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:
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 7:53pm

Post #76 of 240 (780 views)
Shortcut
Right [In reply to] Can't Post

Just as the effects improved with each LOTR film, I believe the same will happen for TH. I also now believe AUJ was the film most affected by the trilogy switch, which in turn, made the narrative of the film feel forced for me.

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


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 8:02pm

Post #77 of 240 (762 views)
Shortcut
That makes sense as well [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay I see what you're saying there. I never thought of it that way but that makes sense. For me though, more than the narrative, I had a more creative concern with the slapstick humor which I felt was jarring and out of place. For instance, I don't mind adding Radagast and I get his inclusion but some of the slapstick humor didn't fit to me.

That isn't as much a pacing issue as a creative one for me. It didn't ruin my overall enjoyment of the film, but it wasn't my favorite thing. I'm hoping he takes some of that critique to heart as well over the next two films and we see even better pacing and effects as well.

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


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:09pm

Post #78 of 240 (757 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for bringing that up Glor [In reply to] Can't Post

you are right, that is what happened. (abberations...ack...good word!) So yes, like you I see an integrity there, balanced with the real-world needs.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:14pm

Post #79 of 240 (755 views)
Shortcut
I agree Itarkey [In reply to] Can't Post

I see a general improvement/continuation of quality coming with the time pressure being different, and any bugs from the split being worked entirely out. I wholeheartedly support the Dec. date for TABA for this reason. I felt it could have been slower paced too - I mean, who can say NO to MORE ME?


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 8:16pm

Post #80 of 240 (749 views)
Shortcut
Except that [In reply to] Can't Post

Heavenly Creatures had been VERY well recieved critically, was modestly successful at the box office and on home video, and was Oscar nominated.


Rostron2
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 8:21pm

Post #81 of 240 (742 views)
Shortcut
Thanks, my feelings exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

As for where the criticism came from: I saw much more scathing comments from people here than any professional journalist anywhere.


AshNazg
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 8:34pm

Post #82 of 240 (780 views)
Shortcut
15 Top Grossing films with their RT scores [In reply to] Can't Post

This just popped up on IGN, thought it was interesting and relevant to this discussion Smile

http://uk.ign.com/...ng-films-of-all-time


(This post was edited by AshNazg on Mar 6 2013, 8:34pm)


droidsocket
Lorien

Mar 6 2013, 8:52pm

Post #83 of 240 (757 views)
Shortcut
It really boggles my mind... [In reply to] Can't Post

How did a movie like avatar ever make so much money! Crazy


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:58pm

Post #84 of 240 (720 views)
Shortcut
For that matter [In reply to] Can't Post

How did Alice in Wonderland make that much? Is that just straight box office?


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 9:00pm

Post #85 of 240 (718 views)
Shortcut
It was marketed as a sort of brand new virtual reality expirience... [In reply to] Can't Post

Rather than just a film. I feel like the masses can easily plug themselves into pandora just for the ooohh's and the ahhh's. The story was definitely garbage, but even I was impressed by how immersive they made that film feel.

I just think James Cameron spends 10+ years on a single film, and thus it get's a lot of attention and hype in the media.

Also, Alice in Wonderland was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I agree, THAT is mind boggling.

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

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Mar 6 2013, 9:01pm)


AshNazg
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 9:17pm

Post #86 of 240 (698 views)
Shortcut
Star Wars Episode 1 is a good example of franchise popularity over movie quality // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 9:22pm

Post #87 of 240 (698 views)
Shortcut
That's down to James Cameron [In reply to] Can't Post

Looking at what's #2 on that list. James Cameron is a powerful presence in film.


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 10:17pm

Post #88 of 240 (684 views)
Shortcut
I think Alice... [In reply to] Can't Post

... got a boost because of Avatar as well. It came out a few months later and had - as you say - the same "visual experience" feel to its promotion.

Plus, of course, the popularity of the story. And Depp doing yet another version of Sparrow.


