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:
A reaffirmation of what makes cinema magical : TH s failure
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 2:28am

Post #76 of 175 (534 views)
Shortcut
The second half wasn't that bad. Even aside from the MAGNIFICENCE of Gandalf's displays of magic finally getting something of their due. [In reply to] Can't Post

I will admit, whether I was going to like the film on the whole was partially dependant on them not gimping old Gandalf. . . they didn't, at least not in Goblin Town (not perfect, but FAR better than my fears, and near enough to my hopes) and much of the edge is taken off of my criticisms as a result. lol

Honestly, while there were excesses with the trolls and in Goblin Town, and while the restructuring for Azog will always bother me, the second half was still not bad. I could have done without the excess lavished on The Stone Giants. I REALLY enjoyed Dame Edna's variant of The Great Goblin. ALOT! Great balance of menace, mass and humour, I think. And Gandalf's entrance was magnificent, and holds up to some of the greatest moments from the original trilogy. Sure, it went rather down hill shortly after, but not so badly as some suggest. If the scene had been shortened, and some of the swing and pulley gags and pointless limb severings left out, it would have been pretty solid. The pinecones could have been more impressive, but the scene on the whole worked fine, at least until Thorin marched out of the tree to get his ass kicked. lol. But the Rings films had some eye roll and head shake worthy moments as well.

I would say more than 2/3rds of this movie was really good, in some cases great, really enjoyable material.

In Reply To
im glad you liked it...

But for me and many people who saw it like that, hfr and 3d and 5k resolution is just wrong for this film. It looks, fake, too crisp, too cgi, you can always tell where the set is and where the green screen is, it looks like a super epxensive, oberly cgied televison broadcast...it doenst loook like film and TH should look like proper classical cinema, like lotr. Imo, of course.

TH was well cast- except RA- , and well acted indeed...however, i feel the over the top, overly long, theme park action ride is just too long, tiring, and a waste of time...and about half of the film is like that...after the trolls, its almost just action, and cgi video game stuff...and for me, if half of the film is bad, then i cant enjoy it...

Post trolls, the film feels sloppy, messy, very thin, with bad writing, terrible visuals, cliched villains and lines, a lack of characterter development, particularly Bilbo, etc...

And the visual style just made things worse...this unforgiving, clarity, detrimental sharpness, 5k resolution, the digital look, this televised hfr feel...gives TH a very poor visual, in my opinion..


"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."


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 2:35am

Post #77 of 175 (510 views)
Shortcut
Interesting? Indeed - we always find things to discuss! [In reply to] Can't Post

But having been forewarned I will have to watch for any wacky red-herring ploys, like you joining the Thorin club Smile (heeheee!)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 2:55am

Post #78 of 175 (515 views)
Shortcut
It was not a failure, but the way it was unveiled and obtrusively pushed damaged the reception of the film. [In reply to] Can't Post

the format did the films early reception great harm.


Jackson allowed excitement and hubris to best him on this matter. He should have taken greater heed at Cinemacon, as he and Warner Brother's at first seemed to do. He decided to all but shove it down the throats of the critics, and perhaps became more concerned with them liking the story in his preferred format than he was about them just liking the movie/story. And most of them balked. He gave them something of an all or nothing presentation, and too many of them said, essentially, "fine, we are just going to say we hated the experience, and not bother sorting out the bad from the good in a fair and balanced way. We'll just say it all sucked."


I understand the desire to amaze everyone with the format. . . but there is a balance, and a line to walk. They were presenting a new installment in a hugely popular franchise (based on a classic work), which had not been visited in film in over 10 years, since the last set won billions and critical acclaim. All eyes were going to be on them in those first weeks. First impressions are powerful things. If they were going to spring a new format on critics for their first view of the moviem critics whose response would be the first word of mouth concerning said film, they should have been confident that the reception of the format was going to be overwhelmingly positive. Yet they already knew better. The prior responses had been, when averaged, luke warm at best, with a lot more negative and discomfort than positive. The response from Peter? "Well, takes about an hour or so to get used to." Well, dammit man (not you, Dormouse) that is more than the entire first third of the movie! Thus, many people who did not like the format, or were simply terribly distracted by it, spent the entire first hour of it trying to adjust (or not bothering to try), and unable to give proper attention to the actual movie, to the detriment of the film.


