|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
Jan 20 2013, 5:21am
Post #51 of 97
(2748 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The only review I really care about
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is mine. "Not a bad start."
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Gondolin
Jan 20 2013, 7:02am
Post #52 of 97
(2743 views)
Shortcut
|
|
45 years is a long time to wait. .and PJ didn't..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
let Bomby (and Goldberry)...down.
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Jan 20 2013, 7:25am
Post #53 of 97
(2687 views)
Shortcut
|
For me this film is fantastic. It's not perfect but I didn't expect it to be but neither are The Lord of the Rings. In the end the four times I've seen it have brought me enjoyment for the time I get to spend in Middle-earth.
-------------------
General Rant: I'm not gonna beat anyone over the head, but I will say some are pretty annoying with trying to tell me it's not as good. I feel it is as good as The Lord of the Rings and that's what matters the most to me. If you don't feel the same that's fine but remember your opinion isn't anymore valuable to the subject than mine. :)
(This post was edited by Elessar on Jan 20 2013, 7:33am)
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Jan 20 2013, 7:41am
Post #54 of 97
(2730 views)
Shortcut
|
We're just me yapping. lol the my pleasure if for you though.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 20 2013, 4:41pm
Post #55 of 97
(2670 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Pre-release Fan Expectations for AUJ & FOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
bborchar wrote: The same criticisms were said of FOTR but everyone gave it the benefit of the doubt because it was new and completely different. The special effects, the story, the division into three films. The Hobbit doesn't have that luxury. In the 10 years since the last films, so many other copycats have come to Hollywood and now people are overly cynical of multi-film movies (just a cash grab, they say), and special effects are used in almost everything now. But I recall MANY reviews of FotR where the critics complained about pacing, length, lack of characterization, OMG IT DIDN'T END CASH GRAB, etc.
Posters here have mentioned the differing fan expectations between AUJ and FOTR and have pointed out the high expectations that AUJ had on its shoulders. But that's not the whole story. As a life-long Tolkien fan, I vividly recall the high level of fan trepidation surrounding the three film LOTR project by this unknown Kiwi film maker by the name of Peter Jackson. By the late 1999s, Tolkien fans had become conditioned to worry based on three decades of cringe-producing adaptations. When you combine this with the fact that no one had yet produced and directed a fantasy film without succumbing to the temptation to play it for laughs, the fan expectation for FOTR was the direct opposite of AUJ. While I was excited about Jackson's first Tolkien adaptation and encouraged by the behind-the-scenes buzz, I don't believe I was the only Tolkien fan who went into the theater for the first time praying the film didn't suck.
There were also stories all over the press that if FOTR was a flop, it would bring down New Line Cinema. In fact, if not for New Line's gamble to release a ten minute sneak peak at the Cannes Film Festival the summer before its December release, the film would have gone into the fall with a high level of scepticism and negativity. So it is impossible to imagine two films with more dramatically different public expectations about the quality of the two films prior to their release.
I enjoyed AUJ and have discovered with each viewing a richness of story and characterization that was impossible to appreciate in a single viewing--particularly for fans who saw it in 3D and HFR. There was just too much to experience to soak it all in. Like the book, the film story of the Hobbit should never be expected to reach the grandeur of the LOTR, but I predict that this trilogy will one day be considered a classic in its own right.
One last thing --- bborchar, I love your posts. Overall, a VERY interesting thread and a good read. Thanks to all for your contributions.
|
|
|
bborchar
Nargothrond
Jan 20 2013, 5:31pm
Post #56 of 97
(2618 views)
Shortcut
|
I remember when LotR was being made, that my boyfriend (now husband), who LOVED these books, was very excited but very worried about them. I had only ever read The Hobbit at that point, so he wanted me to read LotR so that, if the movies were bad, I "would at least know what the story was supposed to be like" (in his words). So I remember when the reviews came out, we both read through all of them that were available- and I remember that, even though people were amazed with the movie, they had their complaints. But it's exactly like you said, though- people were expecting LotR to fail, and in AUJ's case, it was the complete opposite.
