Hobbit Trailer

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It's amazing that they can take a 3-hour book and turn it into a 9-hour movie when the usual trend is to do the opposite. I don't think either approach makes for a quality movie (one is chopped up, the other is bloated).

Yeah - I'm a little scared it's going to be bloaty. But there's a lot of stuff from other Tolkein writings he could use to fill that bloat which would make me not , so I'm optimistic.

[Matthean]

A friend said it was a half hour too long, which is what I expect from all three films.

[Grover]

It was fantastic. I thought the opening was a bit unnecessary, but the 3 hours flew by.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Grover

It was fantastic. I thought the opening was a bit unnecessary, but the 3 hours flew by.

Glad to hear this!

[Grover]

I also want to say and I can't possibly overstate this: Riddles in the Dark was phenomenal. Serkis eclipses his work as Gollum from the LOTR trilogy.

[Alan T]

I am going tonight to see it with my wife, and then going again after Christmas with my oldest daughter. Can't wait to see it!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am going tonight to see it with my wife, and then going again after Christmas with my oldest daughter. Can't wait to see it!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Matthean

A friend said it was a half hour too long, which is what I expect from all three films.

I just don't get the three movie idea for this reason. Two seemed like a good length and it would force Jackson to make some needed painful cuts.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

True... a lot of what I've read is that the movie is waaay too long.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I just don't get the three movie idea for this reason. Two seemed like a good length and it would force Jackson to make some needed painful cuts.

SI

I figured 2 would be a good amount given that A) The Hobbit was written with less detail than the LOTR books, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, and B) there's plenty of additional material to address that wasn't specifically covered in The Hobbit but was happening behind the scenes (i.e. the White Council and driving the Necromancer from Mirkwood.

Expanding to three - we'll see. There were a couple spots I thought that felt like what the extended edition would look like, but could have been trimmed down.

[Glengoyne]

Saw this with the family this weekend.

Spoiler

I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.

I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Saw this with the family this weekend.

Spoiler

I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.

I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

I agree almost completely with your negatives, but I disagree with the idea it doesn't hold up to the previous trilogy. I think it is quite a bit better than "The Two Towers."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Saw this with the family this weekend.

Spoiler

I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.

I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

Said it as good as I could. Disliked Gandalf's line "...and that's also how golf was invented." EDIT: ALRIGHT ALRIGHT...I FORGOT THAT THAT LINE WAS STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK. STILL DOESN'T MEAN I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF IT THOUGH.

Other things I liked

Spoiler

1. The opening. Seeing old-Bilbo and Frodo (especially) again...I literally almost started crying tears of happiness. It was like seeing two old friends again. And it wove the story in fairly nicely I thought.
2. The story of Erebor at the beginning. Nothing's going to top the opening of Fellowship, but that was pretty sweet still. //sucker for Middle Earth history
3. THRANDUIL!!!!
4. GALADRIAL!! Same as with old-Bilbo and Frodo...I almost started crying.
5. Elrond-the-not-so-serious
6. Riddles in the dark was good.

I imagine in the next 2 books we'll see young-Aragorn at some point? I can't see Jackson passing up an opportunity to tug on that heartstring.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Said it as good as I could. Disliked Gandalf's line "...and that's also how golf was invented." Ugh. Seriously?

Straight from the book.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Straight from the book.

Really? Been so long since I read the Hobbit (and I wasn't as into it at that point as I am now), so I must not have realized that.

Still think it's a klunky line.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Said it as good as I could. Disliked Gandalf's line "...and that's also how golf was invented." Ugh. Seriously?

That was in the books

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? Been so long since I read the Hobbit (and I wasn't as into it at that point as I am now), so I must not have realized that.

Still think it's a klunky line.

It's part of the Middle-earth lore, and definitely appeals to the LOTR geeks. And to be fair, I think PJ handled this pretty well by having Bilbo challenge it and Gandalf admit that sometimes stories get exaggerated for effect.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Saw this with the family this weekend.

