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

Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Feb 8 2013, 1:35am

Post #26 of 86 (320 views)
Shortcut
Xana [In reply to] Can't Post

in a forum for tolkien fans there is no backlash, is there? Why backlash?

Its just people who dont like the film or aspects of the film. Why is that so exotic?

Unless we want to cmpartmentalize different tolkien forums : this is a supporters forum, this one is against , this one is furiously against...etc...

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Feb 8 2013, 1:41am)


Elessar
Valinor


Feb 8 2013, 1:52am

Post #27 of 86 (305 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't call it backlash [In reply to] Can't Post

There has been negative talk since the film came out and even I believe a couple of negative threads. So it's nothing new and if people want to have a thread they can pile all their issues into its fine. No harm. No foul.



Xanaseb
Tol Eressea


Feb 8 2013, 2:13am

Post #28 of 86 (286 views)
Shortcut
yeah I think you're right, I'm just stirring up trouble rofl. I do apologise ;). There's no backlash, I am simply overreacting hehehe [In reply to] Can't Post

 If I'm very honest, I'm imitating another post I saw in a completely different forum on Rush last year XD.... subconciously or conciously, dunno

--I'm a victim of Bifurcation--
__________________________________________

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


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Feb 8 2013, 2:34am

Post #29 of 86 (283 views)
Shortcut
Eh [In reply to] Can't Post

pff eh oh thd thd v hm pfff you agaaain...Wink

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Slim
Rivendell


Feb 8 2013, 2:35am

Post #30 of 86 (283 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for posting [In reply to] Can't Post

a negative review in a very civil way :)

Your post got me interested. First I have to say that I am one of those people who thought the movie could have benefited from MORE scenes (especially character scenes in the latter half), so what bothered me about the film was not the length, but the 'rushed' pacing after the trolls scene. The movie was pretty much perfect for me up to that point.

The latter half of the movie felt like Event A, Event B, Event C, Event D -- with no real continuity, without the character bits to 'glue' them all together. It is something I wish they would fix in the Extended Edition.

Anyway, I can totally see your point about wanting a 'tighter' version for the film, especially for more casual movie-goers who do not want to be too invested. The fan cut you saw sounds interesting.

May I ask where you found it? I tried looking online but found only one 85-minute version (not 1.42 mins).

For me, old Bilbo and Frodo were not necessary. They were just there for sentimental reasons, but I didn't mind it. I won't comment about Azog, as we don't know what part he is going to play in the rest of the story in the movie-verse yet.

However, I'd like to add that personally I don't think the movies would work well if they followed the exact plot of the book. Like I said, the book is great as a bedtime story, where you read aloud one chapter each night. As a movie, I like the additions and changes they made. And as I said, I will reserve my judgment on several things for now until I have seen the other two movies.

I'd still like to watch the fan cut just for comparison though... :)


cats16
Tol Eressea

Feb 8 2013, 4:55am

Post #31 of 86 (265 views)
Shortcut
My only thought [In reply to] Can't Post

remains to be that aesthetic comparisons between the trilogies should NOT be made, for reasons I've said before about the different storytellers.

And also, as a relatively young filmmaker, I strongly dislike the idea of only being able to adapt the canon of an existing work word-for-word. I understand that some things may not be something Tolkien intended for this story, but this is an adaptation of a story. PJ ADAPTED this story for the screen, not to just give us a frame-by-frame replication of the book.The animated version of TH can suffice for that, more or less. The idea of adapting something implies that change is necessary, in order to convey the overall spirit of the original work.

For example, one reason I didn't like Tom Hooper's version of Les Mis is that nothing was adapted, although it was declared an adaptation. One could strategically film the stage version, and come up with similar effects (obviously it helps you get into the story world by being on locations, sets, etc). But to the story, nothing was adapted for the screen. And I think this is why some (including myself) thought Les Mis was very repetitive and lack a cinematic synchronization. It's not that changes have to be made, but alterations are appropriate when attempting to give the story a certain cinematic look/quality/feel.

But I do appreciate the dedication you've put into this post. I wish people I knew could actually articulate themselves like you have done. It sure makes the discussion much more pleasant!Smile


jtarkey
Rohan


Feb 8 2013, 6:42am

Post #32 of 86 (254 views)
Shortcut
Agreed again [In reply to] Can't Post

Every film ever made needs to be judged by itself regardless of whether or not it is part of a bigger picture. LOTR did achieve something pretty amazing. All of those films worked great as single movies (and each was nominated for best picture), and they also flowed perfectly as a whole.

