Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
DoS Trailer Rated by the BBFC - 2 minutes, 1 second
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Elessar
Valinor


Jun 8 2013, 5:14pm

Post #76 of 88 (255 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I will say I'm very excited about DoS. As excited as I was going into AUJ and I'm sure ill be more so when I see the trailer next week. Me and my friends who will be at Comic-Con are planned out on sleeping outside to see the panel (when its announced). I have every trailer and I think every tv spot saved to my 1 terabyte HD. I will be doing the same thing with this movie. My expectations were high with AUJ and they met in spades for the most part. I gave the film a 9/10 and I expect DoS to come in the same if not better.



(This post was edited by Elessar on Jun 8 2013, 5:15pm)


ShireHorse
Rohan

Jun 8 2013, 6:24pm

Post #77 of 88 (234 views)
Shortcut
To all the Gloomies (you know who you are, LOL!) [In reply to] Can't Post

I know you have to work overtime in your efforts to convince us that AUJ was a rubbish film because there is so much evidence out there to prove you wrong. Eg: the 2000+ reviews on this forum that award it 4.5/5 Rings and Amazon.co.uk where there are ten times as many reviewers giving it 5 stars as opposed to 1 star.

I understand that you are genuinely upset even if I don't understand your reasons and that you are feeling apprehensive over the new trailer and some of the info like that about Tauriel which has begun to leak out.

Here's what you do:

Unlike Glorfindela, but like so many here, I DID see all the trailers and vlogs and followed every new development very closely and with great excitement - and yet I still found the film wonderful and was not disappointed because of overload.

First, I appreciated the things that were truly worth appreciating, like all the wonderful acting and the beautiful cinematography. Then I was very grateful for all the gestures to the fans such as the time spent in Bag End, the White Council and the two songs that we were offered, even though PJ must have realised that the average movie-goer might have been critical and moaned on about how slow these scenes were. He defied his critics for our sake. Then, from the vlogs, I learned about the painful care with which these films were made, not only in the costumes and weaponry dept, but also on location when they went to great lengths to protect the environment whilst at the same time bringing us wonderful scenes of natural beauty. I went into the film feeling positive because I knew what PJ and his actors and his crew had gone through to bring us this story.

Once the film started, I must admit to not liking it all. BUT, the things I didn't like, such as the jokes and Radagast, seemed to be going down very well in the rest of the theatre. And so, I would urge you, dear friends, not to watch it with selfish expectations but to think that perhaps the things you hate are bringing a lot of pleasure to others and be really pleased for THEM. Why should PJ just take YOUR needs into consideration?

Which brings me to a final point: when I knew after LotR that PJ was going to make TH, my heart sank because I knew just how difficult it would prove to be. It may be a children's book, but it is not simple or easy to stage - its tone goes up and down like a yo-yo, most of the characters are 2D and the story arc is weirdly written. On top of this, after the superior source material of LotR, I knew that there would be huge numbers of people coming with very high expectations for a similar epic. No director who made this film would be able to please everyone and PJ has done as well if not better than anyone else I can think of.

Don't go to see DoS either with high expectations or low expectations but with sensible expectations and with an appreciation of all that PJ has done to get this film to the screen.


bungobaggins
Lorien


Jun 8 2013, 6:42pm

Post #78 of 88 (222 views)
Shortcut
What about us "gloomies" that [In reply to] Can't Post

were extremely disappointed with how the source material was treated?

The acting, cinematography, landscapes, art design, and fan service doesn't do anything for me if I can barely recognize the story at points. If themes of the book become muddled, and who is supposed to be the main character is shoved to the side more often than not, I don't see how I can enjoy the next two films.

This story could have been done in one or two films. They've had to add too much to make it three, to the point where I'm afraid Bilbo will be overshadowed, especially after dramatically altering his character arc.

Yeah, so that's why I'm gloomy. Production value is important, but it doesn't compensate for a mediocre script in my opinion.

Also, I'd take Amazon reviews with a grain of salt. I'm sure a lot of them can be chalked up to rabid fanboy-ism (Look at the reviews for Breaking Dawn Part 2 on amazon.com: 2,276 reviews and 4.5 stars). Wink

"You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!" - Gandalf

(This post was edited by bungobaggins on Jun 8 2013, 6:45pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jun 8 2013, 7:00pm

Post #79 of 88 (210 views)
Shortcut
As for me i am not trying to convince anyone. [In reply to] Can't Post

This forum is known for being positively biased towards jackson so mentioning that this forums reviews are a proof of our delussion, doenst quite does it for me. I can just as easily mention other reviews, by other people who didnt like it. Many of whom, felt that Lotr was magical.

