Agreed. Kind of reminds me of the Star Wars prequels except with a better story, acting, and dialogue.

I also forgot to mention that I found the Radagast rabbit sleigh also to be uninspiring. That model is for sure not on my wishlist.

Ever read Viggo's web interview criticizing PJ on the Lotr trilogy and the Hobbit? Some tough love but fully agree with Viggo.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

PJ may not be at fault for making it 3 movies (maybe its WB that "made" him), he is at fault though for relying too much on CGI. I don't think there can be anyone who thinks the cgi Orcs look better than the costumed actors, or that cgi makes the real actors's work easier. Also I can't believe that real actors are more expensive than creating living models on pc from scratch. PJ just screwed up on this one and doesn't seem to intend to fix this... Viggo was right about the Hobbit, CGI has consumed Jackson to the point where he is blind to its faults, weaknesses etc.
For instance, I remember teh river scene on the hobbit 2 where the orcs, despite being on the big screen and fully Imax 3D and stuff, really, REALLY looked fake. I don't remember any orc/goblin looking fake in LOTR, even in the second and third movies which were more CGIish than the first.

_________________
The words fly up, the thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.

I really like the idea. In Limburg, the most eastern province of Flandres, where I live, we have some legends of people riding rams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckriders

_________________
Backlog:
21/01/2015: still 319 Models to paint or 27,01%
30/12/2016: Somehow the backlog has risen up to 900+ models :/

I believe the reason why people are less impressed with the Hobbit than LOTR is because it is no longer in new territory. When LOTR came out it was ground breaking as there hadn't been a fantasy film on that scale of complexity every made before. After LOTR, huge fantasy films became the norm. There was Avatar, King Kong, and the millions of super hero films. The Hobbit is now just another massive film. I would argue that the Hobbit is on par with LOTR. There are things about the Hobbit that I dislike (such as Tauriel) but there also things about LOTR that many people who criticise the Hobbit forget! (like the army of the dead and faramir).

I agree in part, the Hobbit films heavy use of story detracting CGI wow scenes like the long chase in goblin town and the long chase under the mountain does put the hobbit films smack dab in the middle of forgettable blockbusters like the one you mentioned. The reason the LOTR films still stand out is not because they were the first huge fantasy blockbusters but because they stand out from any blockbusters. They are great sweeping epics like Braveheart and Lawrence of Arabia. They are bold cinematic depictions of moving stories.

Tauriel story like the expanded female parts in the LOTR films are need because Tolkien's world is a man's world and that doesn't play well with modern women.

You are right in that armored sheep aren't really the problem with these films the Scooby-Doo chase scenes and the pointless boar chariot race are.

I have found that when I first see the Hobbit movies in the theater the rabbit sled, drawn out action scenes, etc bother me the most. When I see the it the second time I tend to enjoy the movie more as I am not comparing it to the book or LOTR films, then when I watch it on DVD I focus on what WETA has done for designs and when the extended versions come out I just enjoy the experience.

_________________
"Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer."

Very much agree.

I haven't forgotten the bad in the Lotr films but they're close to being picture perfect in my view.

Talking about the army of the dead; I don't have a problem with the CGI effect there, they're ghosts after all, would have preferred actual animated skeleton warriors, that's just preference. My gripe with them, as I expect most people's, is their presence giving Gondor a God Mode cheat to win the battle. It did feel a bit of an anti-climatic way to end an epic battle. Though I understand why it was done; 1) brings a quick end to a big battle in a 3.5 hour long movie, 2) the book dedicated much plot around them to make them a big deal, but yet weren't really showcased except through a flashback retelling on how they took the pirate ships, this = lame on film compared to what was actually adapted.

Like Tauriel, hate the non-Tolkien inter-species romance with jelly Legolas on the sidelines.

I didn't know there was major hate on Faramir except maybe by novel purists. Faramir is hard to translate from novel to film. To do it you have to dedicate another back story of a secondary character that would slow down the pace of an already long movie. Novel Faramir simply rejects the ring because he's use to being in a position near to power but not having it. His love for Boromir is greater than jealous thoughts of being heir to Gondor. Phillipa (writer) decided this doesn't make sense and casual movie goers wouldn't understand it (rightly so), instead of devaluing the power of the ring which Gandalf and Galadriel had to overcome the temptation of, they decided to give Faramir a character dev. journey instead. Works out for the best. Liked the film character.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

I have the same experience. It takes a few watchings for the silliness to blend in to the background, and become tolerable. At that point I can enjoy the other parts of the film more, and take them at face value, as my ire has expired.

I've enjoyed my cinema going experience both times, but walked out of the films with a slight "meh" feeling. Now I am reasonably happy to watch them, but Jackson crossed a line with these which he didn't cross in LotR except in a few stupid moments, almost all of which involved Orlando Bloom. I can watch LotR with pure love, while the Hobbit films grate on me regardless.

Do I mind stuff like dwarves riding rams? A bit, I suppose, but they won't stop me enjoying the film. I'm sure they'll be cool. But they do pull me out of Middle Earth and put me in to a slightly more cartoony and commercially motivated creation than the Middle Earth of the Lord of the Rings.

Then again, as alluded to earlier in this thread, the Middle Earth of the Hobbit book is somewhat lighter and sillier than that of LotR also.
Not by design of the author though I think. I think Tolkien said in his letters he'd like to have gone back to the Hobbit and clear up various incongruities which arose between the more mature vision of LotR.
Jackson could have benefited from that hindsight, should he have chosen.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting

The Hobbit began as a bedtime story to his son Chris and wasn't intended for publication but through a quirk of fate it was published before LOTR.

The commercially motivated cartoonyness is what has doomed these films to be forgotten with time.

Regardless of the flaws, the deviations from the canonical and going far beyond the bounds of reasonable suspension of disbelief, I will go and see it, and get the Blu-ray when it comes out.
Despite all of the above, it will still be a view of Middle-earth and I would take that any day over some of the utter tripe in cinemas and on television.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

That's just the stuff & nonsense worthy of you. But sad as it sounds I'll most likely do the same thing.

Calling an Ibex a sheep is like referring to the Discworld Librarian as a monkey.
Remember what happened to Fred Colon.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

I would like to meet a Discworld monkey librarian.

Peter Jackson himself said the dwarves would ride on rams and goats, but Dain would ride on a boar.

Yeah ok but why? What's the point of this menagerie?

He also said it's against the army of the orcs who have bred more than just trolls for their war and it will be a battle of "who's got the cooler stuff". Really hope they don't overdo it.

I may be to late for that hope.

As long as the orcs don't bring a 9-legged giant platypus that shoots carrots it's fine...

I think they will be a good addition to the film and the game to be fair. Great fun to look at from an SBG sense thats for sure! and I'm sure i read that in the books they rode pigs so surely an improvement there right?

And I'm sure you didn't read that in the actual books...
There was the idea that all dwarves would be riding boars (based on some things said by the actor playing Dain), but it now looks as if the army rides on rams, with only Dain probably mounted on a boar.
In the books, they walk. As Dwarves are wont to, unless they find some sturdy ponies.