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:
CNN: The Hobbit worst movie of 2012
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 2:47am

Post #26 of 112 (424 views)
Shortcut
Daaawwwww. *Blushing* [In reply to] Can't Post

BlushBlushEvil *marches over with bigh hug, more emotive than Haldir's but less than Thorin's* lol

In Reply To
One of the best on this site-

Articulate, brilliant.


"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."


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 29 2012, 2:50am

Post #27 of 112 (444 views)
Shortcut
The blame for failed expectations [In reply to] Can't Post

resides at least partly in the person who developed those expectations.


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 29 2012, 2:55am

Post #28 of 112 (432 views)
Shortcut
Some of the marketing did highlight connections between LoTR and TH [In reply to] Can't Post

but some of the marketing also attempted to mark the differences. I am thinking specifically about the promotional materials that featured the dwarves in what resembled a comedy show more so than LoTR. I remember how much some people complained about how different it was than LoTR ... well .. that's because it is different from LoTR in that way ... and there are some similarities and commonalities, too.

Maybe it is just easier to handle expectations by making a more consistent film. What I mean is that AUJ had all kinds of variety - and while there were bits in it for just about everyone - the whole of it was not easily matched to any one genre or expectation set. I like variety myself, but it may not be the best choice for dealing with the projection of a coherent image in the easiest and most effective way possible ...


silneldor
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 3:26am

Post #29 of 112 (407 views)
Shortcut
It would interesting [In reply to] Can't Post

for perspective to see what this critic thought of the LOTR's, and even his thought on Tolkien.

This review(er) does not affect me because critics (most usually lazy or stoically ignorant) come and go and are pretty much forgotten and all the while the books and the movies have moved merrily along remaining dear to the heart (being experienced by the millions worldwide), and they will stand indelible in the anneals of time having gobbled up revenue like a Bombur . TH i feel is on its way also. Time will tell.















redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 29 2012, 4:02am

Post #30 of 112 (376 views)
Shortcut
but [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You can't base an opinion of a film on a completely optional way of seeing it, especially one that less than 10% of theaters will be showing it in anyway. That would be like giving a movie a bad review because the seats in the theater were uncomfortable. Or giving a book a bad review because the type on your edition was too small.

48fps was not an inherent element of the film, like the acting, music, or cinematography. And if it bothers the reviewer that much, it is their responsibility to see it in it's most common format-- 2D 24fps. 48fps should be nothing more than a side note to the review, and should not factor into the overall review at all.


He said if someone thinks a film looks bad then the reviewer has a right to say so. I said that's a fair point because I think it is. But I also said its not something that the viewer should solely judge the film on

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 4:15am

Post #31 of 112 (386 views)
Shortcut
It is indeed, but it is a problem critics supposedly have some obligation to take into consideration, and to avoid falling into. [In reply to] Can't Post

The business of critics is, ostensibly, to judge the movie they are viewing on its own merits and flaws. Not by pure comparison to a related film that was "better" or "worse". It is perfectly valid to say "I did not like this film as much as (insert previous title)," or "it did not work as well, on certain levels etc. etc. etc. as (insert alternate title)." But to say, essentially, "this film didn't please me as much as/in the same way as another film (or set thereof) by the same team and set in the same period/legendarium, and so I am going to dispense with judging this film on its own standards, and I am going to completely trash it for NOT being what I may have half-expected." That is a horrible and irresponsible method of criticism and journalism.


Your entirely right to say that is largely what happened, but it was an entirely wrong approach for critics to take. And it is unfair in more ways than one. This movie is NOT supposed to be a redux of The Lord of The Rings. Indeed, is that not the very thing so many feared? That all the quieter charm of The Hobbit would be drowned out by the imposition of a mountain of sturm and drang and mournful dirges and melancholy where it didn't belong. The Hobbit was not just a good, even a great movie by some measures; it was also a rather good attempt at finding a middle ground between a pure translation of The Hobbit and an opening act for Te Lord of The Rings. And I say this as someone who has not hesitated to throw rotten fruit, vegatables and shoes at Peter et al for superfulous changes, and for ham fisted handling of certain elements of the story. In this film, I remain rather annoyed with his alterations to the history of The Dwarves, all the more because there were better ways to have managed what he was trying to do with the likes of Azog, whilst still remaining more true to the more powerful tale recounted in the novels. Yet, given fair consideration, it is hard to deny that a number of the scenes in this movie (especially on the front end) held on very well to much of the charm and enchantment of The Hobbit, and that at points it also rose to the grandeur and elegance of Th Lord of The Rings. To have done it more heavily in the style of The Rings really would have damaged The Hobbit.