Spoiler

I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.

I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

I think you nailed it. All of those issues are ones I had problems with. One more:

Spoiler

I don't not care for the way they portrayed Azog. I get that they needed to create an antagonist for the movie since there really isn't a direct one in this section of the story, and it made some sense to use the Azog character from lore, but I did not care at all for how he was designed and animated. One of the things I really enjoyed from the first trilogy is that PJ relied on CG only when absolutely necessary - all of the "bigatures" for locations and using real actors in heavy prosthetics and make-up, and even using proxy animatronic wargs and whatnot made of real elements where they could helped give those movies a realism and grittiness that gets lost when a movie goes so far into CG territory.

I thought the goblin king was modeled far better and animated well, but even there I felt like the movie was going too far into CG land.

Azog lacked the grotesque distortions that I loved about the orc, Uruk-hai and goblin designs of the first trilogy. He just looked like a bland, doughy mess that was far too similar looking to a well-built human, or a slightly smaller troll.

That said, I do enjoy how he's fleshing out the things only hinted at in the book and in the LOTR appendices. Those that are freaking out about the original trilogy coming from 3 books and this trilogy from 1 book are glossing over this point, and also overlooking that The Hobbit was not written with the same level of detail as the LOTR books, so there's more there that can be fleshed-out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It's part of the Middle-earth lore, and definitely appeals to the LOTR geeks. And to be fair, I think PJ handled this pretty well by having Bilbo challenge it and Gandalf admit that sometimes stories get exaggerated for effect.

This, and also remember "The Hobbit" was a book written from a story he made up for his kids. It is a children's book, that he grew greater middle earth from. So some elements in the book are a little sillier.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Other things I liked
...

Yes I clearly didn't identify my likes well enough. I really enjoyed the opening and the going back to the beginning aspect of the Lonely Mountain.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I imagine in the next 2 books we'll see young-Aragorn at some point? I can't see Jackson passing up an opportunity to tug on that heartstring.

Yes, let's see him before his grunge phase. Young hipster Aragorn? Elvish lore nerd Aragorn? Pipe weed junkie Aragorn?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Saw this with the family this weekend.

Spoiler

I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.

I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

Hopefully we're past the need for spoiler posts now that it's been out a couple of weeks.

Almost spot on with my thoughts and overall was surprised to not find it too long. I was expecting something like King Kong where I thought the movie was fairly well done tone-wise but just 30-45 minutes too long and some really elongated scene (you know who you are: scene with the dinosaur and King Kong fighting). We did have some of that here (Ork King), but it wasn't throughout the entire movie, just a couple of extraneous and extended scenes.

I strongly agree with two of your points (paraphrasing): Stone Giants thing was stupid and Goblin King battle went long. The Stone Giants battle didn't serve any point at all. There was no narrative purpose served by it as it's too short to be a major encounter and didn't spawn any additional plot branches or callbacks.

Also, I fear the third movie is going to be just awful. Well, not awful, but poor narrative storytelling. We're more than halfway through the Hobbit which means the final third of the trilogy isn't really going to have much to do with the first two parts. There are some good stories to be told, but I don't see how the third movie is anything but "neat scenes" and fanservice loosely strung together. I suspect it we'll have a huge drawn out battle scene (ala The Battle of Helms Deep but with The Battle of Five Armies) and a lot of just tying up of loose ends that could have been done sooner. That makes me think of Matrix: Revolutions and the ludicrously long battle in Zion.

Un(?)fortunately, I don't remember the book all that well so I don't have the side-by-side comparison of what was changed or expanded upon. So feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. I suspect there are some things in here that were changed and disliked by the more purists that go unseen by the rest of us. An example that comes to mind from LotR is the whole deal with Faramir where it changes his character but doesn't really change the plot. One could argue that makes it meaningless so why do it, but for the rest of us, it doesn't really impact the plot one way or the other. On the other hand, the whole thing with Arwen makes a bit more sense: it got drawn out for the movie audience and it doesn't really impact the plot positively or negatively. Let's be honest: that was put in for modern movie making purposes of "always having a love interest in pretty much every movie" so it makes sense when viewed in that lens.

