|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Dec 29 2012, 11:59am
Post #51 of 112
(1003 views)
Shortcut
|
Also there are many many with this opinion. 
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 29 2012, 12:15pm
Post #52 of 112
(1027 views)
Shortcut
|
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/showbiz/movies/the-hobbit-review-charity/?hpt=en_c1
it seems that the critic enjoyed the LotR trilogy, has read The Hobbit book, and found the experience of AUJ extremely disappointing; a "major comedown, a muddle-headed and cumbersome piece of filmmaking that betrays Jackson's mercenary motives."
So while AUJ is certainly not the worst film of the year (and shouldn't be number 1 in this chart), it does seem to be by far the most disappointing cinema experience of the year for this critic, as it was for me.
No one would expect Resident Evil, a film from a computer game, or Breaking Dawn, a film from a cult teenage romance book, to be anything other than trash. I think however we can be forgiven for thinking a multi-oscar winning director adapting an acclaimed fantasy book had the potential to be great.
|
|
|
Silranhir
Nevrast
Dec 29 2012, 12:37pm
Post #53 of 112
(1005 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it really invalidates his opinion a lot
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When he names it as the worst fil of 2012. His review just reads of a sulky and cynical critic who doesn't like HFR and is lambasting Jackson becasue he wrongly believes that he has made three films for the money to make himself richer. Sorry, but there is very little reviewing of the actual film in the piece apart from the often stated 'could have been shorter'.
Film critics opinions are no more important than mine or yours, and offer very little information now in the main. There is only one critic I listen too (even if I don't agree sometimes) and that is Mark Kermode on BBC 5 Live. His review was pretty much spot on. He says it is too long (I agree 30 mins could have been cut although I enjoyed it as it is) and he didn't enjoy the 48fps. He also says there is good stuff in it and it's enjoyable.The full review is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muD8SHUV3YU and is certainly worth a listen.
By the way, his worst films of 2012 included classics like:
Battleship
Deviation
The Devil Inside
That's My Boy
Jack And Jill
The number one? Keith Lemon The Movie.
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Dec 29 2012, 12:48pm
Post #54 of 112
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah he is probably the only one i actively go out of my way to listen to
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Most others i just see their reviews if im on IMDB/RT or random newspapers.
I agree it is nowhere near the worst film of the year but for me was a disappointment. All the films in the top 10 worst films were far worse as films than the hobbit.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 29 2012, 1:02pm
Post #55 of 112
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
The CNN critic is making the same points as lots of other critics, e.g. Salon, New York Times, Guardian, Telegraph:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/reviews/?type=top_critics
Now you could argue that all these critics are "sulky and cynical", but I find it far more convincing that these critics simply found it a middle-of-the-road film and explained why.
The three film argument is much more substantial than 'it could have been shorter'. It's that the Hobbit book is a brief narrative that much more naturally fits into two (or even one!) film, that would best capture the dramatic journey of the original. By covering so little of the book in AUJ, the viewer experiences little drama and character development, and Jackson is forced to pad-out scenes.
What reason is there for making three films? The artistic and dramatic rationale is very weak. The three film decision has I think greatly reduced the enjoyment of the film for many viewers. About two-thirds of the reviews I've read make this point negatively, and it's certainly one that chimes strongly with my experience of the film.
The main reason is surely commercial. Not to make Jackson personally rich, rather to please the studio and keep the New Zealand film industry that Jackson loves going.
Here's another article I read today in the Guardian making the same commercial point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/28/worst-ideas-2012-multi-part-movie
(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Dec 29 2012, 1:06pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Doriath
Dec 29 2012, 1:43pm
Post #56 of 112
(992 views)
Shortcut
|
While I could see to some extend how 2 movies might have worked... imagining one movie... I really only come up with a rushed mess.
Unless you would have left the movie being a mere children's film (which I would have found dissapointing). Of course, that would have been 100% Tolkien then.
But what I (and I think a lot of people, including the producers) wanted were more Middle-earth movies.
