Menu
What's new

  • Welcome to MCME!

    Minecraft Middle Earth is a Minecraft community that recreates the world described by JRR Tolkien and his writings. Everyone can participate in organized events in which we collaborate to create major landmarks, terrain, caves, castles, towns, farms and more.

    To get started, visit The New Player Guide

    Joining the server

    Joining the server can be done straight away, but you will have to pass the New Player Quiz. Use the The New Player Guide to get acquainted with our community.

    IP: build.mcmiddleearth.com

The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies

wyliewylie said:
Going to be honest, the Hobbit movies are much better the books.
I seriously love what they did with Bard. Only part I dont agree with in the movie is when they covered Smaug in gold. That whole chain of events was full of un realisms.
Click to expand...
Shame on you. I don't even care if the movies are better, the books still are better than the movie, and I just made the best paradox ever. I mean, the Hobbit is supposed to be a not-so-action-packed movie about Bilbo going from a stupid cowardly hobbit hiding in a hole to a less-stupid less-cowardly hobbit that hides by turning invisible using a ring. But no, seriously, Peter Jackson completely missed the point of the book, and made a movie that pretty much has a few of the same characters, the same basic storyline, and added a ton of fighting and impossible elves. And everyone knows that the book is automatically better than the movie, except in some rare cases such as Star Wars. So, yeah, when you really look at it, it depends: do you care more about the movie actually hitting the same point as the book, or just having a lot of blond elves shooting arrows from point-blank range into Orcs' throats? (the right answer is the first one.) Sorry if I seem a bit angry, but it makes me frustrated when people say movies are better than books (again, except for cases such as Star Wars. Then say the books are terrible, I won't mind one bit.)
 
I think the point of the Thread isn't to feed the endless debate of "is the book better than the movie ?" A movie can't be better than the original book. Why ? because it's just one of the infinite possibilities of adaption. If it wasn't Peter Jackson that made The Lord of the Ring saga, it would have been very different : other landscape, other casting ...
What I try to say is a movie (if not produced with the writter) is just an interpretation, so by definition not better than the books.
Then, we can still discuss of what we think about the movie.
I just want peace in the world :)
 
nevik45 said:
Shame on you. I don't even care if the movies are better, the books still are better than the movie, and I just made the best paradox ever. I mean, the Hobbit is supposed to be a not-so-action-packed movie about Bilbo going from a stupid cowardly hobbit hiding in a hole to a less-stupid less-cowardly hobbit that hides by turning invisible using a ring. But no, seriously, Peter Jackson completely missed the point of the book, and made a movie that pretty much has a few of the same characters, the same basic storyline, and added a ton of fighting and impossible elves. And everyone knows that the book is automatically better than the movie, except in some rare cases such as Star Wars. So, yeah, when you really look at it, it depends: do you care more about the movie actually hitting the same point as the book, or just having a lot of blond elves shooting arrows from point-blank range into Orcs' throats? (the right answer is the first one.) Sorry if I seem a bit angry, but it makes me frustrated when people say movies are better than books (again, except for cases such as Star Wars. Then say the books are terrible, I won't mind one bit.)
Click to expand...
Um... Ok, would you like to watch a movie about a lazy, cowardly hobbit become a less lazy, less cowardly hobbit who hides with a ring?
The thing about the Hobbit is that it is a childrens book written without much character development, or too much of a solid plot, either. The movies gives us more realistic characters, and actual character arcs.
NOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WHINE ABOUT LORE INACCURACY: These are movies. They aren't the books. So what if they take artistic license! Its still a movie and can still be enjoyed!
EXTRA NOTE: Another thing about the Hobbit is that Peter jackson is exemplary at battles, and the hobbit doesnt have to many.
 
superminer4563 said:
Another thing about the Hobbit is that Peter jackson is exemplary at battles, and the hobbit doesnt have to many.
Click to expand...
The Hobbit isn't about the battles. Bad things happen because Thorin jumps at violence to readily. All the extra violence in the movies take away from the plot. And the plot is, by the way, pretty solid. Of course, it is just a movie and should be enjoyed.
 