If I want to sit down and just watch FOTR, I can. I don't want to NEED the other films to enjoy one on it's own. Neither does the general movie going audience. If a movie is bad, it's bad. Another movie will never change the result of the one that came before it. If TDOS is better than AUJ, it's not going to make me like AUJ more.

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


Rufus
Bree

Feb 8 2013, 8:58am

Post #33 of 86 (222 views)
Shortcut
We should agree to differ [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't dislike McShane but he is always the same for me a loud slightly grumpy bad boy. I see no subtlety in what he does. I think RA gave a fantastic performance multi faceted and layered. Sometimes I think people refused beyond the supposed good looks but that is a problem that has dogged actors and actresses for years.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Feb 8 2013, 2:04pm

Post #34 of 86 (185 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

saying oh its not complete yet, you should for the whole trilogy sounds like an excuse.

Anybody can watch any star wars film on its own, or harry potter or james bond or any other franchise movie.

It could lend some perspective perhaps, if dos is better, but yes it wont break or reveal a whole new film for me, with auj.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Feb 8 2013, 2:06pm

Post #35 of 86 (184 views)
Shortcut
Really? [In reply to] Can't Post

Then i say its just a case of people giveing an actor too many "bad" roles, when he has so much to offer.

I agree with that, but for me, i didnt see his looks as an impediment of my appreciation of his performance. Countless beautifull actors and actresses give and have given interesting and powerfull performances since the beginning of filmmaking.

I simply am not moved by his performance. The whole thing, great warrior leader, came out very forced and cliched for me.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Feb 8 2013, 3:24pm

Post #36 of 86 (188 views)
Shortcut
This sums it up well in a fun way [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.cracked.com/article_20315_if-hobbit-was-10-times-shorter-100-times-more-honest.html

Please note there is occsasional use of strong language in this article.


Rostron2
Gondor


Feb 8 2013, 4:22pm

Post #37 of 86 (181 views)
Shortcut
I see a trend here [In reply to] Can't Post

All those who wish Del Toro had directed the film please raise your hands...thought so.


jtarkey
Rohan


Feb 8 2013, 6:28pm

Post #38 of 86 (161 views)
Shortcut
I dont really wish he would have directed... [In reply to] Can't Post

But it sure would have been interesting to see. I also have one more thought before this thread drops off.

Am I crazy for thinking the Rankin Bass cartoon was more faithfull to the spirit of the book than AUJ was? Yes, the cartoon has some horrible designs (were those woodelves or nazi goblins?) But, despite having songs, and cutting things from the book, I felt it did a great job with the tone. It was actually darker than AUJ which is strange.

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


elostirion74
Rohan

Feb 8 2013, 8:45pm

Post #39 of 86 (145 views)
Shortcut
well [In reply to] Can't Post

Well. since AUJ is at times very uneven I understand that you'd have this roller coaster ride feel.

However I don't agree about the different effects in LoTR blending better together, except for Rivendell. There are quite obvious and noticeable differences between location shots and the same landscapes with matte paintings or cgi in FoTR, for instance on Caradhras. Not that it takes me out of the film when I watch FoTR, but on the whole I think the different techniques used in AUJ blended together at least as well as FoTR. IMO the weakness of some parts of AUJ lies rather in how the entire scene was conceptualized (like the over-the-top Goblin Town scenes) or what they chose to focus on (forgetting about Bilbo in Rivendell in favour of exposition) rather than the blending of effects and techniques.


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Feb 9 2013, 12:43am

Post #40 of 86 (149 views)
Shortcut
I wonder [In reply to] Can't Post

if it was one movie or too short you would be commenting about how they cut too much out. The Fact is, you are not a (professional) director, you are not a screen-writer, you can say how "great" it would "have been" if you did direct/write TH but you could never actually do that. Peter Jackson has academy awards for this movie series on his belt and he is the best director for the job, its a hard novel to adapt into a movie and he is doing his best and it shows. End of story.

[insulting comments were edited out of this post]


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!

(This post was edited by Altaira on Feb 10 2013, 4:57pm)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Feb 9 2013, 1:20am

Post #41 of 86 (146 views)
Shortcut
Not entirely fair [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually Isaac is a film maker, I've seen his work on youtube and it's not bad at all. As Sador said, he is also one of the most unapologetically enthusiastic members of this forum that I've encountered over the past 4 years.

That aside, you do not need to be a film maker to notice that editing and pacing are dodgy in a few places in TH:AUJ. I agree with isaac on this point. It's as if they ran out of time to make a cleaner cut.

I really think they got behind schedule late in production, probably due to going to 3 movies, yes, but also likely because rendering 48fps took way longer than they thought it would. (It may also have meant re-shooting practical effects that looked fake in high res. who knows?)