I had to watch AUJ twice before I had really made up my mind about it. I have liked it better on each subsequent viewing. I even really like HFR, although I think it's almost detrimental to the story in a way, because I found myself just looking at everything instead of paying attention to the story (but I loved that I could see so much more of what was happening). It's basically like a good book...it's hard to pick up everything the first time around. And honestly, I wasn't even looking forward to the Hobbit that much, because the book was so simplistic and the characters are kind of boring. So I honestly feel that PJ's version remedies these problems. If nothing else, it's a fun movie to watch.
(This post was edited by bborchar on Jan 20 2013, 5:31pm)
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Jan 20 2013, 5:52pm
Post #57 of 97
(2675 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am more or less of the same mind.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And, as I have said, there were a few things I REALLY didn't like, not as a matter of presentation but of context, the Dwarven history changes chief among them, because the actual story is so powerful.
Yet, having said that, it is still a wonderful, literally wonderful to my thouhgt, movie. I love it, even when there are parts that I don't like, not because they are bad but because I think they could be more accurate and better. Whatever happened to happy media? Lol. Either people are saying these movies are flawlessly perfect, which can be annoying because in all of them (with the possible exception of The Two Towers, which is not my favourite despite having some of my favourite scenes) there are a few major flaws or deviations that deserve pointing out!. . . . Or, as is the case here, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and claiming the whole movie is "meh" because it wasn't perfect.  Mercy! lol
I don't have time to complain about the few things that really did bother me with the movie, because I am too busy having to put the breaks on as people lurch forward into hyperbolizing it into a failure of a film. The only real differences to me from the rest of the movies in what is now this series, is that this one had a happier, moderately lighter, more bon vivant feel and tone, and was brighter in its light and colour pallete. . . and all that was EXACTLY as it should be. If the first Hobbit movie (hell, the first two, really) had been fully as dark and grim as The Two Towers, I would have cried, and not because I was touched by the poignancy of the material.  For me this film is fantastic. It's not perfect but I didn't expect it to be but neither are The Lord of the Rings. In the end the four times I've seen it have brought me enjoyment for the time I get to spend in Middle-earth.
-------------------
General Rant: I'm not gonna beat anyone over the head, but I will say some are pretty annoying with trying to tell me it's not as good. I feel it is as good as The Lord of the Rings and that's what matters the most to me. If you don't feel the same that's fine but remember your opinion isn't anymore valuable to the subject than mine. :)
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Jan 20 2013, 5:53pm)
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 6:17pm
Post #58 of 97
(2697 views)
Shortcut
|
Oh, whatever. That rant doesn't even warrant further response.
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!!!!!
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 6:18pm
Post #59 of 97
(2605 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And the echo chamber/group think/fan denial continues... //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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!!!!!
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 6:21pm
Post #60 of 97
(2638 views)
Shortcut
|
Agreed completely. It's always nice to see dose of reality amongst the circular (non) logic, denial, and ranting.
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 Jan 20 2013, 6:25pm)
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 20 2013, 6:30pm
Post #61 of 97
(2653 views)
Shortcut
|
AinurOlorin wrote: as I have said, there were a few things I REALLY didn't like, not as a matter of presentation but of context, the Dwarven history changes chief among them, because the actual story is so powerful.
We've discussed this before. While I can appreciate your love of the actual history, it has nothing to do with Jackson's version of the tale. Showing us Thror attempted to reclaim Moria alone is totally irrelevant to the telling of the story of the Hobbit.
What Jackson wants his audience to know from the Battle of Azanulbizar sequence is:
1) There is a long blood feud between the orcs and the dwarves.
2) As a follow-up to the Fall of Erebor sequence, the battle reemphasizes that Thror was a incredibly proud and self-assured leader (in fact, Elrond comments later in AUJ that Thorin reminds him of his grandfather.)
3) The Azog versus Thorin feud started there.
