|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darthy
Registered User
Dec 4 2012, 9:28am
Post #176 of 237
(3209 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Even the positive reviews don't seem that positive.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As if the film is adequate, but no more.
|
|
|
Cave Troll
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 9:40am
Post #177 of 237
(3154 views)
Shortcut
|
...of it being a prequel?
Even the people who enjoyed it can't help but compare it to a hugely successful and highly-acclaimed trilogy. I suspect that the people who consider it adequate actually liked it rather a lot, but up against the LOTR, it's on a hiding to nothing...
|
|
|
Darthy
Registered User
Dec 4 2012, 9:42am
Post #178 of 237
(3108 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But the problems don't seem to be about simple comparsion.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A common complaint has to do with pacing and how bloated the film feels.
(This post was edited by Darthy on Dec 4 2012, 9:43am)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 9:47am
Post #179 of 237
(3115 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm sure not every critic is in that mindset, but I got that vibe from quite a few of them. It's as if the Hobbit wasn't emotionally 'big' enough, while being too 'big' in terms of running time.
I obviously won't know for sure until next week, but I have a feeling that they made it as emotionally 'big' as they could. I don't think "An Unexpected Party" through "Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire" could ever match up to any of the Lord of the Rings films in that way. Even with the added material, the story just doesn't have the same stakes (at least not yet).
Now it just sounds like I'm making excuses...
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Dec 4 2012, 9:48am)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 9:51am
Post #180 of 237
(3077 views)
Shortcut
|
People said the same thing about the Lord of the Rings (and King Kong for that matter), and still do. I'm personally not that worried about that aspect of the movie.
This may be evidence that splitting it into three movies actually wasn't the best idea though, which I had a feeling about before, but I doubt it's that bad.
I might not be the best person to judge a movie on pacing and length though because I didn't have much of a problem with King Kong's.
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Dec 4 2012, 9:53am)
|
|
|
Wordofmask
Lorien
Dec 4 2012, 9:55am
Post #181 of 237
(3090 views)
Shortcut
|
|
if they want something BIG about emotion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think TABA will be the answer.
and I agreed with you that from An unexpected party through Out of the Flying pan and into the Fire could not match up LOTR in that way and the source material so much different.
|
|
|
Darthy
Registered User
Dec 4 2012, 9:57am
Post #182 of 237
(3063 views)
Shortcut
|
I am still sure I will enjoy this just for material. I love The Hobbit and I think Freeman will nail it. But I also know that it might not quite match FOTR (the gold standard for me in the LOTR) from a filmmaking perspective. I just don't think Jackson has the heart when it comes to editing. That it is bloated, after making the decision to split the material up even more, does not surprise me after ROTK, Kong and The Lovely Bones. He makes good films and then hides them.
|
|
|
Cave Troll
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 9:57am
Post #183 of 237
(3122 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure those are valid criticisms...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but at least they aren't surprising. Silver linings and all that. 
The expected criticisms don't really sting that much. But maybe I'm clutching at straws...
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 10:01am
Post #184 of 237
(3073 views)
Shortcut
|
"The (un)expected criticisms don't really sting that much."
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 10:04am
Post #186 of 237
(3042 views)
Shortcut
|
There are about six or seven pretty positive reviews (that I've read) that are already out there that just haven't been put onto Rotten Tomatoes yet. Assuming they ever get put on there... I'm not exactly sure how RT's system for accepting reviews works.
But of course twenty terrible reviews could show up and ruin everything.
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Dec 4 2012, 10:04am)
|
|
|
sharpened_graphite
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 10:09am
Post #187 of 237
(3080 views)
Shortcut
|
|
AUJ seems to be a very light movie with a lot of silliness thrown in...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
These NEVER fare well with the critics regardless of their artistic merit (quality of acting, set design or artistic direction). So the lukewarm critical reception is not surprising. This is not a movie for critics.
Tragedy is always more respected than comedy, but the latter is harder to pull off well.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 4 2012, 10:47am
Post #188 of 237
(2972 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The following quote highlights one of the biggest concerns/problems for me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"And where the Rings trilogy had weight, The Hobbit is all wigs and slapstick and head-lopping violence unsuitable for children—who are the only audience who won't be bored to tears." Now, I doubt that the latter part of that statement holds water (and my other big concern is the huge narrative/history changes to Azanulbizar/Nanduhurion and all things related), but the first part about the tone versus the violence really bothers me. The tone is properly lighter, the humour and pacing done clearly with children in mind. . . but then he evidently piles on so much gore that he might have come close to stumbling into R territory. And while I know some laud an excess of violence, the graphic shots really are not required. Added gore does not equal added gravitas. If that were the case, Sin City would have been taken much more seriously. Clearly knowing that The Hobbit was going to be a big holiday draw for families and children, Jackson could have kept all of the mature themes that might, in places, go over a younger viewers head, without ratcheting the gore to R worthy levels. It seems like an obnoxious move by a fanboy trying to prove he is "hardcore" enough, and that the film isn't "kiddy" stuff. It is not necessary to go gore crazy just to prove maturity (gratuitious gore doesn't achieve that goal anyway). What is as troubling is that, by all accounts, the history of The Dwarves is going to be drastically (and unnecessarily) changed. So we get all the gore of The Dwarf/Orc war, in a movie that is supposed to be at least child accessible, and yet the actual history of that war is going to be largely erroneous. I have the feeling that this whole business may end up being my most disliked part of the film.