The story went from being about a whimsical journey to get treasure to an epic battle to reclaim the homeland. This change works well considering the tone of the Peter Jackson directed movies. That makes Erebor much more front and center stage and thus the intro was necessarily beefed up to reflect that. Also, Azog was made into a main adversary, which helps towards that major plot. This further diminishes the Ork King and, frankly, that whole scene just went on too long so I wish it had been edited a bit.

Oh, and speaking of the intro, I loved seeing the old Bilbo and Frodo stuff and blending that in. Nicely done.

SI

[Izulde]

I thought this was extremely well done in terms of interweaving it into the film adaptations of LotR, which is what matters most - once the trilogy transferred to film, the adaptation of The Hobbit was about making sure this antecedent story worked with the film adaptation of LotR, in much the same way that the HP film series, once the leap from print to screen was made, was about developing narrative arc between the film versions (or should have been).

That said, I also didn't care for the Goblin King scenes - to me it felt like a lot of RPGs we've seen the last several years, right down to the set design. And yes, the Storm Giants thing was completely unnecessary without adding anything. It disrupted the story and pacing more than anything else.

My favorite scene was the one with Galadriel. It added another layer onto the story and provided some very nice foreshadowing of what is to come later in the film series (and by later in film series I mean LotR).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I thought this was extremely well done in terms of interweaving it into the film adaptations of LotR, which is what matters most - once the trilogy transferred to film, the adaptation of The Hobbit was about making sure this antecedent story worked with the film adaptation of LotR, in much the same way that the HP film series, once the leap from print to screen was made, was about developing narrative arc between the film versions (or should have been).

That said, I also didn't care for the Goblin King scenes - to me it felt like a lot of RPGs we've seen the last several years, right down to the set design. And yes, the Storm Giants thing was completely unnecessary without adding anything. It disrupted the story and pacing more than anything else.

My favorite scene was the one with Galadriel. It added another layer onto the story and provided some very nice foreshadowing of what is to come later in the film series (and by later in film series I mean LotR).

I mentioned that I literally almost burst out in tears of happiness with the Galadrial scene too right?

That was one of those - like the (somewhat hokey, but nicely delivered and future-telling) "Elrond's Prophecy" scene in Two Towers that I suspect I'll wear myself out watching again and again.

[gstelmack]

I agree with most of the criticisms that could have brought this down to a 2 hour movie without losing a darn thing. I would also argue that the eagle-rescue scene could have been chopped in half.

I took my 9 year old daughter (nearly 10) who watched all the Harry Potter movies (after reading each and every book) to see this, and she didn't like it. She thought it was too intense, and was too long for the intensity. She might have been okay if it had been shorter (cut out some of what we're saying should have been cut), or if I had shown it to her in chunks on the TV at home. The Wargs especially ended up over the top for someone her age, a bit too horror movie-ish. But she sat through it, and no nightmares or anything from it.

[Matthean]

[DaddyTorgo]

Cool - thanx!

[Buccaneer]

Coincidentally, I just watched this Sunday night. I have to give it a 4/10 because it had none of the storytelling nor the charm and pacing of the LotR, esp. to FotR. I was initially bothered by Bilbo looking like Pippen (or Merry, forget which) and couldn't shake that. When the Hobbits got together in Shire and when the fellowship got together in Rivendell, they did normal things, not magically throwing dishes around. What made me dislike the movie the most was that it was way too CGI, to the point where I didn't think anything was real; actor, scenery or props. The dialog was sparse compared to FotR and what little there were, it was very rushed - just quick sound bites to get to the next running or action scene. What was the deal with the dwarves being able to outrun anything or not getting hurt at all when falling a thousand feet off of rocks or being landed upon? It made it seem like an action cartoon and not an adventure like the FotR was. I don't know if it was too long or not, just tedious and uninteresting and too incredulous to get into.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This, and also remember "The Hobbit" was a book written from a story he made up for his kids. It is a children's book, that he grew greater middle earth from. So some elements in the book are a little sillier.

