• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Tauriel: great idea or big mistake?

If you thought the project was a "bloated mess", why did you bother watching the films in the first place?
As I indicated, I never finished them. I judged them based on what I did watch, which in hindsight was one film too many.
 
Even though I did really enjoy The Hobbit movies, I do have to wonder if they might not have been better off doing two Hobbit movies, and then a standalone Dol Guldur/White Council movie.
 
I never got around to seeing the LOTR trilogy until after I had seen the first two Hobbit movies. I like the Hobbit movies better.

Kor

With the exception of "The Fellowship of the Ring", I feel the same.
 
Both trilogies have the same strengths and problems - a fairly effective but still imperfect first movie, a second movie that has unnecessary subplots seemingly added to make the movie last 3 hours, and a third movie with tedious, repetitive largely CGI fighting sequences that go on so long that I'm constantly checking my watch.
 
Both trilogies have the same strengths and problems - a fairly effective but still imperfect first movie, a second movie that has unnecessary subplots seemingly added to make the movie last 3 hours, and a third movie with tedious, repetitive largely CGI fighting sequences that go on so long that I'm constantly checking my watch.
I would agree with this.

Kor
 
Tauriel was a good addition, although her attraction to a dwarf seemed somewhat creepy - somewhat along the lines of "while you're down there, little fellow, there's something you can do for me." Probably, I just have a dirty mind but I have heard (non-elven) females of my acquaintance utter similar banter. There was plenty of scope in her competition and verbal sparring with Legolas, which I quite enjoyed.
 
The Lord of the Rings films took a story that seemed unfilmable and proved otherwise. The Hobbit films took a story that should have been perfectly filmable and bloated it out into something that seemed unfilmable.

I loved LOTR. I never got around to seeing The Battle of the Five Armies and don't have any desire to change that.

And you don't miss anything.
The movies are waaaaaay too long, with too much CGI and less story, and can't even stand in the shadows of LOTR.
I don't think I ever watch one of the Hobbit movies again.
 
If you thought the project was a "bloated mess", why did you bother watching the films in the first place?

You're not really in a position to make an informed comment on whether or not the films were 'bloated', then.
These two posts are completely contradictory. One suggests that I should have known that the films were bloated mess before I watched them. The other claims that having sat through two of them--5-1/2 hours of film--wasn't sufficient to judge the bloatedness of the series.
 
These two posts are completely contradictory. One suggests that I should have known that the films were bloated mess before I watched them. The other claims that having sat through two of them--5-1/2 hours of film--wasn't sufficient to judge the bloatedness of the series.

They're not contradictory at all.

The first is based on the fact that information about the Hobbit project and its scope is readily available, and was an expression of my confusion as to why you would choose to watch the films having knowledge of their scope if you felt that there were problems with said scope.

The second is based on a misinterpretation of your comments predicated on the notion that you went into seeing the films without foreknowledge about their scope but then did not watch enough of them to truly form an accurate opinion about their scope and the thought processes behind it.
 
It's completely contradictory. First you suggested that I should have known they were a bloated mess without having seen them. Then you suggest that having watched two of them for myself wasn't enough to form an opinion that they were a bloated mess. And I'm sure that if I had seen the third one, you'd be asking why I watched all of them if I thought they were a bloated mess.

Bottom line...each film needs to stand on its own, and needs to make a good impression to make you want to continue watching films in the series. The two that I saw were bloated messes. I chose not to bother with the third based on that.

Then there's this, from another thread in this forum that I was just reading:
There is no guarantee that Aquaman will actually be released, which is a sad and depressing state of affairs for those of us who made up our own minds about the DCEU instead of letting the "critics" kill things for us.
So...you've made up your mind about the DCEU without having seen the movies that haven't been released yet. Just as I made up my mind about the Hobbit trilogy without seeing the third one.
 
So...you've made up your mind about the DCEU without having seen the movies that haven't been released yet. Just as I made up my mind about the Hobbit trilogy without seeing the third one.

That's not what I was saying at all, but nice try in taking it out of context. I was expressing doubt, based on Warner Bros. reaction to the lackluster (undeserved, IMO) critical response to the DCEU's films thus far, that we'd actually see Aquaman released in theaters, and citing my own positive feelings about the DCEU - and the positive feelings of others - which, I hasten to add, were based on the films themselves and not on how well they were received critically (at least in my case) as a reason why I was disappointed about the possibility of Aquaman not actually making it to theaters.

I'm not going to address the "my comments are contradictory" thing re: The Hobbit because I already explained why I made those comments and the reasoning behind them.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top