Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Negative thread about the movie
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 6:09pm

Post #1 of 86 (1698 views)
Negative thread about the movie Can't Post

Hi all, well I dont know if this is necessary or not, all I wanted is to say what I feel. Iīm going to repeat some information that I posted before, and I wanted to expand them and add some new. I encourage to anyone who has a negative opinion please give arguments on why they think so and to express themselves. I think is healthy if it is done with respect. Take you time I know its too long but this is all I wanted to say I feel. All respect and love to PJ wich has done a very unique movies in the past that impressed me and opened my eyes to the art again.

Many of you know me from being here from time to time and being so enthusiastic about the movies and all that. Well I dont wana anybody to feel hurt but Im gona say some things I wanted to say because I feel bda because about the movie.

I donīt like the movie.

I was one of the most open minds here about the changes or not being close to the book. But I think I have the right to say what I don’t like it and Iīll try to do it with respect.

I went to the cinema with passion but after that every time I saw the movie it went worst. Why? the reason, I dinīt know it, and I wanted to like the movie but I couldnīt. The confirmation came weeks ago when I had the chance to see a fan cut of the movie. And this question came to me: How can you remove an entire hour of a film and get a shorter version that works anyway? Despite bieng better or worst it worked. Is like having a table with unnecesary legs because it stills on its feet. Thats what happened to me with the movie. And this fan cut worked better than the movie. I want to say that the movie had some very good moments anyway not all based on Tolkien so I give them a very sincere like to that.

This leads me to another conclusion, the nature of that decision of making 3 movies. You can tell me with all your wilingness that it was an artistical decision, but something in my heart brought me to this way. Something that grown on me despite of being surrounded by your all positive reviews here day by day. But I have to face it, Iīm not the fan I was because of this movie. Other could tell wisely: Donīt take it seriously. But I canīt. I canīt because I see in this motivations a universal problem. And in my country we have an enormous problem with the same nature: Dragon Sickness = Money.

I donīt want to blame directly PJ for I dont know if it was all his fault. But I can easely see PJ acting at the whim of WB, and the movie and the story itself in the end suffering from both whim, from WBīs and PJīs. From the first for wanting to make money and money, and money, and as for PJ for letting himself go with no contrition under the advise of WB of making 3 movies. I dont wanna think that the decission of making 3 came from PJ, I want to give him the benefit of doubt.

That decision flaws in many ways. And Iīm not sure if it is for this decision but many things are just wrong, or poor here. I dont even get close to think that the CGI is what it is because WB wanted to save money. But in many scenes there is a lack of originality. In the art book it says something like the goblins where planed to be prosthetic, and then all CGI and then prosthetic and then CGI again. I feel there is a strong lack of capacity to take straight decissions that make the the final product look weak.
Another CGI and bad decission that disturbed me was that video of Azanulbizar where Yazneg was the original look for Azog. The design was so poor, a very regular orc to say the least. Then they replaced him with the CGI Azog, that I want to say impressed me, until Thorin cuts his arm, at that moment the CGI on Azog gets poor, and it seems that it was a last minute decission to have him alive, despite the Azanulbizar flashback. later I will give explanation of my reasons on that.

Some weak shots as well, for example a moment in the warg chase when Thorin faces the hunters and there is a shoot of his face and then to Orchirst, but that shot for me is so weird, the camera even doesnīt end up with showing the entire sword, sudenly there is a cut to another shoot. Is like it was a weak editing on tha,t and your brain gets the impresion that something weird is happening.

Lets not talk about all the added material. I dont buy it at all thought I was one of the most open mind. Why is that? Because as I said having seen the fan cut, you realize that the TENSION appears when you cut all the stuff that is nor relevant to the quest. Your mind gets confused and bored with other material that presented in other place or way could have been interesting. But for example, since Bilbo gets Sting, you lose him until he tries to leave the company. Or for example the with council (though being a cool thing itself and well done) how on earth you put a scene with 5 or 7 minutes of duration that talks about things that are not going to be near concluded in a short time frame, or in the movie itself, sacrifying your main characters not being present on the screen for such a long time??? It drags our atention on Thorinīs quest.

