|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drakblod
Rivendell
Jul 31 2014, 8:03am
Post #1 of 59
(1727 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The problem with The Hobbit Trilogy
|
Can't Post
|
|
So I'm gonna rant a bit. I'll put on my flameshield but listen me out.
Back when the trailer for An Unexpected Journey came out, I was stoked. We were finally going to get to re-visit the magical world of Tolkien again! As a huge fan of Jacksons LOTR movies, I was also glad that he was back on board. I watched it on release and it was ... Okay, I guess? I didn't think of it much, more than it was comfy to get back to Middle-Earth. The trailer for Desolation of Smaug came out, and again, I was totally along with the ride. Surely, Jackson would be back in shape by now, right? I watched it and, again, it was .. Okay. By now, watching the Teaser for Battle of Five Armies, I'm not really interested at all.
How I see it, it's two main problems.
1) Three movies instead of two, and the decision to do that in the middle of the production
I would have rather seen them doing three from the get go, as they did now the sudden change meant they had to quickly figure out what to pad out the movies with (Not to mention how the CGI barely was finished in time) You can really feel how the movies are draaaawn ooooout, 1 hour in Shire in the first one, all the drawn out, bloated fight scenes. This creates a very weird mix, combining slow and long scenes with the hysteric CGI-filled action sequences.
2) Peter Jackson fanfiction and Silmarillion stuff
Sure, I appreciate that he tries too. But you notice that the more Jackson fanfiction there is in a scene, the worse it gets. Sure, add Tauriel if you wanna have a strong female character, but if you do then you sure as heck don't make her swoon over a Dwarf and put her in a silly love triangle (relevant, I never tought I would get a dick joke in a Tolkien movie) The strongest scenes imo from the movies so far are the Riddle Scene with Gollum and the Bilbo/Smaug talk, and these are almost line-by-line from the books. I know that the stuff about the Necromancer, Sauron etc is from the Silmarillion is written by Tolkien but it comes out as padding out, the scenes with Sauron and the Orcs are among the worst (The CGI fight between Gandalf and Sauron being particularly bad, a really unsubtle and poorly bult up good vs evil fight) and you can't forget Radagast - the Jar Jar Binks of this trilogy.
The whole dark theme and trying to make these movies into another LOTR trilogy takes away from the main story - ie The Hobbit. Notice how the titular Hobbit is seen less and less in trailers and on posters, and the idea to change the title to "Battle of five armies" to tell people that "hey, there's totally an epic battle in this, go watch it!" Don't get me started on the Arwen Healing scene in Desolation of Smaug.. Yeah we get it, this movie is the prequel to LOTR.
3) CGI and bloated action
Now this is more nitpicking, but I really don't like the CGI action sequences. Jackson has some kind of love for this, you can notice it back when he did King Kong in 2005, the Dinosaur herd stampede has the same bloatness and lack of suspense as the Goblintown chase or the Barrel Escape has. These sequences are way too long, and even if you haven't read the book you realize straight away that these dwarves are never in any kind of danger, thus you can't invest in what happens in the movies. I'm modestly positive for the last movie tough, since if it's something that Jackson knows its grand battles. However, the river ice scene and the bard on a cart from the teaser just alarms me - you know they're gonna be ridicolous CGI rollercoasters like the Barrel Escape scene.
In the end, the Star Wars Prequels and the Hobbit movies are pretty good comparison, ultimately subpar movies filled with CGI that do more harm than good for their mythos. And please don't think that I absolutely hate The Hobbit, like I said there are good stuff (one particular thing I really like is the horror in Bilbos eyes after he strikes the spider thingy in Desolation of Smaug)
Anyway, my rant is over and I think I got most of my points down  What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Jul 31 2014, 8:45am
Post #2 of 59
(1022 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd agree on the movies being planned as three from the beginning, and I'm a bit dubious about the Tauriel 'Arwen scene' and 'love triangle' (if that is what it really is) but I wouldn't compare Radagast to Jar Jar.
His outlook on life is supposed to be a bit unusual and perhaps the movie version is a bit more extreme than expected. However, he is a nature-loving Maia. Human conventions and norms might not concern him as much as they would do others.
Of the Wizards we know, he probably is the closest to his original non-human nature.