The pace, style and length of the Hobbit - imho - could not have fullfilled that wish, really.
And even if you cut stuff from AUJ (Frodo, giants, White Council, Radagast) how much screen-time would that have give n us? 45 minutes? Those 45 minutes could have been used for Carrock and the spiders. But that would have meant two more set-pieces, two more episodes and another one with the dwarves being in danger, Bilbo saving them...
I guess two (or one) movie would have meant cutting A LOT, robbing the movie the feeling of "deepness" and "history" that describes Tolkien for many (and also the LotR movie trilogy).
Granted, AUJ did not have much of this yet (safe the White Council and the Prologue), but I am sure it will grow in DoS and TABA when we now have time to really get to know the Woodelves and Laketown.
Of course, someone could say to me: Wow, you do not seem to trust the source material at all.
And to some extend this person would be right: I never trusted the Hobbit - THE book - as the sole source-material for a movie coming out AFTER the LOTR movies.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Dec 29 2012, 1:47pm)
|
|
|
Silranhir
Nevrast
Dec 29 2012, 1:54pm
Post #57 of 112
(968 views)
Shortcut
|
It would never have worked as just one film, even Jackson has explained the problem with the book and I've said the same in other posts. The book has too much happening (repetitively) in too short a space of time for it to translate into one film. It would have felt like a non stop adventure film where each scene is rushed. The big challenge for Jackson with the Hobbit is that firstly, it isn't a good book to base a movie on to begin with, and secondly you have to find a way to slow the pace down. Jackson decided to add the LOTR appendices into the story so that the gaps were filled in as such.
Even you saying that the move to make three films 'to please the studio' is going against what we know to have happened as a fact. And the Guardian link you gave is trying to give the 'one size fits all' treatment to a multitude of scenarios without very little basis for facts. It wasn't WB who decided on three films, it was Jackson who requested it because he had filmed 'so much good material' he didn't want to lose any of it trying to fit it into three films. Now, of course WB said yes because they were thinking of cash but they certainly didn't force the idea purely from their own greed. If Jackson hadn't come up with the idea then it would still have been two films.
We won't actually know until the end of the third film how much adding the third film has stretched the story. If you watched the review I linked to, it is stated that the first film has ended where it was pretty much going to end anyway so this may have been the first film showing as intended. If Boyens is to be believed then the next two will be shorter in length. I think this will mean increased length of the major scenes where with two films they would have probably been cut shorter than Jackson wanted. I firmly believe once we have seen the 3 films in their entirety, we will see how it all fit in.
My problem is that many of the critics were already in a bad frame of mind with the two/three films extension and the HRF issue, so much so that they were reviewing the 48fps rather than the film. If they hated the HFR then they should view it again in 24fps. The argument made above comparing it to music reviews is invalid as you don't have the option with music to re-review it in your preferred format. In this case the older 24fps. Then, and only then, will they be reviewing the film rather than struggling with the new tech. The reason I like the BBC reviews is that Simon Mayo hits the nail on the head when he says that many reviewers have not got the balance right.
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Dec 29 2012, 2:08pm
Post #58 of 112
(952 views)
Shortcut
|
There are many many many the other way 
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Dec 29 2012, 2:20pm
Post #59 of 112
(947 views)
Shortcut
|
I really hate it when people come across telling me how I should feel. I'm cool with and may not agree with their opinion, but to tell me that I SHOULD feel that way because you deem yourself smarter hacks me off badly. I felt The Hobbit was as good as The Lord of the Rings films and that it was as different as it should have been. If you don't agree that's fine or if you do agree that's fine but PLEASE think about how your post comes across.
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 2:20pm
Post #60 of 112
(978 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that tells you the big problem PJ had...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'v only had the chance to see it once and I'd agree with you the Dwaves at bagend was one of my favourite sections but theres also no escaping that it has been picked out for criticism by many people.