In LOTR we spent a lot of time with Frodo and Sam offscreen but what is happening wile they are in their journey to Mordor is essential and has an inmediate impact on the development of their quest. Here is not the case, since in the book, (and Iīm refering to the book to have a strong base to my statement, for there is no need to refer even to the book since the movie itself flaws) the quest takes place without a strong connection of the events concerning the Necromancer.

Iīm angry with this, you can say that since they paid for the rights they are able to do so. I say NO. Why? Because they are done a job of doing what they think that Tolkien would have done since there is a hint that he wanted to rewrite the book. For whatever reason he didnīt and the money they paid for the rights doesnīt legitimate for me what they have done. They are not the cerators of the story. Another reason if you want, they are selling a movie, and in those advertisments it says : The Hobbit. Is that false publicity?

You could say that I am able of going to see the movie or not. But here I want so say one more thing. Sadly, LOVE is a value in the market. And this videoblogs driving us to the spoiler beyond reasoning, and all the merchandaising that is popping here and there is a dark bussines. Why? Since they know that we are fans of a story that was wrtiten by a person that probably had to go torugh very hard times to print this kind of personality to the story they are playing with our feelings in order to empty our wallets. This is free market, you could say, well I dont see it as a good thing precisely. You want a proof? Why they dont release all the DVD movie versions at the same time? That, for me, would have been fair, but they donīt, because they want to play with our anxiousness about getting our beloved story in a film. Isnīt that strong fight within yourselves concernign about seeing or not seeing the spoilers, getting the regular DVD now or waiting to December for the EE, telling you that something is going wrong?

Now I am gonna dare to say how some things could have worked better and still being fair to the fans and the books.

Our belvoed story in a movie?

Well here Iīm going to refer what I saw in that fan cut and why it definetly opened my eyes:

The movie I saw follwed like this:

-It opens directly with young Bilbo, there is enough info in that conversation between Gandalf and Bilbo to have a clue of who they are.
-Then it follows as the movie until Thorin arrives and they discuss the mission
-The prologue is inserted just after Bilbo says: The Lonely Mountain...-looking at the map. The following shoot drive us into Middle Earth map until Erebor. The mention of Frodo is cutted. And the voice of Ian Holm fits because we havent heard all the dwrves talk so it seems that is one of them who is telling the story. Note that is easier to recognize Thorin and Balin having the prologue later.
-Then we get back to Oin refering the prophecy. But the bit where Bilbo asks about Smaug is out, instead Ori explodes in that : I have no fear!...-It works.
-Then Bilbo faints and they cut to the misty mountains song, we see that Bilbo is on his bed. No dialogue between Balin and Thorin. No dialogue between Gandalf and Bilbo.
-Then Bilbo awakes, sees the contract and runs off and joins the dwarves. The hanquechief secuence and that where Gandalf tells that he never doubted of Bilbo are gone. When Bilbo oins the dwarves Gndalf makes a wonderfull sight to him, so it works because its all said in a single sight.
-THey cut to Gandalfs speech about entering into the wild, and then the Trolls. It works, the pacing is excyting.
-The trolls(as in the movie)
-The swords(as in the movie)
-Then right after Bilbo gets sting there is a shoot of the company and then we see them in the small corridor that leads them to Rivendell. It works not having all the wargs, there is a point now and it is to resolve the map wich is discussed right before the trolls.
-Rivendell: They arrive and Gandalf tells to Lindir that he needs to talk with Elrond, then they cut directly when Elrond and Gandalf are entering to the dinning room(wich is the same place where the council oof Elrond took place). Then wile eating all the dwarves okes since bag end are gone, I didnt miss them. Elrond and Thorin talk about the swords, the bit between Bilbo and Balin is gone, I liked this bit but I didnīt miss it too much. Every mention to Azog or the orc chase is gone.
-Moon letters(as in the movie)
-They leave Rivendell right after this, there is a mistery on where is Gandalf. The misty mountains at last.
-Stone giants(as in the movie)
-There is not a single orc or Azog scene here and nowhere until the very end.
-Goblins Gollum (as in the movie) well here there is a nice moment. When the golbin kin says to Thorin that he has no mountain and he is nobody, we see the face of Thorin and then the face of Bilbo . In the original movie this is diferent since we have the scribe going to tell Azog. But this two shots one inmediatly after the other conect the two main characters in a such magic moment, I loved this a lot. Magic.
-The falling bridge is gone. You can see the bridge starting to fall and then they cut to the dwarves hitting the ground, it makes sense because its well executed and gives you the feeling that is a shorter fall. Well we can see no wounds in that massive falling. And then having Kili stopping those arrows with his sword, and even those arrows that wherent stoped by his sword get carved into that piece of wood right before his face. Then I think in the poor Boromir, and I canīt understand why Boromir didnīt decide to stop those arrows and not dying.
-Then Bilboīs speech and the wolves moaning and the company runs to the trees, Azog is not seen yet.
Then Azog arrives but there is no mention of who he is, he is only a very menacing regular orc and it works. Then the trees and Ori and Dori hanging , and there is no fight between Thorin and Azog the eagles just arrive in time. I told before that I would explain something about Azog. Well I think I had the feeling that something was going wrong. It was that with this cut I saw so clear that no matter what you do with Azog, if you kill him at Azanulbizar, if you make him come back but not facing Thorin , if you make him face Thorin and die. No matter what you do with him because it didnīt matter actually for the quest.
-THe eagles take away the dwarves. There is not a single shot of Thorin wounded, only you can see Gandalf looking around worried but its made that you have the feeling that he is looking at The Carroc that appears. Then the eagles leave the company and there is no hugh between Bilbo and Thorin only they smile eah other wich makes sense after Bilboīs speech.
Then they see Erebor and the movie ends.

