|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 3 2013, 6:16pm
Post #101 of 175
(738 views)
Shortcut
|
Bilbo actually had more screen time than Thorin, and his characterisation was spot on for the story. His character was very well developed – in my view, much more so than the characters of the Hobbits in LOTR over three films, and perfectly played. Richard Armitage has a strong screen presence as Thorin, which is appropriate for the character. He did an amazingly good job in the part.
To me, Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf are the central figures in the film, and they all have completely different characters, which is something I love about the film – each is wonderfully portrayed by the actors.
To say that Bilbo was 'missing most of the time' and that he was a 'passive outsider' is simply incorrect, and makes me doubt whether we have seen the same film.
I, for one, did not want to see the sorts of cardboard-cutout figures that exist in the Hobbit book. Before I saw the film, I expected that the film's characters would not be enhanced much and that they would not be very 'clear', according to the book. I therefore paid little attention to the film before its release. I am delighted with what PJ did with the story, which resulted in the best cinema experience I've had in years – and particularly so in the high frame rate.
I'm sorry you cannot like the film. I think it is brilliant and cannot wait until the next one.
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.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 3 2013, 6:18pm)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Mar 3 2013, 6:23pm
Post #102 of 175
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
Perhaps next time you'll wear a belt? 
There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall and the bells in the steeple, too.
And up in the nursery an absurd little bird is popping out to say coo-coo (coo-coo, coo-coo).
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Mar 3 2013, 6:28pm
Post #103 of 175
(705 views)
Shortcut
|
the "mummy mummy look! that lady has no pants?" got a bit tedious after a bit. 
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Mar 3 2013, 6:42pm
Post #104 of 175
(695 views)
Shortcut
|
There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall and the bells in the steeple, too.
And up in the nursery an absurd little bird is popping out to say coo-coo (coo-coo, coo-coo).
|
|
|
Owain
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2013, 7:40pm
Post #105 of 175
(686 views)
Shortcut
|
This is my question--is DOS going to be available in HFR?
Middle Earth is New Zealand!
"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Mar 3 2013, 7:46pm
Post #106 of 175
(693 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's not "simply incorrect" at all
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, don't get me wrong. He's actually my favorite actor in the whole film. But between the trolls, and Riddles in the Dark, he either has very small scenes with a line or two, or none at all. He is never a burden to the company at all, he saves them more often than not. This makes Thorins displeasure with him seem forced and makes no sense. Bilbo never has a sort of "dreaming of bag end" scene. He's always right there with the dwarves all the time, and is as useful a member of the company as any (he shouldn't be yet).
I'm surprised more fans aren't screaming bloody murder at the lack of BIlbo in the film, or the disaster that was Rivendell. There weren't any interesting character interactions for him. Everything was pretty much plug and play. Same goes for the relationship between Thorin and Gandalf. Everything between all the characters was pretty expected for me, and really lacked complexity. When I say everything was expected, I mean the writers never tried to make relationships between characters have much added depth at all.
A good example of the writers taking a concept from the book and expanding it was the whole "reclaim our homeland" thing. That was a theme I wasn't really expecting, yet is in the background of the book the whole time. The dwarves are pretty much homeless, and it's an interesting twist that adds depth and opportunities for character development. I wish they would have done more things like that for the film.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2013, 8:12pm
Post #107 of 175
(677 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That was not my experience at all
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I thought Bilbo was really well developed. The scenes at Bag End, Thorins obvious disdain and distrust, the Troll scene, Riddles in the Dark, his telling Thorin why he had come back, his interactions with Bofur and the Eagles scenes put him square at the center of the production for me. I didn't feel at all like Bilbo was minimized.
I do think Thorin was made a more deeper and richer character and his quest aside from the gold being about taking back his home made him a more sympathetic character in the book. Thorin had to be elevated to me as a character because the payoff when Bilbo takes the Arkenstone and Thorin's descent into madness will then be even more heartbreaking.
I didn't get any feeling at all that Bilbo had been minimized. In fact I felt the relationship between the two characters was enhanced which will pay off in films 2 and 3.
But I get that your experience was different.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Mar 3 2013, 8:22pm
Post #108 of 175
(662 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Just goes to show how different the same film can be for people
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If this movie has proved anything, it's that every mind is a different world!
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2013, 8:24pm
Post #109 of 175
(660 views)
Shortcut
|
Yep yep so very very true. It is interesting how the same thing can strike people differently.