This reviewer and some few others took the time to go back and see the film in other formats. They ended up paying more attention to the movie itself, as a result, and realizing it was a much better film than they at first assumed. Most critics didn't do that. And while some would have found things to bitchand gripe over, high frame or no, in many cases it was the factor that tipped the scale from a review that would have been mostly positive with some caveats and complaints, to reviews that were mostly negative with a few brightsides. The difference between all but a few of the most ardently positive or negative reviews was merely one of attitude and tone. Often the two review types said the same thing, but in one case the negative led and that tone dominated, and in the other it was the reverse. And in those in which an irrate tone permeated, HFR was often one of the main culprits, cited in many cases as the reason a bad review was given, and the primary cause for the critic being unable to get into the film. That is a problem, and it is one the team should have taken into consideration early on.

If anything, one would hope they have learned NOT to show the High Rate to the critics for Desolation of Smaug.

"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."


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 3 2013, 3:00am

Post #79 of 175 (506 views)
Shortcut
I have to assume [In reply to] Can't Post

that WB has all of the later run data and can come up with a better analysis than we are able to do from published articles. Unfortunately, that sort of detailed breakdown is generally never released to the public and so we may never know. I just hope that their figures on HFR were encouraging enough for them to give it a wider release for the next two films. It will be very interesting (and possibly revealing) to see what their format availability choices are for DOS.

And I also suspect that a lot of the critics were probably influenced by the preview reaction prior to release and that some may have pre-formed their opinions, or at least been extra critical because of it. But we've seen that a lot of people here liked it more with each viewing as they adjusted to it; I wonder if any of the critics will react differently to the format with DOS and say so or if they'll continue the same level of dislike? It will be an interesting thing to watch over the course of the trilogy.

Silverlode






Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 3 2013, 3:09am

Post #80 of 175 (497 views)
Shortcut
Yes good point [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree totally. It will be interesting to see what WB does with the rollout of DoS. And yes I'm sure they have all the data broken down.

I'm sure also that Comic Con this summer will be interesting as well and it will be interesting to see what's presented there and also what VBlogs he does going forward as well as the EE release in the fall. I'm somewhat encouraged that they are using Freeman in the run up to the DVD release to get press out there for that as well. Best foot forward. Put all your chips out there and let them ride. It's going to be an interesting year.

Thank you for your questions, now sod off and go do something useful -- Martin Freeman, Twitter t 3/1/13


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 3:42am

Post #81 of 175 (495 views)
Shortcut
It gives a new angle to interpreting reviews [In reply to] Can't Post

to determine whether they are reviewing the format or the film.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 4:08am

Post #82 of 175 (484 views)
Shortcut
I think having more time to tweak it -- [In reply to] Can't Post

especially with the breathing space they just carved out pushing film 3 back 6 months -- should be a big selling point for a wider HFR release.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 4:12am

Post #83 of 175 (485 views)
Shortcut
Yes, well in some circles [In reply to] Can't Post

the medium is still the message. Messing with the base layer of a proven medium is always going to draw attention to the technique/device more so than the content... at least until it becomes the new standard (or goes away).


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 3 2013, 4:41am

Post #84 of 175 (483 views)
Shortcut
Wasn't a failure to me either [In reply to] Can't Post

I enjoyed the heck out of it. Enough to see it five times and to make sure ill be double dipping on BR. As far as the HFR I liked it as well though I wasn't sure going in I would.