Its an opinion many here will disagree with but to me it was really inescapable that a Hobbit film that followed the book as far as Mirkwood would have even more bloated and directionless. You can talk about a tighter focus on Bilbo but its not as if the sections of AUJ more directly from the book lack Bilbo. For me the extra Thorin/Azog material really was essential to give the film some drive, not just in terms of the action climax but by giving Thorin more depth earlier I think Jackson allowed Bilbo to devolp it aswell.
The impression I got from AUJ was that Jacksons alternative to more Thorin/Azog and a trilogy would have been to enguage in some very large scale cutting, trolls, wargs, eagles, beorn etc I think that to make a cohertant film ending say with the barrel escape may have needed to give most of them the chop.
We afterall saw Jackson weld the axe pretty extensively in FOTR removing the Old Forrest/Tom/Barrows section entirely aswell as the Warg attack. The alternative to that would IMHO have been to look to tie those sections more into the main plot with extra material and ultimately expand things to the stage where FOTR needed to be delt with in 2 films.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 2:47pm
Post #61 of 112
(961 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't really think people are saying 48fps shouldn't be mentioned.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It absolutely should be mentioned and talked about. But it should not color the review of the film. Following your example, should one's appraisal of Mozart be affected by the sound quality of one specific concert hall, or how good your sound system at home is? Should my appreciation of Rembrandt be judged on the basis of the frame in which it's hung at my local art museum, or the museum itself? The answer should be obvious.
48fps should absolutely be discussed (i've only seen the 24fps version myself, but look forward to seeing 48fps), but the quality of The Hobbit as a film is a completely separate matter. And it's completely unprofessional of critics to base their review of a film on something that less than 10% of people will ever see in theaters, and will not be seen for many many years (if ever) on home video. I'll say it again: if 48fps distracted a critic so much that their dislike colored the entire review, they should have held off writing their review until they could see it in 24fps-- the way virtually everyone else is seeing it-- and write a proper review.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 4:24pm
Post #62 of 112
(933 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Personally, i think the film got most tedious
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when it tried to cram too much in. I pretty much loved everything up to and including Rivendell. There were just a few minor complaints at that point-- the troll's snot silliness, anything to do with Azog, Radagast's warg chase. Aside from those fairly minor things (the Azog problem would rear it's ugly head later), the first half of The Hobbit was just as good as the first half of Fellowship, i thought. The second half, on the other hand, is another matter.
Aside from the fantastic riddles scene (my god, how brilliant is Gollum?!), Bilbo's "home" speech, and the eagles, the last half of the film is a mess. Goblin town looked cool, but overall just felt formless, with no real iconic moments (well, Gandalf's arrival was incredibly awesome). The stone giants looked great from a distance, but should have stayed that way, as the dwarves interacting with them was just silly (to put it kindly). And i don't know what they were thinking turning such a truly great scene as the wargs at the base of the trees into whatever that was on the screen. Wargs knocking down trees? Trees falling like dominos?
It's almost like PJ doesn't trust himself enough to just let scenes breath. I swear, the only time i can remember a specific dwarf doing anything in goblin town is when Dwalin was the one in front when they were knocking off goblins with that log. That's seriously it. Same with the final battle, i remember Gandalf lighting the pine cones (very cool), then Thorin's confrontation with Azog, and Bilbo stepping in. That's it. Otherwise it's just a mess of action, with PJ cramming so much stuff into the screen that you can't see anything because there's nothing to focus on. It's like he's been taking lessons form Michael Bay in Transformers mode.
I liked The Hobbit, i really did. I just wish PJ would trust the material, and the characters and their relationships, more. I actually think The Hobbit should have been longer, to give those action scenes a few extra beats for the audience to latch on to, maybe give the characters some moments to be remembered. Hopefully the EE will remedy some of this (the EE certainly increased my estimation of The Two Towers).
|
|
|
Corsair of Umbar
Lindon
Dec 29 2012, 4:27pm
Post #63 of 112
(939 views)
Shortcut
|
I am a huge Tolkien fan and have been since I first read the Hobbit thirty-five-some years ago. I remember joining this site years ago when the trilogy was announced. I was even a forum-moderator back then. Those were some of the best days ever--the anticipation, seeing the cast coming together, the midnight screenings, it was all such a blast. I missed out on Star Wars, I think I was a little too old when it came out, so I don't have Star Wars as a cultural touchpoint. LoTR was always my thing, and when I saw FotR, it was the first of probably twenty-five viewings in the theater. My wife thought I was nuts. Every time I was feeling down or bored, I'd just go to the movies and get immersed in Middle Earth.
