|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
Dec 20 2012, 4:29am
Post #1 of 24
(826 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A few thoughts
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hello, everyone. I just thought i'd share a few thoughts. Before I saw the film, I was a little
annoyed and frustrated with all the negaitve reviews. I thought unfair expectations, preconceived
notions and agenda affected the movie's reception. I thought all the complaints about the
movie not following the book were the same old shallow cavilling. I didn't know what to think
about the pace critiques.
But after seeing the film, I understand the critiques and accept them as legitimate. I would
like to preface my thoughts in that what follows is completely my opinion following the first viewing,
and my opinion only.
As a fan, I'm frustrated  . Earlier I had written about the Hobbit's lighter tone (before seeing the film)
and its lighter feel. Well, the tone wasn't too light at all. The tone was not a problem. It's the story-telling.
In my opinion, you can have all the effects, all the witty dialogue, all the costumes, and a solid plot; but in the end
it is story-telling that separates stories. I cannot feel strongly enough about that aspect.
One of the negative critiques of the film was its dragging pace and its padding. I would have to agree, that it feels
padded and does drag, but not always because of what is included. For instance, somecritiques attack the inclusion of azong and raddagast
sub-plots. One would think that their inclusion would contribute depth and intrigue to the story. But it's the way
that they are included into the story which is their downfall. Frankly, their inclusion feels forced, manufactured, and corny.
This causes their existence to feel unnecessary, hence the padding criticisms. It's heartbreaking.
All these pieces just did not feel like they came together. This is surprising to me. Did not the director or the people reviewing the final
cut sense these problems? I have no experience in film-making. The closes I can come to relating might be writing report or something.
And if it's a research project, I know what it's not about how many cool things I can include into my report. The quality of my research report
would be much more dependent on what I don't include as opposed to what I do include. I figure it relates to the art of storytelling.
What went wrong? The problems were exacerbated in the dialogue itself, which is just difficult to swallow. This is noticeable when
Gandalf talks about Raddagast and the five wizards, shortly before introducing the character or when GAndalf talks with thorin in the
beginning of their journey when he complains about dwarves' stubborness and thorin retaliates about the elves not being trusted. the dialogue
feels forced and cheesey. Instead of allowing the characters and their story to exist as is, the film's creators tried to stuff the history
and bits of other information into a dialoge, information which wasn't pertinent to the present story or the
immediate impetus of the story; which may be the reason for the critics' self-indulgent/padding critique. The battle of Azanulbizer and with Balin
speaking of THorins leadership was totally off pace making it feel misplaced. And this segment too obviously introduces us to Azog and his pursuit
of the dwarves. It's almost placed there only to introduce Azog. Same with the introduction to raddagast. Why not just cut away to those characters
and their subplots without the cheesey introductions? Can't trust the audience enough? Leaving the audience in the dark for a little while doesn't always
do harm. But they keep the light on everything, immediately turning over every stone, causing the story to feel contrived and artificial.
Unfortunately even the dialogue is cheesy in that feels too much like lotr. THis may be a totally unfair critique on my part. But there are too many lines, gestures,
and scenes, and characters which immediately draw parallel to sequences in lord of hte rings. Some can be done well and intentional, if they are well
timed and handled with a careful hand. But i didn't feel that way, an example is when the dwarves are in that hole to Rivendell and thorin picks
up the the arrow and exclaims that it's elf; it recalls too much of legolas in moria with the goblins. Yes recall isn't always bad, but this
is too obvious. it's these little things that give it a recycled feeling at times. another is elrond's horsed knights circling the dwarves, paralleling
with the riders of rohand with lego, gimli, and aragorn. Or Gandalf gestures and dialogue, exhorting the dwarves to 'fight!' just like he did
at minas tirith.
what was with the orc langauge subtitles? it works to a certain degree with elvish. but the orc stuff was a bit silly. why did the goblin king necessarily
know azog the pale orc? this shrinks the world, and contributes to the artificial feel of the story. it's the little things. i didn't think adding raddagast and
azog or galadriel and sauruman would be a problem. it's not their inclusion, its their execution within the story. at the end of the story, i was left
wondering if they hardly spent enough time with bilbo and the dwarves.
if youre going to include something whether a character, a scene, or dialogue, don't include them just for the sake of including them.
gandalf's character was superfuous and not in the moment. galadriel, sauruman, and perhaps raddagast were not necessary, but only
because of the timing and the story=telling shortcomings! Im not trying to beat a dead horse but through editing, there is a way of balancing
a story and advancing subplots not at the expense of the main story. this one was confused.