I cannot shake the notion that the people who saw "loads of bloat" had been looking for it from the moment they heard about the changes Peter was making. Seek and ye shalt find. I confess, even I was looking for much more bloat than I actually found. Oh there were still things that could have gone, and a few things that should have been left unaltered. . . but there was no pointless, souless, emotionless stretch of waste anywhere that I can recall. Had this been a generic genre movie, sans the title,sans the prior related movies, sans the source novel etc. and I seen it. . . I would have found it rather spectacular. . . I dare say some of these heavy handed critics might have done the same under those alternate circumstances. It is, by most measures of a film, a much better movie than Avengers (a film I enjoyed) which was only 15 minutes shorter and was praised to high heaven. Attitude can GREATLY effect perception, and if one enters a situation with even an undercurrent of negative sentiment, cynicism etc., just as with any hostile prejudice, then the object of one's evaluation has to be twice as good to receive half the credit.

In Reply To
That's exactly the problem. The LotR films were exceptional blockbusters, with far more content and style than "standard". The critics (and the rest of us) had every reason and encouragement to expect that TH would be at that level, and it just isn't (although there are moments that do rise to it). So you have the problem of elevated expectations, both for the film and for the ambitious use of the new medium, and there's nothing deadlier than failed expectations.


"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."


Elizabeth
Valinor


Dec 29 2012, 5:02am

Post #32 of 112 (397 views)
Shortcut
All the quieter charm of The Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

...was exquisitely clear in the early scenes in Bag End, and at moments elsewhere. These were the best parts of the picture. I don't think that's what the critics saw as "bloat". Where it got bloated was the bludgeoning home of the Elves v. Dwarves conflict, the long, dreary "action" sequences of aimless attacks by thousands of ugly but ineffectual orcs, the drawn-out White Council segment (I really don't think that backstory is going to contribute much to the trilogy except length), and the patently phony ending with the maudlin rescue of Thorin and "reconciliation" scene. Jackson is not happy with "quiet charm", he is going for "standard blockbuster." Yawn.






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Aragorn the Elfstone
Grey Havens


Dec 29 2012, 5:04am

Post #33 of 112 (401 views)
Shortcut
Many critics explicitly stated that they felt the film was too drawn out in the Bag End sequence... [In reply to] Can't Post

Most of the complaints I've read are directed squarely at that whole scene. So that is most definitely included in the "bloat" talk.

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 29 2012, 5:10am)


Tim
Tol Eressea


Dec 29 2012, 5:36am

Post #34 of 112 (379 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, couldn't disagree more. [In reply to] Can't Post

'nuff said. Unimpressed

Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.


Elizabeth
Valinor


Dec 29 2012, 5:42am

Post #35 of 112 (375 views)
Shortcut
In the prologue, maybe. [In reply to] Can't Post

There was an awful lot of chit-chat between Frodo and Old Bilbo that didn't seem necessary, and maybe Bilbo-Gandalf might have been tightened up a bit. Once the dwarves arrived it was terrific.






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Ave Moria
Rivendell


Dec 29 2012, 5:44am

Post #36 of 112 (333 views)
Shortcut
;) [In reply to] Can't Post

Indeed.

-In the Darkness, a torch we hold-


Ave Moria
Rivendell


Dec 29 2012, 5:48am

Post #37 of 112 (361 views)
Shortcut
the problem is... [In reply to] Can't Post

You're speaking for yourself as if you're speaking for everyone, when you're really just speaking for yourself and those that agree with you. I don't.

I felt The Hobbit was easily up to the level of Rings and surpassed it in some respects.

In my opinion, it's absurd to expect prior to viewing The Hobbit to be at the same level of Rings though, because Rings is a completely different animal. One is a personal, revenge quest and the other is a quest to save the entire world.

It's like comparing Macroeconomics and Microeconomics. One concerns the whole, the other concerns a small group within the whole. Is one better? No, just different.

It's like hating a cheeseburger because it's not a steak.

-In the Darkness, a torch we hold-

(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 29 2012, 5:32pm)


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Dec 29 2012, 5:52am

Post #38 of 112 (345 views)
Shortcut
Yet they tried to amp up the drama in Hobbit. [In reply to] Can't Post

The difference to LOTR is, their attempts fall flat for the most part, at least for me.

They could have made just a light fare like Indiana Jones but they didn't. They mixed it up.