So when the Hobbit rolled around I was interested but not totally psyched. I liked Del Toro and thought it would be interesting, but didn't join any fan sites or even think about it often. But before I knew it, December was here, and I had only seen a few trailers. I was a little annoyed about the decision to turn it into three films, though.
Well, I finally got a chance to see the Hobbit in 3D over the holiday and I was HUGELY disappointed. At one point I turned to my brothert in the theatre and whispered, "Uh, what movie is this?"
The Hobbit is such a classic book. Didn't it deserve a faithful adaptation? I certainly know that a book is not a film, and a film adaptation is an entirely different beast. But this adaptation was truly sad. You all know the changes and characters that I am referring to, so there's no need to go into all the issues I have with the film. I was so saddened and angry when I left the movie. It seemed like PJ& Co. forgot the first tenet of telling a story: let the reader/viewer experience the story through your main character. At times, it was like the story wasn't even Bilbo's.
I could go on. But I won't. I am sure there are a lot of people who have posted their disappointment with the film here. Maybe I can find them and see if people agree.
Overall, I found the film poorly written, veering wildly from the source material, and not satisfying in any way. Other than the cinematic visuals, it was a huge thumbs down. Maybe one day, someone can come along and make a true Hobbit film, but I doubt it. The way I see it, the power players in the film industry wanted another big franchise and made PJ& Co. do this. I'm not one to complain about Hollywood, but three films being made from a beloved children's book is just pure greed.
Sad day for me.
|
|
|
Aragalen the Green
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 4:42pm
Post #64 of 112
(907 views)
Shortcut
|
|
At least the commenters are giving the reviewer a run for his money. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
" Well well!", said a voice. "Just look! Bilbo the hobbit on a pony, my dear! Isn't it delicious!"
"Most astonishing wonderful!"
|
|
|
Ave Moria
Ossiriand
Dec 29 2012, 4:53pm
Post #65 of 112
(940 views)
Shortcut
|
What movie is this? It's The Hobbit.
The story of The Hobbit isn't Bilbo's. It's the story of many characters in middle earth, and Bilbo is a witness. Unless you want a first person shooter with a slave cam hooked to Bilbo's face, you're going to see the other aspects of the story play out without a Bilbo-centric slant sometimes. Otherwise, how do you get the audience to care about 13 Dwarves, and the backstory of their race?
That means that the Hobbit book is, because most of the dialogue in the film is from the book and what isn't is faithful to the tone and overall ideas of the scenes they are expanding from the book.
Veering wildly? Uh, no. So they changed an Orc around and expanded the Stone Giants, etc. So what? The payoff for alot of the changes is still to come with the next two films.
Not satisfying in any way? Wow. There are many powerful scenes in this film, and if you were able to view them and have no reaction, you are missing something inside. That's like looking at a beautiful sunset and saying "Meh."
Riddles in the Dark? Nothing. Flatline huh? Thorin charging Azog? Crickets huh? And a true Hobbit film?
You DO realize that if they made the Hobbit as a single film straight from the book it would be a mess. You want to talk about BLOAT and things getting short shrift? Yeah. Let's see NO backstory for the Dwarves. No prologue. Nice way to not care about the Dwarves when they show up or their motivation.
Smaug, Smaug battles, battle of 5 armies? Battle of 5 minutes. Bilbo SLEEPING through it? You want to see THAT?
PJ is worth close to 500 million and still lives at home in New Zealand. He doesn't NEED more money. And New Line and Warners didn't really want to MAKE the movie for a while, so it's not greed.