The whole dark theme and trying to make these movies into another LOTR trilogy takes away from the main story - ie The Hobbit.
The book version of the Hobbit starts off relatively 'light' and ends up being dark, very dark. The grimmer aspects of the story are always there, even if they're covered up by the brighter moments. The book covers torture, decapitation, mass murder - all dark themes which our little Hobbit faces the reality of.
Notice how the titular Hobbit is seen less and less in trailers and on posters, and the idea to change the title to "Battle of five armies" to tell people that "hey, there's totally an epic battle in this, go watch it!"
Many (paying) mainstream movie goers came to see LOTR-style battles and came away disappointed. Some of us just want to watch 'Bilbo's personal adventure' but others want more than that. They want action, big battles, even CGI.
The studios are letting them know what to expect and giving them a reason to come back.
Don't forget many people never read the book. They're not fans of the book. The people the studios are really catering to are the fans of the LOTR movies.
___________________________________________________
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 31 2014, 8:53am
Post #3 of 59
(1017 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Absolutely respect your opinion.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Especially since it is not a rant at all - it is a well stated opinion :)
However, the Star Wars comparison really doesn't work for me.
Yes there are some people who seem similarly alienated than many Star Wars fans have been - especially after Episodes I and II - but I really doubt it comes even close to the same extend (and will not harm the overall Saga as much as Episodes I-III did, imho).
Also, SW really aimed for "more of the same" - while TH trilogy is a very different story with occasional glimpses of LotR and its feeling (and moving towards it). This really made and makes a difference for many, I think. In that way I feel the comparion of Jar-Jar and radagast to be very forced, as well. Imho the way he is portrayed might be an extreme interpretation of the lore but not one without any reason. He is radical, as a character, in his love for nature. I think it is quite clever that this radicalism is sometimes also a bit hard to take for the audience... that is what happens to most people who take environmentalism extremely serious as well in real life.
Plus, it doesn't have universe altering things in it, such as some Midichlorians suddenly being some sort of biological source a Jedi needs etc etc - I think those things went much further to lovers of the original SW lore than any of the changes in TH (with one of the differences being that the lore of Middle-earth always stays the same - no matter how a movie changes it while George Lucas changes changed the whole canon).
Of course comparisons in general are possible - however, the extremely negative reputation these SW prequels have, make it very hard to accept it when one likes one but not the other. The comparison than becomes so biased.
For all the other stuff... I partly agree however the extent of the influence it had on my viewing experiences was not as big as it seems to have been for you.
Especially when it comes to action scenes.
I too disliked some of the "invulnerable" episodes - especially the collapsing bridge and the fall into Goblin-Town. However, it didn't take me out of the movie and I enjoyed most of the action sequences surrounding it, especially since they are so well choreographed and orchestrated imho.
And I will always defend the Barrels - I think this is one of the best chase scenes I have ever seen on screen.
I agree with you though that I hope the chariot and cart scene in Bot5A to have some feel of danger and urgency to them that will underline the growing darkness and seriousness of the backstory.
Also, some of the "fanficiton" really improved this tale for me - especially Tauriel (though I could have done without Legolas commenting on it via evil looks... and indeed the dick joke).
Do these things let Bilbo get neglected too much? I really didn't think so apart from the TE version of Rivendell in AUJ - there was really a major lack of Bilbo. But in DoS I felt the story always came back to him in the crucial moments.
Also, Sauron vs. Gandalf has been one of my favourite scenes in all Middle-earth movies thus far - though it ends a bit abruptly, unfortunately.