Kimtc
Rohan


Mar 3 2013, 4:58am

Post #85 of 175 (486 views)
Shortcut
Agree wholeheartedly! [In reply to] Can't Post

First time I saw it was in 2D because I was sure I wouldn't like HFR (after all the bad reviews). But my second viewing was in HFR, and I was floored. In fact, when I did have to see it again in 2D, I felt like I was missing a lot (particularly in Erebor and Azanulbizar). Now all movies look blurry to me. I'm a convert.


In Reply To
I enjoyed the heck out of it. Enough to see it five times and to make sure ill be double dipping on BR. As far as the HFR I liked it as well though I wasn't sure going in I would.



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 3 2013, 5:21am

Post #86 of 175 (456 views)
Shortcut
Almost convert [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know if I'm a convert yet. I was shocked at how cool it looked and maybe after the second film I will be full convert. I can't wait to see the BR to get full HD at home on my LCD tv make a mental comparison.



Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 3 2013, 6:18am

Post #87 of 175 (447 views)
Shortcut
Investment of negative energy [In reply to] Can't Post

On PI ironically whilst I thought the cinematic adventure was very three dimentional I thought the character definition was flat and very one dimentional. Sometimes when art attempts to be sophisticated and emotionally subtle it forgets the crucial need for projection. Poetry "is words working over time" , in my view that applies to most art.

I to avoid Tarantino like the plague. Recently I have watched Argo, Silver Linings Playbook The Artist, The Imposter and I Am Love, all worked in an entirely different way but they drew me in and engaged my curiousity in where they ended up, its not complicated really. I also found the raw,flawed,earthy vocal portrayals in Les Mis worked for me.

On the question of investing negative energy in watching Part II and Part III. First of all peoples first responce is they have the "Right" to enter an internet board and express their disappointment of a franchise they are commited to whether its a rock band latest "disappointing" CD, a version of a Shakespeare play or Tolkien. I agree with that. What tells you far more about them than the art in question is if they keep saying the samething over and over again. I am certainly not going to seek out a board that discusses Spielbergs cutsy version of War Horse. I will simply go to the theatre again and be enchanted and spell bound and avoid the movie.

In Reply To
It comes down to did you like it or not. I didn't think Pi was that great. It was okay for me, but like you I didn't fine the characters engaging. Maybe because I love the Tolkien books I am more engaged at the outset with The Hobbit characters. Either way it really comes down to personal interest.

What I will find interesting is those in this thread who feel it's a complete failure, don't think it represents Tolkien's universe etc, will you then go to see the other two. If so, why?

Is it because you believe it can be rectified? Or is it because you want to see Tolkien's universe no matter how much you disagree with the portrayal? Or maybe there is some other reason you wish to go see it.

There are popular directors I absolutely cannot stand. Tarantino and Burton are two of those. I don't bother to see their movies because I know I'm not going to like them.

I'm wondering if that's the same for some here or not.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 6:54am

Post #88 of 175 (449 views)
Shortcut
The fiercer the love, the fiercer the fury in dissapointment can sometimes be. [In reply to] Can't Post

The more attatched a person is to a given work, and the more passionate about it, the more likely they are to rage themselves into exhaustion about everything that bothers them about a dissapointing adaptation, especially one which they know is going to be widely seen and potentially viewed as definitive by many. It can be rather like misrepresenting someone's faith Shocked lol.

And some people go back to better ascertain exactly what displeased them, or to try to find redeeming aspects, etc.

I went many times because I love the movie. . . but there were a few things I didn't like one bit, and I am not shy about lecturing on them. lol

In Reply To
On PI ironically whilst I thought the cinematic adventure was very three dimentional I thought the character definition was flat and very one dimentional. Sometimes when art attempts to
On the question of investing negative energy in watching Part II and Part III. First of all peoples first responce is they have the "Right" to enter an internet board and express their disappointment of a franchise they are commited to whether its a rock band latest "disappointing" CD, a version of a Shakespeare play or Tolkien. I agree with that. What tells you far more about them than the art in question is if they keep saying the samething over and over again. I am certainly not going to seek out a board that discusses Spielbergs cutsy version of War Horse. I will simply go to the theatre again and be enchanted and spell bound and avoid the movie.