Part of the challenge of making a prequel, imo, is introducing and establishing items (sword sting), characters, and moments of later significance, without
recognizing the significance of their significance in the sequels lol. this is why some of it comes off as corny, because it can't control what it already knows.
Chronologically, no one in the story should know, but the story is not allowed to be that way. The story knows ahead of time, and so it feels fake and corny.
let the hobbit stand as its own story!!! you can introduce the connection and the larger picture without sacrificing the immediate impetus.
what was with the soundtrack selection? the music with thorin hugging bilbo was the music of aragorn's coronation and the collapse of the eye! why use that beautiful
music also for this beautiful scene? it is it's own beautiful scene!!! find it's own music please!!! and i heard hints of jacob's theme in some of the hobbit *cringes*. the theme
when the dwarves engage in battle was awesome. but everytime they fought, they used the exact same thing the exact same way!!! what about storytelling??! save it for the right
moments! the beginning theme with the trolls was magical, but when it happened for the third or more time against the wargs in the same fashion, the magic
was sucked out with its use like that. does not each scene deserve its own spotlight and significance as part of the whole?
we need to witness the dwarves' story more. we can't get the crux of the depth with a few 'deep' frivolous pieces of dialogue.
It's all about story-telling. It takes about control in being a story teller. It's about a gentle and delicate hand guiding us with these characters! what happened?!?!?!??!
I only write because i care and i have many positives which i would like to share with you all. But it pains me to see such potential, which they created in the first place, going
toward the wayside. i hope to discuss the film more with all of you. I don't mean to sound too critical or too doom and gloom, for what do for our entertainment.
I just wished i didn't have too many critical things to thing, but i could never get settled into middle-earth this time around. I wasn't kept in the world.
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 20 2012, 4:39am
Post #2 of 24
(428 views)
Shortcut
|
|
i loved how the orcs spoke Mordor
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and not all did btw, the great goblin spoke english  so i guess u hate all prequels? since u know whats going to happen...?
take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
Dec 20 2012, 4:42am
Post #3 of 24
(403 views)
Shortcut
|
mouth of sauron, it's hard for me to know the validity of my critique, since i already do know.
i wonder how it is if i could watch without ever seeing lord of hte rings. maybe this is my
biased downfall. it was just difficult for me to stay in the story at times.
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Dec 20 2012, 4:44am
Post #4 of 24
(409 views)
Shortcut
|
why did the goblin king necessarily
know azog the pale orc?
Because Azog put a price on Thorin's head. This was pointed out quite clearly in the story. But that involved reading subtitles so you probably missed it, given you thought it was so pointless to have the Orcs speaking their own language. ;)
As I recall there is a scene where Azog tells his minions to go out and spread the word that there is a price on Thorin's head.
I don't see how this shrinks the world when we know Azog is trying to follow Thorin, meaning he should be in the "general" vicinity anyway, so if he sent his people out to spread the word naturally those within the general vicinity would be the first to find out.
Like the Goblin King. He's a Goblin KING. Azog is a leader of Orcs, seems likely that if you want to spread the word of a bounty you go and tell someone like the Goblin King.
Also I believe there was a thread the other day explaining about orcs and goblins and how goblins and orcs are essentially the same species. So why wouldn't one orc leader think to go to another when wanting to spread word of a bounty?
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
Dec 20 2012, 4:47am
Post #5 of 24
(392 views)
Shortcut
|
Marillaraina, you're right in that it makes sense for the king goblin to know azog
but it just felt like it made too perfect sense. ya know what i mean? maybe my mind
will perceive things differently when i see again. appreciate the feedback.
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 20 2012, 4:49am
Post #6 of 24
(401 views)
Shortcut
|
since both TH and LOTR's are books which were written long before the films....if your a fan you already know what's going to happen whether or not TH comes first or last. This is why its better this way, if PJ had tried to make TH first there is no way the studio would have allowed him to expand it to 2 films let alone 3 films. So, now PJ can not only show every scene in the book but now he can add what Tolkien added later on in the appendices which directly relates to LOTR's, the result is seamlessly merging this new trilogy with the original trilogy.
take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!
(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Dec 20 2012, 4:51am)
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
Dec 20 2012, 4:52am
Post #7 of 24
(374 views)
Shortcut
|
no, that makes perfect sense, and im not trying to say that making prequenls after the originals is
a bad idea in the first place. I was just pointing out some of the challenges of it and some of, what
i thought to be, the difficulties this film story was having.
