Movies LOTR & Hobbit Movies Thread, NOW: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES
|
|
 Dec 14 2012, 02:37 AM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
 
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005  
|
it was so-so only. very boring at the beginning but action packed in the second half. not very fresh though. i can watch LOTRs all over again and get the same entertainment out of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 15 2012, 04:42 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 14 2012, 11:54 AM) JRR Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first as a children fantasy story. Yeah but the movie is practically the same thing with LOTR. Starts off at the Hobbit place with Gandalf, got into a journey and most likely gonna end predictably. There is no surprise but still decently entertaining although it's dragged up quite a bit.While LOTR he wrote later, dark apocalyptic theme. Totally different genre, but theyre connected  |
|
|
Dec 17 2012, 01:56 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 15 2012, 06:30 PM) Yeah...same thing. To put it on screen is another thing. The fact that it's gonna be a trilogy is draggy enough hahahaOf course it started of with he Hobbits....the movie title is that!  Which is the draggy part? i think PJ chosen the scenes pretty well and everything is essential to the understanding of the plot |
|
|
Dec 18 2012, 01:19 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 17 2012, 09:47 AM) Nope...dont think so. If u read the book theres alot of things still gonna happen. Plus the relation to LOTR. I heard the book's actually quite short? And it's only ONE book. Why didn't they make LOTR 9 movies then? |
|
|
Dec 19 2012, 02:27 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 18 2012, 02:02 AM) coz 3 is enuff? Then why isn't one movie enough for this one? Because LOTR is not as epic? |
|
|
Dec 19 2012, 06:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 19 2012, 10:05 AM) Like ive said before....coz theres so much story to tell. how would i know? you're the one who read the book LOLTell me a part that can be left out in the movie |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2012, 10:54 PM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 19 2012, 08:46 PM) u d one said its draggy....and tell one part too long....which one? The first half. All that talking without thorough explanation. Two of the biggest questions I have is... why can't Gandalf get the birds to fetch them all the way to the destination from the beginning? Why does he use Bilbo's house as meeting point without his consent? He also disappears for no reason and predictably appears at the right time. Why doesn't he use his magic as much as he obviously needed to anyway? Also, what is with the rocks that started fighting each other? Seems like this movie is made purely for the fans of the book. Still good to watch, given that I was ignoring these gaps. |
|
|
Dec 19 2012, 11:52 PM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(memphiz_zero88 @ Dec 19 2012, 11:10 PM)   QUOTE(axoloke @ Dec 19 2012, 11:14 PM) The Eagles are not "taxis"...this is one part I wish PJ had elaborated on in LOTR and now in the Hobbit. They are intelligent and even have a king of their own. But they also don't interfere if possible with the goings of the world. I agree that PJ didn't flesh out this aspect properly. They don't interfere until Gandalf asks them to? Then still, why not send them closer to the destination? They did, after all, interfered and save their useless arses from danger. Thanks for clarifying a bit anyway. The non-fan viewers shouldn't have to go looking for answers. A 164-minute film really should explain it all, not to mention making a trilogy out of a single book (which I heard is like less than a hundred pages?).As for the other questions, CNN covers some of it  http://us.cnn.com/2012/12/18/showbiz/movie...html?hpt=hp_bn9 Added on December 19, 2012, 11:15 pm Well...a bit of both I would say  |
|
|
Dec 20 2012, 01:33 AM
Return to original view | Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 20 2012, 12:36 AM) obviously ure not a fan It's draggy even without thorough explanation, that's what I'm complaining. If this movie was made for fans like you only, then they should've said so on their poster and trailers so that people like me would understand and try to enjoy the film without knowing the heck is going on. But no, so I'll just take it as it's not done well enough.u want thorough explaination yet u complain abt drag? |
|
|
Dec 21 2012, 02:56 AM
Return to original view | Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(shootkk @ Dec 20 2012, 09:05 AM) The real reason for the apparently stupid move done by the giant eagles is because Jackson did not follow Tolkien's version of how it happened in The Hobbit. Thanks for clearing this up for me! I guess it makes more sense why the eagles can't carry Frodo in LOTR 'cause they might not have the will to fight the temptations of getting the ring for themselves. But what do I know, I never read the book hahaIn the book, the eagles were NOT summoned. Gandalf did not summon them. They were just flying by when they saw the fire below and investigated. When they saw that goblins are harassing the party, they decided to help because they had no love for goblins. So they swooped down, picked the party up and dropped them just out of the goblin's reaches. It was done more to spite the goblins than anything. And yes, they were intelligent and could talk in the book but Jackson never told his audience that. It kinda made sense in the book. Although I must say that it was a good idea to have the eagles fly them all the way. Save all the trouble. Haha. And you're not the first one to bring up this question. There were some who asked in LOTR why not just have the eagles fly Frodo to Mt. Doom so he could just chuck the ring in. It would have been a very short story if that had happened. QUOTE(maranello55 @ Dec 20 2012, 10:03 AM) funny that most of my frens are not fans....but they enjoyed the movie and everything is understood, without 'thorough explaination'. PJ done well there. That's why they're your friends. |
|
|
Dec 11 2013, 04:35 PM
Return to original view | Post
#11
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
I'm not sure if the Atmos hall in 1u can cater 3D HFR but the surround sound is awesome. The press preview of the film was in 3D IMAX, it wasn't very impactful to me, I even thought the film was converted to 3D because of it.
|
|
|
Dec 11 2013, 05:10 PM
Return to original view | Post
#12
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(Kyoyagami @ Dec 11 2013, 04:56 PM) I guess we will know this Thursday though. According to GSC's FB Page, apparently they are showing it in HFR in multiple outlets... but their 3D platform... you know... |
|
|
Dec 11 2013, 11:33 PM
Return to original view | Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
QUOTE(QuickFire @ Dec 11 2013, 08:31 PM) Certain showtimes for GSC 1U Hall 3 are for HFR I believe. Go look at the e-payment listing, sort by movie, choose HFR+Atmos. I saw it in IMAX 3D but I don't quite know how to differentiate if it's HFR or not. The visuals are sharp but depth of the 3D was only as good as the films that are converted to 3D in post production.Does TGV IMAX have HFR? No point watching if there isn't HFR. It is very possible that GSC 1U's hall 3 could cater to HFR since the Atmos was just installed there. The hall seemed brand new, as though it's just renovated. |
|
|
Dec 11 2014, 04:26 PM
Return to original view | Post
#14
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
Anyone going for the IMAX trilogy? lol.
|
|
|
Dec 17 2014, 10:34 PM
Return to original view | Post
#15
|
|
Senior Member
1,469 posts Joined: Dec 2005
|
I saw it in IMAX 3D and I really couldn't tell if I was actually only watching in 2D and it certainly didn't feel like it was in HFR.
Anyway, the film's good. Cliched and cheesy but with satisfying amount of action. The most less draggy one compared to the previous two instalments lol |
| Change to: |  0.0327sec
 0.37
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 2nd December 2025 - 08:52 AM |
Quote