In Reply To
It comes down to did you like it or not. I didn't think Pi was that great. It was okay for me, but like you I didn't fine the characters engaging. Maybe because I love the Tolkien books I am more engaged at the outset with The Hobbit characters. Either way it really comes down to personal interest.

What I will find interesting is those in this thread who feel it's a complete failure, don't think it represents Tolkien's universe etc, will you then go to see the other two. If so, why?

Is it because you believe it can be rectified? Or is it because you want to see Tolkien's universe no matter how much you disagree with the portrayal? Or maybe there is some other reason you wish to go see it.

There are popular directors I absolutely cannot stand. Tarantino and Burton are two of those. I don't bother to see their movies because I know I'm not going to like them.

I'm wondering if that's the same for some here or not.



"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."


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 3 2013, 7:28am

Post #89 of 175 (462 views)
Shortcut
In your humble opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

Not that the Oscars have anything to do with what qualifies a good movie.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 3 2013, 8:02am

Post #90 of 175 (443 views)
Shortcut
Reservations I had a few [In reply to] Can't Post

At the risk of embarressing you, from where I am sat when you offer a critique it casts more light on Tolkien, Jackson and your well developed and long standing interest in his works. What I think the original poster was trying to say is that some people are very largely unhappy with the first film therefore will they carry on with the process. If I was that disenchanted I would not, there are so many other riches to mine. You pay this film the ultimate compliment, you take the effort everyone involved has made very seriously and offer passionate well thought out responces which I have found a good deal of pleasure in considering.


In Reply To
The more attatched a person is to a given work, and the more passionate about it, the more likely they are to rage themselves into exhaustion about everything that bothers them about a dissapointing adaptation, especially one which they know is going to be widely seen and potentially viewed as definitive by many. It can be rather like misrepresenting someone's faith Shocked lol.

And some people go back to better ascertain exactly what displeased them, or to try to find redeeming aspects, etc.

I went many times because I love the movie. . . but there were a few things I didn't like one bit, and I am not shy about lecturing on them. lol



I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 3 2013, 8:05am)


kareniel
Lorien

Mar 3 2013, 1:05pm

Post #91 of 175 (417 views)
Shortcut
Viewing #13 for me today. . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I find it very magical indeed.


burrahobbit
Rohan


Mar 3 2013, 1:15pm

Post #92 of 175 (415 views)
Shortcut
Wonder and awe in Middle Earth [In reply to] Can't Post

One of the reasons Fellowship is my favourite of all Jackson's Middle Earth films is the number of scenes that leave me sitting back in wide-eyed wonder at the magical and evocative spaces they have created. The first visit to Rivendell expresses these emotions, so does the dwarf city in Moria, as does Lorien, and the brilliant imagining of the Argonath. These were more than just visual wonders in the story, they expressed the deep time, grandeur of ancient civilisations and awe of Tolkien's epic.

I felt in it's own way Life of Pi also created a feast of visual wonders that illustrated the themes of the story- Pi's relationship with the natural world (and his own nature), and the sense of spiritual journey and pilgrimage. Exactly the same aspects you describe to be laboured and tiresome, I found beautiful and inspirational. There were wonderful sequences with the whale, the flying-fish, and the great storm. These sequences has infinitely more visual creativity, fun and wit than you'll see in a typical Hollywood film.

So like you say, everyone has different tastes in art and cinema. But I do think that AUJ was missing that aspect of visual magic and wonder than a good fantasy film should have. Only the prologue sequence in Erebor really felt like we were visiting an exciting new location, and that was all too brief. Of course this relates to three film decision, and there will be many more opportunities for wondrous new locations in the forthcoming films.


mefansmum
Rivendell

Mar 3 2013, 2:19pm

Post #93 of 175 (377 views)
Shortcut
This review did not change [In reply to] Can't Post

my intention to see the HFR version, if anything it increased it, just to see what all the fuss was about.

