|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MechaGodzilla
Rivendell
Jan 21 2015, 7:26pm
Post #1 of 65
(2003 views)
Shortcut
|
|
BotFA the least well-received - what's your take?
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's something I've been thinking about lately. Personally I loved the film, and I'm a little surprised that the general consensus seems to be that BotFA is inferior to its predecessors when in my view (and this is just my opinion, I don't claim to be an authority) it's easily the strongest of the three. Taking a quick look around at the most obvious/popular sites for these kinds of things it's pretty clear what people in general think.
Audience ratings:
- IMDb user ratings: AUJ - 8.0/10; DoS - 8.0/10; BotFA - 7.7/10
- Metacritic user scores: AUJ - 8.1/10; DoS - 7.8/10; BotFA - 7.2/10
- Rotten Tomatoes audience scores: AUJ - 83%; DoS - 86%; BotFA - 76%
Critic ratings:
- Rotten Tomatoes "Tomatometer": AUJ - 64%; DoS - 74% (Certified Fresh); BotFA - 60%
- Metacritic "Metascore": AUJ - 58%; DoS - 66%; BotFA - 59%
And while I'm not sure exactly how all the awards work, maybe there are some yet to be handed out over the coming weeks/months, but for completions' sake. According to IMDb:
- AUJ: Nominated for 3 Oscars plus another 12 wins & 57 nominations
- DoS: Nominated for 3 Oscars plus another 15 wins & 70 nominations
- BotFA: Nominated for 1 Oscar plus another 2 wins & 9 nominations
Of course some of this stuff is hardly earth-shattering, going from 8 to 7.7 (IMDb) for example is obviously not a major step down, but even when the difference is small there's a drop, and some of these ratings are significant drops from the previous film(s). It's clear both from box office returns and user ratings online that audiences appreciate these films far more than the critics, but even while the critical reception hasn't been stellar overall, you see the same trend; BotFA gets the lowest ratings from both groups.
So, what do you think of this? Do you agree that BotFA is the weakest installment or do you disagree? Why do you think so many people seem to feel this way, and for that matter, why do you think DoS is the most well-received of the three among critics? Regardless of where you stand I'd love to hear all your thoughts on this. 
|
|
|
Drakblod
Rivendell
Jan 21 2015, 7:43pm
Post #2 of 65
(1232 views)
Shortcut
|
It hardly has anything going for it, lots of unecessary scenes with Tauriel and Alfrid, endless battle scenes which you quickly get tired off, weird choices, "comedy" mixed in with scenes trying to be serious. Weird ending that barely wraps up anything. I despise Jackson for trying to create emotional scenes with characters we haven't learned to know.
Don't forget the pitiful script. "It was true love", yeah you met him a couple of days ago. Oh, and throw in a bunch of cringeworthy LOTR references, so people get that they're connected.
However having seen all three I don't like any of them, I'll probably never watch the trilogy again.
like butter scraped over too much bread.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Jan 23 2015, 3:47am)
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jan 21 2015, 7:44pm
Post #3 of 65
(1147 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think its the weakest but it isn't the strongest
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't know what to think and I'm not sure I care to honestly. I've enjoyed it quite a bit the three times I saw it. I would give it an 8.5/10.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jan 21 2015, 7:45pm
Post #4 of 65
(1145 views)
Shortcut
|
is that DOS is the best received simply because it has the benefit of being the middle film.
A lot of critics did not like the slow pacing to the opening of AUJ- I agree with that but not because of all the stuff at Bag End, but rather that is made to feel too long by the inclusion of the old Bilbo/Frodo pointlessness, and the lengthy unneeded dwarf history flashback- not helped by the fact that no sooner does Bilbo leave on the journey than the whole thing grinds to a halt again so Balin can give even more exposition and flashbacks about dwarf history- for a film called the Hobbit this is not going to please folk who didn't go to see The Dwarf.
DOS doesn't have to establish characters, or set up, it can just get going and tell a story. Badly in my view but it does get on and tell it.