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 20 2012, 4:55am
Post #8 of 24
(374 views)
Shortcut
|
i would not judge TH until we've seen all three films. i think part of the reason why its getting such harsh reviews is that there is no clear ending(s) in the story of TH unlike with LOTR's Tolkien had to split the story into three books.
take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!
(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Dec 20 2012, 4:56am)
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
Dec 20 2012, 4:58am
Post #9 of 24
(364 views)
Shortcut
|
i agree wholeheartedly with that and hope that this first movie
was an interesting establishment of the story, and we can
really get in to the story these next two films. But i hope this feels more like
the dwarves' and bilbo's story. i want it to work out for thorin's character
and the actor richard armitage. I think that actor gives so much.
|
|
|
Gurtholfin
Bree
Dec 20 2012, 5:13am
Post #10 of 24
(375 views)
Shortcut
|
Don't let the apologists throw you or make you backtrack. You can see my review in the Reviews Thread #26.
There are many others who feel the same as you and I do.
But never fear, all you have to do, evidently, is see it 3 or 4 times and then you'll LOVE it!
|
|
|
duats
Grey Havens
Dec 20 2012, 5:26am
Post #11 of 24
(375 views)
Shortcut
|
The Bilbo/Frodo framing device added nothing to this film save for an unnecessary callback to Lord of the Rings. I love Ian Holm as much as the next person (despite his age difference being painfully obvious in both voice and appearance), but it just was needless. It was extended edition material at best.
And call me a cynic, but I find it amusing that Elijah Wood has been to just about every premiere, and been featured in countless interviews (with principle members of the cast, no less), and he was only on screen for 2-3 minutes.
But moving on to what's actually relevant to this discussion...
The big issue I take with the Radagast/Dol Guldur/White Council material is that they are introduced and then dropped altogether. Oh I'm sure it will all work better in the context of the overall trilogy (I'd certainly hope so, anyway), but in the context of THIS film, it brings the narrative to a screeching halt with no payoff. I was never big on this additional material from the get-go, and I honestly haven't seen anything to boost my confidence. In my eyes, it only serves to complicate a simple story and to make connections to Lord of the Rings that are wholly unnecessary.
And all while this material is being introduced, it must have been a good 15-20 minute stretch where Bilbo faded into the background. It certainly felt like it, anyway. For a movie called The Hobbit, that is an unforgivable problem.
The Azog subplot was terrible, terrible, terrible. And again, it's a subplot that has no payoff in the end. Just another story that is left trailing off until we pick up again next December.
(This post was edited by duats on Dec 20 2012, 5:31am)
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 20 2012, 5:31am
Post #12 of 24
(342 views)
Shortcut
|
their my own opinions.
take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 20 2012, 6:10am
Post #13 of 24
(349 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The only MAJOR problem to me, was the way Azog was handled, and the massive changes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
made to the Dwarven history to accomodate Azog. The notion of him trying to wipe out the line of Durin, when in fact, his slaughter of Thror sparked the war, and was perhaps the only event of significant magnitude to bring together dwarves from all 7 great houses. Durin's house was the only one to even bother taking part in the war against Sauron. But the desecration of The Heir of Durin, Foremost Forefather of The Race, was an insult so greivous that no Dwarven house could let it stand, and as the history tells "They systematically sacked every goblin stronghold they could find from Gundabad to The Gladden. . . they hunted for Azog in every den under the mountains."
Then there is the Balrog. Possibly alluded to in the films by the unexplained monument of fire seen raging farther back in the hall of The East Gate, but if so, tis the vaguest allusion ever. There is the being responsible for the dwarves abandoning of Moria, and the true reason that they could not return, even a thousand years later. It is a loose strand not only from the perspective of the book (considering Dain's words to Thrain on Khazad-Dum being beyond the power of the dwarves to claim, as Durin's Bane [The Balrog] still waited for them within), but also in regard to the existing films, as it is hard to imagine that a small company knocking items down a well would arose the Demon Lord, but that a massive battle of thousands being fought just outside one of the main gates of his seized realm would not.
In regards to most of the other complaints about pacing. . . I almost never saw the merit in those criticisms. The Unexpected Party was magnificent, and the pacing of the film in most of the other areas was also expertly done. The film never seemed to drag, even in the scenes which I disliked because of their distortions or continuity issues. Once or twice a scene or character was introduced in a manner that was not elegant. Ironically, the introduction of Galadriel was perhaps the worst of these. The music playing for her and the turn was too dramatic. . . to much of a "Tada!" moment when it should not have been. Also, some of the commentary (much as I loved The Council scene) in the commentary was erroneous bunk. . . but we knew to expect that.