Last edited:
superminer4563 said:
Um... Ok, would you like to watch a movie about a lazy, cowardly hobbit become a less lazy, less cowardly hobbit who hides with a ring?
The thing about the Hobbit is that it is a childrens book written without much character development, or too much of a solid plot, either.
Click to expand...
So, a good movie is an action movie ? A movie with unrealistic stunts and fights ? That's , nowadays, what most of people want to see in a movie : action-sex(at least a romance)-death. I am not against a good action movie, but all movies don't need to be like that.
 
The Thing is that first Guillermo del Toro was going to make the hobbit, but he left the project. Thats why we have 3 Movies thats why PJ is making the movies.
 
djax74 said:
So, a good movie is an action movie ? A movie with unrealistic stunts and fights ? That's , nowadays, what most of people want to see in a movie : action-sex(at least a romance)-death. I am not against a good action movie, but all movies don't need to be like that.
Click to expand...
No, i said do you want to watch a movie about a lazy cowardly hobbit becoming a less lazy cowardly hobbit. I think the action in the hobbit IS too unnecesarily violent and theres to much. Also, the addition of tauriel can be attrivuted because there are 2 screenwriters that are female, and the hobbit has NO female characters.
 
superminer4563 said:
No, i said do you want to watch a movie about a lazy cowardly hobbit becoming a less lazy cowardly hobbit.
Click to expand...

A horrible truncation of the Hobbit's plot, but yes, I would. I'd rather watch the events of the book, which are all centered around Bilbo, in a single three-hour movie than the explosion, action and romance-packed rambling slaughterfest that PJ and co. have produced. I honestly think it would make for far better cinema.
 
Fornad said:
A horrible truncation of the Hobbit's plot, but yes, I would. I'd rather watch the events of the book, which are all centered around Bilbo, in a single, three-hour movie than the explosion, action and romance-packed rambling slaughterfest that PJ and co. have produced. I honestly think it would make for far better cinema.
Click to expand...
I know the action is overwhelming, but the Hobbit isnt just about the book. Few people have moticed, a LOT happened during TA during the hobbit that wasnt included. Also, a single live action 3 hour film would leave only around 10 minutes for the major events, because there is a lot that actually does happen in the hobbit
I think 2 2 1/2 hour movies would suffice perfectly.
 
superminer4563 said:
I know the action is overwhelming, but the Hobbit isnt just about the book. Few people have moticed, a LOT happened during TA during the hobbit that wasnt included. Also, a single live action 3 hour film would leave only around 10 minutes for the major events, because there is a lot that actually does happen in the hobbit
I think 2 2 1/2 hour movies would suffice perfectly.
Click to expand...
TWO 2 1/2 hour movies? Then the Lord of the Rings should be, what, 6-7 2 1/2 hour movies? I mean, seriously, as @Indorilian said, 1 90-110 min movie should be enough. PJ didn't need to add Tauriel (it makes me mad that they don't pronounce her name "Towriel," because that's how Tolkien would say it should be. Today I said "Towriel" and someone "corrected" me), include Legolas, make the whole romance-y thing, and include Orcs attacking Lake-town. It's just PJ beefing up the action to squeeze all the money out he can, including everything he thinks will make people like it but actually making all the real Hobbit fans mad, which unfortunately makes me in the minority at my school. And the Elves are not perfect long-blond haired athletic smart people, they can be killed, and will not have low enough of a reflex time to hear a club moving at their head from a foot behind, register that they are about to take brain damage, and bend over backwards to avoid the club, if I remember correctly. Maybe it was forwards, but you get my meaning.
 
I just love that they give the whole fake "Oh no look! Gandalf DIES!" thing. Seriously? Is that just for the scrubs who have only seen the Hobbit?
 
Indorilian said:
The hobbit is about a very sheltered person going out into the real world, and discovering who he really is . Sorry if that isn't "action packed enough" for you, but it's what made the hobbit the hobbit.
Click to expand...
And thats exactly what the movies bring to us. Nothing wrong with seeing other conflicts occur in middle earth as middle earth does not revolve around bilbo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top