The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit: every bit as good as 'rings'

The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
every bit as good as 'rings'

andwise
Rivendell

Jan 28 2013, 9:03pm

Views: 1532

every bit as good as 'rings'

There has been weeks of debate now about whether the hobbit is as good as its illustrious predesessor,some saying yes others saying no.I love it and think in time it will be seen as an equal....BUT,what I also think is that when PJ made the rings trilogy the stars did actually align for him and the whole project in general,much the same as when a band or artist record a difinitive album,sure,they can write stuff just as good in the future but it won't be viewed as such by fans because of the magic etc that surrounded the earlier release isn't quite the same for obvious reasons.I think in fact that he has pulled off a minor miracle in creating something that in my view is equal to what came before and he should be applauded for that.I would be interested to know what other people think. Smile

Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well

MorgolKing
Rivendell

Jan 28 2013, 9:13pm

Views: 903

I disagree

I enjoy the Hobbit: AUJ and was thrilled to go back to Middle Earth.

However, I disagree that it's on par with any of "the Rings" movies. On one hand, PJ started at distinct disadvantage in tackling a project that doesn't have the same urgency or flow in narrative that the LoTR have -- AUJ is simply event-after-event-after-event in comparison.

However, making the slap stick humor (e.g., the brown wizard, the goblin king commenting on his own death and then falling on top of the dwarves) was PJ's choice and detracted from the film in my opinion. In addition, the White Council scene, which was one of the scenes I was most looking forward to, was a huge disappointment. Galadriel's overemphasized role and the story of the nazgul being entombed was ridiculous.

Other will disagree and that's just my opinion. Most movies have flaws, but these were just glaring.

I will say I thoroughly enjoyed most of the movie though.

Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor

Jan 28 2013, 9:22pm

Views: 822

I liked it as much as Rings

I can't say it was what I expected in the slightest (the inclusion of Azog in such a prominent role threw me the first time, I must say), but I felt that it captured the book's more whimsical tone very well. In my opinion you really can't compare it to Rings: whether it's designed to be a prequel trilogy or not is irrelevant, the storytelling in both film and book is very different and I found it to be both lighter and (in some places) darker than many 'dark' scenes in LOTR.

Yes, I can see very clearly why many don't like it, and yes PJ left a lot of room for himself to trip with the portrayal of certain characters, but fortunately I feel that the actors in those endangered roles really saved the day: the likes of McCoy, Humphries and Bennett (Radagast, Goblin King and Azog) did a great job with their characters if you ask me.

The only real disappointment for me was Ori, but fortunately he didn't have too much screen time.

"These are Gundabad Wargs! They will outrun you!"

"THESE are Rhosgobel Rabbits! I'd like to see them try...."

jtarkey
Rohan

Jan 28 2013, 9:23pm

Views: 824

It's a good film, but not on the same level as LOTR for me...

I think, in the future, it will still be viewed as a bumpy start to the new trilogy for a few reasons:

1. Design Aesthetic: The 48fps, accompanied with the crisp digital look of the film is a big departure from LOTR. This is all a matter of opinion, but I'm just not as impressed with the general way AUJ looked.

2. Switch to 3 Films: This will always leave people wondering "what could have been" if the films had remained at 2. I really think there is some filler in the film that just wasn't needed.

3. Overuse of CGI: The film felt very cramped for me. This probably has a lot to do with the amount of indoor sets and CGI in the film. It just didn't feel as real as LOTR did.

I could list more, but I won't in fear of someone getting offended (even though this is simply MY opinion). You make a good point about the stars aligning for LOTR. There were so many things in that production that happened by chance that actually benefited the film. In the end, I just feel like PJ made some wrong aesthetic and scripting descisions with The Hobbit.

There are plenty of things I love about the film. Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellen, Andy Serkis. Riddles in the Dark was awesome, as was the prologue and everything in Bag End. It just wasn't on the same level as LOTR for me. I don't think it has much to do with nostalgia, or the difference in stories. I just think that the film making was not at the same level in general.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

swordwhale
Tol Eressea

Jan 28 2013, 9:24pm

Views: 901

in the opinion of me, my friends and several gazillion fangirls...

We loved it!

I should explain that I always liked LOTR (book) better than Hobbit book). I also identified with the Elves ( http://www.swordwhale.com/tales-of-middle-earth.html ). The Dwarves were fine, but a bit too much like the folks I grew up around (feeling like a total alien).

Yeah, then WETA and PJ gave us 13 fantastic lovable characters. And Bofur. And I'm going to have to turn in my Mirkwood Party Elf membership.

Seriously folks, The Hobbit book has a totally different flavor than LOTR (written in a different time for a different audience), PJ tried to capture some of that. You may or may not like that flavor (I can't stand cherry) but there it is. I like the quirkiness, the exaggeration, the humor. Hobbit is written in a more spare style (like a storyteller around a campfire telling a tale in the oral tradition)... I don't like that style at all, I love the epic detail of LOTR. But the spare style of Hobbit leaves more room for the filmakers to play.