I might like it better on my 2nd viewing, now that i know what i'm getting. Unsure


Aragorn the Elfstone
Grey Havens


Dec 29 2012, 5:57am

Post #39 of 112 (380 views)
Shortcut
I agree about the dwarves, but the critics certainly didn't. [In reply to] Can't Post

I read many a comment in reviews about how the film spent too much time with the dwarves eating, singing, etc. That is definitely where a lot of the criticism has been targeted.

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 29 2012, 6:01am)


Ave Moria
Rivendell


Dec 29 2012, 6:04am

Post #40 of 112 (399 views)
Shortcut
Nope [In reply to] Can't Post

The bludgeoning home of the Elves vs Dwarves conflict? Two brief scenes constitutes "bludgeoning"?



Dreary means lifeless and depressing. None of the action sequences fit this description. I on the other hand, saw scenes that stressed the evil of the Orcs, the teamwork of the Dwarves and the danger of the quest. Nothing depressing or lifeless. Sorry, nope.

Ineffectual Orcs? You have to show danger but the principals obviously can't die, so why nitpick this? Azog was hardly ineffectual when he decapitated the Dwarf King.

Drawn out White Council segment? This was necessary exposition, restating the threat of Smaug beyond a simple revenge quest, the reasoning for concern for Dol Guldur, and the seeds of Sauron's reemergence.

You don't think that contributed? What part of the following doesn't contribute?

1. Re-stressing the threat of Smaug.
2. Laying the foundation for the reemergence of Sauron
3. Hinting at the later turn of Saruman through his lack of support of Gandalf, and general arrogance.
4. Foreshadowing Galadriel's role in the fall of Guldur.
5. Setting the stage for the shadow of Sauron's rise in Rings by mentioning the watchful peace, and visually portraying those that fought against him in the early days (Elrond)

Patently phony? For you to say that and be right, you would have to know for sure that PJ and crew were motivated by ill designs when they wrote that scene and purposely wrote it to anger fans and arbitrarily invent something that has no meaning in order to be false artistically just to anger some fans.

It's clear this scene is EXACTLY true to the spirit of not only the book, but the characters because the KEY CONCEPT here is Bilbo proving himself to a reluctant Thorin, and gaining the respect of the Dwarves which is EXACTLY what happens in the book thematically.

When I see the Hobbit, I see an army of talented people working and dedicating years of their lives to try and bring a classic book to life, and the end result is a film that not only captures the SPIRIT and ESSENCE of the book and its themes, but the essence of the characters as well.

-In the Darkness, a torch we hold-

(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 29 2012, 5:31pm)


Bladerunner
Gondor


Dec 29 2012, 6:30am

Post #41 of 112 (342 views)
Shortcut
I value a critic who can make a distinction between form and content. [In reply to] Can't Post

As a professional reviewer, he or she would owe that much to his or her readers. Otherwise, at least for me, the value of that criticism is diminished.

I just saw the film in 2D 24fps after having seen it in a couple other formats, including HFR, and I have noticed that:
a.) I appreciate more aspects of the film, with each viewing (i.e. - my film rating has increased after each viewing. Currently, I would score it a 8.5/10.
b.) frame rate options are a matter of personal taste and preference; for a critic to vent that vociferously against a film based on one of its viewing formats is sophomoric. (Akin to a food critic who dislikes curry, proclaiming that some restaurant is the worst of 2012 because he doesn't like the curry dishes).
c.) judging a film primarily by the frame rate, resolution, 3D/2D format in which you view it, is also lazy, especially when there are other options available to the public; Like it or not, the Pandora's box of variable frame rate has been opened.
d.) I've seen this film with different groups of friends that are not Tolkien aficionados, and they have unanimously enjoyed it, (As a matter of fact, the only consistent complaint and strongest reaction has been that it ended too soon) so I would not categorize it as the worst film of 2012. I consider such a pronouncement as bombast and hyperbole, and if said in seriousness, then it does more to discredit the critic than the film being criticized. The film is indefensible? Give me a break...


Elessar
Valinor


Dec 29 2012, 6:42am

Post #42 of 112 (331 views)
Shortcut
Seeking attention [In reply to] Can't Post

CNN must be needing some hits to its site. That's really the only reason such an absurd claim can be made.

I've seen this four times now with a couple more coming and for me it's easily as good as The Lord of the Rings. It's just different which it should be and why I like it as much. I could do without the belching, close up of the drinking, bird poop, and chin on the Goblin King. Honestly, my main complaint was that it had to end and I couldn't see the rest of them now. This film to me is a 9.25/10 :)



N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 7:24am

Post #43 of 112 (349 views)
Shortcut
"That was Thorin's style. He was an important dwarf." [In reply to] Can't Post

"If he had been allowed, he probably would have gone on like this until he was out of breath, without telling any one there anything that was not known already."