Aside from those details, however, I thought the movie was wonderful, and I certainly did not see any problems with the overall flow and rythym of timing etc.
"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."
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 20 2012, 6:18am
Post #14 of 24
(321 views)
Shortcut
|
i didn't think the balrog and the goblins were "allies" they were sure fearful of it in FOTR when u heard its distant roar.
take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!
(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Dec 20 2012, 6:18am)
|
|
|
Fredeghar Wayfarer
Lorien
Dec 20 2012, 8:04am
Post #15 of 24
(280 views)
Shortcut
|
Dwarvenfury, I completely agree with you. The inclusion of Radagast and Azog were my biggest issues with the film. I'm not simply being a purist who dislikes changes from the book (though I do dislike it  ). These additions felt clunky and slowed the pacing of the movie. The rabbit sled was silly. The hedgehog rescue lasted longer than necessary. Radagast crosses a huge distance and seemingly finds Gandalf by sheer chance. It's not clear how or why Azog is hunting Thorin. The extra warg attack before Rivendell serves little purpose besides having another action sequence. And so forth.
I was okay with the idea of new material from the appendices. It's a prequel so a closer connection to LOTR was expected. Plus, scenes like the White Council and the events at Dol Guldur are simply showing what was implied by Tolkien or expanded on in later works. However, a lot of the new material we're getting is just that -- completely new material invented by Jackson and his co-writers. And it's a bit hit or miss (for me anyway).
This is frustrating because most of the material adapted from the book was wonderful. There was a lot that was pitch perfect and which I loved about the movie. But by stretching it into a trilogy, they've added a lot of new scenes that don't work as wonderfully.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 20 2012, 8:30am
Post #16 of 24
(286 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Their reaction in the movie is more dramatic.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the novel, and in the old Bakshi animation, they just crowd away. They are afraid of him, but not to the extent that they feel the need to run for their lives (or if so, they are too terrified to do it, for fear of offending him or drawing his ire). The relationship is never clearly spelled out, and all we can work on are the things we do know.
A) That when Sauron began peopling Moria with Orcs and Trolls, The Balrog allowed it, neither slaying them nor driving them out as he had the dwarves.
B) The trolls seem to be acting in his service (the two huge ones who throw down the stone gang walks before his coming, in the novel).
C) There is no denying that he was the undisputed master of Moria from the moment the dwarves fled it in the face of his power.
D) Mastering/Commanding orcs, trolls and various other baddies would have not been foriegn territory, as the primary role of The Balrogs, once Melkor The Morgoth had vast armies at his command, was to act as the highest ranking captains and lieutenants of those armies. Likely this was the case even before the mutation of captive Elves into orcs and the making of Trolls, for the Balrogs were, aside from Sauron, the mightiest of the known Demonic servants who followed Melkor at the beginning of The World.
Also, he only roars in the movie. The Balrog recorded in text seems to prefer ominous silence. lol
How allied they were and the nature of their alliance is uncertain. The take that Jackson and the rest of the film team seem to have, at least as expressed in the Weapons And Warfare companion book to the LOTR movie trilogy, is that the orcs regarded The Balrog as some manner of dark lesser god (fair and accurate enough) to be feared, venerated and worshipped in equal measure.
Certainly he tolerated them, and they trusted in his tolerance enough to enter Moria, desptie the terror he instilled in them (clearly they had no similar trust in the likes of Smaug, and it is almost certain that Smaug would Not have tolerated their company). When Gandalf uses wizardry to seal the door to Marzabul against them, The Balrog steps forward to challenge that magic with his own sorcery (they also grow fearfully silent and back away from him here, and it is probable that he was testing and investigating this other Power in his realm, more than championing the orcs/goblins).
He did not put any effort forward to help the orcs/goblins in the battle of Azanulbizar (unless the occlouded, sunless weather of that day was in some way his doing), but it is also not unlikely that, after the manner of Denethor and Sauron, he was more the type to let the fodder do all the fighting, and lead from behind rather than acting as a personal champion to his inferiors. When the battle is ended he comes near to the East Gate where the fighting was done, and makes his presence known to Dain, instilling terror and crushing any hopes the dwarves might have had for reclaiming their ancient father land.