It is not LOTR. Nothing can ever be LOTR. And that's fine. It's Hobbit. It's wonderful.

And I want that hat... already have the bunny sled (the dogs ate 'em so they have to pull it).

Go outside and play...

Kimtc
Rohan

Jan 28 2013, 9:26pm

Views: 814

I've truly come to love this movie!

I have said this before, but I find the characterization and acting in this movie to be more compelling than the trilogy (with the exception of Boromir and Gandalf). Nothing against the acting in the first movie, but I just feel like the characters were more two dimensional. I am also enjoying the "surprise" aspect of these films, since with the additional material I don't know what could happen (except for the obvious plot points from the book). For me, it's right there with FOTR, and may be moving ahead.

Plus I love, love, love the HFR. Did I say I love it?

Angharad73
Rohan

Jan 28 2013, 9:48pm

Views: 789

It's different

AUJ is very different from the LOTR trilogy. Consider the sources, the books the movies are based on. LOTR is an epic story that is basically about saving the world. The Hobbit takes place on a much smaller scale, and the darves are setting out to recover their property and get their home back, not to save the world from evil. That makes two very different stories to begin with, so of course AUJ and the subsequent movies are not going to be another LOTR. How could they be when the underlying themes of the stories are so different? But that doesn't mean that the Hobbit movies are any worse than the LOTR movies. It's a matter of taste.

And I, for one, love AUJ just as much as I love LOTR. But I see it as a very different type of story. Sure, the movie takes us back to Middle Earth, and there are some familiar characters in it, but it moves at a different pace, there is room for humour (after all, the book is hilarious in places) and it is a 'lighter' story on the whole. There is also room to dwell on individuals more, I think, which I appreciate. There still is room for some big stuff - after all, there's a dragon to defeat, and then there is a big battle at the end, with a lot of tragic death... But until then, I'll just go back to admiring Thorin & Co. toss their marvelous hair about. Because there's room for that too Tongue

Rostron2
Gondor

Jan 28 2013, 9:50pm

Views: 781

There's two more films

To satisfy people with.

I'm just glad the things got made, and the overall entertainment value was as high. Could I have done without the silly? I don't know. I think it leaves room for the serious sober treatment of subjects of the story to come. The next two will be different from the setup film.

bborchar
Rohan

Jan 28 2013, 10:05pm

Views: 814

I will probably end up liking The Hobbit more...

...because I feel like the characters are more approachable. In LotR, you meet so many new characters so quickly, and are deluged with one crisis after another in different parts of Middle Earth, that it's hard to get really attached to anyone for very long. But I don't feel that way at all with the Hobbit. The characters are upfront and very honest about their emotions, and (I think this is a HUGE plus) you get to stay with these same characters throughout the story. Some have complained about the pacing...but I love it. You get to know most of the main characters (which is a feat in and of itself) without having to stray to other areas of the world. I love that I really identify with Thorin and his quest, and that I get to see Bilbo really test his mettle. I also like seeing Gandalf a little more carefree.

I also felt a little claustrophobic, like one other person mentioned...and at first, I wondered if it was because of the CGI or sets they used...but then I realized that they spend a good chunk of the film either in Bilbo's house, or in the caves of the Misty Mountains. That's just my feelings, though.

Don't flame me...I'm not saying it's better than LotR...I'm just saying that I personally am enjoying it more than I thought I would; and I never thought anything would come close to FotR.

Rostron2
Gondor

Jan 28 2013, 10:51pm

Views: 733

Agreed with you...

It's just different from LOTR in tone, pacing, characters, objectives, just about everything but the world.

I'll let Smaug flame you :)

Heatherleawv
Bree

Jan 29 2013, 1:30am

Views: 656

Each

time I've watched the Hobbit I liked it more and more. I pretty much like it as much as the LOTR trilogy.

Do you think PJ made AUJ with some slapstick because the next two movies are going to be more serious and action oriented?

AinurOlorin
Half-elven

Jan 29 2013, 2:28am

Views: 644

Almost exactly this, with the exception of the fact that I severely disliked the alterations to

some of the appendix based history. The book had material far better and far more to my liking. Otherwise, I agree entirely. I greatly enjoyed this film. In many places it had a greater warmth, and some of the characters a greater authenticity than in Rings, even though many of the themes were less, and some of the more elegant wonders were less wrenchingly powerful.

In Reply To

"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."

Kirly
Lorien

Jan 29 2013, 2:31am

Views: 644

better, so far than LOTR ///

My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!

pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#

Elessar
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 3:09am

Views: 632

I agree but.......

With the caveat that its as good as being The Hobbit as The Lord of the Rings is at being The Lord of the Rings. All four films have been done very well and I feel capture much of what I love in regards to Tolkien's creation but they also have some issues. In the end for me Jackson did a pretty superb job of taking a world I care a lot about and create some amazing experiences in the theater.