That is Tolkien's Thorin, whose fustian persists as late as the arrival at the secret door, where the narrator kindly "will not give [the reader] any more of it".

You praise the filmmakers for delivering "the essence of the characters", but where is Thorin the comic blowhard?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Elizabeth
Valinor


Dec 29 2012, 8:39am

Post #44 of 112 (336 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, I clearly hit a nerve! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What are you possibly referring to?

The bludgeoning home of the Elves vs Dwarves conflict? Two brief scenes constitutes "bludgeoning"?


No "right" or "wrong" here, just opinions. These are mine, and others have agreed with me. Clearly you don't. That's ok.

I don't think it was necessary to make up the bit about the Elves declining help, although I'll admit Thranduil's elk was spectacular. It was heavy-handed and overdone.

Tolkien was able to set up the conflict quite easily: Dwarves don't get on well with [Elves]. Even decent enough dwarves like Thorin and his friends think them foolish (which is a very foolish thing to think), or get annoyed with them. For some elves tease them and laugh at them,and most of all at their beards. Gandalf could have explained that to Bilbo easily just before they entered Rivendell.


Quote
Dreary means lifeless and depressing. None of the action sequences fit this description. I on the other hand, saw scenes that stressed the evil of the Orcs, the teamwork of the Dwarves and the danger of the quest. Nothing depressing or lifeless. Sorry, nope.

Ineffectual Orcs? You have to show danger but the principals obviously can't die, so why nitpick this? Azog was hardly ineffectual when he decapitated the Dwarf King.


It's not at all obvious, at least to many audience members, that none of the dwarves will be picked off. More importantly, it's absurd to show hundreds of orcs attacking 13 dwarves and a hobbit and they fight their way out with what seems like trivial ease; to show more hundreds being effortlessly swept off impractical catwalks, etc. Since most of the shots were from a high, distant vantage point, you couldn't even see the teamwork (as, for instance, you could with the Fellowship in Moria). It may sound strange to speak of credibility in a fantasy movie about dwarves and orcs, but there is such a thing. These sequences of repetitive, cartoon violence didn't contain any credible threats or interesting situations, they were just loud and boring, which is dreary in my book.


Quote
Drawn out White Council segment? This was necessary exposition, restating the threat of Smaug beyond a simple revenge quest, the reasoning for concern for Dol Guldur, and the seeds of Sauron's reemergence.

You don't think that contributed? What part of the following doesn't contribute?

1. Re-stressing the threat of Smaug.
2. Laying the foundation for the reemergence of Sauron
3. Hinting at the later turn of Saruman through his lack of support of Gandalf, and general arrogance.
4. Foreshadowing Galadriel's role in the fall of Guldur.
5. Setting the stage for the shadow of Sauron's rise in Rings by mentioning the watchful peace, and visually portraying those that fought against him in the early days (Elrond)


Well, I'm in the camp that thinks playing out this whole Dol Guldur subplot is unnecessary. Smaug's threat was made quite clear in the Prolog. It's not necessary to tie the Necromancer to Sauron at this point, he can be sufficiently sinister on his own. And we have no idea what Galadriel's role is going to be. In any case, it has nothing to do with this movie, and weakens it. They could reveal all this stuff later, when it's more relevant.


Quote
Patently phony? For you to say that and be right, you would have to know for sure that PJ and crew were motivated by ill designs when they wrote that scene and purposely wrote it to anger fans and arbitrarily invent something that has no meaning in order to be false artistically just to anger some fans.


I don't accuse PJ and crew of any of those things, only of allowing this to become a routine fantasy blockbuster instead of a unique story.


Quote
This scene is EXACTLY true to the spirit of not only the book, but the characters because the KEY CONCEPT here is Bilbo proving himself to a reluctant Thorin, and gaining the respect of the Dwarves which is EXACTLY what happens in the book thematically.


Eventually, yes, but not so soon. This was a fake scene that looks thrown in to gain some closure for this movie -- probably at the last minute, since AUJ was apparently planned to end with the barrels in the river. IMO it would have been a stronger ending if they had just gone with the eagles' rescue of the company from the wargs and fire, which is what happens in the book actually. Leave the tension between Thorin and Bilbo to simmer a while longer.


Quote
You don't speak for Peter Jackson. You speak for yourself.


Of course. That's all any of us can do.
...


Quote
When I see the Hobbit, I see an army of talented people working and dedicating years of their lives to try and bring a classic book to life, and the end result is a film that not only captures the SPIRIT and ESSENCE of the book and its themes, but the essence of the characters as well.


