[ SECRET POST #2955 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2955 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 014 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, OP. I mean, I'm not remotely threatened by their existence, because even though I deeply love the original LOTR films as well as the books, I can easily consider it "not canon" if I like.

But it's more just baffling. I don't get how the original movies were so good, and The Hobbit was so bad. I cannot think of a redeeming quality the trilogy had. The music was pretty much the exact same as the first. The CGI was horrible and cartoonish. The pacing sucked, Jackson's dialogue is terrible, Tauriel was a mess... the only thing I really enjoyed was Bilbo and it felt as though he was hardly in the films.

Oh well... just encourages me to have an awesome LOTR re-watch. Extended editions!

[(Anonymous)]

I think a large part of its badness was because Jackson didn't even want to be making the movies but he got roped into it last minute.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the LOTR trilogy had the benefit of a lot more time in pre-production... time to nail all the amazing little details in sets, props, costume, everything. There wasn't the pressure to film it in 3D, either. In hindsight, I think maybe that was a mistake because the new format looks terrible.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's also a problem of source material. While The Hobbit will always be a classic, I don't think it lends itself well to being a film, and definitely not three films. With LOTR, Jackson had to cut material, and most of the original stuff he did was just trying help continuity and pacing to make up for that fact. And cutting material is generally much, much better than adding it. The Hobbit felt slow precisely because he was trying to stretch them into three films. LOTR was much more action and plot packed.

I don't think his adaptations of LOTR were completely flawless, but overall, I do think they were spectacular films, to the point where I honestly prefer their pacing far over Tolkien's.

Jackson should not be allowed to write original "Middle-earthy" dialogue though. Pretty much everything that wasn't Tolkien's, or adapted from Tolkien's, makes me cringe.

[(Anonymous)]

I liked the Hobbit film. :(

And I've read both that book and LoTR many times so I'm not even ignorant of the original for an excuse.

[solticisekf]

All three of them?

[(Anonymous)]

not seen the last one yet as I have to wait for the dvd

[solticisekf]

You'll love it if you liked the first two.

[(Anonymous)]

I reckon the Gollum part was pretty good, but past that it lost my interest