Eowyn3
Rivendell

Jan 29 2013, 3:32am

Views: 613

I couldn't agree more

The Hobbit was always my least favorite Tolkien book. I liked, but not nearly as much as LOTR. However, after seeing the AUJ and re- reading the Hobbit, I find myself enjoying it so much more. I really like the movie, and I think PJ did a great job keeping the lighter tones of the Hobbit and still making a great movie that the fans can enjoy. I love the movie and have watched it 6 times. The only character that I didn't like the way portrayed was Radagast. He went a little over the top with that. But no problem, I can overlook that. Glad to have more time in Middle Earth!

Esmeralda
Bree

Jan 29 2013, 3:47am

Views: 621

I remember

when LotR came out. Such wailings of how things were changed, added or left out. But for all the departures, I could feel that the heart of the story was *true*.

I feel the same thing with the Hobbit. I am enthralled by the expansion of Thorin's story, and I can see how the use of the White Council will connect this story to the larger framework of LotR. The more times I watch, the more layers I see.

PJ has given us a treasure, one that will grow deeper and more vast the farther in we go.

Rostron2
Gondor

Jan 29 2013, 4:29am

Views: 596

Agreed

The endless wailing about 'no scouring of the shire!' and all the Arwen hatred that had nothing to do with the character, it was because she replaced Glorfindel and/or they didn't like Liv Tyler. This has somewhat the same feeling, as you say. I've enjoyed it each time I've seen it, and I can appreciate the hard work that went into it.

Compared to a lot of trash that somehow makes it to the theaters...no there's no comparison.

Elessar
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 4:30am

Views: 591

We have a bingo

I'm with ya every step of the way. :)

bborchar
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 4:33am

Views: 593

What? You don't consider...

"Movie 43" to be a work of art?

;)

S�lim�
Rivendell

Jan 29 2013, 4:54am

Views: 572

Can't agree more

I don't know... I just think LotR is an 'easy' adaptation compared the The Hobbit. It has pretty 'universal' themes of hope and friendship and fighting against evil.

I've come to realize that PJ did MORE for The Hobbit than he had to do for LotR. His attempt at The Hobbit is also a braver one, in a way, and I am grateful for it.

Maybe it's just me, but I really really like the innocent, intimate feel of The Hobbit. I might end up liking it more than the LotR movies.

AinurOlorin
Half-elven

Jan 29 2013, 5:03am

Views: 573

Exactly.

Essentialy, my exact sentiments. I might substitute the words "pretty superb", with "very good" (as you know, there were a few changes that really stuck in my teeth), but by and large, this captures my feelings pretty precisely.

In Reply To

Roheryn
Tol Eressea

Jan 29 2013, 8:59am

Views: 540

Some bits as good as, yes.

And I like other bits even better.

It's too early to compare the two trilogies, but I think comparing AUJ to FOTR is, as Bilbo would say, "fair enough". I make no pretensions about passing judgment on the goodness or otherwiseness of a movie. I can only say how much I like it. Like many of us, I was captivated by FOTR in a way I'd never felt before; here was my absolute favorite book of all time, brought to life in a spectacular way. That trilogy will always hold the most special place in my heart.

And AUJ? It's still new, so that may be half the fun right now, but I'm pretty sure I like it at least as much as FOTR, if not more. FOTR gave me what I wanted -- a great adaptation of my favorite book; AUJ has given me more than I knew to want, in that it has more depth, more character development, and is working on more backstory than we ever get in the book. It's a different story, so in some ways it's a bit unfair to compare the two trilogies when the style of the source material is so different. But I suspect, in the end, that The Hobbit trilogy is going to be sharing that most special place in my heart, right there with LOTR. And I might even like it better.

glor
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 10:18am

Views: 514

ah yes,

The film with a 6 foot 2 british actor playing a greedy pompous, gold grabbing, angry mythical short person?

Gerald Butler as a Leprechaun in Movie 43 that is.

No I haven't seen it, saw the synopsis of that sketch and thought mmmm, is someone taking the mickey

malickfan
Gondor

Jan 29 2013, 11:32am

Views: 544

I'm going to get alot of hate for this...

But in my opinion The Hobbit was...slighty better than average. I really did feel PJ wasn't as enthused about the book as he was with LOTR, and despite a very faifthful opening act, it felt less like what I imagine when I read the book than LOTR did, the whole radagst and azog subplots felt bolted on as an excuse to make the film longer, I didn't particluary like Armiatage as Thorin, and I really felt like PJ was acting as if he was doing Tolkien a favour be rewriting the book, not adapting it (Incidently I didn't have many major problems with the LOTR trilogy, I saw the films first, and IMO they couldn't have been much more faifthful-but at least they stayed faifthful to the tone of the book, the whole reason I liked the hobbit book as becuase it was a simple childrens tale completely at odds with LOTR). I also felt there was far too much CGI, and overblown action, the slapstick humour got on my nerves a bit, the white council and riddles were good...but felt like fan service (hey look its that guy!) and the film felt like a rough cut. That's not to say I didn't like it-it was enjoyable, but I really don't see how people can call it a msterpeice, and I don't see why PJ called it the hobbit (LOTR: The Prequel Part 1 would have been a better title). Admittedly many of these issues stem from the book anyway, but I think I would have prefferred two films not three.