So, again - I really value the way you stated your opinion, whether it is negative or not. I really don't think it was a rant - but a good start for a hopefully interesting discussion :)
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jul 31 2014, 8:57am)
|
|
|
greenbalrog
Bree
Jul 31 2014, 10:03am
Post #4 of 59
(953 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree with this, don't agree with that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with you (also don't enjoy):
a) the bloated/hysteric CGI-filled fight scenes (Goblintown Chase, Barrel Escape, Laketown Rampage)
b) You never feel that the dwarves are in any kind of danger (if it's intended to be chidlike non-serious stuff, then they did a good job)
c) Tauriel love triangle (note that I love the character and the performance, just not the love triangle and yes, I'm a Romantic kind of guy)
I don't agree with you (I do enjoy):
d) Silmarillion, Sauron, Gandalf sequences (I loved all of that, more please)
And, basically I like everything else in AUJ and DOS. Well, apart from most of the Azog scenes, especially in AUJ but all that relates to the Azog-Thorin chase thing which I don't think was very well accomplished. I mean, I get that Sauron gave the job of killing Thorin to Azog. Makes all the sense. But, I don't buy that Azog had such a fervour to see Thorin killed, or to see the Durin lineage broken. I guess I would prefer that Azog was just doing the minion kind of thing, obeying orders and that was it.
What I take from your "rant", is that you're not a fan of CGI, or too much of it. Well, neither am I and I'll bet most of the people reading these forums as well. But, well, apparently it sells (think Transformers). And, movies are made to make money, right? We just need to accept that and enjoy the parts that are not filled with CGI.
And, Radagast? Come on! Aren't you a gentle soul? ;)
(This post was edited by greenbalrog on Jul 31 2014, 10:05am)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 31 2014, 10:12am
Post #5 of 59
(909 views)
Shortcut
|
I doubt most people actually critisize the use of CGI. But how it looks and sometimes to what kind of scenes it leads.
And there are also those who do not like the general look of these movies and blame CGI - though it is more likely that what they have an issue with is the colour grading and HD, which is a artistic choice, in the end.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Wauntaun
The Shire
Jul 31 2014, 10:17am
Post #6 of 59
(899 views)
Shortcut
|
I must add to the rant, but before I do, I respect that people love everything about these films. I personally just feel they could be a lot better.
AUJ
This movie dragged in plenty of scenes. It was good, but it was bloated. It could've been trimmed much more.
Prologue was good, but a bit too much dialogue with Frodo and old Bilbo.
Opening scene with Gandalf greeting Bilbo was perfect.
Dwarves messing around in Bilbo's house=too long.
Planning the quest=a little too long.
Radagast saving the hedgehog is almost cringeworthy to me. He seems to be a pointless character and the bunny sled looks ridiculous. Just give him a horse and send your visual effects crew on a mini vacation.
The Troll scene was neat, but to me it was too long. There could've been 5 to 10 minutes cut out of that.
Warg chase was cool, except for the Radagast part.
Rivendell dragged. The extended scene with Bofur's song is pointless. Thankfully they left that out in the theatrical cut. The council scene went on too long.
The moon runes scene was perfect.
The landscape travel scenes were perfect.
Stone Giants surpassed what I read in the book. Great improvement without dragging, but raising the stakes.
Goblin Tunnels were overkill, too much ridiculous action like you said. Too much CGI.
Gollum and Bilbo was fantastic.
Forest fire scene was great in my opinion and I don't have a problem with Azog like a lot of people. He keeps the company on their toes.
Eagles were awesome and I liked the ending.
DOS was a vast improvement over AUJ in terms of pacing, but Beorn and Mirkwood got a bit screwed, which was too bad because they were very well done.
I agree with you on the Dol Guldur stuff. I found it kind of boring and we don't need to be reminded that Sauron is coming. The "mystery" surrounding it is superfluous.
Dwarf/Elf Love triangle does seem a bit much, but at least they didn't go too overboard with it.
I love the barrel scene, but wish they used more of the great music and less of the over the top CGI.
Thranduil is the man.
Laketown was great.
The slopes of Erebor were fantastic.
Smaug/Bilbo=perfection.
All in all I agree with you, especially with the overuse of CGI and over the top action. However, I do think these movies are way way better than the Star Wars prequels.
The Hobbit has great acting, music and visuals when they aren't too ridiculous.
The SW prequels had great…uh…music…
Having griped, I'm still looking forward to the third. I like these movies, but they could be better IMO.
You brought up King Kong and my gripes for that movie are similar. Flashes of genius weighed down by pointless scenes/characters in a movie an hour plus too long.
Again, my stupid opinion and I'm still looking forward to the third. I'll be in the theater for sure.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 31 2014, 10:24am
Post #7 of 59
(872 views)
Shortcut
|
... that the ensemble also makes a big difference when one compares SW and TH.