4) That the battle was where Thorin got his nickname Oakenshield.
5) That the battle was where Thorin stepped forward and became a respected and honored leader in the eyes of hardened warriors like Balin and Dwalin.
If Jackson doesn't revise Tolkien's history to streamline Balin's retelling of the Battle of Azanlbizar to make these key points, the film makers have a lot of extra--and unnecessary--explaining to do.
One of the most awkward issues that a strict adherence to Tolkien's history would raise is Thror's death at the hands of Azog in Moria that started the animosity between the two races. Explain to me how the audience can maintain the image of Thror as a strong, dignified, self-assured leader instead of a crazy old fool if they show him attempting to claim Moria alone? I fail to understand how a film presentation of Thror's 'Don Quixote' like quest adds anything, let alone something more emotional powerful, to the film.
(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Jan 20 2013, 6:31pm)
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 6:34pm
Post #62 of 97
(2678 views)
Shortcut
|
annoying with their TH fanaticism.
BTW, if the hyper-lovers can't seem to bother differentiating their opinion and FACT, why should anyone else?
Average comment on here: "I love AUJ. Therefore, it IS a great movie". Or better yet, "Who are we to say whether or not a movie was flawed"? Um, WHAT?!...that doesn't even make sense. Real solid logic there.
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 Jan 20 2013, 6:40pm)
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Jan 20 2013, 6:37pm
Post #63 of 97
(2616 views)
Shortcut
|
I understand. I would have prefered bit closer to the source on the Dwarven history as we've discussed and I can find things within The Lord of the Rings. However, both stories are so powerful as you said that the positives are much more worth the negative so I don't bother.
I agree again. I personally don't think you can seriously say any of the four movies are perfect and I don't think you can really say any of them are bad. I think both ends are the far ends and just not factual. Perfectly said tossing the baby out with the bathwater. lol
I don't either. For the reasons you stated but also because I'd rather concentrate on what about Middle-earth makes me happy. In the end for me The Hobbit is as good as The Lord of the Rings because it was The Hobbit and not The Lord of the Rings.
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Jan 20 2013, 6:40pm
Post #64 of 97
(2689 views)
Shortcut
|
There are people on both ends of the spectrum that FORCE or try to FORCE their reality on others. I enjoyed the film and feel it is worthy of being on the shelf with The Lord of the Rings. If you don't agree that's fine but you must realize your reality isn't fact. 
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 6:41pm
Post #65 of 97
(2650 views)
Shortcut
|
BTW, if the hyper-lovers can't seem to bother differentiating their opinion and FACT, why should anyone else?
Average comment on here: "I love AUJ. Therefore, it IS a great movie". Or better yet, "Who are we to say whether or not a movie was flawed"? Um, WHAT?!...that doesn't even make sense. Real solid logic there
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 Jan 20 2013, 6:44pm)
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Jan 20 2013, 7:03pm
Post #67 of 97
(2695 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And yet Thror had gone mad. The movie already tells you as much. He had succumbed to "a sickness" of the mind.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And they may yet reveal that he was driven to that sickness in no small part by the Ring on which so much of the wealth of Erebor was founded, for there is certainly a ring very alike in design to the Dwarf Rings shown in Fellowship. They don't have to show him dithering. They don't even have to represent it as him having gone with only one companion. And, after all, he doesn't KNOW the orcs are there. He doesn't even know the Balrog is still there (indeed, he certainly does not imagine that matter of horror legend is still present, or he never would have gone, and certainly not without an army). And the Ring and the discontent unto folly are part of the tale.
And, say what you will, the impact, the sacking of one goblin city after another, the "hunting for Azog in every den under the mountain,". . .just POTENT, more so that what this film gave.
You can have your own opinion, but you won't be changing mine.
Anyway, that is not at all the point of this thread. This thread is about something we agree on, after all. That this was, despite its flaws, a good movie. Right . Yes. So no need for semantic arguments. AinurOlorin wrote: as I have said, there were a few things I REALLY didn't like, not as a matter of presentation but of context, the Dwarven history changes chief among them, because the actual story is so powerful.