I never wanted The Hobbit to feel that similar to LOTR, and all the nods (the 'hey look its that guy!' feel of the white council, the reuse of LOTR music, the pointless return to weathertop (isn't the road supposed to be safer than in lotr??), the pointless (IMO) framing device and the 'Looks alot like Aragorn' Thorin etc) made the world feel smaller to me, and when Jackson did try to stick to the fairytale tone of the book, it made for a very uneven viewing.

And where was Billy Connoly as Dain???

I honestly think I would have enjoyed Del Torro's interpretation more. oh well at least The Silmarillion's safe for now...

�As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said �All is now ready.�

Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth

Elessar
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 12:07pm

Views: 510

I can roll with that

The issues very much fall under your mileage may vary and get we're still on the same stretch of highway. :-) :-)

dormouse
Half-elven

Jan 29 2013, 2:04pm

Views: 435

Are apples as good as oranges?

The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings but a lot of people seemed to expect that it would be. When it wasn't, they complained.

I've loved the Lord of the Rings films for a decade but it simply isn't true to say that everyone loved them or that nothing about them was criticised. Distance lends enchantment.

Two-thirds of The Hobbit is still unmade, but what I've seen so far I've loved, including the 48fps3D, which I firmly believed wouldn't be my thing at all. It isn't the same but then, why would it be? It's a different book. Technically, things have changed and, what's more, the novelty value the LotR films had can never be replicated. Nothing quite like them had ever been seen before; the first time can only happen once.

To my mind comparisons are futile. I'm happy just to enjoy Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and to look forward to all the good things that are still to come. I'll gladly applaud Peter Jackson for taking on a project bedevilled by goodness-knows-what and turning it into a real triumph - because that's what I think he's doing.

Loresilme
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 3:20pm

Views: 403

Hear, hear

The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings but a lot of people seemed to expect that it would be. When it wasn't, they complained.
And then there were the people who wanted it to be different but even though it is different, it was not different in the way they wanted it, so they complained.

I've loved the Lord of the Rings films for a decade but it simply isn't true to say that everyone loved them or that nothing about them was criticised. Distance lends enchantment.
We all have to remind ourselves of this, because hanging around TORn, where seeing the films 20 times doesn't even raise an eyebrow, is completely different than out there in the rest of the world. e.g., My family does not share my interest in them, and I recall talking to friends from work who a) didn't like FOTR because they didn't understand why they'd spent three hours in a movie where the stated intent was to destroy a ring and which by the end of the movie was not destroyed (I'm serious, lol), and b) fell asleep during ROTK. (Yes, again I'm completely serious!)

Two-thirds of The Hobbit is still unmade, but what I've seen so far I've loved, including the 48fps3D, which I firmly believed wouldn't be my thing at all. It isn't the same but then, why would it be? It's a different book. Technically, things have changed and, what's more, the novelty value the LotR films had can never be replicated. Nothing quite like them had ever been seen before; the first time can only happen once.
Originally I didn't understand the need to do TH in 3D. However I am firmly in the "I trust PJ camp" so when he said this movie was meant to be seen in HFR +3D, that was the way I went to see it the first time and I'm so glad I did. I loved HFR more than I ever expected to.

To my mind comparisons are futile. I'm happy just to enjoy Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and to look forward to all the good things that are still to come. I'll gladly applaud Peter Jackson for taking on a project bedevilled by goodness-knows-what and turning it into a real triumph - because that's what I think he's doing.
PJ and Weta, and all the people on this film team continue to astound and inspire me - how they always do what people say can't be done, how they raise their own bar to excel even further, how they take risks - real, substantial risks out there in the real world with no safety net, to put everything on the line, and do all of it with decency and yes, love - it's something that I don't think I have ever witnessed. I loved AUJ as much as I loved the LOTR trilogy and I'm so happy for them that the film is doing well. I'm sure that PJ & the team will continue to triumph with the next two as well.

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 29 2013, 3:44pm

Views: 403

I think we have to wait until all 3 films are out

before we can start comparing it to LOTR. Perhaps we could compare the first film, FOTR, with this one, but as everyone here has stated, the original story itself is not the epic that FOTR is, plus this has been created after we've already been introduced visually to PJ's Middle-earth, so there isn't so much that is visually surprising. I remember seeing FOTR for the first time and was blown away simply because here at last was the Middle-earth, particularly The Shire, that I had so long only imagined.

I happen to love this film better than the book. Oh, I know, some folk would love to hang me for that statement, but that's how I feel. I love the characters, the dwarves, in this movie as they are portrayed. I never thought I would connect so strongly with a bunch of dwarves, especially Thorin, Balin, and Bofur. They've given them dimensions that depths that make them real for me.