And that last point is, of course, the main one. How deep the alliance was between The Balrog and the orcs and trolls who came to dwell in his Shadow is a matter for acedemic consideration. But the part that really matters is, he drove the dwarves out of Khazad-Dum (and, through sheer presence, he also drove many of the Elves from Lothlorien), and he is the primary reason that, even after categorically defeating the orcs-goblins, the dwarves could not return. He is, aside from the behind the scenes machinations of Sauron, the most significant and historically consequential foe that the Dwarves have in The Third Age. . . perhaps ever, as no foe before or since was able to do what he single-handedly managed. . . not only the slaying of a Durin, but more consequentially, the expelling of the Dwarves from the mightiest and most ancient of their kingdoms.
i didn't think the balrog and the goblins were "allies" they were sure fearful of it in FOTR when u heard its distant roar.
"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."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Dec 20 2012, 8:37am)
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Dec 20 2012, 4:57pm
Post #17 of 24
(209 views)
Shortcut
|
in particular the score. 
I was hoping to discuss this with Shelobs Appetite, but he seems to have been missing for some time. I hope he comes back soon.
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 20 2012, 5:22pm
Post #18 of 24
(199 views)
Shortcut
|
disagree with you more.
The pacing was perfect. I am so tired of book to film adaptations that feel rushed and under developed. AUJ's pace was breathtaking and fun. Never a dull moment, never boring, never dragging. Character developement DOES NOT mean that the story drags...people can't seem to get that.
Very little of the subplots felt forced. I think it is your preconceived notions and expectations that make it feel this way to you.
As far as the soundtrack goes....Doug Adams has stated several times that you will have to wait to see how all of the themes develope. They are all in there on purpose, for a reason.
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 20 2012, 5:35pm
Post #19 of 24
(194 views)
Shortcut
|
you hit it on the head....preconceived notions and expectations is the reason behind SO MUCH negativity! People have a thought on how the film or parts or characters should be or went and they are...pissed!
|
|
|
Lusitano
Tol Eressea
Dec 20 2012, 6:31pm
Post #21 of 24
(178 views)
Shortcut
|
TORN is not for everyone.
|
|
|
morgul lord
Rivendell
Dec 20 2012, 7:36pm
Post #22 of 24
(172 views)
Shortcut
|
|
None of these "problems" bothered me in the slightest
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I kind of feel bad for you guys. Most of these "problems" seem incredibly minor to me. For example, I still can't understand why anyone is in the least bit bothered by the orcs speaking their own language and using subtitles. How is that a bad thing, in any way whatsoever?
Anyways, I feel lucky because I truly enjoyed the movie from the very first viewing, as did all my friends.
(This post was edited by morgul lord on Dec 20 2012, 7:37pm)
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
Dec 21 2012, 9:49am
Post #23 of 24
(127 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yup, you've just about said it for me, too...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Dwarvenfury, I completely agree with you. The inclusion of Radagast and Azog were my biggest issues with the film. I'm not simply being a purist who dislikes changes from the book (though I do dislike it ). These additions felt clunky and slowed the pacing of the movie. The rabbit sled was silly. The hedgehog rescue lasted longer than necessary. Radagast crosses a huge distance and seemingly finds Gandalf by sheer chance. It's not clear how or why Azog is hunting Thorin. The extra warg attack before Rivendell serves little purpose besides having another action sequence. And so forth.
I was okay with the idea of new material from the appendices. It's a prequel so a closer connection to LOTR was expected. Plus, scenes like the White Council and the events at Dol Guldur are simply showing what was implied by Tolkien or expanded on in later works. However, a lot of the new material we're getting is just that -- completely new material invented by Jackson and his co-writers. And it's a bit hit or miss (for me anyway).
This is frustrating because most of the material adapted from the book was wonderful. There was a lot that was pitch perfect and which I loved about the movie. But by stretching it into a trilogy, they've added a lot of new scenes that don't work as wonderfully.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 21 2012, 7:54pm
Post #24 of 24
(168 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aside from his eyecrossing at times when he sould not have been crossing his eyes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Radagast didn't bother me in the slightest. I actually rather enjoyed him, and I can see the appeal he would have for children, though he was not specifically childish. He fit into the lighter tone of the movie (as opposed to that of Fellowship), and if his presence did anything, I can see where it added rather than subtracted. And he is mentioned in the original story, after all, unlike some others whose presence we all enjoyed .
Azog however. . . I remain bothered by the continuing presence of Azog, and far more by the massive revisionism to Dwarven history. There were errors there that may be beyond amending. But what can one do?
"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."
|
|
|
|
|