Somehow even actors who have shown great talent in other productions (Neeson, McGregor) didn't work at all . Imho because most of them might be good actors but simply do not fit the SW universe. They did not feel like the "right" casting, imho. Well, and there were actors who I felt simply did not have the acting chops needed for their roles - especially Anakin (both young and older). His delivery of the tranisiton to Darth Vader had me in tears - from laughing.
Thankfully, casting is really a forte of PJ & Co. And one of the major reasons why imho Middle-earth still comes alive in TH despite the changes compared to the book and different look compared to LotR, while SW felt like somethign different altogether.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jul 31 2014, 10:26am)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 31 2014, 10:24am
Post #8 of 59
(908 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Seems a bit like being annoyed at a buffet.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
No one likes it all, but everyone might like something. For everyone that loves Bag End someone else hates it, for everyone that loves the barrel scene someone else hates it etc etc.
Very different constituencies for these films. Shame that some incredibly clever universally liked solution couldn't be struck, but unsurprising.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Jul 31 2014, 10:35am
Post #9 of 59
(888 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, considering the history of Gundabad -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But, I don't buy that Azog had such a fervour to see Thorin killed, or to see the Durin lineage broken.
- (the waking place of Durin the Deathless), I can see a proud and powerful 'Gundabad' Orc like Azog making the destruction of Durin's line his hobby.
Even Sauron's minions have their personal interests.
___________________________________________________
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Jul 31 2014, 10:40am)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 31 2014, 10:53am
Post #10 of 59
(893 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think you're fully entitled to your opinion....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I don't share it, except on one point. I do agree that it would have been better to have planned three films from the beginning and, given that Peter Jackson was eventually to take over and direct, I think it would have been easier for all concerned if he'd been directing from the start. But that was no one's fault and couldn't have been avoided. It's just how it happened.
Otherwise no, not at all. I see no fanfiction. This is a professional adaptation of the book, it's just a whole lot more creative and far-reaching that a lot of people wanted. Some embrace it for what it is, some mourn the film they were hoping for. You can't please everybody. For me, I love it. For sure, there are things I'm not so keen on, but that's inevitable and I don't mind that - it's like loving someone who squeezes the toothpaste tube in the wrong place.
As for the computer graphics, I'm lucky. I see no faults, I think it's amazing - light years away from the not-very-special effects I remember (and yet we still watched and enjoyed the films).
And the trailer? Breathtaking, I thought - best one yet!
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jul 31 2014, 11:07am
Post #11 of 59
(823 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOL... and I agree with you.//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 31 2014, 11:07am
Post #12 of 59
(848 views)
Shortcut
|
Just watched the AUJ extra on the Goblin Town shooting.
Thank God for the CGI heads... The masks and how they changed movement and acting of the Goblin actors look horrible.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jul 31 2014, 11:09am
Post #13 of 59
(821 views)
Shortcut
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jul 31 2014, 11:11am
Post #14 of 59
(815 views)
Shortcut
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
TnuaccayM
Bree
Jul 31 2014, 12:06pm
Post #15 of 59
(803 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand your disliking of CGI
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it is not about bad or unfinished CGI, its about the overall look the films that bothers people, and that is caused by the the use of digital cameras, not film cameras like in LotR. When you compare TH and LotR, people might say that TH looks fake compared to LotR, but that's because the were used to seeing Middle Earth on film, not digital. I remember that when I saw the trailer for TH for the first time on 2011 I even thought that some of the drwarves faces were CGI. When I saw the films I thought a lot of scenes, a lot of orcs and a lot of sets that were actually real were CGI. Some people said that even Legolas had CGI make up but no, its just the overall look of the movies. And as someone said before, it is good they added CGI faces to goblins and orcs, because it allows them to have more facial expressions, which is very important when having antagonists like Bolg and Azog.
And I don't think it would be right to compare TH to Star Wars prequels, because the problem with Star Wars was that CGI got more important than the story itself. That is not the case with TH. I even like TH's story more than LotR.