At first I didn't care much for the comical character of Radagast, but on subsequent viewings, and thinking about what the film is doing (trying to stay true to a children's book as well as appealing to a larger more adult audience), I'm completely fine with him. And besides, his rabbits are amazing!. And as far as I've experienced, the children in the audience love all the parts that the adults seem to find objectionable (what this says about us, I'll leave for another time).

My own thinking is that these films will get darker and more serious as we go along. I think the last film will be devastating, given who will die (you know of whom I speak), and it's only because the characters have been drawn so meaningfully for us beginning with this first film. When all is said and done, I suspect I may very well love these three Hobbit films just as much as I do the LOTR ones...if not more.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 29 2013, 3:48pm

Views: 403

nicely put

I think you're right in saying it's like comparing apples to oranges. Both are good in their own right. I admit I tend to fall into the hole of comparing one film against another.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

imin
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 4:30pm

Views: 389

Not as good as the rings

Though it is really close to TTT - the weakest of the trilogy. No where near FOTR for me which remains the best film PJ has done about ME - though obviously like all films has its own problems - i just feel these are less so than in TTT, ROTK or AUJ.

I dont know many people who think they are as good as the lotr trilogy, in real life just 1 person, on here more but not as many as who think lotr is the better movies.

Lots of people will complain it is unfair to judge as its a trilogy vs 1 films. Taken fotr vs auj - fotr is better.

I do believe (hope maybe?) the next two will be better and they may end up my favourites out of all six - i certainly hope so!

andwise
Rivendell

Jan 29 2013, 4:51pm

Views: 394

interesting thought folks...

In the end there obviously isn't a right or wrong opinion,we all have our own perspective etc.the only thing I would say is regarding the view point that the hobbit is not on the same level as LOTR.surely if the hobbit had come first THAT would be the movie people held in high regard,so, LOTR gets made later and maybe people say 'well its good it has weight and gravitas but we've seen this vision before,there's nothing new or groundbreaking here' so in that scenario the hobbit movies would be the trilogy with the 'magic'. In the end I'm just very happy that middle earth has been brought to life by such talented people and that i love all the movies.the important thing to me was always retaining the spirit of the books and the world that Tolkien created,for me this has been achieved on a huge scale. Smile

thank you all for the comments.

Estel78
Tol Eressea

Jan 29 2013, 4:53pm

Views: 377

Cop-out

In Reply To

I've loved the Lord of the Rings films for a decade but it simply isn't true to say that everyone loved them or that nothing about them was criticised. Distance lends enchantment.

Arguments like these i consider a cop-out. You can find negative opinions for everything. The point is, Hobbit got not anywhere near the critical acclaim LOTR got. And while it's difficult to gauge the general audience's reactions, i dare say they are not nearly as enthusiastic either. As far as i'm concerned, having watched the movie, it's pretty obvious why that's the case. It's just not as good, period. Then again, the situation is not different as far as the books go (LOTR > Hobbit). In that sense, it's a great adaptation. Wink

Still looking forward to the SEE and the sequels. Maybe it gets better and if not, it's still enjoyable enough.

imin
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 5:01pm

Views: 389

For me there is no 'magic' about LOTR

just as there is no magic about AUJ, though i would say the film itself has a more magical feel to it (slightly).

This may have been down to being only a young teen when LOTR came out and so was oblivious to the amazingness that was getting the LOTR to the screen was - at the time it just felt like it could happen as its a book and people make films from books all the time.

So in that way i personally dont think there is anything magical about the previous trilogy, i just think for the most part they are better films and had AUJ been released before FOTR i would still prefer FOTR.

Also AUJ is groundbreaking in a way - its being the first HFR film for something like 60 years - thats pretty impressive. Also changing the book into 3 films at such a late time in the filming - that is brave (some may say foolish, lol).

As for the spirit or tone of the books - visually i think its there and has made me want to visit NZ some day, otherwise not quite but definitely could have been worse and were lucky to get such great CGI artists, costume designers, make up artists, NZ scenery, Tolkien/M-e experts and brilliant casting. For me i think TABA will be the best out of the six, for others it will be the 'charm' of AUJ or one of the LOTR trilogy which has a good percentage of people preferring all 3 of those films!

bborchar
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 6:04pm

Views: 374

For me there was a magic about FotR...

...because I was in my early 20's when it came out, and having been born at that time, I had already missed the first Star Wars movie (and was too young to remember the sequels) in the theaters. FotR was the first time fantasy had ever been taken seriously...which is why I think it made such an impact. Until then, all fantasy was relegated to a second-tier status, as something only for geeks and kids. I'm not going to pretend to be a Tolkienite; I'm not. My boyfriend made me read the LotR books before the movies came out (although I had read the Hobbit when I was younger).

I think, though, that it's probably better that LotR got made first, because I think The Hobbit, for all of the technical innovations that PJ still would have made, would have been viewed by the masses as a children's movie, since it was based on a children's book. It's all about perception, whether or not the movie really feels like that.

