|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tripecac
Ossiriand
Dec 14 2012, 1:08am
Post #1 of 6
(667 views)
Shortcut
|
For those of you who haven't seen the movie yet: please keep in mind that it's just a movie. Not only that, but it's just an adaptation of a book that most of us don't like as much as Lord of the Rings.
The hype and anticipation drove many of us to expect this first Hobbit movie to somehow surpass the Lord of the Rings movies in terms of its emotional value to us. But how can it???
If you think about it, the only aspect of the movie that is likely to be "better" than the LotR movies is the technology. Namely, the CGI, the 3D, and the 48fps. For those of you who are seeing the Hobbit it in 2D, the only thing that is likely to be "better" is the CGI. And by "better", I mean "more detailed".
Are CGI, 3D, and 48fps the only aspects to a movie? No!
What else does a movie consist of?
1) writing
2) pre-production (props, costumes, sets)
3) background scenery
4) acting
5) cinematography
6) music
7) other audio
8) post-production/editing
Those are all pretty important parts of a movie, right?
So think about it: why would any of those be better than Lord of the Rings?
1) Writing - If anything, they have a tougher job this time due to less (and arguably lesser) source material, Guillermo leaving (having to decide whether to keep or abandon his ideas), and a last-minute shift from 2 movies to 3. Why would you think the writing would be better than Lord of the Rings? Do you think Peter, Fran, and Philippa did a better job writing The Lovely Bones than Lord of the Rings?
2) Pre-production (props, costumes, sets) - There's no reason to believe these will be better (or worse) on the Hobbit than Lord of the Rings. How can you exceed what was already pretty much top-of-the-line? Besides, PJ is using many of the same artists, designers, etc., so it is likely to all be on par with the Lord of the Rings.
3) Background scenery - There was supposedly a lot less location shooting for the Hobbit than LotR. So if anything, the Hobbit is at a disadvantage.
4) Acting - For both the Hobbit and LotR, we're dealing with carefully selected actors and a director who favors lots of takes. So the acting is unlikely to "make or break" the movie.
5) Cinematography - Likely to be on par with Lord of the Rings. 10 years won't automatically make it any "better".
6) Music - Howard Shore did an awesome job on LotR, and that is hard to surpass. Do you think Hugo's score was better than Lord of the Rings?
7) Other audio - Likely to be the same. Foley and mics can only do so much. Bad audio can ruin a movie (Jar Jar) but good audio is not really noticed.
8) Post-production/editing - According to Wikipedia, principal photography for LotR ended on 22 December 2000, and Fellowship premiered on 10 December 2001; this gave them almost year to edit Fellowship. Principal photography on the Hobbit ended 6 July 2012, and the first Hobbit movie premiered 28 November 2012; this gave them less than 5 months to focus on editing. Sure, there's overlap here and there, but think about it: 12 months to focus on Fellowship, 5 months to focus on the Hobbit.
--------
So, logically, why should we really expect The Hobbit to surpass Lord of the Rings as a movie?
|
|
|
duats
Hithlum
Dec 14 2012, 1:16am
Post #2 of 6
(388 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's all a matter of perspective and opinion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Honestly, people need to stop trying to rationalize, justify, or otherwise disregard the negative reactions. There's no rhyme or reason to it. You either like it, or you don't. It's that simple.
As far as I'm concerned, it was never a matter of wanting this film to surpass LoTR. I just wanted an excellent, well-made adaptation of The Hobbit.
(This post was edited by duats on Dec 14 2012, 1:18am)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Dec 14 2012, 1:51am
Post #3 of 6
(332 views)
Shortcut
|
As far as I'm concerned, it was never a matter of wanting this film to surpass LoTR. I just wanted an excellent, well-made adaptation of The Hobbit.
Thank you. This is exactly how I feel, granted I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know what my reaction will be. I think people have been trying too much to argue against the negative reviews and why they aren't "correct".
"Well you thought the golbin town scene was silly? Well the hobbit is supposed to be light-hearted."
What the hobbit is supposed to be has nothing to do with my like/dislike of certain scenes. It's simply a matter of taste. If I don't like it, then I don't like it, and no arguing or debating will change my mind.
I'm not hoping this will be on the scale of LOTR or as emotional, etc. I'm just hoping that it's a well-made adaptation of the film. And if I like/dislike the final result, no arguing will change my mind.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
duats
Hithlum
Dec 14 2012, 2:01am
Post #4 of 6
(319 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, The Hobbit is a more whimsical, fairytale-esque story than LoTR. But despite its lighter material, it has moments of genuine tension and horror.
On paper, Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves blindly running through dark tunnels with enraged goblins at their heels has the capacity to be a truly suspenseful and frightening scene. A far cry from the effects-heavy, physics-free set piece that we ultimately ended up with in the film. Hence my profound disappointment with that particular sequence.
(This post was edited by duats on Dec 14 2012, 2:11am)
|
|
|
Arthael
Menegroth
Dec 14 2012, 10:16am
Post #5 of 6
(196 views)
Shortcut
|
I had to come to this conclusion a while ago. There's no way I would like it as much, so I can not worry about it and just enjoy it.
And most importantly, it's just a movie! Life goes on, and this isn't nearly as important as I think it is.
I did really enjoy it tho! Definitely needed some editing (anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute could have been taken out of every scene) but it was a lot of fun, had good dialogue, good production design, and some good characterization. Success!
"There are no safe paths in this part of the world. Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild, and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go."
|
|
|
Pimmiko
Nevrast
Dec 14 2012, 10:43am
Post #6 of 6
(204 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It might have something to do with
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
how important the book is to you. I read it only couple of years ago, wasn't so keen on it, it never felt anything like Lotr which I have carried with me over 30 years and has meant to me more I can describe.
|
|
|
|
|
