[ SECRET POST #3349 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3349 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[X/1999]










Notes:

Early today, places to go!

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - random memes with no secrets in them ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[(Anonymous)]

Should've been only two movies

Cast was great

Liked that they developed the characterizations of the non-Thorin dwarves because the fact that they were so flat was the one thing I really didn't like from the books.

Liked that they went into the whole thing at Dol Guldur that was obliquely referenced in the books but not shown.

Galadriel A+++++++++

Hated all the padding and the pointlessly long fight scenes and the cringey bathroom humor

REALLY didn't have to squish so many characters that were in LoTR but not in the Hobbit book into the movies, just the council was enough

Fuck all the padding

Did I mention all the really crappy humor? I love humor, but that was 80% of the time such crappy out of place humor

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[nightscale]

I can agree to all of this tbh. I still enjoy the first movie and the second two have bits I like, but there is way too much padding that the films didn't need.

I don't remember the humour being so bad, but I also can't remember a lot of the jokes anyway so it probably didn't annoy me enough to make a lasting impression.

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[(Anonymous)]

I used to agree with you about the liking the fact that they gave some characterization to the dwarves but now I feel it would've been better if they hadn't. Giving them distinct personalities for the actors is great, but it felt like they wanted to showcase each one and give them "moments" which ended up detracting from the characters we should've cared about. They shouldn't have given lines to any dwarf not named Thorin, Fili, Kili, or Balin. Maybe one other dwarf (Bombur or Dori) but no more than that.

I've talked to a lot of people who didn't read the book and any BTS stuff. None of them can tell the dwarves apart even after watching 3 movies. They know Thorin and Balin and Kili (but usually not by name for him). Nobody else. The story would've been served better if they'd had the dwarves but kept them in the background so the audience would know who they're supposed to be invested in. I feel like PJ got hung up on the minutia of the dwarves and lost the forest for the trees.

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

Hmmm, I guess that's sort of true. (However, it would've been nice to perhaps elaborate on Gloin, being the father of Gimli who a lot of viewers would've known.)

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I agree. He was one of my candidates for the extra dwarf if Balin wasn't sufficient. It would've also been great if he hadn't been so 2-dimensional. Gimli was an eloquent, amazing character. Since they didn't do him justice in the LOTR films and there's been a lot of people over the years who've pointed it out, it would've been great if the filmmakers had given Gloin the eloquent lines from Gimli about what stone means to a dwarf, etc. But also have him be blustery. I think that would've been a great moment to show Bilbo coming to respect the dwarves.

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[(Anonymous)]

I've read the books and I still had trouble telling the dwarves apart except for Thorin, Fili, Kili, Balin and Bombur. I'm not even sure the movie succeeding in trying to characterize all the dwarf characters so they each had a moment. In hindsight, I'd have been okay if they hadn't bothered trying.

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[elaminator]

I agree with this. Two movies would've been perfect, and if there was less focus on the elves and more on the dwarves, I think the films would've benefitted a lot.

I don't mind the Gandalf and Galadriel stuff, and I LOVED that the dwarves were given more personality, but so much of the last two films felt needlessly drawn out. Some of the action scenes dragged on forever, past the point of being fun. As someone who loves Legolas, I was not happy with his scenes and think he should've had a smaller role. I don't think we needed a romance (other then Thorin/Bilbo, heh), although I didn't loathe it... It just wasn't well written or explored enough, and it felt awkward.

The cast was absolutely fantastic, but the film would've been five times better if it had taken itself a bit more seriously and didn't have so much padding.

Mostly though, even though I think the first film is the only good one, I'm still glad these movies exist because Middle Earth is gorgeous, Bilbo/Thorin is wonderful, and the cast do the best they can with what they're given, which in moments is pretty impressive.

Re: The Hobbit Movies

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed on all points. I hated most of the humor. Dramatic scenes were mostly on point, if sometimes drawn-out.

I also liked Thranduil for the most part. Legolas should've been cut.