Elessar
Valinor

Jan 29 2013, 6:20pm

Views: 357

Maybe Magic? Maybe not.

Maybe magic isn't the right word but there is something truly special I feel when watching The Lord of the Rings films and I get the same feeling when watching The Hobbit: AUJ. Just how everything has come together with much of what you mentioned and how well the spirit and tone of the books has been brought to life has created what I would say is the "feeling" many of us get when watching any of the four films.

Edit: A side note for what its worth I was 20 when FOTR came out in 2001.

(This post was edited by Elessar on Jan 29 2013, 6:21pm)

jtarkey
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 8:36pm

Views: 337

This

I think AUJ isn't as good as LOTR simply because...it wasn't as good.

Not every movie has to be about the ultimate fight to save the world for it to be a good film. You could make a movie about a door, and if you execute it correctly, it would be interesting. ( I actually did that very expiriment in my Radio and T.V. class...it won best student film).

I just really feel The Hobbit could have been executed much better. It's not the book's fault, or it's differences to LOTR. It's the fault of the filmmakers not making a great film this time.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

swordwhale
Tol Eressea

Jan 29 2013, 8:48pm

Views: 335

That sums it up nicely!

In Reply To

I liked LOTR for its epic detail... I'm beginning to like the Hobbit films for their... characters? So much more than in the book... and it has changed my whole viewpoint of an entire archetype (Dwarves! Who knew they could be so cool!!!)

Go outside and play...

Kangi Ska
Half-elven

Jan 29 2013, 8:48pm

Views: 339

I think

peoples expectations as well as their experience viewing the countless fantasy films that have come out since The Lord of the Rings Trilogy has effected the reaction to The Hobbit. People have seen things like Cameron's Avatar, a spate of Snow White movies, The Narnia films, Alice in Wonderland and dozens of others. This has blunted the impact. Viewers are jaded. KS

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

stoutfiles
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 8:56pm

Views: 336

Nope

While you might feel that way, the general consensus is that The Hobbit is inferior to LOTR. To be fair, it's a lesser story to begin with, it didn't have much of a chance.

elostirion74
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 9:14pm

Views: 342

interesting obervation about the film�s flaws

While I don�t always agree with you about what constitutes the "glaring flaws" of AUJ, I agree that the weaknesses of the film are quite noticeable - there�s a greater disparity between the strong aspects and weak aspects of AUJ compared to FoTR.

elostirion74
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 9:23pm

Views: 329

Question about aesthetic

You�re probably right about how the film will be viewed in the future from the critics�point of view. �m curious about your thoughts about the design aestethic of AUJ. I�m aware that the view on this is of course a matter of opinion and taste, but don�t you think the design aestethic of The Hobbit should differentiate itself from LoTR to show the difference in tone between the original works?

Rostron2
Gondor

Jan 29 2013, 9:25pm

Views: 335

It was...a victim on LOTR's success

I mean, how do you top that many Academy awards?

People have ridiculously high expectations for these films, and if it's one percent or ten percent worse, it's a failure. People are very jaded, absolutely agree.

jtarkey
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 9:47pm

Views: 319

They could have just made the set design more colorfull

Something more subtle than shooting digital, 5k, 48fps 3D. It's just too much. It was just all too much.

Hate to make the comparison, but the Star Wars prequels, and Indiana Jones made the same mistake. It didn't just change the tone, it changed the way the movie looks entirely and makes it feel like it takes place in a completely different world than the originals.

While I do think AUJ did a much better job than those two examples, it's still the same mistake to me. The story was different enough from rings in itself. It didn't need all the technical hoo-ha to differentiate it from the original trilogy.

The Hobbit could have been a dark, clever, mythic fairytale. Instead, it's drenched with bright colors, over saturation, and CGI. Couple that with a few bad performances from the dwarves, the bad humor, and ridiculous action set pieces, and you have a much more low brow film.

AUJ could have demanded respect in the same way the LOTR trilogy did, while remaining a smaller tale with less stakes. Instead, it's just an action blockbuster with silly villains and almost no stakes at all.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

elostirion74
Rohan

Jan 29 2013, 10:00pm

Views: 311

not really fair to compare, but the comparison isn�t always in favour of FoTR

Like others I don�t feel it�s fair to compare two such different stories. I love both films, but FoTR has an obvious advantage in terms of the content and urgency of the story.

I think the obvious advantage of FoTR as a film lies in a tighter and leaner script, which made for a better narrative flow. The superfluous framing device of The Hobbit along with the rather static and stilted handling of the White Council part weakened the pacing of AUJ.

I also find that AUJ is a more uneven film than FoTR; the disparity between the stronger parts/scenes and the weaker scenes makes the "flawed scenes" more noticeable. I find that when AUJ is weak, it�s decidedly weak (yes, Goblin Town, I�m looking at you in particular).

When you consider other aspects of film making I find that AUJ is often at least as good as FoTR, though, and sometimes also better.