Everything else sounds mostly encouraging, however, and some of the critical complaints seem unreasonable, when one considers the source of the story.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
Balrogslunch
The Shire
Dec 4 2012, 10:57am
Post #189 of 237
(3130 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think this is my favourite review so far
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This review is well written and makes some good points (although i wont know if they are right til i see the film myself)
but it is balanced and doesnt appear to be bias against the book like a lot of the negative reviews are getting .....
http://www.hollywood.com/...rs_Prequels/45498155
|
|
|
Danielos
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 10:57am
Post #190 of 237
(2913 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it might have been at mistake to go with the 13 dvarves. 5-6 of them would have been enough, and then they would have time to add depth and character to all of them.
|
|
|
BornOutOfTheWest
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 11:03am
Post #192 of 237
(2868 views)
Shortcut
|
After a quick scan through of most of the reviews, it seems as though this first film, although it doesn't live up to its predecessors, it is still a great movie. Most of the review scores, are either 4 - 4 1/2 stars which is still the hallmark of a very good movie. It seems as though most of the complaints feature around
- A long introduction to get the story moving - i think one review said that "At 90 minutes it felt as if they still hadn't got anywhere".
- Obviously, there is controversy surrounding the HFR which is to be expected. At the moment it seems as though many are split 50/50.
- For me, the biggest issue that has arisen so far, has been the over-use of CGI mentioned in many reviews. I feel that this could be one of the most critical issues in the film.
- Finally, the 'Cartoonish humour" that seems to be mentioned in most reviews. Personally, i don't have a problem with this as the Book itself was a much lighter affair aimed at children, and therefore it is to be expected.
I think it is important to note that some of these reviewers may have not have read the book, and therefore are comparing the content to that of the original trilogy, for which there is no comparison. They are completely separate stories told in the same universe with interlinking themes and sub-plots, something that many reviewers are failing to understand. For all that, i feel that this film will be something special although perhaps not quite up there with the original trilogy. As one reviewer put it "This is The Hobbit Episode 1 but its no Phantom Menace".
|
|
|
Danielos
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 11:30am
Post #194 of 237
(2882 views)
Shortcut
|
I´m a fan too you know, but I try to look at what is best for the movie, not necessarily bringing bad ideas from the book into it just for the sake of being true to Tolkien.
The only reason there were 13 dwarves in the book was so Bilbo could be the "lucky number". Most of them have no reason to be in the story at all and the only thing you get to know about them is their names.
|
|
|
Cave Troll
Rivendell
Dec 4 2012, 11:36am
Post #195 of 237
(2792 views)
Shortcut
|
Certain things are non-negotiable, in my opinion. If you want to make The Hobbit into a film, you include all 13 dwarves. That's the story - whether people consider it a bad idea or not.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 11:45am
Post #196 of 237
(2868 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It seems like the biggest problem with most reviews so far
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They seem to be criticizing the book's story which, apparently, is very similar to the films story. This is actually great news for people worrying the film wouldn't be faithful to the book. I also feel like a lot of the reviews are taking too much time to explain the effects rather than talking about the story.
A lot of the reviews make the film sound in the same spirit of the book. It's nothing super serious or emotional, but it's a great movie, some even calling it the best blockbuster of the year. That's fine with me.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
Balrogslunch
The Shire
Dec 4 2012, 11:49am
Post #197 of 237
(2754 views)
Shortcut
|
|
also it would make them more....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
i can see the posters point .....BUT....there needs to be that number of them, so they act like a mini army.....any less number and there would be complaints from the critics about how they keep going through the story (some critics are moaning about it now) so what would they have been saying with even less members of the company....6 dwarves and a hobbit to go up against dragons etc etc.....
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Dec 4 2012, 11:55am
Post #198 of 237
(2970 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Seems I missed "majority of fans" in my above post.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's not worth the hassle (for PJ) if they reduced the number of Dwarves.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Dec 4 2012, 12:05pm
Post #199 of 237
(2718 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Interesting feature of the reviews so far
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Which at this early stage seem to be coming in with fairly good but not as good as LOTR, are the difficulties with what we might consider to be features of the text (and, somewhat surprisingly, the general praise for bits not in the book)
It will be interesting to discuss once we know more.
LR
|
|
|
The Preciousss
Bree
Dec 4 2012, 12:12pm
Post #200 of 237
(2705 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am not worried by any of the reviews.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As a matter of fact there are enough people who think the same about the LOTR as some of the reviewers do about AUJ. Though I have some pacing issues with King Kong (mainly the 2 NY acts), I never in any way felt that the LOTR EE dragged. In fact I would have loved to see even more of Middleearth.
The only thing that slyightly worries me is the overuse of CGI, I always praised the SFX of LOTR over the ones of the Star Wars prequels, because from watching the EE appendices, you get the notion that PJ loves practical effects and minitures and only resorts to CGI as a last resort. Now though, it appears as if he has become a bit too obsessed with his new facial mo-capping that he decided to add too much CG-creatures.
However I will not let reviews dampen my enthusiasm for a movie I waited so long to see, I already have my ticket for 48fps 3D next Wednesday and will gladly report my opinion on the movie then...
|
|
|
|
|