We've discussed this before. While I can appreciate your love of the actual history, it has nothing to do with Jackson's version of the tale. Showing us Thror attempted to reclaim Moria alone is totally irrelevant to the telling of the story of the Hobbit.
What Jackson wants his audience to know from the Battle of Azanulbizar sequence is:
1) There is a long blood feud between the orcs and the dwarves.
2) As a follow-up to the Fall of Erebor sequence, the battle reemphasizes that Thror was a incredibly proud and self-assured leader (in fact, Elrond comments later in AUJ that Thorin reminds him of his grandfather.)
3) The Azog versus Thorin feud started there.
4) That the battle was where Thorin got his nickname Oakenshield.
5) That the battle was where Thorin stepped forward and became a respected and honored leader in the eyes of hardened warriors like Balin and Dwalin.
If Jackson doesn't revise Tolkien's history to streamline Balin's retelling of the Battle of Azanlbizar to make these key points, the film makers have a lot of extra--and unnecessary--explaining to do.
One of the most awkward issues that a strict adherence to Tolkien's history would raise is Thror's death at the hands of Azog in Moria that started the animosity between the two races. Explain to me how the audience can maintain the image of Thror as a strong, dignified, self-assured leader instead of a crazy old fool if they show him attempting to claim Moria alone? I fail to understand how a film presentation of Thror's 'Don Quixote' like quest adds anything, let alone something more emotional powerful, to the film.
"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."
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Jan 20 2013, 7:15pm
Post #68 of 97
(2596 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But, art being subjective, there are no facts of good versus bad. Only matters of taste.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And many people loved or at least liked this movie. And I don't think most of the responses are saying "greatest movie ever." They are saying it is a good (for some a great) movie, and that the criticisms of it have not been entirely balanced. Other factors have played a part in some of the more negative critiques, and the majority of the critiques were not actually negative, once one parses through all the dissapointment that the film wasn't better. Very few reviews actually suggest that it was a poor film, they just go on about it. . . well, not being the Rings films, basically. Yet it really wasn't meant to, though it generally meshes with them. And of course, tons of moaning about the optional format.
And, again I ask, of the things which the majority of the negative critics complained most extensively about. . . do you even agree? Do you think the song by the fireplace was indulgent? Superflous? Wasteful? Was the Erebor backstory just TMI, to your thought? My guess is that what you didn't like were the Azog glares and chases, and the extened romp through Goblin Town, and mountains throwing boulders etc. . . which many of the same critics who complained about the bloat of the movie say they thoroughly enjoyed. annoying with their TH fanaticism.
BTW, if the hyper-lovers can't seem to bother differentiating their opinion and FACT, why should anyone else?
Average comment on here: "I love AUJ. Therefore, it IS a great movie". Or better yet, "Who are we to say whether or not a movie was flawed"? Um, WHAT?!...that doesn't even make sense. Real solid logic there.
"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."
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 7:26pm
Post #69 of 97
(2653 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Black Breathalizer, and YOUR point is what, exactly? =) //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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 Jan 20 2013, 7:30pm)
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jan 20 2013, 7:59pm
Post #70 of 97
(2608 views)
Shortcut
|
There's room for everyone here
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just as there's room for both opinions *and* facts. In point of fact, almost everything people post here are their opinions and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like the way people express themselves, move on. No need to criticize people because they didi't express themselves, or make their points, the way *you* wanted them to - and vice versa.
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
|
|
|
Aragalen the Green
Mithlond
Jan 20 2013, 8:02pm
Post #71 of 97
(2605 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Everything's subjective, and taste
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is in one's mouth 
There it is: dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 8:03pm
Post #72 of 97
(2762 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, shall we count what ways that AUJ failed to impress?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. Three stories that fail to congeal into a coherent whole...the Dwarves going to the Lonely Mountain & Azog's revenge & Radagast/Necromancer/White Council were totally removed from one another, resulting in total lack of forward momentum. Things just kind of happen one after another. The film drags, not because of the running time, but because we don't advance enough into the narrative for these stories to start relating to one another. Also, nothing's resolved by the end of the film; Bilbo's position in the Company has begun to ascend somewhat, but otherwise, nothing happens and nothing is achieved. Also, clumsy narrative structure, exposition, and dialogue.