It's this simple. The Hobbit needed some changes in translation to the big screen, and with the appendices being available, only a fool would leave that material out. You don't want to see as much of Tolkien's work on screen as possible? I know I do.
Lastly, not only is the Hobbit it's own beast and set of challenges, BUT it needs to support, expand and compliment a massive pre-existing cinema trilogy! Have you ever considered the decision to make three movies is not only a way to balance out the two film series, but also as a way to refine and compliment one another, fleshing out ideas in each?
-In the Darkness, a torch we hold-
(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 29 2012, 5:23pm)
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 5:34pm
Post #66 of 112
(880 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agreed about some of the action but not Azog
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when it tried to cram too much in. I pretty much loved everything up to and including Rivendell. There were just a few minor complaints at that point-- the troll's snot silliness, anything to do with Azog, Radagast's warg chase. Aside from those fairly minor things (the Azog problem would rear it's ugly head later), the first half of The Hobbit was just as good as the first half of Fellowship, i thought. The second half, on the other hand, is another matter.
Aside from the fantastic riddles scene (my god, how brilliant is Gollum?!), Bilbo's "home" speech, and the eagles, the last half of the film is a mess. Goblin town looked cool, but overall just felt formless, with no real iconic moments (well, Gandalf's arrival was incredibly awesome). The stone giants looked great from a distance, but should have stayed that way, as the dwarves interacting with them was just silly (to put it kindly). And i don't know what they were thinking turning such a truly great scene as the wargs at the base of the trees into whatever that was on the screen. Wargs knocking down trees? Trees falling like dominos?
It's almost like PJ doesn't trust himself enough to just let scenes breath. I swear, the only time i can remember a specific dwarf doing anything in goblin town is when Dwalin was the one in front when they were knocking off goblins with that log. That's seriously it. Same with the final battle, i remember Gandalf lighting the pine cones (very cool), then Thorin's confrontation with Azog, and Bilbo stepping in. That's it. Otherwise it's just a mess of action, with PJ cramming so much stuff into the screen that you can't see anything because there's nothing to focus on. It's like he's been taking lessons form Michael Bay in Transformers mode.
I liked The Hobbit, i really did. I just wish PJ would trust the material, and the characters and their relationships, more. I actually think The Hobbit should have been longer, to give those action scenes a few extra beats for the audience to latch on to, maybe give the characters some moments to be remembered. Hopefully the EE will remedy some of this (the EE certainly increased my estimation of The Two Towers).
I do think its a weakness of PJ's that he sometimes allows action scenes to get rather bogged down and as you say not breath, the first Warg attack and Goblin town both went on for rather too long for me without really anything that memorable happening rather like say the Saurapod chase in Kong. Neither were helped by the fact we'd seen very similar scenes in LOTR either which were more memoriable.
The Stone Giants wasnt quite as bad for me, yes it was exessive but it was also more unique and interesting, more like say the Trex fight in Kong.
I disagree about Azog very strongly though, I think his introduction really was key in helping give the film depth and structure. Obviously he provided a climatic action scene but more importantly than that I think he allows for Thorins character to be given more depth which I think feeds though into everything else. A stronger Thorin with a greater sense of injustice does IMHO make for a stronger Bilbo aswell as more tension with the Elves.
The alternative to me would have been two films with AUJ going as far as Mirkwood but cutting out lots of material to focus on the more important sections. If you think AUJ was rushed as it is then I can see a more faithfiul version that carries on that far being much worse.
|
|
|
Corsair of Umbar
Lindon
Dec 29 2012, 5:52pm
Post #67 of 112
(892 views)
Shortcut
|
Good lord, Ave Moria you sound like a cultist trying to indoctrinate me into your fold.
Of course there are changes that have to be made from book to film. If you had perhaps read my post, thought pensively for a moment and THEN responded you would seen that I did mention that.
The Hobbit IS one person's story. Here's a tip: Alice in Wonderland. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Harriet the Spy...see? One person's experience. Of course, their adventure is always changed and effected by OTHER characters.
