|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Êleniel Tindome
Ossiriand
Dec 29 2012, 6:55pm
Post #76 of 112
(869 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Someone who puts Tarantinos latest copy & paste crap on his number 1 list
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...cant be taken seriously
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 29 2012, 7:05pm
Post #77 of 112
(892 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sure I had a similar experience
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Rather sadly ironic that a story about the perils of greed has been adversely affected by commercial interests! 
It was strange that such experienced film makers could make fundamental errors in drama, emotion and pacing.
Anyway film-making is a funny business. Who was to know Del Toro would leave the project? Jackson deserves our eternal gratitude for the excellent LotR trilogy. He was never that keen on The Hobbit source material, and after 10 years of LotR, it's understandable he wanted to do his own thing with The Hobbit.
BTW I saw Life of Pi after viewing The Hobbit, and it was a nice way to renew my faith in fantasy cinema as it's wonderful!
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 7:20pm
Post #78 of 112
(874 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think theres any need for that...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think theres any need to start talking in those kinds of terms.
The reality is that if you express a very extreme view on a film in a forum dedicated to it in such generalised terms your almost definately going to get a response, freedom of speach isnt freedom from criticism.
Honiestly I got much more of a sense from your post of a predisposition to dislike the Hobbit more for what it wasnt rather than what it was.
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 7:35pm
Post #79 of 112
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nor is TH free from criticism either, or it shouldn't be. People are allowed to dislike it all they like, so to speak. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think theres any need to start talking in those kinds of terms.
The reality is that if you express a very extreme view on a film in a forum dedicated to it in such generalised terms your almost definately going to get a response, freedom of speach isnt freedom from criticism.
Honiestly I got much more of a sense from your post of a predisposition to dislike the Hobbit more for what it wasnt rather than what it was.
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, 7:39pm
Post #80 of 112
(864 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it was greed from Jackson...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Rather sadly ironic that a story about the perils of greed has been adversely affected by commercial interests! It was strange that such experienced film makers could make fundamental errors in drama, emotion and pacing. Anyway film-making is a funny business. Who was to know Del Toro would leave the project? Jackson deserves our eternal gratitude for the excellent LotR trilogy. He was never that keen on The Hobbit source material, and after 10 years of LotR, it's understandable he wanted to do his own thing with The Hobbit.
I was actually pleasently supprized just how much of the book was present in a similar tone but equally I could see the problems this created. The Hobbit maybe a much shorter work but its also much faster moving than LOTR which is naturally going to lead to a far longer film, too long IMHO to be sustained by the plot and characters as they are on the page. As I'v said elsewhere in this thread I think the extra Azog/Thorin material was the "price" for getting all these scenes from the book, scenes which IMHO need greater weight behind them to be sucessful
The alternative to me seems likely to have been the removal of several of these scenes and a greater focus on events in the second half of the book that IMHO carry greater dymatic weight.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Dec 29 2012, 7:41pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 7:40pm
Post #81 of 112
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe i'm not expaining myself well enough...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think the Mozart comparison applies more to The Hobbit as it's an independent work, like an album or a written piece of music. It exists as a work separate from format or venue. Of course when you go see a band or orchestra live that particular performance is affected by venue, but to review that band's *album* or that orchestra's music's *composer* on the basis of that particular performance or venue would be absurd. A movie is not a performance, it's a pre-existing work like a symphony or painting and should be judged on those pre-existing elements alone.
And if you're a professional critic and you knew that this film was showing in both traditional 24fps and a controversial new 48fps, and you hated 48fps, i think it's your professional duty to see it in the other format as well. Especially if you're a nationally known critic, and especially with such a high profile film.
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 8:09pm
Post #82 of 112
(856 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wasnt claiming it should be...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If The Hobbit or LOTR were free from criticism then much of the purpose of this forum would be gone but equally if this criticism itself cannot be questioned then its equally pointless for me. What should be avoided is discussion devolping into throwing insults around.
|
|
|
Chainsaw Charlie
Nevrast
Dec 29 2012, 8:17pm
Post #83 of 112
(855 views)
Shortcut
|
This is typical CNN. Their ratings have hit rock bottom and flat-lined. They desperately need advertising revenue, and if internet page clicks via hyperbolic entertainment headlines is what they need to stay afloat (and they do!), then none of this is terribly surprising. Nobody takes them seriously, and with imbecilic figureheads like Wolf Blitzer and Piers Morgan leading the way, as a news agency you get better information from The Onion.
|
|
|
morgul lord
Ossiriand
Dec 29 2012, 8:39pm
Post #84 of 112
(827 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Seriously?? Gothmog was HORRIBLE.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Azog is way better than that awful orc.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 9:06pm
Post #85 of 112
(819 views)
Shortcut
|
Ave Moria sounds like a real cult.