My job involves investigation in real life and I can tell you that 10 people can see a real life event and all of them can have completely different versions of what happened.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Mar 3 2013, 8:59pm
Post #110 of 175
(667 views)
Shortcut
|
he brought a freshness to an otherwise stale lot of film. But in the book he never once decided to leave the Dwarves and pack his bags and sneak off like he does in the cave. ok, this led to a nice moment with Bofur, but it lessens Bilbos courage. Obviously he doesnt have much at this stage, but he was determined to see the adventure through, no matter how 'uncomfortable' it got. Thats a great part of Bilbo's charm. He was an ordinary respectable Hobbit in a very tight spot, but he never gives up and decides to leg it back to Rivendell.
|
|
|
dik-dik
Lorien
Mar 3 2013, 9:17pm
Post #111 of 175
(634 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have an issue with that scene as well...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But in the book he never once decided to leave the Dwarves and pack his bags and sneak off like he does in the cave. ok, this led to a nice moment with Bofur, but it lessens Bilbos courage. Obviously he doesnt have much at this stage, but he was determined to see the adventure through, no matter how 'uncomfortable' it got. Thats a great part of Bilbo's charm. He was an ordinary respectable Hobbit in a very tight spot, but he never gives up and decides to leg it back to Rivendell.
... though with me it's rather bitter disappointment at the breach of a given word (in the movie, of a written contract even). Pledges and even simple promises being binding, was such a strong element in Tolkien's world (and thinking especially of The Silmarillion, one that pretty much shapes history), and after RotK's 'Go home', I was presented another main hero chicken-outs in TH-AUJ. Understandable from a modern person's point of view perhaps, but it just doesn't fit for me into Tolkien's world at all.
"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Mar 3 2013, 9:24pm
Post #112 of 175
(635 views)
Shortcut
|
I would agree. I think Bilbo comes across as a very developed character all ready. We have already seen a decent chunk of meat on the bone for why he would want to go on an adventure (following his took side) and reasons to not go on the adventure. You also already see he's learning he can handle himself out in the real world with the Troll sequence, fighting the goblin, Riddles in the Dark, and even the end sequence.
In regards to Thorin I think we see a more well rounded character. Thorin in the book is a jerk really the entire time and I can see why people don't care for the book character. In the movie you get all of that already I think but you also get scenes/reasons to like Thorin more. As you said its not all about the gold its about doing right by his people but he just comes across as a bit more caring which I don't think he does as much in the book. I love both versions of Thorin but I do feel the movie version might pull one in a bit more.
I agree. I think in the next two films what happens between Bilbo and Thorin will pay off in spades. I also think what happens to Thorin will be even more emotional because the fact Thorin does have a bit of a softer side.
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2013, 9:27pm
Post #113 of 175
(641 views)
Shortcut
|
But the scene did help set up a transitional and great scene for Bilbo later on, having used the ring to escape Goblin town he now makes the volitional choice to stay with the company. He takes of the ring and Freeman renders that awesome performance where he tells Thorin why he did choose to stay. Thorin's lack of trust for Bilbo was put in place by his guessing that Bilbo left in the scene with Bofur. RA gives a great acknowledgement to Bilbo there in the later scene as he just uses his eyes to convey his understanding that he was wrong and that Bilbo had chosen to remain with The Company. If you remember we see Thorin's face as well in the prior scene where Bilbo says he never should have run out his door and Thorin looks, eyes open, not preventing Bilbo from leaving because he agrees.
The inclusion of the scene before (with Bofur) did not bother me at all in that respect. It was part of the development of the two characters.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Mar 3 2013, 10:04pm
Post #114 of 175
(613 views)
Shortcut
|
I really am going to try to see it in HFR.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2013, 10:35pm
Post #115 of 175
(600 views)
Shortcut
|
The audience now buys into Thorin as a sympathetic character. The end is going to be just so bittersweet. Knowing how RA and MF are and their acting ability..it's going to be an astounding scene. I can just tell.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 3 2013, 11:12pm
Post #116 of 175
(598 views)
Shortcut
|
The audience now buys into Thorin as a sympathetic character. The end is going to be just so bittersweet. Knowing how RA and MF are and their acting ability..it's going to be an astounding scene. I can just tell.