Its more subjective than facts, right or wrong.

So, we are not wrong.

For many of us, gloomies lol, the film is a disappointment or an okish film at best, for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with a lack of predisposition to optimism or to be positive and to appreciate other peoples efforts..

Also, jackson isnt taking my needs into consideration, he smaking HIS film. The ME part, is my personal experience of the film and that is what ultimately matters to each and everyone of us.. It brings a smile to my face if little kids enjoy the film, but im a fan as well, i have NEEDS! Tongue

Plus, i think you might be making Jackson into a little bit too much of a saint in your last paragraph there. I appreciate the effort, and i liked his personality a lot, more in the past than these days, but what matters is the art he produces.


But i agree that us gloomies Tongue, would be cautious to keep expectations low.

Lets see what Wednesday brings!

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


DanielLB
Immortal


Jun 8 2013, 7:47pm

Post #80 of 88 (196 views)
Shortcut
I don't see why [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
This forum is known for being positively biased towards jackson so mentioning that this forums reviews are a proof of our delussion, doenst quite does it for me. I can just as easily mention other reviews, by other people who didnt like it. Many of whom, felt that Lotr was magical.


People who dislike the adaptations, especially The Hobbit, are far more active in their posting, than compared to those that do like the adaptations. Personally, from what I have experiences, I don't think the forum comes across as either overly positive or negative against the films. There's a happy medium.

Smile


ShireHorse
Rohan

Jun 8 2013, 7:48pm

Post #81 of 88 (203 views)
Shortcut
Dear bungobaggins [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose you would also dismiss the views of the Ringers too with their 4.5 Rings. I would disagree with Lusitano that this forum is positively biased towards PJ. IMO, this is a forum for Tolkien fans which means that the hatred for him when he gets it "wrong" is likely to be more powerful here than anywhere else on the net.

The story could definitely not have been told properly in one film because so much happens in this slim volume that is so briefly described and needs to be expanded. I didn't feel any bloat and relished the leisurely descriptions and story-telling that we were presented with. If it had all been forced into one film or even two, we would have hordes of people on here complaining about that too: PJ can't win.

As for the source material, apart from messing around with the Azog story-line whose arc may still yet prove to be a good one, the film is amazingly close to its source material with whole lines lifted straight from the book, with the joke about golf still retained and the Trolls, for instance, talking in the appropriate Cockney accents. And most people seem very pleased that the main story has been interspersed with extra stuff about the dwarves from elsewhere plus details of the White Council etc.

And I don't know what you mean about Bilbo not being centre stage: he has the most dialogue - we know he has three times as much as Thorin. Moreover, there are so many characters that the story has got to be seen as an ensemble piece with the main thrust, in a story told by and observed by Bilbo, being Thorin's quest. We see what Bilbo sees and his observations are not necessarily about himself.

Even G del T said that the story revolved around the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin. It's important that we see these two as much as possible so that when their complicated relationship explodes, it will be a really important moment for all of us.

Yes, I'm sorry if you are disappointed and there are a number of people on here who agree with you. What I would dispute is the apparent assertion that the ones who didn't like the film are in the majority and that they are right because this is obviously not true.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jun 8 2013, 8:14pm

Post #82 of 88 (191 views)
Shortcut
I think these are far more [In reply to] Can't Post

on the positive cheering side. It may well be that many who are more interested in a positive feel, dont post as much.

Others have said it other than myself.

Its part of the feel or vibe of many forums. Some are more predisposed to this side others to that side. Which is fine, by the way. Its just the way the internet works.


There may be a medium, but is it a happy one?Wink


ShireHorse : "I would disagree with Lusitano that this forum is positively biased towards PJ. IMO, this is a forum for Tolkien fans which means that the hatred for him when he gets it "wrong" is likely to be more powerful here than anywhere else on the net"

Yes it is a site for all tolkien fans , but in practice, it is far more on the positive, supporter side of jackson than other forums. I can send you the links to some which are far more critic and harsh to jackson.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Jun 8 2013, 8:22pm)


bungobaggins
Lorien


Jun 8 2013, 8:26pm

Post #83 of 88 (182 views)
Shortcut
RE: ShireHorse [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not dismissing all people who gave this film positive reviews. If you enjoyed it, that's great! It means that your money was well spent. However, I would dismiss people who are so vehement in their defense of this film that they see no problems with it whatsoever. I don't hate Jackson, however, I do feel that he has been disingenuous in regards to the script-writing teams use of appendix material. Jackson has defended turning this story into three films because of the 125 pages of appendices in ROTK, but he failed to mention that very little of it is usable for these films (and what they picked out they have altered drastically).