(This post was edited by dernwyn on Dec 29 2012, 9:42pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 10:05pm
Post #86 of 112
(798 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have no feeling on Gothmog one way or the other really,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He's just a made-up character designed to give a face to hordes of orcs, and create a direct threat to our protagonists, and he's hardly in the film at all. In Fellowship, it was Lurtz, and he was awesome. Gothmog, at least to me, was fine enough. Azog was really no better than that. But the real problem with Azog is how the writers had to mangle Tolkien's history to fit him in, which to me anyway, ruins the character. And that's my point. There are any number of ways the writers could have solved this problem. The best one that i've seen bandied about is having Bolg play his role. But the writers felt that they should drastically alter the dwaren history at Azunulzibar instead, and that, to me, is a bridge too far.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Mithlond
Dec 29 2012, 10:27pm
Post #87 of 112
(796 views)
Shortcut
|
The fact that this is one of three films that make up a whole trilogy and story arc. It's like judging a painting on seeing only half of it. It's really out of context to call it anything but one part of three.
See this what drives journalists crazy, you don't have a crystal ball. The three taken as one continuous story will explain things better. PJ rearranged things in TT a lot, and in the end it all worked out well. Critics are preconditioned to trilogies that fall short, and rightly so. Most do. In this case, people just have ridiculous expectations of these films.
I had issues with bits and pieces of all of the LOTR trilogy, but I tried to see it as a whole story, not any one part.
Was TH on par with Fellowship? I'd say it was, it's just different. It's a different story, and it succeeded in its own way. It's not wholly new or innovative, so they had to pick on the technology too.
We also don't know what battles over specific choices went on behind the scenes. There are no doubt very good reasons for Azog, 48 fps, or any other adaptation changes book to film. We'll know those over time.
Rostron
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 29 2012, 11:23pm
Post #88 of 112
(777 views)
Shortcut
|
**rib-crunching hug**
So sorry you didn't like the movie but it's brilliant to see you again! 
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Dec 29 2012, 11:31pm
Post #89 of 112
(760 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agreed on that last sentiment, but my interjection was due to that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The response in question to which the previous poster was responding totally dismissed, objectively, that anyone could have a legitimate grievance with TH whatsoever, in rather...erm, terse fashion.
And BTW, this predisposition is going to be one of many on the boards; it doesn't mean one's opinion is any more or less legitimate than one who loved/liked the film.
Honiestly I got much more of a sense from your post of a predisposition to dislike the Hobbit more for what it wasnt rather than what it was.
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!!!!!
(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Dec 29 2012, 11:33pm)
|
|
|
Corsair of Umbar
Lindon
Dec 29 2012, 11:42pm
Post #90 of 112
(754 views)
Shortcut
|
So lovely to see you here!
Hope all is well.
Hey, who knows? I may come to really like the Hobbit. I will definitely see it again. It is Tolkien, after all, with all of what I consider its flaws.
But I'm sure I'll come to at least appreciate it a bit more. And I'm sure I'll buy the Blu Ray.
Great to "see ya."
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 30 2012, 12:10am
Post #91 of 112
(748 views)
Shortcut
|
For what it's worth, I found I enjoyed the movie more when I watched it a second time, in 2D. All that new-fangled flim-flammery got in the way of Middle-earth. ;)
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 30 2012, 12:40am
Post #92 of 112
(750 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree about more drama in later chapters...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes I'd definitely have preferred the story pushed on much further into the later chapters providing greater character drama. The Hobbit story is about the Smaug quest afterall and the audience had to feel that link in the plot. If we'd managed to get to Thranduil's halls, then the face-off between Thorin and the Elven King over their desire for the treasure would have brought the story threads neatly together, as well as providing a far more satisfying character arc for Bilbo (no Azog required).
I can only guess at what motivations Jackson and his team had for their three-film adaptation. The admirable economy of storytelling shown in the LotR films indicates they would be highly capable of adapting the Hobbit in two films. The cinematic rationale is very weak, and commercial reasons seem very significant to me.
You make an interesting point about Azog being the 'price to pay' for a slow detailed adaptation with all the scenes. Maybe you're right. For me it definitely wasn't a price worth paying- much better to have relegated the whole necromancer plot and overlong action scenes to the EE and delivered more drama and character progression by pushing the plot forward.