I generally prefer happy endings, so I am dreading some moments to come. Thorin in particular has much depth to his character in the film, and many people I know are thrilled with Richard Armitage's performance. I hope PJ never tries to portray Thorin as a truly bad individual. I prefer to see him as this proud, honourable, conflicted character…
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Mar 3 2013, 11:24pm
Post #117 of 175
(581 views)
Shortcut
|
Theatre watching those two play off each other in that moment. I expect it will be something that doesn't leave a dry eye. Going to be very emotional. It's emotional in the book so ill be going in with that mental build up.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 4 2013, 4:32pm
Post #118 of 175
(539 views)
Shortcut
|
The main difference between movie Thorin and book Thorin, at least to me, was that movie Thorin came off as a much more competent dwarf. Yes, he did display moments of brash stupidity, like when he tried to take on Azog and his warg mount alone. But movie Thorin also had a sense of heroism and courage that I did not get from book Thorin. I felt that book Thorin had no right to be as haughty and jerky as he was - he came off as an incompetent oaf to me.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Gondor
Mar 4 2013, 6:58pm
Post #119 of 175
(514 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's one opinion, but that's all it is.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I guess he has a lot of Twitter followers, but that doesn't mean 55-K people agree with him.
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Mar 4 2013, 6:59pm
Post #120 of 175
(519 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I re-watched (is that a word?) FOTR last night
[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.
and something really struck me. Now bear in mind two things: first, I don't mean to start a debate of AUJ vs. FOTR by any means. I think aspects of this have been discussed in various threads already; and second, I love both AUJ and FOTR equally, in different ways and for different reasons. This is just an observation I had last night from my own perspective. And this may or may not also be something that made people feel disappointed or made them feel that AUJ was in some way a failure - critics especially. It has nothing to do with the quality of the visuals nor the frame rate nor the set designs nor the epic vs. child's tale comparisons.
I think that FOTR had something in spades that AUJ, by comparison, is lacking: heart. Gandalf's fall in Moria was so devastating and so brilliantly given to us on screen that the audience wept buckets. Boromir's death was spectacular: we felt every arrow that hit him and felt the tragic loss of one for whom redemption came too late. Frodo and Sam's leaving the fellowship was a beautifully written and played moment that displayed the depth of love that friends can have for each other, and the lengths to which they can go to stay true to that friendship. All three of these were intensely emotional moments, and in AUJ there aren't any at this level, and given the story, there wouldn't be.
I think it's odd, and there may be some sort of psychological explanation for this, that we hold such sorrow close to our hearts, and find such meaning in those moments, yet on the other side don't find things that are either hysterically funny or that make us laugh with joy so completely engaging. Are we some sort of emotional masochists, I wonder, that find a twisted pleasure in things that make us weep? Do things that touch us deeply have to be sad? Why are tears so lasting, and joy so fleeting? Okay. Nuff. I have a strong philosophical streak in me and tend to ruminate over stuff like this.
In any case, I think the last film TABA will have so much heart it will be almost painful to watch! And yeah, I must be an emotional masochist myself, since I'm looking forward to it with almost giddy anticipation. I should start stocking up on kleenex now.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 4 2013, 8:58pm
Post #121 of 175
(491 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes Yes I got all of that and in my first observations down the thread I talked about the wonderful pictorial journey we were taken on. Its PI that did not work for me nor the mother or father the characterisation did not survive the breath taking visual images. The guy recounting the story seemed so withdrawn and ordinary and not in anyway transformed by his journey, but for a small sequence where he cries, he seemed flat to the visual experience I had witnessed.
On to AUJ, the flash backs and prologue had a sense of ancient grandeur and heroism of "stories told". The real time narrative was not played as all "fantasy" it was played and presented as a real first person experience. I stood in Bag End and Rivendell. I made the journey through the valleys and woods and tumbled out of the misty mountains through the pine forests. Without dismissing the White Council where magic was on hand the periods of enchantment and blessed journey really began with Gandalfs show of magic in the hall of the Goblin King and operatic rescue. For me this contrasted perfectly with Bilbos experience, abandoned and lost, he had a very upfront and personal encounter which we all attended enjoying every nuance every inflection.
The final moment of enchantment, where the Ainur showed their continued interest in the fate of middle earth, was the intervention of the Eagles pure fantasy. What will make this trilogy different is the way it will move across such a huge span from the grand operatic distant large visual feast to the close and personal and all points in between. We are seeing this world from a number of quite different stand points. It will be fantasy but it will also appear starkly real and for some the latter is off putting.