It did greatly solidify the idea that I should see 2D first though if I wanted to absorb the story at its best, and I eventually found the HFR did that better.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 3 2013, 2:30pm

Post #94 of 175 (383 views)
Shortcut
Tarantino [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I to avoid Tarantino like the plague.


You can't say something like that without saying why.

Tongue


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 3 2013, 3:17pm

Post #95 of 175 (417 views)
Shortcut
I don't get all the Tarantino hate. [In reply to] Can't Post

While i have yet to see Jango and Inglorious, and i didn't care for Kill Bill vol. 2 (too much talking!), Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are all time classics, and Kill Bill vol. 1 and Death Proof, while not quite great, are a lot of fun. While his films lately seem to have settled into an overly verbose (even for him) and overly ironic style (which is why i've put off seeing his latest two for so long (but i need to just see them already)), he's still a greatly talented filmmaker, and i will always give him the benefit of the doubt as he's made some truly great films.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 3 2013, 4:04pm

Post #96 of 175 (377 views)
Shortcut
I agree with that article 100% [In reply to] Can't Post

TH was 80% empty spectacle. Mad


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 3 2013, 4:44pm

Post #97 of 175 (347 views)
Shortcut
Hear Hear! Lusitano well said. [In reply to] Can't Post

"Post trolls, the film feels sloppy, messy, very thin, with bad writing, terrible visuals, cliched villains and lines, a lack of characterter development, particularly Bilbo, etc... "

couldnt agree more with you. the acting felt like they were just going through the motions, I didnt feel anything either. it was boring and blah. PJ put all his energies on trying to wow everyone with this new technology and actually forgot poor little Bilbo and his story. thats unforgivable.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 3 2013, 4:56pm

Post #98 of 175 (361 views)
Shortcut
yes I think you are spot on [In reply to] Can't Post

when you say it lacked depth and character development, Bilbo was missing most of the time, he has only 2 major opportunites for character development of any depth whatsoever, at Bagend and Riddles. the rest of the time he is just a passive bystander to Thorin, the WC and their obviously 'more important story' Bilbo looks like an outsider on HIS own story most of the time. We hardly get to know him, we know nothing about him apart from superficial stuff, and Thorins character gets more weight. this really turned me off, and bored my pants off.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 3 2013, 5:07pm

Post #99 of 175 (335 views)
Shortcut
My thanks to you. [In reply to] Can't Post

BlushSmile And allow me to say that I think much the same of your posts and of your lore steeped observations and commentaries. Smile

In Reply To
At the risk of embarressing you, from where I am sat when you offer a critique it casts more light on Tolkien, Jackson and your well developed and long standing interest in his works. What I think the original poster was trying to say is that some people are very largely unhappy with the first film therefore will they carry on with the process. If I was that disenchanted I would not, there are so many other riches to mine. You pay this film the ultimate compliment, you take the effort everyone involved has made very seriously and offer passionate well thought out responces which I have found a good deal of pleasure in considering.


In Reply To
The more attatched a person is to a given work, and the more passionate about it, the more likely they are to rage themselves into exhaustion about everything that bothers them about a dissapointing adaptation, especially one which they know is going to be widely seen and potentially viewed as definitive by many. It can be rather like misrepresenting someone's faith Shocked lol.

And some people go back to better ascertain exactly what displeased them, or to try to find redeeming aspects, etc.

I went many times because I love the movie. . . but there were a few things I didn't like one bit, and I am not shy about lecturing on them. lol




"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."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 3 2013, 5:26pm

Post #100 of 175 (325 views)
Shortcut
I never did [In reply to] Can't Post

find those pants. Blush

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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.