I don't demean their talents or their intent in the slightest. The result is open to the judgement of the viewers. Obviously some disagree with you, or the subject of this thread wouldn't be what it is.






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'

(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 29 2012, 6:07pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 9:34am

Post #45 of 112 (303 views)
Shortcut
Oh, I agree those were some of the best moments. But, with a notable few exceptions [In reply to] Can't Post

(the Huffington critic, and the Encylopedia contributor), most of the early criticisms of bloat were aimed directly, and by name, at the very scenes you (and I) greatly appreciated. Read the early mixed reviews. You will find that most of them ran, essentially thus, "Once you get past the first bloated hour of padding, the film really picks up into a rather exciting adventure." They complained about the Erebor backstory ( a powerful prolouge, frankly), and about the songs (Over Misty Mountains Cold is perhaps the most chillingly atmospheric and simultaneously charming moments in the film), and a great deal of the complaining really did come across, as a Forbes critic put it, as lazy piggybacking on the earlier complaints of a few others.

As is too often the case when a "genre" movie rises above slashes, and explosions, magical, laser or otherwise, much of the early and most damaging hammering of The Hobbit was for the moments of quiet charm. And "ain't that some mess?".

In Reply To
...was exquisitely clear in the early scenes in Bag End, and at moments elsewhere. These were the best parts of the picture. I don't think that's what the critics saw as "bloat". Where it got bloated was the bludgeoning home of the Elves v. Dwarves conflict, the long, dreary "action" sequences of aimless attacks by thousands of ugly but ineffectual orcs, the drawn-out White Council segment (I really don't think that backstory is going to contribute much to the trilogy except length), and the patently phony ending with the maudlin rescue of Thorin and "reconciliation" scene. Jackson is not happy with "quiet charm", he is going for "standard blockbuster." Yawn.


"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."


dubulous
Rohan

Dec 29 2012, 9:45am

Post #46 of 112 (277 views)
Shortcut
Attention seeking [In reply to] Can't Post

There's absolutely no other reason to name The Hobbit even among the worst. It's sad really what people and media resort to for attention these days.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 9:52am

Post #47 of 112 (281 views)
Shortcut
Well. . . they had a Wizard with them. Maybe one of the more subtle aspects of the magic [In reply to] Can't Post

is granting improbable good fortune to nearby friends. lol. He cannot be TOO obvious too often, you know Wink But what are a few orcs, really, for one who can stand against a Balrog: against a Demon who set an entire nation of Dwarves and a third of the Elf kingdom of Lothlorien fleeing into the hinterlands? *Voice becoming sombre and serious.* And right they were to flee. For who among them, save perhaps The Lady of The Golden Wood at great personal peril, could hope to stand against so malevolent a being, one who had been present at and a participant in the very creation of The World. Unimpressed


Quote
Ineffectual Orcs? Wrong again. You have to show danger but the principals obviously can't die, so why nitpick this? Azog was hardly ineffectual when he decapitated the Dwarf King.


It's not at all obvious, at least to many audience members, that none of the dwarves will be picked off. More importantly, it's absurd to show hundreds of orcs attacking 13 dwarves and a hobbit and they fight their way out with what seems like trivial ease; to show more hundreds being effortlessly swept off impractical catwalks, etc. Since most of the shots were from a high, distant vantage point, you couldn't even see the teamwork (as, for instance, you could with the Fellowship in Moria). It may sound strange to speak of credibility in a fantasy movie about dwarves and orcs, but there is such a thing. These sequences of repetitive, cartoon violence didn't contain any credible threats or interesting situations, they were just loud and boring, which is dreary in my book.


"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."


DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 10:14am

Post #48 of 112 (279 views)
Shortcut
Surely he should be reviewing the film [In reply to] Can't Post

And not the 48fps?

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 10:33am

Post #49 of 112 (286 views)
Shortcut
Classical music critics comment on the acoustics of orchestral halls all the time. [In reply to] Can't Post

Fine art critics often discuss the framing, hanging, and especially the curating, and not just the paintings.

There's nothing untoward here. Really. One of the biggest impressions I took away from my opening day screening was that the film was so hideous in appearance. And given that Peter Jackson had stressed the wonders of the new technology in advance, it is only to be expected that the reviewers (who were doubtless shown a 48 fps 3D print in the press screenings) would take him seriously!

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


burrahobbit
Rohan


Dec 29 2012, 11:36am

Post #50 of 112 (265 views)
Shortcut
It's based on the following review [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/showbiz/movies/the-hobbit-review-charity/?hpt=en_c1

Tom Charity dislikes both the film and the format, and explains why.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 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.