Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether
an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission.
AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content.
By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE The Lord of the Rings movies.
The first Hobbit was great! I still wish they didn't split it into three movies, but oh well. I'm a sucker and will spend the money for sure
I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE The Lord of the Rings movies.
The first Hobbit was great! I still wish they didn't split it into three movies, but oh well. I'm a sucker and will spend the money for sure
I did get to go see it! I have so many mixed feelings about it. I LOVE the LOTR movies/books and I want to love this movie so much. There I things I really liked and things I didn't. I do think that it was hurt a bit by the fact that it was split into three. I think the originally planned 2 movies may have worked a bit better
THis is the problem - they never said that they were basing the movie off the book. I get the title is confusing.. but the material .. MOST of what they pulled was from the other writings of tolkein.
I saw it this passed weekend
I enjoyed it. (LotR just annoyed me)
so many times we see one 2 hour movie come from a book, and it's crap, and we the fans hate it.
this time we get 3 long movies out of one book (and others like The Silmarillion) that we should be rejoicing... if it's done correctly.
I can't think how good Ender's Game might have been if they had given it the attention it deserved in 2 or even 3 movies.
THis is the problem - they never said that they were basing the movie off the book. I get the title is confusing.. but the material .. MOST of what they pulled was from the other writings of tolkein.
This is the weird thing though. Everyone I know, and I indeed thought myself, all the extra bits and changes would probably be from other Tolkien texts. I just watched the commentary on the extended edition of The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey, and Fran and Peter go to great lengths at one point to tell everyone how the rights to the Hobbit and LOTR are a legal nightmare and they had to be very careful. They have the rights to The Hobbit, and The Lord Of The Rings, but all the other writings of Professor Tolkien are totally off limits. They said they can use the appendices of LOTR as that's part of that books text, but can't use anything else. They mention they wanted to use the 2 Blue Wizards from the Wizards council mentioned in other works but couldn't for this reason. So all the extra stuff in these movies that isn't from The Hobbit, or Lord of the Rings, is 100% from the imaginings of Fran, Phillipa, Peter, and they said Guillermo del Toro added quite a lot when he was still attached to direct.
Listening to the commentary you can hear the care and thought that went into the making of the movies. And they explain their rational for adding, changing and dropping things from the original text, and it does make sense from a movie making point of view. But I am left wondering is the book worth the 3 films it got to tell it if they are adding there own material to pad it out to a 3 film running time?
After hearing bad things about Pt 1 of the Hobbit I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it. I have to say in Pt 2 though, there were bits I was thinking padding, should have been cut, and also noticed more stuff that didn't come from the book. I still enjoyed it. I thought it was a good movie, not great though.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.