I think its just a matter of taste. I love all the sequences that you may not like at all, like the barrel ride and the chase trough goblin town. They are fun, as the book, as the movie should have been. Those scenes were not made to look realistic, but fun, because it is truly an adventure movie, not really LotR, with all the war going on, THAT needed to look realistic. If you want realistic scenes watch the battle of moria and Smaug's attack on Erebor. Having the fun scenes look realistic and keep the escence of the book I doesn't always work with these films.
If we had never seen LotR before TH, much would have been different... And more enjoyable too! ;)
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jul 31 2014, 1:33pm
Post #16 of 59
(792 views)
Shortcut
|
have been going on for a year and a half now...and like I've always said:
The single biggest problem that The Hobbit has is that it came after LOTR. Expectations.
I am SO weary of the argument that The Hobbit films are drawn out because first, my biggest problem with DOS was that it was not drawn out enough. Second, how can anyone who loves being immersed in this world think that the first 40 minutes of AUJ was too drawn out? I mean a casual viewer sure....but for any Tolkien fan, being in Bag End for that long? Yes please! And it was all totally relevant, straight from the book stuff!
In regard to your 2) there is nothing from the Silmarillion in these movies...and I disagree that anything that is not directly from the books is 'fan fiction' and inherently bad...going by this logic you'd have to write half of the LOTR trilogy as fan fiction as well.
I will agree that there is too much CGI...not too much action but definitely too much CGI...however, it is what PJ wants, it's what he likes...and as far as i'm concerned he has earned the right to do whatever the hell he wants. And with the exception of a few shots Weta has done a REALLY good job with the CGI.
Lastly, once again, very tired of this trilogy being compared to the Star Wars Prequels because they are not even in the same galaxy (no pun intended)...The Hobbit trilogy FAR outshines the Star Wars prequels...no comparison. And give Raddy a break! How offended he must be to be compared to JarJar....gross.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jul 31 2014, 2:10pm
Post #17 of 59
(755 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What dormouse and Lindele said
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, the Bag End sequence of AUJ is among the best in all five movies.
I have no problem with the CGI, but for my taste some of the action scenes go on too long.
Some of the rejigging resulting from the two to three film change is a bit awkward IMO but I disagree that there is padding. If anything, there is not enough time, especially in DOS.
This is an adaptation and the changes are choices made by professional writers with the legal and moral right to adapt the story. It isn't fan fiction.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 31 2014, 4:58pm
Post #18 of 59
(707 views)
Shortcut
|
2) Peter Jackson fanfiction and Silmarillion stuff
Sure, I appreciate that he tries too. But you notice that the more Jackson fanfiction there is in a scene, the worse it gets. Sure, add Tauriel if you wanna have a strong female character, but if you do then you sure as heck don't make her swoon over a Dwarf and put her in a silly love triangle (relevant, I never tought I would get a dick joke in a Tolkien movie) The strongest scenes imo from the movies so far are the Riddle Scene with Gollum and the Bilbo/Smaug talk, and these are almost line-by-line from the books. I know that the stuff about the Necromancer, Sauron etc is from the Silmarillion is written by Tolkien but it comes out as padding out, the scenes with Sauron and the Orcs are among the worst (The CGI fight between Gandalf and Sauron being particularly bad, a really unsubtle and poorly bult up good vs evil fight) and you can't forget Radagast - the Jar Jar Binks of this trilogy.
There are a few veiled references to The Silmarillion, but Jackson was unable to refer to that work directly. The material you are discussing was mostly taken from The Lord of the Rings and its Appendices (or invented for the films). Yes, I would have preferred that Radagast had been treated with a little more dignity (or at least a bit less silliness). And the Tauriel/Kili relationship is awkward at best, but it may not pan out to be as bad as some fear. I personally don't like the alterations to the histories of Dol Guldur and the Ringwraiths; they just are not well thought-out.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 31 2014, 6:00pm
Post #19 of 59
(683 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Um ... Hands up... I'm a Tolkien fan but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I thought the time spent in Bag End was almost unbelievably too long, so apologies for going against your theory.
I'm after a film adaptation not a moving pictures illustration.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Jul 31 2014, 6:11pm
Post #20 of 59
(654 views)
Shortcut
|
The single biggest problem that The Hobbit has is that it came after LOTR. Expectations.