(This post was edited by Arannir on Mar 6 2013, 10:17pm)


burrahobbit
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 10:17pm

Post #89 of 240 (724 views)
Shortcut
The critical reception of the LotR films [In reply to] Can't Post

You make a lot of good points and I agree PJ has nothing to apologise for. But it is really not true to say the critical reviews of AUJ are similar to the reception for Fellowship. FotR was a massive breakthrough film for the fantasy genre, nominated for a record breaking 13 oscars, including the most prestigious best director and best film, and it won three in the more technical categories. Newspaper reviews were generally positive and many were glowing-

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...ws/?type=top_critics

For many reasons AUJ is not on the same level as the LotR trilogy. While the source material is a big part of this, there are other reasons. The three adaptation film decision is really strange, leading to a complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive for AUJ.

Without any real character arcs in the first third of the book, these are forced in with a shallow Azog-Thorin conflict. The added necromancer storyline also doesn't go anywhere. This is a world away from the dynamic and concise storytelling techniques used by the film makers in FotR, for which it rightly received a best adapted screenplay nomination.

You rightly point out the difficult balancing act blockbuster directors have to make in adapting popular books. I feel the Hobbit trilogy is much more of a franchise set of films compared to LotR. It is not the career defining trilogy that LotR was for PJ, and artistically is not at the same level.

(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Mar 6 2013, 10:20pm)


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 10:19pm

Post #90 of 240 (674 views)
Shortcut
I guess the world is less black/white to me. [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 6 2013, 10:50pm

Post #91 of 240 (671 views)
Shortcut
Apart from PM, which was re-released, and Titanic... [In reply to] Can't Post

...all the other movies on the list are less than 10 years old. RotK aside, on the 10-year limit, how can we not conclude that inflation and 3D price-hikes artificially distort the figures? The popularity of Titanic was an absolute phenomenon, of course, but I do think after that, RotK is probably is the outstanding success in real terms on that list. Not only that, but you have to admit that AUJ would not have generated anywhere near the amount it has, without the 3D/HFR/IMAX add-on costs, plus the different formats on offer encouraging multiple viewings...


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
― Victoria Monfort






Escapist
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 11:00pm

Post #92 of 240 (670 views)
Shortcut
It is difficult to measure the precise impact of the inflation. [In reply to] Can't Post

since increased prices may have driven some away from theaters and the source of some of the inflation (3D HFR) was also a source of waves of terrible criticism and press that also may have reduced the number of tickets sold.

And at any rate, if inflation were to be considered, then other factors that may have had serious impact like economic recessions should also be considered.


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 11:03pm

Post #93 of 240 (689 views)
Shortcut
On the contrary [In reply to] Can't Post

I completely disagree that AUJ is not on the same level as the LOTR trilogy. For me, it absolutely is, and the effects are far better than many in the LOTR trilogy, e.g. Erebor, the Eagles and the Goblin Town. Artistically, I feel that it is at a higher level than LOTR, which contained very many faults, particularly in the case of TTT and ROTK, especially when it came to acting and characterisation, the effects in ROTK, idiotic CGI tricks and unnecessary changes to the storyline.

Equally, I disagree with your opinion that there is a 'complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive'. I feel that AUJ contains a very good story, and that the characterisation (and acting) of the three main characters – Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf – is superb. I also disagree that there is a lack of character arcs – Bilbo? Thorin? Gandalf? Did we even see the same film? The 'Necromancer storyline doesn't go anywhere': well, how do you know? It is still being developed, and I will be fascinated to see where it goes.

I've seen AUJ more than 12 times now, and the more I see it, the more I appreciate it. I love it more than I do TTT and ROTK (though about the same as FOTR).

You say that AUJ is not the career-defining trilogy that LOTR was for PJ. Well, probably not, but that is because LOTR was a completely new set of films to cinema when it came out. Nothing like it had ever been done before. AUJ is just a continuation of that.

Still, I suppose we are all different and we all have different tastes.


In Reply To
For many reasons AUJ is not on the same level as the LotR trilogy. While the source material is a big part of this, there are other reasons. The three adaptation film decision is really strange, leading to a complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive for AUJ.

Without any real character arcs in the first third of the book, these are forced in with a shallow Azog-Thorin conflict. The added necromancer storyline also doesn't go anywhere. This is a world away from the dynamic and concise storytelling techniques used by the film makers in FotR, for which it rightly received a best adapted screenplay nomination.

