[Lore]

Already went! I liked it better than the first, but here is a clear case of milking the cow. The Hobbit was really a rather short story and to stretch it out into three mega movies means Jackson had to take some liberties. Long sequences of fast action fight scenes. It could have been a much better film had he done it in one and laid off all the excessive CGI, more like he did in the LOTR. One more thing, Legolas looks just a little too metro-sexual for my liking in part 2.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'L')ooking forward to seeing part 2 of The Hobbit tonight, it is part of my Christmas present from my wife. Anyone else going?

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'A')lready went! I liked it better than the first, but here is a clear case of milking the cow. The Hobbit was really a rather short story and to stretch it out into three mega movies means Jackson had to take some liberties. Long sequences of fast action fight scenes. It could have been a much better film had he done it in one and laid off all the excessive CGI, more like he did in the LOTR. One more thing, Legolas looks just a little too metro-sexual for my liking in part 2.

[Beery1]

I just read a review that basically said that they're releasing to theaters what is, for all intents and purposes, an extended edition, but that contrary to what happened to LOTR, fans of the book will clamor for an alternate condensed 2 hour "special edition" without all the CGI nonsense when The Hobbit gets its final DVD release.

When I found out, last year, that they were making The Hobbit into another 9 hour extravaganza, I knew it was a mistake. To me, it's a classic example of a "one-movie" book. I figured I'd wait until the third movie comes out before I even attempt to see any of them, but I gave in and saw the first movie on video a couple of months ago. My conclusion - they turned what should have been a simple slow-paced adventure story into an all-action special effects extravaganza. Did we really need all the stupid CGI plate-throwing, tumbling down while fighting through the mines, Radagast's hare-pulled sleigh of silliness, etc., etc., etc? I don't think so - it's all unnecessary padding. To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Jurassic Park, "Jackson was so preoccupied with whether he could add tons of mindless CGI that he didn't stop to think if he should.". Still haven't seen the second film. I want to, because I still respect some parts Peter Jackson's vision, but I can't deal with the fact that he's selling out to greedy producers who want to milk Tolkien for another few years, so what respect I still have is wearing quite thin.

I mean, what's next - are they going to make The Silmarillion into a CGI-heavy version of Game of Thrones with naked cavorting Elf-prozzers humping Dwarves and even more of the "falling while fighting" rubbish? I fear Hollywood is turning Peter Jackson into a third-rate George Lucas, and I didn't think there could be anyone more third-rate than George Lucas.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'I') just read a review that basically said that they're releasing to theaters what is, for all intents and purposes, an extended edition, but that contrary to what happened to LOTR, fans of the book will clamor for an alternate condensed 2 hour "special edition" without all the CGI nonsense when The Hobbit gets its final DVD release.

When I found out, last year, that they were making The Hobbit into another 9 hour extravaganza, I knew it was a mistake. To me, it's a classic example of a "one-movie" book. I figured I'd wait until the third movie comes out before I even attempt to see any of them, but I gave in and saw the first movie on video a couple of months ago. My conclusion - they turned what should have been a simple slow-paced adventure story into an all-action special effects extravaganza. Did we really need all the stupid CGI plate-throwing, tumbling down while fighting through the mines, Radagast's hare-pulled sleigh of silliness, etc., etc., etc? I don't think so - it's all unnecessary padding. To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Jurassic Park, "Jackson was so preoccupied with whether he could add tons of mindless CGI that he didn't stop to think if he should.". Still haven't seen the second film. I want to, because I still respect some parts Peter Jackson's vision, but I can't deal with the fact that he's selling out to greedy producers who want to milk Tolkien for another few years, so what respect I still have is wearing quite thin.

I mean, what's next - are they going to make The Silmarillion into a CGI-heavy version of Game of Thrones with naked cavorting Elf-prozzers humping Dwarves and even more of the "falling while fighting" rubbish? I fear Hollywood is turning Peter Jackson into a third-rate George Lucas, and I didn't think there could be anyone more third-rate than George Lucas.

[Lore]

I have to agree with Beery, this could have been made into one very nice feature film. More live characters, less CGI ones. All the impossible feats of dexterity, insert filler here, add extra characters there and luck actually detracts from the story and the heart of what made Tolkien's world seem so believable and relevant. Jackson really did sell out the vision.