2. General lack of character development for the Dwarves; other than Thorin and Balin, they're still cyphers at the film's end. Dwalin, Bofur, Kili, and Fili speak up pretty consistently, but speaking and actually showing us their character are two different things. Dwalin was bald; Bofur was James Nesbitt; Fili & Kili were younger and somewhat less clumpy-looking; Dori was pretentious; and Ori was geeky. Gloin & Oin were bit players with a few superfluous lines of dialogue each; Nori has one totally superflouous line; Bifur had one line in Dwarvish; and Bombur was an extra. After all the talk about how fleshed-out and sympathetic each Dwarf would be, after all the promises it just wouldn't be a pack of interchangeable Dwarves as in the book...that's what it felt like. Worrywort, Grinnah, and Lindir each had more dialogue than three of the Dwarves. And Thror had more dialouge than Bombur. And yeah, they'll have more screentime in the next two films, which will introduce a slew of new characters and more than likely feature less of the supporting Dwarves less than AUJ. A sequel that's a year away doesn't dispel with the failings of this movie.
3. Total over-use of CGI; looks like a video game. Also, production design often just bizarre, such as cartoonish Goblins or Radagast's hair tonic. Characters surviving endless enemies and enormous falls, maces to the face ETC strained creditability to the breaking point.
4. Also, too much cartoonish low-brow bathroom humor, such as Bilbo fretting over his lack of handkerchief, then being used by a stone troll as a handkerchief himself. Funny.
5. Overuse of music from LotR; it's distracting and can't be explained away as "thematic linking for a film that will come out in two years". Other than "Misty Mountains", not enough (new) strong thematic material in the score. Great themes from the soundtrack such as "A Very Respectable Hobbit", "Erebor" and The Dwarf Lords" went slightly used or totally unused.
6. A weird lack of emotion; even Bilbo seemed disconnected from the action much of the time (as opposed to the vast majority, I have no idea what Martin Freeman thought he was doing as Bilbo most of the time; we kept swinging between overly-effected to non-emotive. Also, he has one facial expression). The entire affair felt rushed, clumsy, soulless, heartless, and lacking the spirit, humanity, and artistry of LotR (yes, it's part of the series and needs to be compared to a precedent. The film doesn't exist in a vacuum so it can be held up as a success). Speaking of which, it relied too heavily on LotR iconography and nostalgia - Bilbo/Frodo bookend accomplished nothing, superfluous angered Gandalf moment in Bag-End ALA FotR, random Weathertop cameo, Azog bashing people with his mace ALA Sauron in the FotR prologue, come to mind.
7. Basic gaps in coherence and common sense & many lines which are contradicted by what's happened on-screen. Days and nights which are too quick (how do they spend an entire day in Goblin-town again? Then, it's sunset, then it's night again in 30 seconds? Shades of X-Men 3, another franchise continuation starring Ian McKellen in which things like time doesn't seem to adhere to the laws of physics/common sense). How could the Witch-King be in a tomb when he wasn't killed until RotK? How is Erebor the last Dwarf Kingdom of ME when other kingdoms are mentioned, including the Blue Mountains? Why do the Dwarves sing about dragon fire in the night when the attack happened in the day time? Why does Saruman call the Necromancer a "human sorcerer" when the term "human" doesn't exist in ME (it's the race of Men)? Why does Gandalf state he's not answerable to anyone, then spend 10 minutes answering to Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond? And so on...granted, these last criticisms are comparatively minor, and I'd have forgiven them had the rest of the film been decent.
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!!!!!