With BOFA I think there is some effect from the previous two, peple were not expecting as much going into it based on their experiences with the first two. Its also a messy film, both in production and in end product- there are a lot of dead end story threads- Arkenstone, the elven-kings jewels, everything to do with Beorn and his set up with Azog, what happens to Radagast, what happens to Dain- there is just too much left unresolved or shelved at the last minute. Whilst at the sam etime character slike Legolas, tauriel and Alfrid get undue screen time and prominence in a way which undermines the other characters or relegates them to extras.
Finally I think there is a huge fundemenatl mistake in making the battle the main feature and putting it in the title- I feel had the films driven home Tolkien's themes more strongly and not glorified in the battle but down played it as the petty, stupid war it was that would have helped clarify the message- as it is the message is heavily muddled by attempting to make the battle enjoyable as a spectacle, and in particualr by tying everything to Sauron and presenting it as a just war like the war of the ring which must be fought, that could not be more opposite of how Tolkien plays the battle in the book.
Then there is the basic problem of the script, which has been rewritten so often its no wonder they lost sight of the end game. Stuff like the "why does love hurt so much?" lines are so appallingly amateurish, childlike and cringeworthy its hard to take seriously any film which contains such dialogue and wasn't written by a fourteen year old going through growing pains and teen angst.
I think taking all this together- poor scripting, lack of focus on major characters, lack of resolution of so may plot lines, poor expectations based on the first two films, clouding the main threads of the book and a lack of connection to poorly wirtten unrealistic characters all play there part in the reception of BoFA.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 21 2015, 8:05pm
Post #5 of 65
(1069 views)
Shortcut
|
I think talking about the general critical response will really just be covering ground that's been brought up so many times before but the awards is a rather different angle. I would guess that a big issue there might well be that the Hobbit films got most of there awards in various technical categories and perhaps for the score. With BOT5A I think you can make the case its all rather "seen/heard" that before, nothing wrong with the FX/sound/score but not really anything new either so why give it an award? AUJ was obviously our first taste of a lot of these aspects and DOS also included a lot that was new including of course Smaug himself who was really the tent pole bit of FX for this series.
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jan 21 2015, 8:09pm
Post #6 of 65
(1131 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm sure the trilogy will miss you tremendously.
|
|
|
LoremIpsum
Lorien
Jan 21 2015, 8:40pm
Post #7 of 65
(1071 views)
Shortcut
|
I do not think it was a satisfying finale, it was the shortest of the three movies, rushed to the finish line, all in all - it made me fell like I haven't seen the whole movie yet. AUJ and DOS played out like extended LOTR edition in the cinemas, this one felt really choppy and you could see where stuff was missing.
Having said that I liked it a lot and feel the EE has a chance to win a lot of people back. A chance... hopefully it won't be wasted.
(This post was edited by LoremIpsum on Jan 21 2015, 8:42pm)
|
|
|
NoelGallagher
Rohan
Jan 21 2015, 8:57pm
Post #8 of 65
(1049 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The biggest problem with the movie i have is...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That i love the whole cast and the brilliant acting.
But i hate the amateurish and weak script.
And i cant decide whats more in my favor 
|
|
|
TnuaccayM
Bree
Jan 21 2015, 9:16pm
Post #9 of 65
(1011 views)
Shortcut
|
What happened is that people wanted to see LotR again, and gladly for me, that didn't happen. The same thing would have happened if Tolkien had written LotR first and then TH. No matter how good it would have been on its own people won't like it because it isn't LotR. Its no surprise for me that BotFA had the worst critics because it is a movie that if you don't really care about the characters you won't enjoy it. That's why I think people didn't like it, because they where disappointed ever since the watched the first film because it wasn't LotR, and if they didn't like the film they didn't really care about the characters.
The thing with LotR is that you didn't need to be attached in any way to its characters to be amazed. Take for example the battles. You can't compare the battle of Minas Tirith or Helms Deep with the battle of five armies. In this last movie the focus was on the characters, not the battle. In LotR what was important was the battles not the characters. From my personal experience, the characters in TH were much stronger than those on LotR.