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.
I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 4 2013, 9:05pm
Post #122 of 175
(486 views)
Shortcut
|
Sorry to offer a Wiki sound bite but that sums it up. The studies of violence that I have taken to are the Night Porter, The Reader and of course Schindler's List. Why and how do human beings find themselves in a place where they behave in such away. I am interested in the motivation not the act.
I to avoid Tarantino like the plague. You can't say something like that without saying why. 
I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.
|
|
|
Lusitano
Tol Eressea
Mar 4 2013, 9:08pm
Post #123 of 175
(487 views)
Shortcut
|
Aragorn : while i might agree, i think that if had TH won Oscars...many fans would be saying the opposite, which is : oh look, TH won Oscars!! That is proof of its greatness!!
Well, im glad you liked it. I wish i could join you in your joy, but for me, the whole thing felt like being at the supermarket. Some of the supposed advantages, like having everything brightly lit and detailed...were a huge fault for me...it was so distracting and confusing, i didnt know where to look....And the lack of depth of field was very detrimental, it made everyting look fake and digital and unnatural in a bad way.
Perhaps i will enjoy it with avatar 2 but not for Middle Earth.
bborchar : TH should be a timeless classis and has everything necessary to be a fantasy masterpiece. A " fun movie to watch" is a qualification i attribute to a sunday comedy film, not the adaptation of Jrr Tolkiens TH.
None of the prosthetics and make up and beards in Lotr looked as fake and off putting some in TH do. Just take a look at Dwalins beard, Balins nose, Oin's nose as well in some scenes...but the sets and the environments are far worse than the make up.
Ardamire : well i look forward to that. The sky is the limit! When are they actually going to make the charcaters appear alongside the audience so we can take part in the movie? That would be something
Escapist : its not only about the lack of character development post trolls, its how it was done, it felt thin, sterile, forced, innapropriate, screenwriters 101 inspired writing, etc... Consider Bilbos and Thorins relationship...very forced, thin and unsatisfying with that forced and very fake hug at the end. Though this is probably also due to the three film decision...
But the action, its one of the problems..not only it is over long, which causes tiredness and boredom, its it too much...personally i dont see a need for the rock em sock em giants, the endless cgi fest with the ladders and goblins, the warg chase...they also lacked the momentum and sense of danger and threat which the previous violence scenes had in lotr...hacking and slashing away at goblins as if they were made of rubber only ridicules them and the world loses its credibility and sense of historical reality, which was one of jacksons pillars in assuring that middle earth felt like a real place that once existed.
RA : one of the few reasons why hes getting such a following is due to his looks and his singing voice, which is wonderfull. He looks regal and majestic....other than that, his performance was a huge disappointment for me. All he does...is stand there with that angry , serious face...and then that monotonous growling voice...rolls eyes...RA simply cannot do what Mckellen, Holm, Balin, Nesbitt and others do : bring a charater to life with energy, stature, personality, gravitas, presence geist and gusto! Jrr Tolkien's Thorin Oakenshield deserved a more experienced actor, of the like sof Mckellen like Brian Cox, Ian McShane among many others...and i repeat this because i think its central : to chose an older actor would have been more original, interesting, and revolutionary in a way, considering todays obsession with youth for leadership roles...
Come to think of it, i dont remember seeing RA doing anything interesting before...Robin Hood didnt impress me...such a role was for an actor with quite a few accomplishments under his belt, be it in cinema or theatre ...
I agree that gollum and even the goblin king were very well done in many ways but azog is the king of cliches! And im sorry, but less cliches is a good approach...the pinecone trees fight at the end is a paramount example of a ridiculous amount of cliches used instead of imagination and originality...
Those scenes you mention were very well done...but i cant just go...oh that looks terrible and fake...ok, heres anotehr scene that looks good and proper, i shall forget the previous flop...yes inconsistent and disappointing. Compare lotrs rivendell with TH s rivendell. One feels real, like a real location, balanced, different elements which compose the location are in place and everything seems organic and historical...the other looks like a sugary, overly lit teletubbie version of cgi rivendell...TH's rivendell and goblin town look like sets with some make up giving them a sort of location look... and a vague idea of the real thing...but still look like sets and the frontier between green screen, actors and sets are always there, obvious.
Hamm Sammy, though i liked the goblin king, i think his last line and subsequent tumble and fall on top of the dwarves...is just.... Jackson gone wild lol.
