thing I really missed in the second one.
My expectation is this:
Three of the original company had better die, and two of them had better die doing what they did the book. I'm curious to see how the death of one of them will affect another event, but I will be sorely upset of all three of them die just randomly on the battlefield.
The rest of it I don't care about. I feel the movies have, for the most part, done an okay job with The Hobbit and I don't see how they can mess this final movie up. The first two tried a bit too hard to jam the action in and it felt forced at parts, but here? These final events are nothing but action, so the movie should have no problems.
Three of the original company had better die, and two of them had better die doing what they did the book. I'm curious to see how the death of one of them will affect another event, but I will be sorely upset of all three of them die just randomly on the battlefield.
The rest of it I don't care about. I feel the movies have, for the most part, done an okay job with The Hobbit and I don't see how they can mess this final movie up. The first two tried a bit too hard to jam the action in and it felt forced at parts, but here? These final events are nothing but action, so the movie should have no problems.
Well, i'm glad that I am not alone on this one. I will probably go and see the last one because I have watched the first two, and I might as well see how it ends, but I am expecting nothing more in terms of quality than the above quote. It could be good, but it entirely hangs on how good the battle is.Buzz Killington said:
My expectations are pretty high. I really enjoyed the last two movies, though Desolation did suffer from being in the middle of the trilogy. Not quite on LotR level, but I did think the visual effects were prettier. I love Jackson's embellishments on the story so far (asides maybe from the awkward romantic subplot), and am looking forward to seeing how he wraps things up. The Battle of the Five Armies is supposed to be huge; it might just be able to top the Helms Deep or Minas Tirith battles.
I've only seen the first one. There really was good stuff in there, but it felt very watered down with a lot of unnecessary scenes and terrible action. Some of the cinematography was bad too: a lot of scenes either look like they were shot for TV (and I'm not talking about the frame rate), or the CG backgrounds didn't mesh with the live bits, and the lighting was very flat.
I'm forgiving about the TV soundstage looking locations/sets, because LoTR had a lot of scenes like that too (among other things) and I feel like it's likely just a symptom of the hugeness of the production forcing some cut corners in places. It also doesn't bug me at all that it was overall more colorful and whimsical than the LoTR movies, because that's kinda the case with the books as well. No excuse for all the bad lighting choices though.
The action scenes really were terrible. They had zero sense of pacing or structure. It was like the movie equivalent of a musician banging the same chord repeatedly for five minutes and calling it a song. They clearly thought if they just crammed things fast enough for long it enough that alone would make it work. It just made it feel really bland and tryhard.
I liked the idea of showing Gandalf's Necromancer investigation as a side plot, but the way it was executed came off mostly as an empty excuse to shoehorn in faces from the LoTR films. The council at Rivendell scene was just shameful in this regard. Radagast was cool, but was still mostly padding.
I don't care if they change things or add things relative to the book, I just want it to be a good movie in it's own right.
It kinda killed my interest. The first movie was padded to hell and back, either because PJ knows no self-restraint (we already know this from his other big epic movies like Kong) or in order to fluff the movies up into a trilogy, and everything I've read about the second one seems to say it's more of that. There's probably good stuff in the second one, and will be in the third one, but for me it doesn't feel worth sitting through 1/3 runtime of unnecessary and poorly executed filler.
I'm forgiving about the TV soundstage looking locations/sets, because LoTR had a lot of scenes like that too (among other things) and I feel like it's likely just a symptom of the hugeness of the production forcing some cut corners in places. It also doesn't bug me at all that it was overall more colorful and whimsical than the LoTR movies, because that's kinda the case with the books as well. No excuse for all the bad lighting choices though.
The action scenes really were terrible. They had zero sense of pacing or structure. It was like the movie equivalent of a musician banging the same chord repeatedly for five minutes and calling it a song. They clearly thought if they just crammed things fast enough for long it enough that alone would make it work. It just made it feel really bland and tryhard.
I liked the idea of showing Gandalf's Necromancer investigation as a side plot, but the way it was executed came off mostly as an empty excuse to shoehorn in faces from the LoTR films. The council at Rivendell scene was just shameful in this regard. Radagast was cool, but was still mostly padding.
I don't care if they change things or add things relative to the book, I just want it to be a good movie in it's own right.
It kinda killed my interest. The first movie was padded to hell and back, either because PJ knows no self-restraint (we already know this from his other big epic movies like Kong) or in order to fluff the movies up into a trilogy, and everything I've read about the second one seems to say it's more of that. There's probably good stuff in the second one, and will be in the third one, but for me it doesn't feel worth sitting through 1/3 runtime of unnecessary and poorly executed filler.
Bloody loved the first one. A bit substanceless, perhaps, but just a damn good adventure piece. It struck the cords it needed, and was the ride I expected it to be. Swashbuckling excitement, please!
Second... Well. Started off reasonably well. Then it went on and on and on. It was simply too much. The d0rfs fighting was fun and exciting at the start, but they never really came up with anything else for them to do. At the end, you're too tired of the whole business to "join along", and the cut-aways to Gandalf visiting a Warhammer playset didn't help.
I love that rather silly kind of swashbuckling fun and adventure the films were going for. I really do. But I also love, say, risotto. I won't like it as much if I've just been fed about 50 kiloes of it.
For the third one... Well. My expectations aren't the greatest. I doubt they've sorted the root problem of these films in-between. It'll likely be too long, too flashy and too "epic" for its own good. But it'll still be worth seeing. Taking the ride, even if it is too long and leaves you overfed.
Second... Well. Started off reasonably well. Then it went on and on and on. It was simply too much. The d0rfs fighting was fun and exciting at the start, but they never really came up with anything else for them to do. At the end, you're too tired of the whole business to "join along", and the cut-aways to Gandalf visiting a Warhammer playset didn't help.
I love that rather silly kind of swashbuckling fun and adventure the films were going for. I really do. But I also love, say, risotto. I won't like it as much if I've just been fed about 50 kiloes of it.
For the third one... Well. My expectations aren't the greatest. I doubt they've sorted the root problem of these films in-between. It'll likely be too long, too flashy and too "epic" for its own good. But it'll still be worth seeing. Taking the ride, even if it is too long and leaves you overfed.
Expectations are low. The first and second one were crap. So, statistics show that this film will be crap too.
Sadly, I have very low expectations for it. While some of the changes Jackson has wrought are not bad (adding in the Necromancer of Mirkwood stuff, changing the Black Arrow to a siege bolt instead of a piddling longbow arrow, etc.), a great deal of it just left me gaping with bewilderment at the movie screen. So much spectacle that didn't make any sense.
There are some folks that I know who greatly enjoyed the first two films (and I actually am quite fond of the first one, though I think it contains a fair share of flaws), but I found them to be more of a letdown than anything else.
I will go to see the third one in the theater, but I'm not paying full price and will go to a matinee showing. Hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Hopefully
There are some folks that I know who greatly enjoyed the first two films (and I actually am quite fond of the first one, though I think it contains a fair share of flaws), but I found them to be more of a letdown than anything else.
I will go to see the third one in the theater, but I'm not paying full price and will go to a matinee showing. Hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Hopefully