Only1:42 minutes.And it works.

It has a very exciting path and its focused all the time on Thorins quest and Bilbos journey.

Then I have another surprise.

The Withe Council, a short movie with all the wizard scenes and it goes like this:

-We see Radagast in the forest, all the ill animals stuff and the psiders.
-Rady enters Dol Guldur and finds the Necromancer, Rady flees.
-Then they use the shots where Rady flees from the Wargs and all the shots of the dwarves are gone so it seems that Rady is fleeing from Dol Guldur and abandoning Mirkwood. The last shot is that orc that in the movie stops and smells the dwarves. Here it seems that they have lost Radagast.
-Radagast finds Gandalf and tells him about Dol Guldur. All the comical things like the insect and the smoking are gona, and it works we have a more serious Radagast than before.
-Then Gandalf goes to Rivendell and the withe council takes place. All the references to Smaug or the dwarves or Bilbo are gone. And it works. I dare to say that with the material we will get in DOS and TABA it will make a worth watch of an hour movie about wizards and elves and dark business.

Well all this said, some of you could tell how a mere mortals dare to make a fan cut and sugest that it works better than the movie. IT does. The shorter the better, the more acurate to the book the greater interest into Thorinīs quest. I wonder if they would have been only two movies what an awesome we could get if with only 1:42 minutes we arrive to the carroc and we could have had Beorn and an anargic end of persecution of the warg riders and then Mirkwood and Thranduil. When you have to do something so easy to do, that is adapt The Hobbit a story that goes straight from the begining to the end and you just fail when you are a very cualified person, something is going wrong. The book deserves justice. Not money grabing. I have paid my ticket several times I tried very hard but I canīt. My heart is telling me that something is not well done here.

I understand changes I was and I think I am, an open mind. Changes are necessary in order to adapt a book with more than 1000 pages to be able to be told in three sesions of three ours long. Because for The Hobbit it doesnt work to have three movies with a book that is short one but not in a bad way. It needs to be short to have that soul!!!

But we have three movies and I feel disguissed in a decision for making for fans. Even if its truly for that, its not a legitimate decission because you kill the soul. Is like a bad storyteller that starts talking into another bussines and finishes boring his audience.

Now merchandaising.

Despite the art books wich I respect because I find fascinating all the artwork that has been done. Im not gonna talk about all those toys and all that wich Im sure Tolkien would have disliked. What would have being fair to us, the fans is to release as I said all the types of editions at the same time, so you could choose.

A very unique proof of respect to the fans and to the books is that they would have added to the EE an extra material f the With Council. We the fans would have literally devoured it. But of course its better to do three movies, ad that material despite yo kill the story under tones of irrelevant material to Thorinīs quest. But that would have been so fair, and a unique piece of kindness in this marketing world.