Both films show an impressive attention to detail, in terms of design, costumes and general aestethic, but I actually found, with a few exceptions, that the detail of AUJ was richer than that of FoTR. There are more details to almost every kind of landscape in AUJ and the slower pacing of the film gave more breathing room for both the scope and the intimate details of Middle Earth.

FoTR uses a variety of different styles and techniques and as a whole it works very well and feels quite true to the variety of the original work. Still I felt that the technologies used for AUJ blend slightly better with each other; the differences and shifts between the aestethics of sets and CGI and on location shooting are less noticeable.

The acting in AUJ is also a bit better than what you see in FoTR in my opinion, so many strong performances, both from main characters and supporting characters.

cats16
Half-elven

Jan 29 2013, 10:05pm

Views: 315

To me...

LOTR and TH are so unique in that they are, essentially, written by two different authors, being Frodo and Bilbo. So I've always considered them to be two separate pieces of literature, COMPILED by Tolkien. (I believe Tolkien himself had said once about being a translator of the legendarium, or something like that.)

Therefore, I am watching these films as if they are completely independent of each other (which they are). No two people view the world the same, and like Frodo and Bilbo's writings, the world has a different feel to it. Yet it is NOT unfamiliar to us. It is all the same world. Just from a different perspective.

For example, I always imagined that Bilbo was writing TH as a children's story that would be told to his descendants years later. Frodo, though, wished to build upon this story, and wrote it for adult readers (as Tolkien actually did).

So, I see both trilogies in this same way. Albeit, the director has not changed, but the presentation of the story, in some ways, has. AUJ, really, is a very long flashback, as Bilbo is smoking his pipe after Frodo leaves near the beginning of the film. The sequence of events that follows, whether Bilbo was physically present (i.e. Dol Guldor) or not, remains to be HIS way of telling the story. Obviously, we cannot speak for the next two films. But the idea does not change.

I think it's an incredibly bold thing that PJ is doing here. IMO, he's emulating the different writing styles of Bilbo and Frodo (or Tolkien, if you prefer). This could account for the different overall look and feel of the experience. PJ DOESN'T want this to be compared to LOTR, in terms of good/bad. In terms of filmmaking technique, it's all subjective. There's always someone who can give you a darn good reason why (insert film) is poor. But that particular reason might be the EXACT reason you love it!

Of course, everything I've said here is my opinion. I'm just glad that I love all of these movies, so all I can do is just sit back and enjoy the spectacles that will be here for a long, long time.

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 29 2013, 10:12pm

Views: 316

Wow

In Reply To

Well, all I can say is that the Hobbit story as it was written wasn't a 'dark, clever, mythic fairytale". Of course, the film could have been. But I'm certainly glad it wasn't. And seeing as you feel so intensely negative about this movie, I assume you have no desire to see the others. I kind of take issue with your statement that because of the things you find objectionable, that therefore this is a 'low brow film'. That to me insinuates that those of us who love this movie are less intelligent than those who have issues with it? (definition of low brow: "a person who has uncultivated or nonintellectual tastes") Perhaps you didn't mean it like that, but it sounded incredibly insulting nonetheless. It's fine to dislike the film for whatever reasons, but it isn't fine to disparage those who feel otherwise.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

(This post was edited by Old Toby on Jan 29 2013, 10:15pm)

Rostron2
Gondor

Jan 29 2013, 10:36pm

Views: 291

I think you've got it right

I am beginning to believe that the tale of Bilbo is heavily embellished with fantastical falls on broken bridges, and people dangling from trees.

andwise
Rivendell

Jan 29 2013, 10:47pm

Views: 279

good point...

Well said my fine friend,well said indeed.....of course it IS all about opinions of the individual and i think you're right about some people coming across the wrong way.it seems to me that a large number of folk who DONT like the movie or think it is inferior to LOTR want to convince the people who DO like it that they are wrong by getting a little bit too high and mighty presuming that their opinion has got to be the correct one because how can anyone in their right mind not see the sense in it!!?....I think agreeing to disagree is the order of the day,along with respecting others views.I've enjoyed reading all the posts though whether I agreed with them or not.it'd be a boring world if we all saw things the same eh? Smile

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 29 2013, 11:45pm

Views: 260

true true

I think it's a credit to both the books and the films that they elicit such passionate responses, on both sides of the coin. Sometimes I know it's hard to come across in a civil manner when one feels strongly about something.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

andwise
Rivendell

Jan 30 2013, 12:05am

Views: 252

quite right...

I'm just glad from my own point of view that i wasn't one of the people who was dissapointed with it because I know that when I sit down to watch with my family on DVD or when the movies are on t.v. I know I'm in for a few hours of joy,not eye rolling,head scratching and mental torture, screaming at the t.v. 'I could have done better than that!!!!' Wink

jtarkey
Rohan

Jan 30 2013, 12:23am

Views: 300

Wow is right

It amazes me how almost anyone who expresses their problems with the film are seen to be insulting to people who love everything about it.