I think this is a great point. I use Hobbit in my 5th grade class. I rarely have kids that can comprehend the depth of LoTR. And maybe that's why the movies fell different. I loved the Hobbit. Didn't mind the added stuff and having just read through the book with my class, it's amazing how many direct lines there were. It is a bit campy compared to the trilogy. I'm okay with that. Still has quality acting, good action, and a good story. Makes it better than a vast majority of movies right there.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

I think this is a great point. I use Hobbit in my 5th grade class. I rarely have kids that can comprehend the depth of LoTR. And maybe that's why the movies fell different. I loved the Hobbit. Didn't mind the added stuff and having just read through the book with my class, it's amazing how many direct lines there were. It is a bit campy compared to the trilogy. I'm okay with that. Still has quality acting, good action, and a good story. Makes it better than a vast majority of movies right there.

Not having read The Hobbit but had read LotR several times recently, I did not know the extent of the sillyness and campiness. Makes sense and yet again, another movie in which I was not the intended audience.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What made me dislike the movie the most was that it was way too CGI, to the point where I didn't think anything was real; actor, scenery or props. The dialog was sparse compared to FotR and what little there were, it was very rushed - just quick sound bites to get to the next running or action scene. What was the deal with the dwarves being able to outrun anything or not getting hurt at all when falling a thousand feet off of rocks or being landed upon? It made it seem like an action cartoon and not an adventure like the FotR was. I don't know if it was too long or not, just tedious and uninteresting and too incredulous to get into.

This is a good articulation of why I found this film enormously dissatisfying.

The film comes off as overwrought, in my opinion. Whereas the pervading sense of gravity and doom are appropriate and successful in LotR given that the future of everyone in Middle Earth is at stake, it falls pretty flat in The Hobbit because the primary motivations for the dwarves are revenge and greed. The book has a lightness that matches the stakes much, much better. And the book is almost exclusively about Bilbo and his own self-discovery; even Thorin has a very minor role, as I recall.

[Buccaneer]

Thinking about this more, I'm struck as to how unclear the storytelling was. First, the opening scenes with bilbo and frodo - when did that take place in relation to anything?

Also, the shadowy dude, the dragon and sauron are all one and the same? The narrative, to me, appears to not give a clue as to what any of these were or could be - just more evil beings. The only thing I got out of it was a dragon wanted gold ?!?!? and took out the dwarves mountain home. I understand the need for revenge but not why anyone else got involved.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Thinking about this more, I'm struck as to how unclear the storytelling was. First, the opening scenes with bilbo and frodo - when did that take place in relation to anything?

If you really did LotR, it's easy to place this scene. It takes place right before the party in the opening scene of LotR. You must have forgotten The Fellowship of the Rings. For those of us who remember the first movie, it was a fun way to get into The Hobbit. The rest of the story is simply a very long flashback. It's a great way to tie the films together.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Also, the shadowy dude, the dragon and sauron are all one and the same? The narrative, to me, appears to not give a clue as to what any of these were or could be - just more evil beings. The only thing I got out of it was a dragon wanted gold ?!?!? and took out the dwarves mountain home. I understand the need for revenge but not why anyone else got involved.

Seriously? Really?

Spoiler

Yes, Mr. Shadow is Sauron, though that's not known to the characters at this point.

There's a reason you don't know why others have gotten involved. Their motivations haven't been revealed yet!

For example, Smaug the Dragon is not Sauron. However...

Spoiler

...the reason why Gandalf is encouraging the dwarves to undertake this journey and actively supporting them is that he is worried about Smaug. If Sauron ever comes back - and Gandalf is investigating that during The Hobbit (as you will see) - Smaug would be an incredibly strong pawn in that war. He wants to force a confrontation there, but he knows he needs the dwarves to do it (remembering that Gandalf has some gift of foresight).