I feel the Hobbit trilogy is much more of a franchise set of films compared to LotR. It is not the career defining trilogy that LotR was for PJ, and artistically is not at the same level.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 6 2013, 11:04pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 11:11pm

Post #94 of 240 (658 views)
Shortcut
Another thing that should be considered [In reply to] Can't Post

…when making statements with regard to comparisons between box-office figures is the fact that film runs in cinemas are now much shorter than they used to be. LOTR ran three times as long in cinemas as AUJ has done. Some people conveniently forget this fact.

At the end of the day, even if the film made 6 billion dollars, and WHATEVER PJ would have done with it, some would still be saying AUJ is a flop and trashing it. Well, it's no flop for me – and I will be catching it again at the cinema next week. (AUJ and LOTR are the only films I have ever seen in the cinema more than once, because I am quite indifferent to most of the films that come out.)


In Reply To
since increased prices may have driven some away from theaters and the source of some of the inflation (3D HFR) was also a source of waves of terrible criticism and press that also may have reduced the number of tickets sold.

And at any rate, if inflation were to be considered, then other factors that may have had serious impact like economic recessions should also be considered.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 6 2013, 11:12pm)


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 11:18pm

Post #95 of 240 (667 views)
Shortcut
You bring up many valid points, Burrahobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

It was a pleasure to look over your reply. I thought for quite a while about it (cooking dinner again! People keep getting hungry even though I have posts to write - Smile)


In Reply To
You make a lot of good points and I agree PJ has nothing to apologise for. But it is really not true to say the critical reviews of AUJ are similar to the reception for Fellowship. FotR was a massive breakthrough film for the fantasy genre, nominated for a record breaking 13 oscars, including the most prestigious best director and best film, and it won three in the more technical categories. Newspaper reviews were generally positive and many were glowing- _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Some certainly were. And groundbreaking is absolutely correct. But I remember just as many which were derisive and what bothers me as a fan is that the scorn was so genre-related that FOTR had to overcome far too many obstacles to be taken seriously. If ROTK hadn't turned out like it did - would FOTR have the credibility it has today? Aside from the fan base, that is. I know for me, I can remember that those technical awards -unaccompanied by more pithy ones - by themselves felt like biting on tinfoil. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ For many reasons AUJ is not on the same level as the LotR trilogy. While the source material is a big part of this, there are other reasons. The three adaptation film decision is really strange, leading to a complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive for AUJ. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ True, but even if we did two, where would our arcs be? If we sped up AUJ and ended with Mirkwood and the Elvenking's dungeon, the conflict of imprisonment by Thranduil would become the central conflict, and while it is going to ba an intense and revelatory interaction I don't think it belongs there, becaiuse as much as we might disagree with Thranduil he just isn't a "bad guy". Short of saving the entire conflictual force of the film for BO5A leaves us with an episodic travel film instead. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Without any real character arcs in the first third of the book, these are forced in with a shallow Azog-Thorin conflict. The add necromancer storyline also doesn't go anywhere. This is a world away from the dynamic and concise storytelling techniques used by the film makers in FotR, for which it rightly received a best adapted screenplay nomination. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ To play devil's advocate, concise for awards might be a purist's poison. We got concise but we threw Bombadil out with the bathwater... I do agree with you though on that point, as you are completely correct, FOTR is an extremely well-paced film. But I think that's an example of the trade-offs we make for quality: we got tight pace but lost detail. Was it necessary? Probably. As far as the Azog-Thorin subplot, I find that it showcases Thorin's charactar in a way that the text, due to it's airy nature, simply does not. I know changes are made in chronology to accomodate it, but I think it gives us an actual Dwarf to care about, not just one of 13 and not a one-dimensional player in makeup. I think the Necromancer introduction is fine as it is, bridging the charactar activities in DOS because we don't just "lose" Gandalf for half the film. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
You rightly point out the difficult balancing act blockbuster directors have to make in adapting popular books. I feel the Hobbit trilogy is much more of a franchise set of films compared to LotR. It is not the career defining trilogy that LotR was for PJ, and artistically is not at the same level. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ It certainly is difficult. As for TH, is it the artistry or the different tone of the source material? I think we've been given a visual treat in many ways, with a fantastic cast of charactars (each having definition, which by itself is miraculous). Having said that, the differences between TH and LOTR are huge, both in scale, tone, symbolism and intended audience. So here, by definition, I absolutely agree with you, in that TH is simply not LOTR. Does it stand by itself? I still think it does. Is it a career defining trilogy? Probably not. I think it is a labor of love though, and that gives it an appeal all its own. I think that's why I so passionately support the effort (oh dear, can you tell - have to laugh at myself a bit...).