I like the movie a lot. It's a good film. In my opinion though, it's just not made as well as LOTR. And some of the action and humor certainly comes across as low brow. How you could mistake that for me calling anyone unintelligent is beyond me.

I apologize for not so readily bowing to everything Tolkien and Peter Jackson. I can like the film, and still point out all the problems I have with it.

It's also funny, that on numerous other movie forums I visit, the opinions of the film vary widely. Yet here, the majority of people seem to just be happy to get a film version of The Hobbit. And that's fine. But, I'm a movie buff, and I was expecting something a little better.

No opinion is wrong, but I just see so many BLATANT problems with the film. It just seems to me that many fans here refuse to accept the fact that this film isn't as good as any of the LOTR's films. Purely from a filmmaking standpoint, I just feel it pales in comparison. Once again, this is just my opinion for the sake of discussion.

I need to start putting warnings in my subject line whenever I'm about to critisize the film. Hopefully I won't be attacked so much,

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

imin
Valinor

Jan 30 2013, 12:54am

Views: 287

How many Snow White movies have there been since 2003/4? //

bborchar
Rohan

Jan 30 2013, 1:19am

Views: 280

Too many :)

imin
Valinor

Jan 30 2013, 1:53am

Views: 268

haha very true!

I know of two and i saw one of them last year - the one with twilight girl - was mostly bad, made worse by the fact that snow white wasnt as beautiful as the queen, lol.

bborchar
Rohan

Jan 30 2013, 2:08am

Views: 276

I get to watch the Disney version...

at least several times a week, as part of the joy of having a four year old little girl :) I've never liked the story, so I just avoided the other ones.

AinurOlorin
Half-elven

Jan 30 2013, 2:11am

Views: 267

I find the Disney version hilarious. "She's an old witch!. . .

she can turn herself invisible. . . she could be in this room with us, right now!" Lmao. I am really fond of it. And Snow White a Tale of Terror is interesting. And I found Snow White and the Huntsman to be more enjoyable and expansive than I had anticipated. I always rather liked the old story, anyway though. More or less, depending on the version.

In Reply To

at least several times a week, as part of the joy of having a four year old little girl :) I've never liked the story, so I just avoided the other ones.

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 30 2013, 4:50am

Views: 255

Okay

In Reply To

I suppose sometimes it's not so much what you say as the manner in which it is stated, and therefore the way in which it is received. I think one of the problems with this sort of virtual communication is that it often misses the most important aspects of a conversation, namely the tone, which usually is interpreted as intent. And yes, I suppose I did take your verbage of the term 'low brow' too personally but that is what the term means. Be that as it may, I'm glad you liked the film. I certainly did, but that doesn't mean I liked every single aspect of it. There were a lot of things I didn't particularly care for, but nevertheless I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed FOTR.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 30 2013, 5:04am

Views: 260

"All good tales deserve embellishment"

In Reply To

I am beginning to believe that the tale of Bilbo is heavily embellished with fantastical falls on broken bridges, and people dangling from trees.

Well, I think I quoted that right. I hope. Anyway, an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered: that this is a tale of Bilbo whereas the LOTR was a tale of Frodo. And just judging from the characters as portrayed in the films, they are two very different hobbits. I really like this Bilbo. Better, I think, than I ever liked Frodo.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

jtarkey
Rohan

Jan 30 2013, 5:21am

Views: 267

Bilbo was awesome...

In contrast to my earlier posts, I can point out a lot that I loved about the film.

The prologue, and everything in Bag End was awesome. Bilbo running out his door, and seeing the beautiful views of Hobbiton. Howard Shores work was perfectly executed for that moment. Riddles in the Dark was pretty much perfectly adapted. It is during that scene where I truly feel I am transported back to 2003. Amazing. The Eagle rescue is pretty great as well. The scenes with them flying over the landscape, accompanied by that beautiful music was awesome.

It's the parts in between those things that disappointed me. It's still pretty good though. I would not have watched it so much unless I really like it.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

elostirion74
Rohan

Jan 30 2013, 8:50pm

Views: 290

a bit exaggerated, no?

Thanks for replying in detail, and it�s not that AUJ is without its flaws.

There are some marked differences between AUJ and for instance FoTR, and I can understand that these differences might come off as grating or unappealing if you wanted a closer resemblance to the look of the trilogy.

I think it�s quite obvious that FoTR has its fair share of technical hoo-ha, though. What about the rather forced camera diving from the top of Orthanc, or following Legolas�arrow killing an orc in Moria just to name a couple of things. It doesn�t descend to the level of Goblin Town, but besides the script and the score I don�t find the general level of film making more impressive in FoTR than in AUJ.

I might have seen a different version of AUJ than you - I think I�ve only seen the ordinary 3D, not the HFR-version, and after that the 2D-version. I found the bright colours mostly rich and vibrant and more appropriate for a story which actually starts in May and features a greater sense of adventure and anticipation on the part of the protagonist, while Frodo�s journey from the start is fraught with fear and a sense of being forced by circumstances.