Again, this hasn't been revealed yet. In fact, it's never revealed in the book because Tolkien hadn't fleshed out LotR yet. You only find out in that book (the appendencies, I think) why Gandalf is involved in this tale.

I know these books like the back of my hand and perhaps that's why the storytelling was clear to me. my wife and my son. But even my mother didn't think it was unclear. She barely saw LotR and understood the movie.

[Pyser]

to me, the inherent flaw is that it's a prequel. you know how everything turns out, basically, which removes a lot of the danger

it did feel cartoonish to me, too, but i love that world, so i'll see the next 2 in theaters

[Buccaneer]

I figured it was before the party but didnt remember that this was the book that he wrote while in Rivendel. Sorry for not being a fanboy.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Pyser

to me, the inherent flaw is that it's a prequel. you know how everything turns out, basically, which removes a lot of the danger

it did feel cartoonish to me, too, but i love that world, so i'll see the next 2 in theaters

The inherent flaw in the movie to me is the lack of tone consistency. Sometimes it's heading towards LotR-dark and then suddenly jerks back to Hobbit-kiddieworld. A perfect example is Goblintown. Things look dire - getting close to a Moria-type scene - and then there's great ballsack King Goblin. *groan* Or when Radegast is fleeing Dol Godir...in a rabbit sled? Both of these are just flat-out stupid and seem out of place with other things happening. It's like Jackson can't settle on the appropriate tone of the movie. He waffles between the lighthearted book and the splendid tone he maintained in LotR.

However, I still greatly enjoyed it. I hope he's cleaned out much of the stupidity of movie 2 so we can just sit down and enjoy the story as it starts to get darker. Except, of course, when Bombur is on screen. He IS the comedy relief.

[Buccaneer]

Was the Great Ballsack how he was described in the book? He seems so out of place among scary goblins, not me mention the cartoonish world of goblin town. I would have expected something more like moria or the mine pit sauroman opened up.

[Buccaneer]

Also, if the story was children's and much of the tone cartoonish, why pg-13?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Was the Great Ballsack how he was described in the book? He seems so out of place among scary goblins, not me mention the cartoonish world of goblin town. I would have expected something more like moria or the mine pit sauroman opened up.

No, Great Ballsack was not described that way in the book. He is described as the Great Goblin, but without mention of the large scrotum hanging from his chin. Goblintown, however, is a pretty good re-creation of what is in the book.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Also, if the story was children's and much of the tone cartoonish, why pg-13?

Almost anything with any violence is PG-13 now. Star Wars would be PG-13 these days. Revenge of the Sith was PG-13. Plus, there's a lot of money in that rating.

The Reign of the PG-13 Rating: Sanitized, Safe, and Worth Shitloads of Money

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Also, if the story was children's and much of the tone cartoonish, why pg-13?

"Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images "

[Lathum]

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

[frnk55]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

Ugh. That's not good to hear.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

This. They could've easily cut an hour out of it and not lost a bit of the story.

[stevew]

So what's the deal with the trilogy? I guess I liked LOTR, but I probably can't remember a lick of what happened. I can't believe this turned into 3 movies(taking aside the fact that each one made like a billion dollars), so I kind of boycotted the whole thing. Should I watch these at all or do I need to wait for the extended ultra long 13 hour cut?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by stevew

Should I watch these at all or do I need to wait for the extended ultra long 13 hour cut?

There wasn't enough story for one movie, much less three. I can't imagine how painful extended editions would be.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

Blah - I guess I won't be hurrying to catch this one.

PJ is in love with his own CGI fight scenes.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

Disagree. I saw it opening day in IMAX 3-D, and if there is anyway to see this movie this is it. If fact I don't think it's actually worthwhile NOT to see it this way.

I will admit that I had a hard time early on. There were parts that drug on here and there, but once the battle started it was good. I don't think it was as good as Desolation, but it's a fitting end to the trilogy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

There wasn't enough story for one movie, much less three. I can't imagine how painful extended editions would be.

+1