The EE would have been more than worthy to spent, instead of that we will have a longer version of the movie that would add some unnecesary scenes, and I dare to say some ridiculous ones: remember the corsairs, Erech and the drinking game? Ok there where some good, bt the average between good and bad balances to the bad. And we as a fans of the legacy of Tolkien should have been up to ask some more cualified added material to the story. If you have something really good then add it, if not, donīt mess with the story. That is respect.In fact in The Hobbit there is a couple of this added moments that are good, like when Bilbo gets Sting.I am up for that.But I fear the EE wont bring us that in a money worthy level.

Long ago I wrote a letter to 3 foot 7 trying to get a job as an extra and repeating my own words I told them: please aim to the main point of the story because you are about to touch many millions hearts.

Iīm sorry and my point is not hurting anyone, and with all my respects to PJ and all folk, but I wanted to express the feelings of a fan that is not such now. I tried to give reasons to my thoughts and I hope everyone find it respectfull despite not agree with me.

But remember my words when within a year we will see Kili having a thing with Tauriel, and Galadriel carrying away Gandalf. I hope I am wrong but I fear Iīm not.

Iīm sorry with the spelling mystakes and if this has hurt someone, that wasnīt my point at all.

Hollywood has reached WellingtonUnsure

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!

Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 6:26pm

Post #2 of 86 (937 views)
And I wanted to ad a possitive thing. [In reply to] Can't Post

All the actors where great, specially Richar Armitage for me. But all of this and the post before are IMO allways IMO,

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


Feb 7 2013, 6:36pm

Post #3 of 86 (960 views)
perhaps [In reply to] Can't Post

I stayed out of the other thread written by a registered member, who chose to express himself in the resoundingly negative only to be jumped on immediately by other members, because I just don't respond well to negative remarks or arguments. I think you make some valid points as to why you have your opinion and I can certainly appreciate you doing so. I think one of the things we forget on this board is that we did not have the rights to make the movie. None of us to my knowledge invested huge amounts of time and money to see it done. Therefore what we are left with is someone else' vision and story that they wanted to tell. While there may have been a multitude of ways to tell this story on screen, what we are left with is one director and writing teams vision of the story as they see it fitting into hat they have already adapted in LOTR. While all of the ideas they base their product on are based on one authors work, it is there work to bring it to the screen. That means there will be lots of changes. For instance, a Hobbit movie based solely on the Novel with no other use of the appendices or other information, just what is in the book would have almost no dialogue from the dwarves. Sure you would be telling a story, but it would be narrated somehow, and to my own liking that would not be a movie that would sell many tickets. Some movies that works for, but not this one, not when we already have the template from the same director and writing team.

To cut the movie to just a fan cut based on your synopsis to me simply does not work in the modern theatre. Where is the connection to the evenst we already know are happening? Where is the character tension? The problem is that since we have Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit cannot function as an independent piece IMO. It must fit into the story of LOTR, and as such there is the necessity of explaning to the non reading audience what else is going on. It may not work for you, but the movie was made with the intention of a much broader audience, an audience that has a vital knowledge of teh workings of Tolkien, an audience that know the other three movies only, and the audience who know nothing about any of this who will hopefully see the LOTR when they have seen this trilogy.

So while yes, you and other fans may say bleh, I don;t like what has been done, it must have been done for money, you are correct! Of course they made a movie to make money. To my limited knowledge, I know of only one movie made with no intention of making money, The Passion of The Christ, Mel Gibson funded that one from his own bank account. yes he made that money back, but he was not concerned about it. I don;t know of anyone who is going to make a movie for wide audience release that will make anything Tolkien did without the thought of making money. And I definitely don;t know of any studio willing to get behind one they don't feel they can milk totally.

To me, I don't see Peter being a pawn of WB. He made his movie, WB merchandised and advertised and commercialised the heck out of it. As far as three movies goes, I have no problem thinking that PJ and his team literally have so much stuff filmed, for good or worse, that they did not feel they could get it into two movies.

Is there shotty work in this movie? Yes, several scenes come to mind, many parts feel rushed or even incomplete. At the same time I felt the same way with the first LOTR film. But then TTT came out and it was very well finished. I'm hoping more of the same for DOS.