(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Dec 30 2012, 12:41am)
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Dec 30 2012, 12:59am
Post #93 of 112
(746 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yet it was also a better film than Avengers, about which critic raved, giving a pass to
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
any areas that lacked greater depth, if not rewarding them. I loved Avengers, but it wasn't as good a film as The Hobbit on many levels. And, no, it is not fair to hit The Hobbit so hard based on comparative values. Say, "it isn't as moving, or as powerful, or as well rendered as its film predecessors, but. . ." Don't nitpick it and trash it, despite it being good, because you hoped it would be better (the generic you, not you as an individual). 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.
"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."
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Dec 30 2012, 1:29am
Post #94 of 112
(729 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I felt Jackson invited the LotR comparison
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not trying to defend the mean decision to appoint AUJ the worst film of 2012- of course it isn't. But expectations are a big part of how the audience interpret films. I choose to see films by my favourite directors because I know what they are capable of, and hope they can deliver more, or ideally better than before.
AUJ was widely marketed as a LotR prequel. It's first scene is of LotR actors, and it uses every opportunity to bring back LotR actors and locations. The tone and length of the book is altered to be more like a LotR epic. The music of LotR is reused frequently. The style of the whole endeavour declares "I am a Lord of the Rings film"! Is it really so surprising that AUJ got compared by critics to the LotR films?
For the second film of the trilogy expectations will now be much more realistic, so Jackson will likely get a far more positive critical response.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Dec 30 2012, 1:44am
Post #95 of 112
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And I think that was the problem with some of the critics/reviews. They came with a cynical attitude
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And attitude effects experience. Where a neutral viewer might be wowed, a cynic will often be unmoved. Again, as with most prejudice, the object of it has to be twice as good to receive half the credit. Some critics, based on all the information they had before hand, going all the way back to the shift from Del Toro to Jackson, were looking for bloat, and for failings. I can say this, because I was looking for some amount of bloat myself. I found less of it than I imagined I would, by far. Though, until I see what is done with Tauriel, I will not go so far as to say my worries of bloat were unfounded, but they certainly did not dominate this film.
I have no doubt that many of the problems some had with this movie were the result of either improper expectations (it really wasn't supposed to be LOTR), and of looking for things to complain about. The Bag End scene was charming, funny, and, in regards to the Misty Mountains Cold song, deeply moving. . . if you allowed to be. But if you were in a sour, cynical mood, ready to be disgusted by superflous guff. . . well, surely you would see some of that. It is like when a joke is told by a friend, as opposed to by someone you cannot stand. When the friend tells it, you are likely already in a good mood, and if it is reasonably funny, you will genuinely laugh. When a disliked acquaintaince tells the same joke, unless it was so hilarious that you could not possibly contain yourself. .. you will frown, and scowl, and undermine all of the humour. I don't think theres any need to start talking in those kinds of terms.
The reality is that if you express a very extreme view on a film in a forum dedicated to it in such generalised terms your almost definately going to get a response, freedom of speach isnt freedom from criticism.
Honiestly I got much more of a sense from your post of a predisposition to dislike the Hobbit more for what it wasnt rather than what it was.
"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."
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Dec 30 2012, 1:56am
Post #96 of 112
(707 views)
Shortcut
|
|
i went in with the opposite problem
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I went in thinking this is going to be as good or even better than LOTR, immensely excited.
That level of expectation was going to be hard to reach/impossible and i think there is nothing worse (in films) than something not meeting ones expectations.
I saw so much potential and felt a fair few scenes were there just for the sake of action and didnt add to the story. Though my opinion of the films is similarish to the majority of critics i.e. 6.5/10 but the reasons i like it and dislike it is the exact opposite to why the critics like/dislike it.
I also think this is the reason why on second viewing people seem to like it more - they are taking the film for what it is - not some potential masterpiece but a good action film.
I am seeing it tomorrow and i am super excited to see if it will go the same way as me - i definitely wasnt cynical going into it the first time just naive i think.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Dec 30 2012, 2:01am
Post #97 of 112
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
|
When you do, you may find much more that is good than action.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Keep an eye to the sickness of Thror, the coming of Smaug, the interaction of Thorin and Balin in Bag End etc. Even the expression of Balin as he laments that they are not a company of the best and brightest. There is actually a lot of quality there. And of course the song is chilling in its effect. I went in thinking this is going to be as good or even better than LOTR, immensely excited.