Glorfindela, i think the dwarves are brilliantly portrayed as well, i didnt say anything to the contrary. If anything, i miss more dwarves and bilbo post trolls.
"I've noticed you keep posting about how you dislike the film, with similar comments each time, and encouraging others to criticise it. What is that about? "
Freedom of speech.
Verbal Daggers : i was open minded..and i tried to like it,-HFR- but it just is the anthithesis of almost everything that made me fell in love with cinema. Im glad you enjoyed it. Maybe it will suit nature documentaries...i could see that.
Arannir, well failure to me is ultimately what matters. The individual perspective of all those who didnt like it for different reasons. And i ve read dozens of them. In many newspapers, magazines form different countries. According to what ive seen and read, it is hardly a majority of critics who stand behind TH..i know that in my normal cinematic magazines and reviews, TH was trashed...even by old Lotr lovers and afficionados...
As to not being a financial failure, well good, because i hope the extended version fixes some of these problems.
Glor : it is used because good fantastical historical cinema shoudnt have the aesthetics of a video game. Did lotr? No, because the velvety, painterly, cinematic look suits middle earth very well. It is proper for a tale that should feel ancient, old and historical while retaining the fabled elements...Avatar can look like a video game because it is all digital anyway and it is science fiction.
Jtarkey, exactly...good points. The reason life of pi got such a buzz and deserved the special effects oscar is because those effects are genuinely better, nothing looks rushed or fake like in TH and most important of all, it is actually a really compelling film that TRUSTS its characters to be the heart of the story. Jackson started so well with Bilbo and then hes just forgets what th is about and Bilbo and his relationship with thorin and lets the Azog spaghetti vendetta overcome the main story..
You know , when i told a friend that he was not part of the original story, she replied : really?? But it was everything about him? ....See? 
JWPLATT : i agree with you on the implausibilty and ridiculousness of the cgi video gamish lok of goblin town with the levels design and the ladders and the saturated colours of blue and orange, the armies of goblins dispatched like Mario's monkeys...That, in my opinion, robs Middle earth of verisimilitude and take it into the realm of vidoe games.
Sorry i cant answer to all the replies to my original post...ill try to get back to them later. Its a long thread with many interesting answers.
Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Mar 4 2013, 9:09pm
Post #124 of 175
(488 views)
Shortcut
|
Wow, your entire first paragraph was a qualifier or disclaimer - not sure which. That's going a little overboard, though I am biased because I tend to not appreciate verbosity. Did you ever try to find an answer on the web to a simple question, but an author has to tell you their life's story before they answer the question at the end in a single sentence? It's like that. I get exasperated when people ramble on with their introductions that fear others might misinterpret their meaning or take offense if there is not a forward to explain what is to come. I think corporate training and formulaic education might be somewhat guilty of manifesting this behavior. Or maybe it's just the more feminine trait of being socially connected and trying to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings. Fortunately, we have mobile devices doing their best to undo centuries of established literacy, intelligence and comprehension of language. Me, I like to get to the point, which I will, in a moment. I'd rather risk offense and assume folks are bright enough to fill in all the qualifiers and disclaimers that are, to me, obvious than take up the valuable time of the reader and test their patience. It just takes too long otherwise. So I won't indulge in the practice. *
Oh yeah, The Fellowship of the Ring was simply a better movie than The Hobbit. And the dwarves survived impossible physics that would have torn the entire cast of The Fellowship of the Ring to pieces. We lost that certain sense of jeopardy and meaning to events. That's why, in comparison, the remaining movies of The Hobbit have a much lesser chance of winning awards than The Lord of the Rings. The anchor of a strong start is missing.
* See: Comedic Irony.
P.S. This isn't the place to post if you want to avoid a debate.
|
|
|
Lusitano
Tol Eressea
Mar 4 2013, 9:15pm
Post #125 of 175
(478 views)
Shortcut
|
after TH i watched Django and then i felt i was really watching cinema in its purest form. Great storytelling, great characters, spot on actors, great visuals, cinematography, soundtrack,good pace and editing great dialogues and writing...
And the 35 mm look with the cracks and dots on the screen were lovely to see.
Its interesting how tarantino shoots and jackson shoots. Tarantino's old school and devotion to the ways that made cinema great light my heart. Jackson's more clinical approach and faith in computers and green screens, i find less interetsing and romantic.
Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!
|
|
|
|
|
