That was never my issue with them. Evangeline Lily? Sign me the fuck up.

I hated the cinematography. It lacked all the majesty that the LoTR films had by trying so fucking hard to look good in 3D (which is basically dead these days).

 

Saving space because I can't write a big post now but oh boy is there so much wrong with that statement as it relates to the Hobbit movies.

Edit: I'm just gonna link you a great video which explains exactly why stretching a small book into three movies and trying to make the Hobbit trilogy into LotR 2.0 was a dumb idea:

But for a super short version: there's a difference between fleshing out and stretching out and the Hobbit films are an example of the latter. The plot was ballooned to make it more cinematic, characters were shoehorned or crated wholesale to make the whole thing more Hollywood-like and lots of things plain don't make sense.

Take the moment at the end of the first film when Thorin says he was wrong about Bilbo because Bilbo tackled that albino orc, when the moment should have been saved for after Bilbo helps dwarves escape from the elves by using his "burglar" skills (you know, exactly, why he was brought along on the expedition), giving Bilbo a proper opportunity to prove himself. But they split originally planned two movies into three, so they had to write in that dumbass albino orc for Bilbo to tackle so Thorin could say that to Bilbo in the first film.

Inb4 "just enjoy things", being critical of something doesn't mean you're a killjoy, it's a dumb argument, and it doesn't always apply. There's a difference between something like Fast & Furious, which knows that it's dumb and doesn't pretend otherwise, and something like the Hobbit trilogy, which tried to be serious and cool but came out dumb because the studios demanded that a small children's book be adapted into a grimdark trilogy.

That's not to say the Hobbits are entirely without merit, there's some great stuff there, but it all sits in a pile of bad film.

 

Not gonna lie, the Hobbit movies bored me something fierce. I just got up and left halfway through the second movie and never bothered to see the third, it was that bad. I don't have much of an opinion either way on the "non-canon" shit they added, beyond "if you're gonna do it, at least make it interesting".

 

Is this the thread where I can somewhat bashfully announce that I saw the first Hobbit film once, in the cinema, with my friends and never bothered with the other two?

Edit: Totally missed that this thread had a second page by now. My main frustrations with the first Hobbit could in large parts be tracked down to my perception that it simply lacked the charm and feel of the LotR films. The original trilogy was like a nine-hour travel documentary about New Zealand, while the first Hobbit film was a three-hour showreel for CGI.

I also wasn’t particularly gripped by the narrative, I suppose.

 

Like ... butter over too much bread

 

Saw all three...but the Hobbit movies missed the essence of its source material. It forgot it was, aT it’s core, a children’s story.

 

We were robbed when Del Toro was kicked off the project. Robbed!

 

This looks both terrible and amazing.

 

FTFY

 

Sony's new game Ghost of Tsushima has got me all hyped for Japan v Mongol stories. If the remake is a grittier take on Disney's adaption, I'm fine with that too....

The other remakes are pointless (the ones I've seen). Have a different take on the tale. I also don't consider 'same but live action!' a different take.

 

Lashana Lynch To Take Over James Bond's Iconic 007 Code Name

A very predictable development.

 

Dammit, I was hoping for Idris Elba.

 

*shrugs* I haven’t cared about Bond since Casino Royale.Good for her, but the gentleman spy character is no longer marketable and thus leaves Bond as just another generic spy/action movie.

 

Do they plan for it to be just a cameo or is she going to be a proper character in the new film? Having James work with a new 007 would be really cool.

Funny thing, the most predictable twist about the new 007, she's either killed early in the film or just evil, probably won't happen because of a potential reaction to it. Or maybe by choosing a woman they want people to not expect it because of this reason.

 

Atomic Blonde was pretty fucking hype.

 

I mean, from what we knew or could assume of the plot, the fact that someone else might get assigned the codename 007 (at least at the start of the film) isn‘t exactly a surprise. Who it is presents an interesting conundrum, though. Is this black, female character going to be stripped of the 007 moniker in favour of Bond? Will she die, thus sort-of, but not really circumventing the issue? Will she get to keep the name at the end of the film while Bond is either killed or walks away for good, and we close the Craig universe in favour of another reboot?

It‘s a risky, but a very interesting move, particularly in light of the fact that the Craig era of the Bond films has had a pretty ambilavent relationship with its women, from more progressive portrayals of the main Bond girls in Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace to Skyfall and Spectre, which featured various female characters of varying levels of involvement and competence.

As someone who wrote multiple papers and a thesis on the subject, I am very much looking forward to where they are going with this.

[Edited for the addition of a few words in the upper paragraph.]

 

...I thought they kept their codenames until they died? Weird.

So long as she doesn't take over the role as Bond, they can do whatever they like, as far as I'm concerned.

 

100% Agree.

I very much didn't care for the whole 'Idris Elba as Bond' thing, despite how much I love him. Had it just been Elba as the new 007 though? Then brilliant. Ditto in this case.

 

The last two Bond movies have earned ~1 Billion and ~900 Million respectively. I'd say that was pretty marketable.

That said, 007 will always and forever be James Bond to me. Black/White, I don't care. 007 is Bond. Realistic? No. People die or retire and are replaced, but this isn't reality. Bond's been alive and kicking ass for decades. If they want to throw a female to the 00-program then give her a different code. She could be 001, the most awesomest of all the 00's because of estrogen>testosterone in the spy business or some such excuse. Can they not make a female black woman an awesome spy without the 007? Are they so limited in their ability to create an original character, even if it's in the same universe and want to piggyback off the franchise?

I'd go see an original 00 character in this franchise, just as much as I would a Bond movie. Probably even more so, just to see how other 00s differed from the Bond-stereotype except as a red-shirt or a villain. I think it would be pretty awesome. They could even make it its own spinoff franchise. 00s.

To me, when they do this sort of crap, they are saying Hollywood is incapable of creating a female/POC character without gender-flipping or race flipping a pre-existing popular white character.

No, fuck this.