That level of expectation was going to be hard to reach/impossible and i think there is nothing worse (in films) than something not meeting ones expectations.
I saw so much potential and felt a fair few scenes were there just for the sake of action and didnt add to the story. Though my opinion of the films is similarish to the majority of critics i.e. 6.5/10 but the reasons i like it and dislike it is the exact opposite to why the critics like/dislike it.
I also think this is the reason why on second viewing people seem to like it more - they are taking the film for what it is - not some potential masterpiece but a good action film.
I am seeing it tomorrow and i am super excited to see if it will go the same way as me - i definitely wasnt cynical going into it the first time just naive i think.
"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."
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Dec 30 2012, 2:34am
Post #98 of 112
(714 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Those are all the parts i liked the first time round
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I found the middle third to be the worst part of the film, the first hour or so was excellent. Basically the opposite to the critics.
For me the warg chase, radagast (for almost all of his screen time), stone giants, rivendell for the most part, goblin town and azog throughout the film were not very good. Stone giants a highlight in the worst parts.
The song is brilliant but most of the things you mention (and what i love) happen in the first hour. After that to me it does go to a standard action movie for most of the time, riddles in the dark an exception.
With my expectations lowered i am hoping i will like those parts for what they are - action scenes.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Dec 30 2012, 6:26am
Post #99 of 112
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I cannot complain too much about Goblin town, thanks to the magic and Humphries.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
After having worried for years, since hearing Peter would be involved in making The Hobbit, that he would shortchange Gandalf's magic and find a way to circumvent showing the Wizard's most prominent feats of wizardry in the novel, I was so pleased when he announced his presence by blowing the hell out of The Great Goblin's cavern that nothing else in the chase much mattered. lol. It was a chase right out of a standard action-adventure . . . but many of those get rave reviews and the applause of The Masses, so I don't really see why it should be much different here. The Great Goblin himself I find enjoyable and true to form, even if he is even more plus sized than the book suggests. The biggest change, really, is that a frantic chase through tunnels has become a frantic chase across gangwalks and platforms.
Radagast only bothered me when the eye swiveling went on, and because a bird had shat on his face. Otherwise, he was no worse than Gandalf's description of him. .. eccentric.
I hope your second time is better than your first. I have an incling that it will be. Mine certainly was. I enjoyed it much better once I knew exactly which things I didn't like, and was able not to put all of my focus on them.
"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."
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Dec 30 2012, 10:41am
Post #100 of 112
(681 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A much harder call than FOTR for me...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes I'd definitely have preferred the story pushed on much further into the later chapters providing greater character drama. The Hobbit story is about the Smaug quest afterall and the audience had to feel that link in the plot. If we'd managed to get to Thranduil's halls, then the face-off between Thorin and the Elven King over their desire for the treasure would have brought the story threads neatly together, as well as providing a far more satisfying character arc for Bilbo (no Azog required).
I can only guess at what motivations Jackson and his team had for their three-film adaptation. The admirable economy of storytelling shown in the LotR films indicates they would be highly capable of adapting the Hobbit in two films. The cinematic rationale is very weak, and commercial reasons seem very significant to me.
You make an interesting point about Azog being the 'price to pay' for a slow detailed adaptation with all the scenes. Maybe you're right. For me it definitely wasn't a price worth paying- much better to have relegated the whole necromancer plot and overlong action scenes to the EE and delivered more drama and character progression by pushing the plot forward.
Its an interesting question I'd say, would for example people have been happier with a version of AUJ that dropped Azog but also dropped the Trolls, the Eagles, Beorn and had a shorter version of the unexpected party in order to get as far as Mirkwood?
That for me is a much harder choice than say FOTR with the Old Forrest/Tom/Barrows section, there I think the cut clearly benefited the focus of the story which was strong enough to be put before extra detail. Even a more streamlined AUJ to me would still have been lacking in a story of that quality.
Personally I felt the Azog material was strong enough to justify its inclusion and while the film as a whole maybe wasnt as good as the sum of its parts those parts were by en large very entertaining. Plus of course lets remember we still have two films to come, how they use that extra time is obviously going to be a big factor in whether the choice to end AUJ so early was correct or not.
One thing I would say is that I think Thorins character is certainly stronger for having had the extra focus in AUJ which may well benefit the following films. I think the danger there was always that he'd come across as a greedy and unlikeble moaner, those faults seems likely to be more forgiveble in a more heroic Thorin with clearer reasons to hold judges.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Dec 30 2012, 10:44am)
|
|
|
|
|