Now, to my own opinion of the Hobbit in general. I personally do not care for the book, never really have. I read it when I go through my yearly Tolkien readings because I feel it has important points to the greater mythology. Yet at the same time I feel like I am not being allowed to see all of the other, very large story, that is going on while Bilbo is on his adventure. Jackson gives me a way of seeing all of that at one time. I am one of the people who dearly wished the professor would have finished the rewrite into more adult LOTR type Hobbit.

This is a public forum, and your opinions are very welcome, and thank you for posting them in a concise well thought out manner.

"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com

The Shire

Feb 7 2013, 6:54pm

Post #4 of 86 (876 views)
I think the movie was too long [In reply to] Can't Post

I liked it and some scenes were really great but when I watched it the third time a couple of weeks ago it was boring. I was thinking about other stuff many times and that never happens when I watch LotR. And I have seen LotR many times.
I think making 3 instead of 2 films was a bad idea but I still have hope that the second film will be better. I'm less enthusiastic now than I was before watching the movie.

Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 6:56pm

Post #5 of 86 (865 views)
now that is a civilizated answer [In reply to] Can't Post

Though we may think diferent this is the constructive discussion I was looking for, thank you for thatSmile

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


Feb 7 2013, 7:43pm

Post #6 of 86 (849 views)
I'm very sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

Both because you were indeed so enthusiastic about these movies, and because I remember your post about the economic depression and how bad people around you were hit - I just felt awful reading that (and doubly thankful for not being hit as hard). Are things getting better?

Anyway, it is a great shame to have anyone so disappointed, especially in times like those.

I've seen the movie only once; so I won't be able to discuss all of your points. I was one of those who thought two films were too much, and in general did not have sky-high expectations; so when I just liked the film, I did not feel bad. I enjoyed watching it and that's that.

One thing regarding fan cuts - it is a bit too early for these. Before we see all the films, we do not know yet how things will develop. I suspect Azog is more than LotR-Lurtz was, as we will see over the two other films. I might not like him any better after them, but the concept hasn't yet been given a chance. At the end of TTT, I expect many were horrified at the prospect of Arwen going to the Havens, but in the five years I've been a member of these boards, it seems this sequence was one of the best Jackson-added storylines.

Cheer up, and keep well. I hope you'll enjoy the next films more; but if not, don't take it to heart overmuch. Either way, please stay around here if possible - your voice is both pleasant and unique, and I very much enjoy reading your contributions.

And last but not least: bearing in mind both your strong feelings and English not being your first language - writing such a long, interesting, thoughtful and respectful post is extraordinary. Well done!


Feb 7 2013, 7:56pm

Post #7 of 86 (829 views)
Disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

And here is why. Your analysis is based on viewing this movie as a stand alone project. It is an introduction to a three movie sequence. It is impossible to tell how much of what seems to be extraneous in this movie and a deviation from the book is essential to what occurs in the following two movies. The trilogy will stand or sink on its TOTAL merits not just on what seems to make or not make sense in the first movie.

Grey Havens

Feb 7 2013, 8:15pm

Post #8 of 86 (781 views)
But for a viewer, it is a single movie, also. [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be fair to judge it on how well it works as such, as no one is required to go watch all 8 hours of PJs "The Hobbit"!

Personally I am not convinced by the OP's point of view even in that regard. I thought what provided this movie with a sense of resolution (that is needed to make it work as a stand-alone) was where it took Bilbo and Thorin's relationship. And to me, Bilbo simply giving the speech about home, and Thorin smiling at him on the Carrock after an interlude of being chased up trees and rescued by Eagles, would not, I think, have done it. The importance of the scene in which Thorin battles Azog is that Bilbo *takes action* in it. Which is what forces Thorin to see he has been wrong.

But certainly the OP saying that Azog does not matter to the Quest, is premature. We don't know what his role will be in the later movies. One possible direction this could all go is that not only has Gandalf (in the White Council scenes, and with reasoning PJ&Co lifted out of other places in the canon) seen what a threat Smaug could be, but also the Necromancer has seen how useful Smaug could be, and this is why he has set Azog to chase after the Company, to hinder their quest.

Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 9:03pm

Post #9 of 86 (821 views)
Finally [In reply to] Can't Post

great thread!

Too much repetition of the misty mountains theme.

Nazgul theme took me out of the movie and made the whole scene seem weird to me.

Cliched hug scene and cliff at the end of the ridge.

Cliched dwarves almost falling oh no! Mr Gandalf!

Cliched scene at the Giants.
Giants turned into a rough em sock em scene is excessive, ridiculous and a waste of time.

One noted, wooden, repetitive, unimpressive performance by RA, big disappointment for me. I now wish Del Toros choice had been given priority or Ian Mcshane rather than the gorgeous hunk dwarf.
Lost opportunity for a really unique performance and character with Thorin.

Dwalins beard, looks incredibly fake and weird. Cant understand it. Some pre production drawings of him were far better than the final choice. Crazy

Azog : too much time devotade to him, he says cliched monster lines, the re emergence of the baddies thought to be dead is so old and adds a weird, untolkien like tone to he film in those scenes, he appears on the other side of the misty mountains just like that. Crazy Its too strong a deviation form tolkien for me to like it.They could have given the role to Bolg.

Rivendell : another huge disappointment, almost no Bilbo and dwarves, no hobbit-elvish friendship, unnecessary fat joke scene with Bombur, when bilbo re emerges after the council scene its like : Oh right Bilbo and the dwarves, almost forgot them Crazy

The visual representation of the last homely house was terrible, i have been looking at many screenshots from fellowship and it does look superior, theres nothing fake, nothing feels weird or out of place, amazing, ten years later and its worse.

5K Super high resolution, combined with digital photography is too unforgiving to the elemenst of the image. Many shots look fake, set like, others are so crisp almost to a point that it deteriorates the image. 35mm film has a soft, velvet, painterly quality. TH has a great deal of scenes in which one can just see the sets, the greenscreen parts etc...Unsure

Goblin Town looks terribly videogamish, with the fallen bridges, the cartoonish goblins sweeped aside like Mario's monkeys, the ladders and the jumps, and most of all a lack of darkness, a feel that it is a dark, hellish place under the mountains and a fake atmosphere created by this orange and blue colour all over the place. Bad lighting choices by AndrewLesnie? His over use of big studio artificial lights? I dont know probably.

One of the big complaints about the 48 fps cinema con presentation was that there was no darkness in the scenes. In the riddles in the dark and Goblin Town scenes this really obvious and it is indeed a lost opportunity to have an amazing cave, down in hell sort of scene. Pity pj didnt have the imagination for this, because it all in the book. He chose the video game route, sadly.

Thats all for now.

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Feb 7 2013, 9:32pm

Post #10 of 86 (754 views)
Hmm [In reply to] Can't Post

"unnecessary fat joke scene with Bombur"

Guess you didn't like the book then, because there are plenty, and more to come.

The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 9:51pm

Post #11 of 86 (714 views)
Not that [In reply to] Can't Post

there shoudlnt be fat jokes with him, just that scene, that way it was put there...just out of nowhere...were seeing something to do with azog i believe and then we cut to a scene , a few seconds long...to show what? Bombur grabs a sausage and breaks the furniture...whats the point? It feels weird,out of place..and then it is followed by serious council stuff if i remember correctly Crazy

If that scene was part of a greater scene to do with the dwarves, fine...

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 9:53pm

Post #12 of 86 (698 views)
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

too much hacking and cutting and over long action scenes...the time should have been used more appropriately.

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Feb 7 2013, 9:53pm

Post #13 of 86 (723 views)
Hasty assumption? [In reply to] Can't Post

A dislike of parts of something does not necessarily mean a dislike of that something as a whole. I wouldn't even make any assumptions based on Lusitano's list, because for all I know there may be an equal amount of good things left unlisted. If someone does not like something, let them say it themselves, don't make that assumption for them.

(This post was edited by Macfeast on Feb 7 2013, 9:56pm)


Feb 7 2013, 10:06pm

Post #14 of 86 (686 views)
Okay, nice case as stated. [In reply to] Can't Post

However, I still politely disagree. I wish I had the time to worry so much about this :)

Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 10:06pm

Post #15 of 86 (683 views)
Well said Macfeast [In reply to] Can't Post

Just as i explained, its not the concept of a fat joke that bothered me its the way that scene was done.