You're right. For Jackson this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But if the source material doesn't adapt well to film, and needs to be altered drastically to do so, then why make a film at all? Pressure from movie studios? Pressure from fans? PJ could have left Middle-Earth on a high note with 3 billion worldwide box office and 11 oscars. I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, despite the changes.

Lifting dialogue directly from the book, and using chapter titles as dialogue doesn't do anything for me (in some ways it comes across as cheap) if I feel the source material isn't treated well.

It's Thorin's quest, but it's Bilbo's story. "This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected." Throughout the film I felt Bilbo's importance slowly sinking below Thorin's beef with just about everybody (every elf in existence, and Kratos the pale orc).

Don't be sorry that I was disappointed, and I am not asserting that any group is in the majority, as I have no way to calculate that data. Also, I will say that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this, there are only opinions. You have yours, I have mine, and it is clear we don't see eye to eye.

Good day! Smile

"You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!" - Gandalf


ShireHorse
Rohan

Jun 8 2013, 9:14pm

Post #84 of 88 (171 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I did wonder if he should have left TH alone [In reply to] Can't Post

at the time a film was announced because the source material is a step down from the LotR and I thought it might prove a retrograde step.

But, it has made a lot of people happy and it would be selfish to deny PJ the chance of making the film or deny so many people the pleasure of seeing it just because you didn't want it made.

And, although I am pleased with the film, I am not a blind PJ fan. I could give you a list here of all its flaws but I could do the same for every film I've ever seen. My particular betes noirs here were Radagast, the jokes about mushrooms, the length of the White Council and the the crass humour on a couple of occasions elsewhere.

And, yes, Thorin is a hunk because he is your standard hero (as opposed to Bilbo, the non-standard hero). But he's a lot more than that. RA is as big a nerd as any of us and has put a lot of effort into his portrayal. Because of the hatred of him on this forum before the film (his youth, his short beard, his good looks and the fact that he wasn't Brian Cox or Ian McShane), this actor really came from behind in the popularity stakes but I'm pleased to report that most people seem more than pleased with the more developed idea of Thorin he has given us and he scores 4.86 on the Ringer Reviews, fractionally behind MF and AS but slightly ahead of Sir Ian. I hope you'll see why it is important to develop his character along with Bilbo's when we get to the end of the film and the big payoff. You really just can't develop Bilbo in isolation but only as he plays off other people.

Hope you enjoy the DoS a lot more.


flameofudun
Lorien

Jun 9 2013, 3:55am

Post #85 of 88 (133 views)
Shortcut
you may be on to something [In reply to] Can't Post

especially now because numerous sites are stating june 12th (which is wednesday)

''We are very dangerous over short distances''

-Gimli


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jun 9 2013, 6:37am

Post #86 of 88 (133 views)
Shortcut
I am no gloomy Shirehorse. I loved 2/3rds of the movie. . . but there were parts that really bothered me badly. [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought it was an excellent movie, by and large, a truly enchanting and great film, HOWEVER. . . the problem for me was in the places where it badly misrepresented the history and the characters.


That is a big deal to me, because I really am bothered by the fact that there are millions of people who will never read the books, who may get a very wrong impression about important details and factors. The history of the dwarves was re-written to the point that a viewer will come away with a far inferior understanding of that people, not to mention a far less magnificent and powerful story. I still hold out hope that the matter of the Balrog, the true terror of Moria and the exiler of its original Dwarven inhabitants, as well as the true reason the Dwarves did not re-enter, is a matter that will be squared due to his prominence in Fellowship and in Dwarven history. But, regarding the true, grippingly dramatic and epic history of the war of the Dwarves and orcs, the partiarchy and vengeance that feuled it and the consequences, there is no fixing the damage now. The changes to the history of Angmar, and the dynamic of status between Elves and Wizards is another thing that very much concerns me and annoys me.

I did not find AUnexpected to be a let down, on the whole. I thought in many places it was very true to the source, and very enchanting, and some of the minor additions were very good ones. However, I was deeply bothered by some other changes and additions, and I am fearful that Desolation will have more of the same. I fully expect to enjoy the movie, but how much will depend in no small part about whether it sees the films doing more to directly contradict the source, or less.