Perhaps you should try respecting other opinions when they state them in a non-condescending way, which is what I did in my post.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 29 2012, 6:08pm)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Dec 29 2012, 5:55pm
Post #68 of 112
(859 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It should absolutely affect the review. It does in music.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have not infrequently seen music reviews --which are intended to comment on both the work and the performance-- that says that both were hurt by poor acoustics. Is the music critic supposed to wait to write his review until the orchestra performs the work in a better space? And your comparison to Mozart and Rembrandt doesn't work so well if it's a new piece of music that's under discussion.
The format in which the film is shown, particularly as it was shown to critics on the filmmaker's instructions, must be given serious consideration. And your suggestion that critics who didn't like the film because of the format should have waited until he could see it in another format is not practical: those publications wanted to have a review available by opening day. If the filmmakers wanted critics to treat the other formats as definitive, then that's what they should have screened.
As for differences of form and content, artists have spent the past century telling people they were inextricable. And in this particular instance, the filmmaker was claiming that the new format would play a significant part in the quality of the work, and was hoist by his own petard.
(In any case, this particular critic did make other comments on the film's quality, as burrahobbit has noted.)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 5:55pm
Post #69 of 112
(848 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Except you can't really say "nope" to this.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
These are strange things called "opinions". By all means, feel free to disagree, verbosely even (as I'm doing now), with other's views or statements, to counter them with argument and develop debate...but one can't simply state another's opinions on the film are objectively wrong. Believe it or not, many of the criticisms of AUJ are totally valid and not just wanton nitpicking.
In point of fact, I happen to agree with some of Elizabeth's remarks; what WAS up with that Goblin-town sequence? How has this mass of utterly inept Orcs survived this long? Three Legolas-esque Elves should have decimated their entire civilization years ago. And in my opinion, the entire sequence looked like a video game. I'll take Moria in FotR any day of the week, thanks.
My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 6:01pm
Post #70 of 112
(852 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd agree with almost all of that, while I wouldnt consider all of Jacksons choices to have been ideal I walked out of the Hobbit with a strong sense that he was correct in not going for a truer adaptation. I base that on the fact that we did actually get many scenes that were very true to the spirit of the book but that besides the unexpected party and Gollum I did not think they carried enough weight to sustain a film. If you ask me the alternative to Jacksons extra material and LOTR like atmosphere was IMHO to really gut the first half of the book, theres just not the weight in that material to craft a film of the standard we've come to expect from Tolkien adaptations. I'm not really supprized we have such strong disagreements about the Hobbit though if only because we've also had strong disagreements on how it should be adapted for years beforehand, someone was always going to end up being disapointed even if the film was entirely sucessful on its own terms simpley because it wasnt the film they wanted. The good news is I'd say that the worst is probabley out of the way, as we get to Mirkwood and then on to Smaug I think theres going to be more of an equalising in tone between book and film simpley because the former clearly shifts into a more serious one and provides much more depth of character.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 29 2012, 6:09pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 6:02pm
Post #71 of 112
(853 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess it depends on how much the change to Tolkien's history in order to get him into this film bothers you. If his role had been played by another "Lurtz" or "Gothmog" type, i wouldn't have cared at all. If they'd worked in Bolg, that would've been even better. But as it stands, i see Azog as a poorly designed, executed and integrated character, and his confrontation with Thorin at the end didn't carry much weight with me as a result (although that could just have easily been due to turning 2 films into 3, and needing some sort of emotional ending-- who knows?).
I hope that new details come to light in the next two films that redeem this choice the writers made (Zombie Azog? ha ha), but i kind of doubt it.
|
|
|
Ave Moria
Ossiriand
Dec 29 2012, 6:10pm
Post #72 of 112
(827 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree about Azog as well.
If you take Thorin's more heroic role out of the Moria backstory, then he becomes a simple participant, not a leader. This diminishes his role, and his respect in the film. His air of regality and heroism is dilluted and he becomes a cranky old man like in the book.
Second, if Azog dies in the Moria flashback, Bolg becomes just another Orc, because he is then not concerned with a personal vendetta against Thorin, which is most likely going to happen.