And you are correct there is a huge amount of stuff i liked but as this is a negative thread, i shall focus more on the negative aspects.

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Feb 7 2013, 10:32pm

Post #16 of 86 (689 views)
I disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

One noted, wooden, repetitive, unimpressive performance by RA, big disappointment for me. I now wish Del Toros choice had been given priority or Ian Mcshane rather than the gorgeous hunk dwarf.
Lost opportunity for a really unique performance and character with Thorin.

I believe Armitage stole the Movie he gave us a Thorin who was multi layered unlike book Thorin who was one dimensional. As for McShane his Thorin would for me at least have been a clichéd bad guy


Feb 7 2013, 10:55pm

Post #17 of 86 (643 views)
Agreed Lusitano [In reply to] Can't Post

I found a lot to enjoy in the film, but I agree with nearly all the points in your list of negatives, especially the cliches, the hobbitless Rivendell , the stone giants and the endless Goblintown video game. Oh and most of all Azog.

Must say I didn't notice Dwalin's beard though - I'll look out for it on the DVD!

Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 10:58pm

Post #18 of 86 (640 views)
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

i found RA's thorin very ....boring...one noted. One minute of Graham Mctavish was more interesting to me than thorin, sadly.

Maybe he being multi layered in his mind but the performance was very disappointing for me, no matter how epicly pj choses to shoot him.

Actually i re watched TH's animated version and i am more fond of the books thorin rather than thisold cliche of the hunky main, handsome leader. Its a predictable, boring choice. As macfeast said on anotehr thread, a more experienced actor, with greater range and ability would have trasnformed this character into something really unique. It would have been really brave and worthy of applause to have an older actor play Thorin at an age when youthfullness seems to be the only way to achieve protagonism.

"would for me at least have been a clichéd bad guy" :

Except the charcater of Thorin is not a bad guy in that sense. Mcshane s a great actor with a resumé that gives RA a run for his money and would no doubt have done something much more interesting.

RA is a great singer, ill give you that. And he looks great as a Kingly Dwarf, with the exception of the small beard.

Dont get me started on Kili's shaved chin Angelic

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Feb 7 2013, 10:58pm)

Tol Eressea

Feb 7 2013, 11:06pm

Post #19 of 86 (624 views)
Those are, i think my main complaints Tolktok [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course when i have more time mule over the film and see it again, ill find more things...one complaint could be summarised like this : it could have been sooo much better with another director like Del Toro, Neil Jordan...But, as to the specifics, those constitute my main beefs with this film i think.

Hobbitless amd Rivendell was such a disappointment...but happily we get tons of falling ladders, sweeping jumping goblins, Mario's style! Unsure Which is even more of a pity because Under Hill and Brass Buttons are fantastic musical interpretations of those moments.

Dwalins beard and its ridiculous fakeness was not as obvious and headache inducing for me as when i see it in a production video or a photo, but it was there, staring at me. Wink

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Feb 7 2013, 11:07pm)


Feb 7 2013, 11:20pm

Post #20 of 86 (636 views)
I agree with pretty much all of this [In reply to] Can't Post

It's really funny actually. If you listen to the commentary on LOTR, PJ talks in length about how he wanted to avoid cliches. Yet, in AUJ, they are all over the place.

I have the same roller coaster ride of opinions every time I watch the film. During the prologue, and Bag End sequences I think "This is really great, I feel bad for feeling negatively about the film". But then something terrible happens...

Right when the camera pans down into mirkwood, I am instantly out of Middle Earth. And everything terrible about the film takes front and center. It is at some point during the warg chase that I think to myself "Ok this is god awfull for any film, let alone The Hobbit". This feeling stays with me all the way until I see Bilbo's eyes open in Gollums cave.

They got Riddles in the Dark SOOOOO right. It literally made me feel like I was watching LOTR again. This is also the opinion of many crtiics. This scene was of the quality expected from LOTR. The acting, the lighting, the way it was shot. It was just so awesome. It's too bad they pretty much botched the entire mid section of the film.