To be clear, I enjoyed the bunny sled even if I found the orc chase to be surperflous bloat. Take away the rolling eyes and bird dung and I also enjoyed Radagast. I enjoyed seeing The White Council, even if I did not enjoy nonsense about the Men of THe North burying The RingWraiths, and though I rather disliked seeing Gandalf portrayed in away that would allow an uninformed viewer to believe him to be a subordinate of Galadriel ( not because of gender, I am perfectly happy with Lindir, Celeborn and Thranduil being plainly less in stature, power and wisdom with Galadriel because they SHOULD be portrayed thus) but because of other fundemental aspects of who and WHAT they are respectively. I do not have a problem with changes and additions on general principle. I only object vehemently to them when they significantly contradict important details of the legendarium. Frodo killing several orcs for effect despite not killing any in the book would not bother me at all if it were well handled. Frodo defeating a Ringwraith or even worse yet a Balrog might well send me into a apoplectic state.

"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jun 9 2013, 6:46am

Post #87 of 88 (138 views)
Shortcut
Absolute Gospel. This is where I agree with you most. There is an extent to which the appendices are falsely [In reply to] Can't Post

being held up as a shield against all criticism, but it is a tactic which only works with the uninformed. The appendices based material was the biggest source of grievance for me in these films. . . not because it added too much and detracted from the core story, as I was actually in favour of a partially expanded telling that would tie this movie to Rings through the key connections of Gandalf, The Council, Sauron and Moria. . . The problem is that the film goes far beyond filling in blanks left by the Appendices, and charges into the realm of blatantly defying them like a bull smashing its way through a china shop. The Hobbit parts of the movie are pretty damned wonderful. The other parts look wonderful but start to sound like lies, because they make so many alterations. And what is perhaps most frustrating is that they are NOT requisite. Yet that argument is known, and I won't go into it any further here unless you request details.

In Reply To
I'm not dismissing all people who gave this film positive reviews. If you enjoyed it, that's great! It means that your money was well spent. However, I would dismiss people who are so vehement in their defense of this film that they see no problems with it whatsoever. I don't hate Jackson, however, I do feel that he has been disingenuous in regards to the script-writing teams use of appendix material. Jackson has defended turning this story into three films because of the 125 pages of appendices in ROTK, but he failed to mention that very little of it is usable for these films (and what they picked out they have altered drastically).

You're right. For Jackson this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But if the source material doesn't adapt well to film, and needs to be altered drastically to do so, then why make a film at all? Pressure from movie studios? Pressure from fans? PJ could have left Middle-Earth on a high note with 3 billion worldwide box office and 11 oscars. I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, despite the changes.


"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."


ShireHorse
Rohan

Jun 9 2013, 2:10pm

Post #88 of 88 (116 views)
Shortcut
No, I don't think you're one of the Gloomies, AO, because you like so much of the film. [In reply to] Can't Post

Millions of people may not read TH and so will never know "the truth", but millions of people will because of the film and will doubtless just be intrigued by the differences and ponder why the director didn't keep more strictly to the original text in some instances - which is what I do.

To give an example: I think that the original story of Azog, Thror and the dwarf/goblin wars is very powerful and very moving and I wish we could have a whole film just about the dwarves - but I can't see it ever happening. When it became obvious that we were going to get the Battle of Azanulbizar (which gave me quite a thrill) I reread the Appendices and tried to think how I would do it if I were a film director. And, basically, PJ has done what I would have done: significantly "tidied up" the story. He still has Azog, Thror being decapitated and Thorin doing his oakenshield stuff but he has omitted Frerin and Dain and done all sorts of other things so as to let it make sense for the film-goer.

I feel sad that we have lost the details but I fully appreciate why PJ has done this. And I thoroughly enjoyed watching these moments because, for me, they worked within the context of the film. And since there are already a ton of reviewers out there complaining about the "unnecessary" details to do with dwarven history, I would like to thank PJ for giving us what he has. I don't think he could have given us more without pulling down the wrath of the "why isn't Bilbo central to the plot?" complainers even more upon his head.

Over on the locked thread which I have only just read, this has been brought up: we should try to experience the book and the film as separate entities. I love the book and I really like the film. I am so pleased when the medium of the film allows for various close references to the book, but I thought that readers of various books often appreciated why a film might have to do things in a different way. I think that the fun of a discussion often lies in trying to work out just why a director might have decided to go down a certain path: perhaps he's just not doing it simply for the hell of it or to provoke the lovers of the book - perhaps he has a solid reason.

Anyway, I shan't say any more - don't want to provoke another punch-up and get this thread locked too!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.