I'm almost sure that most people that watched (and will watch) TH before LotR are going to enjoy the so much more, with an open mind as it should be. My girlfriend knew nothing about LotR until she watch AUJ. Even after watching only one film of TH and the three extended editions of LotR twice she still said that she liked TH more. She didn't like Bilbo at first, but after seeing him proving himself throught the movies she now loves him, much like how it happened with the company of dwarves. I think that's the reaction that these movies are intended to give, and I'm sure it will be like that for the future generations, who will hopefully appreciate these movies more that many people today.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jan 21 2015, 9:21pm
Post #10 of 65
(971 views)
Shortcut
|
I for one wanted to see a good adaptation of TH not a rewrite of LotR's (which I feel is what we got with all the Sauron, evil Ring, just war nonsense) or a film full of callbacks to the LotR's shoehorned in every five minutes in clumsy fashion.
I wanted the tone of TH (that of a childrens book- and no that doesn't mean what PJ seems to think which is childish), I wanted the characters of TH, and I wanted the story and character arcs of TH and I wanted the themes of TH. Sadly expecting these basic things of an adaptation of TH seemed to be a hope too far. But I dont think I am alone in wanting a good adaptation of the book.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Jan 21 2015, 9:22pm)
|
|
|
tsmith675
Gondor
Jan 21 2015, 9:44pm
Post #11 of 65
(989 views)
Shortcut
|
|
BoFA is my favorite of the 3, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can see why it's not as well received as the other two. Because, as a film on its own, it's not great. But as the third act of the story, which is how I view it, it's great.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 21 2015, 9:54pm
Post #12 of 65
(1006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Personally, I think the critics are right.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would say DOS is the best of the three, and I would go along with Metacritic (which attempts to rate the quality of the films) in placing BOFA ahead of AUJ.
As an unasked question, one thing that does make me chuckle about discussions on this, is the process of using critics' scores as the first stage of an argument which then proceeds to ignore what they actually say they liked and disliked about the films!
|
|
|
EomundDaughter
Lorien
Jan 21 2015, 10:48pm
Post #13 of 65
(932 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It certainly has left the theaters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
sooner than 1 or 2 of the trilogy....not sure why? .
I love the movie and will miss seeing it a few more times.
could be the DVD will release sooner...I hope
|
|
|
Thrain II
Lorien
Jan 21 2015, 10:50pm
Post #14 of 65
(903 views)
Shortcut
|
it's because it doesn't stand on it's own, no prologue, and almost no resolutions. The name of the movie is the battle, which disappears completely after dwarves charge out of Erebor. Too much Alfrid and Legolas with impossible stunts, cringe worthy love triangle, and too few of the company and the hobbit himself.
To reflect all of this, I want to post a great picture, courtesy of Eleniel from 2 threads below: https://40.media.tumblr.com/...Cx1tphrr4o1_1280.jpg
But I would not rate it the worst of the 3, i think it's better than DOS.
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
Jan 21 2015, 10:55pm
Post #15 of 65
(851 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks - was just thinking it would have been better here! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 21 2015, 11:24pm
Post #17 of 65
(870 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I only know which ones I like the best
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. BoFA (by far the best for me)
2. AUJ
3. DoS
I don't care what anyone else says.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 21 2015, 11:28pm
Post #18 of 65
(846 views)
Shortcut
|
My list shifts around all the time...
1. FotR
2. RotK
3. AUJ
4. TTT
5. BoFA
6. DoS
That's what I'm going with today. 
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 21 2015, 11:36pm
Post #19 of 65
(834 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't really like listing all films together, because the two trilogies are so different from each other, in several ways.
With regard to the LotR films, I like them in the following order:
1. FotR
2. TTT (Helm's Deep in particular is incredibly well done, I think).
3. RotK (it used to be number 2, but now it's my least favourite).
|
|
|
ghost_matt
Rivendell
Jan 21 2015, 11:41pm
Post #20 of 65
(847 views)
Shortcut
|
people are just expressing their dissatisfaction with the decision to make it a trilogy, kind of like how they waited until RotK to heap praise on the whole thing even though FOTR was the better movie, IMO.