Third, take Azog out, and there is no danger all the way up Goblin Town really, aside from the Trolls. Everything else literally becomes a nice, long, safe HIKE.
That's not really going to work.
In response to an earlier point, if you take out Thorin and Bilbo's reconcilliation, which is indeed in spirit to the book in terms of Bilbo earning respect and Thorin slowly warming up to him, at exactly the same time in the book mind you, then the audience is left frankly cold at Thorin. Yes, he is brave and a leader, but he is too emotionally remote to attach to as a viewer and leaves the film on a low note instead of the high note it is.
-In the Darkness, a torch we hold-
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Dec 29 2012, 6:11pm
Post #73 of 112
(842 views)
Shortcut
|
---> Personal comments have been edited out of this thread - it will be locked if they continue! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Dec 29 2012, 6:22pm
Post #74 of 112
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Then proclaim it was the worst concert of the year
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
not that it was the worst piece of music written in the year.
Of course critics should comment on 48fps, as several people have already noted. It's difficult for some critics to separate one from the other as we've seen in other reviews. It just diminishes any critic's credibility, and/or exposes a bias, if they bash a composition itself because of the concert hall it was played in.
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 29 2012, 6:47pm
Post #75 of 112
(806 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A two film adaptation would be the best balance
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A one film adaptation would be possible, but severe. To avoid the feeling where each scene is rushed that you mention, you have to cut scenes in their entirety. So we'd probably have to relegate Beorn to the extended edition for example, which would be a real shame. Two films would likely be the best balance.
For two films the question is where is the most suitable place to split the films. As the whole story is about Bilbo and his character development, it makes sense to look at the most significant scenes where Bilbo's character advances-
Bag End- Bilbo decides to go on quest
Riddles in the Dark- Bilbo is left alone, finds courage to go on, outwits Gollum. Earns dwarves' grudging respect.
Mirkwood- Gandalf departs. Bilbo kills spider and rescues dwarves. Bilbo taking on leadership role in company.
Barrel Escape- Bilbo leads escape, earns dwarves admiration and trust. Arrival at Lonely Mountain.
At the doorstep- Bilbo helps find secret entrance.
Smaug Riddling- whole quest depends on Bilbo's courage and skill. He finds dragon's weakpoint.
Arkenstone- Bilbo steals stone, betrays dwarves based on his own moral beliefs. Thrown out of company by Thorin.
Thorin's death- Bilbo earns the love of the dwarves on his own terms- child of the kindly west who values friendship above gold.
Based on Bilbo's character arc, the most natural places to split the film are either after the Mirkwood spiders attack or after the Barrell escape. They are both key points in the story where Bilbo has shown his courage and has transformed his relationship with the dwarves.
The Jackson adaptation doesn't make much sense in screenwriting terms. He's had to manufacture a new compressed character arc for Bilbo, which lacked the emotion of the original and involved rescuing Thorin from a new character Azog. And he's also had to greatly extend various action scenes (goblin tunnels, Rivendell arrival, eagle escape) when there's little real danger or drama in the story. These decisions are I think the source of the many bloat and bad-pacing criticisms that have affected the film.
We won't actually know until the end of the third film how much adding the third film has stretched the story. FotR gave a pretty good idea of the pacing and quality of the LotR film trilogy- i.e. both were fantastically good. Maybe AUJ is misleading for one reason or another, but I don't think it's unfair of audiences and critics to comment on what they see. Cinema is not like a tv series where you can have a slow episode and rescue the series next weekend. Audiences have spend $10 or more and three hours of their time to see a complete film. If they don't get one they may not show up next time.
Even you saying that the move to make three films 'to please the studio' is going against what we know to have happened as a fact. I said "to please the studio and keep the New Zealand film industry that Jackson loves going". At no point did I say the studio chose this, Jackson made the decision, I argue, to please the studio and boost the NZ film industry. Seems to me to fit very well with the facts we know.
(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Dec 29 2012, 6:49pm)
|
|
|
|
|