That's just it. Everybody has their own (and often opposing) ideas of what these movies should be like. We've got the One Movie-ers, Two Movie-ers and Three Movie-ers (and probably Four Movie-ers). Then we've got the Pure and Faithful Adaptation camp and the Middle-Earth Expanded Universe supporters, and all those in between.
Then there's the Lord of the Rings Trilogy II loyalists, Peter Jackson's A Hack protestors, and so on.
Poor old Peter Jackson. The Hobbit movies aren't quite the way I'd make them (assuming I had the skill to do so), but when some people describe their ideas of how the movies should be 'improved', I'm kind of glad it's PJ making these movies (no offence to those guys and gals, by the way - and I do agree with some of those suggestions).
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Lorien
Jul 31 2014, 6:13pm
Post #21 of 59
(659 views)
Shortcut
|
...are valid, as I've seen these exact points made many times by many people. I can see where you (and others) are coming from and I can understand you having some level of disappointment. I share some of your sentiments, to an extent, as I still (despite the things I didn't care for) greatly enjoyed both films --particularly AUJ (even with the horrible Goblin tunnels CGI! ).
Despite what some people may say, these movies are not perfect (what film is?) and there are legitimate concerns with them, but they're also not the worst thing to ever befall the cinemas, either! 
Keep smiling! 
"Do not spoil the wonder with haste!" Tolkien
"Like all dreamers, I mistook disenchantment for truth." Satre
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 31 2014, 6:15pm
Post #22 of 59
(649 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I often felt like that as well when I read suggestions.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit movies aren't quite the way I'd make them (assuming I had the skill to do so), but when some people describe their ideas of how the movies should be 'improved', I'm kind of glad it's PJ making these movies (no offence to those guys and gals, by the way - and I do agree with some of those suggestions).
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jul 31 2014, 6:26pm
Post #23 of 59
(669 views)
Shortcut
|
First, thank you for spelling out your complaints in such a respectful manner. It seems to me that there is a wide spectrum, from people who think the movies are totally awsome to horrible, and everything in between. Now, obviously I don't agree with most of your post, but most of this is a combination of expectations and personal taste that are simply going to be different for different people. For me, I think the flaws are few and far between, so that puts me closer to the "awesome" camp, in that some scenes were too long and some CGI was unimpressive. But I don't compare this to the SW prequels at all, and here's why: the SW prequels had no heart. I just felt like I was watching something very sterile. My problem with those movies had nothing to do with CGI and almost everything to do with the chemistry between actors, and there just wasn't any. I can't say that about any of the Hobbit movies so far. I think the idea of having the 13 dwarf actors go through a "dwarf boot camp" probably had alot to do with that, and alot of it is probably Martin Freeman as well. Needless to say, the "Riddles in the Dark" scene was fantastic! And kudos to him for being able to look so frightened by Smaug, who of course wasn't really there. Speaking of which, Smaug is a masterpiece in CGI, and I think will set a new standard. There are also lots of moments (especially in DOS) where there are just two actors talking - Thorin and Gandalf, Thorin and Thranduil, Kili and Tauriel (if you can put aside the love triangle and listen to the conversation, it reflects alot of Tolkien's written material concerning elves), and yes Thorin and Bilbo, and Bilbo and Smaug. These dramatic moments, where the actors truly shine, is what really makes this movie special for me. But again, it's all a matter of opinion/personal taste. Thanks for sharing.
(This post was edited by Kilidoescartwheels on Jul 31 2014, 6:27pm)
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Jul 31 2014, 6:38pm
Post #24 of 59
(633 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree - I really don't understand
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
why people keep saying the "extra" stuff is from the Silmarillion. The studios and Jackson have no rights to use any material outside of The LoTR books and The Hobbit. What people claim is from the Silmarillion is all from the Appendices in the LoTR books.
(This post was edited by shadowdog on Jul 31 2014, 6:41pm)
|
|
|
joec_34
Rivendell
Jul 31 2014, 7:03pm
Post #25 of 59
(621 views)
Shortcut
|
...and am glad to see that someone else (who seems to know the books a bit better than I) isn't too worried about Tauriel and Kili, but is annoyed by the Nazgul changes.
"Happy painting and God bless, my friend." - Bob Ross
|
|
|
|
|
1