I personally loved BotFA and know I like it better than AUJ. I need to see the extended cut and see it a few more times before I decide if I like it better than DoS.
|
|
|
TnuaccayM
Bree
Jan 22 2015, 12:56am
Post #21 of 65
(777 views)
Shortcut
|
But I was actually referring to those people who can't point one bad thing about these movies without mentioning LotR. And actually, LotR does come into it. I don't think WB would have allowed any director to make an adaptation with no relation to LotR. That's why it's no surprise that even Guillermo del Toro planned to expand what was in the book, and even make a bridge film between TH and LotR.
Even if this trilogy is not a literal book-to-film translation, I don't think the main theme of the story is lost. I believe there are much more themes to be talked about in these movies than just the ones the book reflect. The thing is that people are so incomprehensibly negative about these films that they don't even try to understand them.
The book itself is there, everything that happens in it is in the movies, in some occasions word by word. The basic thing of an adaptation, as the own word says, is to adapt. That is what we got; a transformation of a book to a very solid trilogy. If you want an adaptation that is only about what's in the book you can always watch the cartoon movie from the 70's. For me it's just a matter of taste.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jan 22 2015, 1:22am
Post #22 of 65
(782 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Do you mean self or opinion on others?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The best I can GUESS for a general audience are - in a broad sense - the things that bothered me over repeat viewings. And I am not counting "critics" here, as too often I think they aren't very good at their jobs.
1) As someone on TORn posted re BOFA, BOFA worked when it was closer to canon (or the Appendices) but the Tauriel addition/extreme canon alterations did not. I personally can't use a blanket dismissal of the script as weak, because in many places it is as great as it has been IMO throughout these films. But in places where there is a strained characterization, yes think the script reflects the strain and/or - tho it is rare in this film (as most scenes seem to be clipped as much as possible) there are a few scenes IMO that should have been edited - specifically Tauriel's end lines "why does it hurt so much" etc.
2) IMO the "thriller pace" of this film is a major failing, for me becoming particularly irritating after multiple views. This was also discussed in another thread, but for my first viewing, seeing as I am an imbedded fan of certain characters, at that time I was kind of relieved, because the "rollicking" pace of the film didn't lend itself to getting really upset except for Thorin and Bilbo (who at least were given time, at the end).
E.g., perhaps to others, the pace is bothering them as well, also you have grim subject matter interspersed with comic moments - but this is NOT Pirates of the Caribbean (and I think the director Gore Verbinski is far better at that kind of thing plus there is a comic hero/antihero as an audience favorite in place to anchor things). Here, you have three beloved characters under attack that the audience has been with since the beginning (presumably), it's hard to suddenly get moved by Bard's love for his children when you are worrying about what is going on with Ravenhill; people LIKE Thranduil but may not have like the characterization in the last film plus, the thing with Tauriel pointing an arrow at him didn't work either (if you shoot Thranduil, then what, either his guard will cut you down and they are not going to listen to you anyway - LAME! ) - and most of all...
Someone used the phrase this movie "needed room to breathe" e.g. for me, you could never "sink into" this film.
3) Finally, tho there's canon, and all that, but this "rollicking" film has a payoff where (based on the utter silence of the audience towards the end, and when the film ends, as well as others I have viewed this with) people feel bad. It's possible that overall audience scores would be higher (I don't know) if people (as far as I can tell from the quiet) left feeling good, at the end of the film, but they don't. This board is a Tolkien board, so adherence to canon and tragic ends would be expected to be adhered to as part of the original material, but for a general audience I would have asked myself some very hard questions if I were making this film.
Not to mention of course, except for Bilbo, there's no payoff for anyone. We never know why Thranduil doesn't show up on Ravenhill, even tho it might have been logical to follow his son - so what was he doing? What was Gandalf doing? What happens to Tauriel? There's no funeral! What happens to Fili? What does Beorn do....yes, I know there will be an EE, but how many of the general audience will ever see it? Or even know what they missed?
E.g., thanks to a very "tight" film, there's a feeling of unsatisfaction perhaps. My own feeling is that the inexplicable "thriller pace" flat-out didn't work for this material, and was inappropriate - e.g., the film needed to be ratcheting to a crescendo, not charging along at top speed, most of the time. As someone else has posted, IMO it IS huge disservice to the actors as well, in that the performances are stellar. Even the fast-moving DOS had room to let things flow.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jan 22 2015, 1:47am
Post #23 of 65
(751 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It depends on how you define adaptation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Pj and co for example claim they also adapted appendices material- but what they actually did was take some character and place names then make everything else up. That for my money is not adaptation, it is just invention. Fan fiction.