(This post was edited by Brethil on Mar 6 2013, 11:21pm)


Escapist
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 11:19pm

Post #96 of 240 (671 views)
Shortcut
I think that TH and LOTR are different. [In reply to] Can't Post

but I wouldn't say one is overall on another level from the other.

LOTR: So much detail and dialogue is given in the books that it becomes an exercise in insanity to try to include all of it. Dramatic moments include one death early in the story, one near death/transfiguration, a love triangle, an unlikely friendship, a king falling victim to leach-craft, a threat of the end of the world of men, a woman struggling with gender issues and duties, family issues, personal identity issues, fallen leaders in high places, and a return of a king.

TH: Very scanty detail and dialogue is given in the books making a lot more invention necessary. Dramatic moments include a person being pushed into a burglar role, the reclaiming of a kingdom, many deaths, imprisonment of innocents because of deep misunderstandings, a war threatening to destroy people who could be friends, finding one's home "moved into" while being away for a time, racial struggles, and the guile of a wizard rather than his transfiguration. If you add in appendices, there are more deaths and imprisonments, lots of losses of great kingdoms and treasures, the discovery of an ancient evil returned and a debate amongst the wise about what should be done about it, and the resolution of that struggle.

I'd say the most obvious difference is that AUJ is more comedic and completely lacks romance. For some this means it is automatically less dramatic, for others not. I'm not surprised to see that since people naturally put different weights of importance on humor vs romance. Another difference is that LOTR has a more epic and apocalyptic feeling while TH is more localized. Depending on what a person finds compelling (the grandiose and epic or the close and personal), the two stories are likely to strike differing people in different ways. It seems silly to expect from TH all that which was delightful about LOTR.


Bellerock
Rivendell

Mar 6 2013, 11:20pm

Post #97 of 240 (686 views)
Shortcut
I object to your wording [In reply to] Can't Post

Your use of the term "contrition" suggests that Peter Jackson is guilty of some moral failure, in fact that he has committed a sin. That is an inappropriate way to talk about something so (comparatively) unimportant as a movie. Please choose your words more carefully.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 11:50pm

Post #98 of 240 (649 views)
Shortcut
Differing foci [In reply to] Can't Post

in reply to:
Another difference is that LOTR has a more epic and apocalyptic feeling while TH is more localized. Depending on what a person finds compelling (the grandiose and epic or the close and personal), the two stories are likely to strike differing people in different ways. It seems silly to expect from TH all that which was delightful about LOTR.


I love the points you make, Escapist, particularly this one. You capture very clearly why the "feel" different. Its like the story unfolding, (TH to LOTR) from the bud to the flower, tighter and more personal to global and encompassing.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 7 2013, 12:06am

Post #99 of 240 (644 views)
Shortcut
Also [In reply to] Can't Post

TH story is not nearly as in depth or developed. This is why Jackson, which I applaud, took information from The Unfinished Tales and the Appendices to develop Thorin and the backstory. Say what you will, the character of Thorin in the book is not nearly deep enough nor developed for film. That's my opinion of course. But the story needed to be fleshed out a bit to make it into what I wanted to see and so far Jackson has done that. As we have said, not without some faults here and there. I didn't like everything I saw. But overall i get the vision and direction and enjoyed it.

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


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 12:22am

Post #100 of 240 (638 views)
Shortcut
So true! [In reply to] Can't Post

Honestly without the fleshing out (and what fine flesh it is...ahem, slapping self) of Thorin what would we have by way of active protagonist? It is indeed Bilbo's story, very much from his perspective, but without some sort of conflict it would go nowhere fast from a purely cinematic viewpoint. And short of re-creating Bilbo and having either a warrior's temperament or an invented antagonist, we wouldn't have any such conflict for a long time. I love what they mined from what is licensed, and if they had to bring in augmented elements I think Thorin, not Bilbo, was who to do it with.

Our eyes, I think, are different than the general audience. For example, I would adore watching Sir Ian ramble about ME, just showing us Gandalf's ME life - but it wouldn't be a "theatrical" story necessarily: it wouldn't need to be, to make me happy. It wouldn't sell a ton of tickets though to anyone but us though.Angelic

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.