Bilbo was never a burden to any of the dwarves. He was never complaining or wishing he was home. He was never really doing anything from the trollshaws, all the way until Riddles in the Dark. He is basically absent in Rivendell (which looked totally over lit and fake) and you are never able to understand why he loves the place so much, or why he's even on the adventure in the first place. They didn't really delve into why Bilbo wants to be there. They just give him a few awed looks without giving his hidden sense of adventure a full story. The film just lacks emotion almost entirely.

And the special effects...what in god's name happened? Everything felt fake. There was no blending of miniatures, and CGI, and sets, and locations. The effects in LOTR are more convincing because you aren't even sure what you're looking at. It all blended together and gave the film a very believable quality. However, in AUJ, I was constantly aware of what was CGI and what wasn't. It made the film feel cramped and a lot less like Middle Earth.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

Tol Eressea

Feb 8 2013, 12:57am

Post #21 of 86 (586 views)
He is basically absent in Rivendell (which looked totally over lit and fake) and you are never able to understand why he loves the place so much, or why he's even on the adventure in the first place. They didn't really delve into why Bilbo wants to be the [In reply to] Can't Post

Exactly. Pj made a huge mistake here. Very bad decision to portray the rivendell sequence as he did. Very bad. Why should Bilbo even care to go back there in fellowship? Clearly, the place is just a pretty sight for a moment or two.

Apparently pj learned to trust the studio and super high resolution or bad cgi work that exposes everything and destroys the juxtaposition of sets, actors, green screen. Watching lotr recently, just made me go : what the hell has pj done visually with TH? This looks so much better. It looks right, well blended, well crafted. I was excited with the 5k resolution and the Red Epic, and i guess i must be gratefull: it has strongly reassured me of the visual superiority of 35 mm film. If Del Toro had directed this film , he would have shot it on film and all of these problems with cgi, fakeness, bad make up, fake beards, etc might not even exist.

Godd point abou cliches, i guess pj has lost something.

Actually i lked Radagast, and the trolls ...it is when radagast shows up and the warg chase ensues and rivendell that the film really loses, i think. There is something annoying and wrong about that warg chase. It feels out of place and it didnt feel like hobbit material. It could be one example of pj imbuing some lotr style action where none is required. A smoother transition into rivendell is what it should have been filmed.

I agree about the riddles scene with the exception of the lighting. Some shots are just too overbright . Fellowship's gollum cave is way darker and so it should be. Darkness is a very important part of cinema, let alone fantastical filmmaking.

Although agree that the concept of the bilbo leaving scene is a rip off the sam and frodo scene form rotk and that its not how ot was in the book, i really like it. Mainly because of the bofur and bilbo interaction.

And i really hoping for some really horrific goblin voices , sadly Wink

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Feb 8 2013, 1:07am

Post #22 of 86 (579 views)
This has Always Been My Argument [In reply to] Can't Post

and I stand with you. This is not a stand-alone movie. It is a part of a six film series. And I think PJ saw it that way.

Having said that, I think the movie can stand on its own. Do I object to some things. Certainly. IS AUJ a wonderful film? Yes.


Feb 8 2013, 1:29am

Post #23 of 86 (549 views)
Ditto [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that you have to look at the big picture. This movie is part of a 6 film series and you should look at it that way. I love the movie and the acting. Martin Freeman is the perfect hobbit, RA is perfect as Thorin and all the cast is fantastic. New and returning. Is a perfect movie? No. It is not without it's flaws. I, for one ,do not like the portrayal of Radagast. It was way over the top and I wish he had been portrayed with more dignity, but I love the movie none the less with all it's flaws. I am looking forward to the next two installments.

Tol Eressea

Feb 8 2013, 1:31am

Post #24 of 86 (556 views)
Fellowship, two towers [In reply to] Can't Post

rotk, auj, dos and taba are all one film and they are appreciated and judged as stand alone films.

This is a stand alone film just like any other film and just like fellowship was.

Vous commencez ā m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

Tol Eressea

Feb 8 2013, 1:32am

Post #25 of 86 (552 views)
I completely understand where you're coming from, and although I don't agree/share those opinions, I can understand... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I can see that the backlash to the film has begun to hit the boards though FrownUnsureUnimpressed.... oh well, twas inevitable perhaps.

--I'm a victim of Bifurcation--

Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.