The book would require quite a fair bit of work to adapt to screen as it stands, due to the narrator led tone of the book it is short on dialogue in some places and these things would have to be created by externalising them through events and characters- that is adaptation. Finding in a different medium how best to convey the feel and meaning of things originally produced for another medium
Inventing your own plot, characters, stories, arcs, settings and history is not adaptation it is pure invention. Not the same thing at all.
And when more of the films running time ends up consisting of invented material than adapted material there is an issue for many people.
And when important book elements, such as Beorn, Dain the funeral ect are left out and the time given instead to invented stories and characters not even present in the book, even though they stretched out the book to three films, there is a further issue when considering them as adaptations.
If Pj wanted to invent his own fantasy film then he should have done so, and not screwed about with Tolkiens work so much instead. I mean if you are going to invent most of the films content anyway why do it to someone else's work? Why not make his own fantasy film and he can have all the stupid over the top spectacle, wereworms and leaping cgi elves he likes. Why use Tolkien's name to sell something barely related to Tolkien's work?
Also I think comparisons to LotR's are inevitably as they are drawn by the filmmakers themselves who highlight every connection possible and quite a few that shouldn't be in 100 foot tall neon letters that they set on fire to make sure everyone gets the links. Its crude and clumsy.
And whilst I wouldn't say the main theme of the book is lost entirely, it is buried under a lot of guff, and its severally watered down and in danger of being obliterated by the complete mishandling of the final battle and its conversion from a petty war of greed into another LotR's style world shaking everyone is in peril fight that must be fought- that completely undermines the book, as does making Thorin a tragic hero on a heroic quest to reclaim his homeland for his people and not a greedy proud dwarf who wants to hire a burglar to steal back some treasure to ease his yearning for gold. Slapping a largely invented 'illness' on him that he succumbs to and shakes off again in the space of a few days doesn't cut it in comparison when presenting the books characters and their relationship to the books central theme.
So I feel there are genuine issues when considering the films as adaptations and that the oft espoused excuse- adaptation is a license to just make loads of stuff up and ignore the original text- requires some scrutiny before acceptance.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Jan 22 2015, 1:53am)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Jan 22 2015, 5:34am
Post #24 of 65
(695 views)
Shortcut
|
I for one wanted to see a good adaptation of TH not a rewrite of LotR's (which I feel is what we got with all the Sauron, evil Ring, just war nonsense) or a film full of callbacks to the LotR's shoehorned in every five minutes in clumsy fashion.
I wanted the tone of TH (that of a childrens book- and no that doesn't mean what PJ seems to think which is childish), I wanted the characters of TH, and I wanted the story and character arcs of TH and I wanted the themes of TH. Sadly expecting these basic things of an adaptation of TH seemed to be a hope too far. But I dont think I am alone in wanting a good adaptation of the book.
You aren't alone. I feel the same way. And I'm getting a little tired of people saying that we can't compare it to lotr or that we only dislike it because it follow LOTR.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jan 22 2015, 8:04am
Post #25 of 65
(701 views)
Shortcut
|
It is by far the worst of the ME saga and actually one of PJ's worst movies in general.
It is still well received... but no doubt there is a large number of people unsatisfied and quite a lot who think either this last one or the whole trilogy was either disappointing or at least not fully satisfying.
LotR does not play any part in this for me personally.
And it does simply not hold as an argument - there are a lot of people on TORN alone who liked AUJ and/or DoS and who kept faith with this trilogy but who now that the story is complete feel let down. Not because it "doesn't compare to LotR" but because its structure, characterisations and focus are so poor (at least now as a complete series, particularly BotFA).
Whoever believes that this criticism here comes purely from "people who always compare to LotR" or people who "simply chose not to enjoy he movie" is simply not right and behaving in a rather patronizing way.
"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 Jan 22 2015, 8:11am)
|
|
|
|
|
No problem, I thought that too! //
[
1