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Dor-Lomin
Jan 20 2013, 8:08pm
Post #73 of 97
(2577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was responding to this comment, actually:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
General Rant: I'm not gonna beat anyone over the head, but I will say some are pretty annoying with trying to tell me it's not as good. I feel it is as good as The Lord of the Rings and that's what matters the most to me. If you don't feel the same that's fine but remember your opinion isn't anymore valuable to the subject than mine. :)
http://newboards.theonering.net/...latest_reply;#564676
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 Jan 20 2013, 8:11pm)
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jan 20 2013, 8:40pm
Post #74 of 97
(2613 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The same applies to that comment
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I said, it's best to move on and/or contact an Admin than to reply with more of the same, even quote other people's posts directly.
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
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 20 2013, 9:24pm
Post #75 of 97
(2685 views)
Shortcut
|
I have to confess, I don't understand the hate some fans have regarding this film. As has been well articulated earlier in this thread, I suspect a lot of it has to do with unreasonably high fan and critic expectations along with the fact that The Hobbit is not as compelling a story as the Lord of the Rings is.
Captain Salt doesn't like the film and nothing I will say is going to change that. But I do have a few different perspectives regarding his critique:
Captain Salt: The film drags...nothing's resolved by the end of the film...nothing happens and nothing is achieved.
First, AUJ is Act One of a three act play. Fans understand that the entire story isn't going to be told in one, or even two, films. That said, AUJ, like FOTR, is a movie designed to set the stage for the next two. As far as it's primary theme as a stand-alone movie, it gave us the transition of the film's 'everyman hero,' Bilbo Baggins. The audience watches as he transforms from a 'entirely respectable' hobbit who "looks like a grocer" and is made fun of because of his prissiness by the dwarves to one who, by the end of the film, has gained their respect and admiration. Bilbo's worst critic, Thorin Oakenshield, even goes so far as to publicly admit he was wrong. (Not a small thing for a proud dwarf of the line of Durin.) Not only was this theme strongly portrayed by the actors involved, it came directly from Tolkien. The only change the screenwriters made was to move up Bilbo's first big hero moment from the spiders of Mirkwood to the Orc and Warg attack.
Captain Salt: General lack of character development for the Dwarves
First off, Jackson bowed to the wishes of the fans of the book and put 13 dwarves on film. Screenwriting 101 would have dictated eliminating such a large number of characters and give us five or six dwarves instead. Would fans have preferred that? Given Jackson's character-development challenge when every second of film is precious, I was impressed by how well the film makers pulled it off. I was particularly impressed by the individual looks of the dwarves on film and how the way they looked communicated things about their characters to the movie audience. After AUJ, I felt I had a good feel for the film characters of Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Bofer, Kili, Fili, Dori, Ori, Gloin, and Oin. And while we may still have questions about them, we were also given a sense of who the film Bomber, Nori, and Bifer are.
Captain Salt: too much cartoonish low-brow bathroom humor, such as Bilbo fretting over his lack of handkerchief...
Watch the film with children and you'll discover the 'low-brow' humor scenes were some of kids' laugh-out-loud favorites. I thought it was great to have the film makers so sensitive to the younger members of their audience--particularly since the film is an adaptation of a children's fairy tale. And Bilbo fretting over his lack of a hankerchief is straight from the book.
Captain Salt: A weird lack of emotion
In my opinion, the emotion in AUJ wasn't as powerful as FOTR, but FOTR set a high bar and frankly, I never expected it to be as emotional given the different story these films were telling. That said, I found the emotion in AUJ to be compelling. I was very moved by Bilbo's decision to spare Gollum's life. I was also moved by Bilbo's response to Thorin about why he came back--and later, by Thorin's gratitude for Bilbo saving his life. And one of The Most Beautiful Emotional scenes to me was one that was also wonderfully understated: The quiet moments at BagEnd leading up to Bilbo's abrupt decision to leave home and run after the Company.
(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Jan 20 2013, 9:30pm)
|
|
|
|
|