Personally I didn't like what they came up with for the troll sequence at all (though if memory serves it was during shooting the trolls that they had to replace Rob Kazinsky with Dean O'Gorman... so who knows what that meant in terms of rewrites and salvageable footage). Also I really was not impressed with the book-end scenes, chiefly because Wood seemed off somehow.

However I will say that it is obvious that PJ wanted to put as much stuff as possible in primarily for the fans. I'm guessing that if WB made any demands, it was for 3 shorter movies. It's hard to fault PJ for going the extra mile when including stuff (as long as they didn't do it just to justify 3 films) but I wish he had used more prosthetics and bigatures. Honestly, LOTR looked a million times better -- what makes no sense is that even the CGI looked better in LOTR, imho.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Feb 9 2013, 1:21am)


Kassandros
Rohan


Feb 9 2013, 1:35am

Post #42 of 86 (117 views)
Shortcut
Do you think Gollum looked better in LotR? [In reply to] Can't Post

You mention thinking the CGI in LOTR looks better than in AUJ - would you extend that as far as to say that Gollum looked better in TTT and ROTK than in AUJ?

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Elessar
Valinor


Feb 9 2013, 1:37am

Post #43 of 86 (115 views)
Shortcut
Now now [In reply to] Can't Post

As I said earlier let them have their thread to pick the film apart. There really is no harm in it. I've read some of the posts just for giggles. This film has a few issues and a lot of what has been said I can't agree with but let them have the thread.

I wi



SirDennisC
Half-elven


Feb 9 2013, 2:00am

Post #44 of 86 (122 views)
Shortcut
Good point [In reply to] Can't Post

Gollum did look better in AUJ. Though remember that riddles was the very first scene they shot at the start of production. Therefore they had the most time to get him just right. (actually his skin looked so frog-like that it made me squeamish.)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Feb 9 2013, 2:36am

Post #45 of 86 (112 views)
Shortcut
Peter Jackson is the best director for the job.End of story. [In reply to] Can't Post

Righ, in your opinion.

I can think of a good dozen other filnmmakers that are infinitey more suited for the job and have created far more interesting and better films than anything pj has done. And i am sure many here could name many others.

And totalitarian proclamations dont work.


"ridiculous excuse for a thread , if it was one movie or too short you would be whining about how they cut too much out "

Cut out what? TH novel isnt very expansive, long and dense.It could have been done as a single film or two movies if the filmmaker wished it so.

So those who have issues with the film are whining and their threads are ridiculous because they are not constantly cheering and clapping the film?

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Feb 9 2013, 4:52am

Post #46 of 86 (121 views)
Shortcut
no because they think they can do better [In reply to] Can't Post

will than why don't they?? you say one film could fit it all in? really? how come the animated version had to cut out Beorn? You really would rather no necromancer/white council just so that the film can "stay true to the book"? -even though Tolkien once was going to rewrite the book.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Feb 9 2013, 4:57am

Post #47 of 86 (121 views)
Shortcut
Bad Reasoning [In reply to] Can't Post

It's always surprising to me when people use this kind of bad reasoning, even when they should know better.

If your surgeon goofs, would you complain and ask for better treatment? Or would you assume that you could have done no better yourself and not expect one who claims to be trained and certified to do better than you?


Escapist
Gondor


Feb 9 2013, 5:03am

Post #48 of 86 (109 views)
Shortcut
It's called being human. [In reply to] Can't Post

And surgeons aren't held accountable for every random comment on a message board ... but they do carry expensive insurance to cover any mistakes made ... since theirs isn't a case of being able to "oops ... really I meant this - that came out wrong" it.

Hence we get this notion that doctors (especially humans) are somehow more than just human ... like Gods who could never be wrong ...


Escapist
Gondor


Feb 9 2013, 5:08am

Post #49 of 86 (104 views)
Shortcut
I'd also like to note [In reply to] Can't Post

that there is an objective nature to surgery that is lacking in film making. No one dies if PJ does something that someone doesn't like. There is no right or wrong answers in film like that. It is not a proven fact that mistakes were made or unprofessionalism abounded. Some people just didn't like it. That happens in the entertainment industry all the time.

The movie was to some people's taste and not to others. It's more like cooking ... was that extra clove of garlic a major mistake? Well that depends on how much you like garlic, I guess ...


Escapist
Gondor


Feb 9 2013, 5:12am

Post #50 of 86 (109 views)
Shortcut
This is largely a matter of taste. [In reply to] Can't Post

Some people didn't like it and think they could do better. There are probably some that would agree and some that would disagree.

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.