|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 28 2015, 7:41pm
Post #26 of 65
(1317 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 28 2015, 7:43pm
Post #27 of 65
(1344 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, the defending gets exhausting!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
After two trilogies worth of it, I am quite tired!  I do recall that Oscar reception and buildup - though I was so excited to watch it sweep that night I couldn't even sit down to watch it - I paced a lot!
BTW I am in this bit discussing it with Anwyn (I'm Regina, the nutter discussing stealing Tom Hanks' Oscars... ) Thanks to dear Magpie for tracking this down for me:
ANWYN'S COUNTERPOINT:
Lucas and Jackson and Tolkien, Oh My
(This post was edited by Brethil on Jan 28 2015, 7:52pm)
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Jan 28 2015, 8:00pm
Post #28 of 65
(1331 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe in book enthusiasts forums...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...the reactions were closer to what you describe but that is a very limited and insulated view of events. I was talking about the broad reception the movies got, among critics and the mainstream. Make no mistake, though, there were (are) a lot of Tolkien fans who loved these movies, myself included.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jan 28 2015, 8:10pm
Post #29 of 65
(1309 views)
Shortcut
|
How are ya?! :)
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 28 2015, 11:06pm
Post #30 of 65
(1298 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No they don't have the quality of timeless movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There are aspects to admire in the films- some good performances, great design, and fantastic visual scenes with Smaug and Gollum. But many of the writing decisions are just plain bad- the three film adaptation approach really was a huge mistake, the new characters are all weak, the pacing is off, tone misjudged, dialogue often poor. And ultimately BOTFA just doesn't deliver the excitement and emotional climax that a great film trilogy needs.
LOTR really does get better the more times you watch it. It's not flawless by any means, but it has so many brilliant directorial decisions, fantastic pace, great economy of writing, so many epic scenes and strong performances. It fully deserves its classic status and critical acclaim.
I think over time the gap in quality between Jackson's LOTR and The Hobbit films will become even more apparent than it already is, and the franchise marketing claims that The Hobbit is part of a "six film project" will look increasingly silly. I also agree with other commentators pointing out that the overuse of CGI in The Hobbit is not going to help it age either, again comparing unfavourably to the physical approach of LotR.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 28 2015, 11:08pm
Post #31 of 65
(1260 views)
Shortcut
|
Good! Just COLD right now! Brrrrr!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hope all is well by you, dear E!
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Jan 29 2015, 12:00am
Post #32 of 65
(1278 views)
Shortcut
|
...the reception to LOTR was highly favorable. So much so that people like myself who weren't as happy with the films were sometimes made to feel extremely unwelcome because of our views.
And the fact that LOTR received many more award nominations (and wins) suggests that they were more favorably received critically as well.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 29 2015, 12:05am
Post #33 of 65
(1272 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That Oscar night was really something, wasn't it.....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...it became harder to watch the more awards they received, because there was that feeling of 'it can't go on... sooner or later they've got to drop one, and pleeeease don't let it be director or film.'
And yes, I share your memories of a time when the first trilogy had its band of critics and complainants - that and your long-service trilogy defence exhaustion. Been a long ride, hasn't it - thankfully there's always the films and books to escape into and no one has yet managed to spoil either for me (nor will they  )
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 29 2015, 12:37am
Post #34 of 65
(1250 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Absolutely – that's how I remember it, too, Brethil
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I posted on several forums at that time (probably not this one), and remember that there were massive attacks on LotR, however much people now try to say that is not the case in order to 'support' their attacks on this trilogy, and by so doing to somehow attempt to 'prove' that this trilogy is somehow worse than LotR. And yes, I remember the widespread condemnation of Liv Tyler before TTT was released, etc.
In any case, my views about The Hobbit remain the same – it is an extraordinary achievement, in my opinion.
And I was around here for LOTR. The reception was very similar in its time, which makes me chuckle when that trilogy is now touted as the Be All and End All, and anything that comes after is surely inferior.
Or maybe our posting experiences were. I do not feel that I am 'skewing history', and nor do I believe that I am wont to do so to 'make a point'. That was my impression at the time, that enough massive negativity and naysaying (as well as wholesale condemnation of Liv Tyler for example, by many people, just on the basis of Arwen's added material) actually caused me to leave the movie boards. Posts I see today could read as any of the LOTR titles versus TH titles and read exactly the same.
We can agree to disagree, but my impressions are my own and remain what they are.
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 1:01am
Post #35 of 65
(1235 views)
Shortcut
|
I remember the criticism and upset over the changes PJ made to the LoTRs vs Tolkien's books. And I have chuckled when The Hobbit movies are criticized as not being true to the book using the same criticisms that were used against the LoTR films. What really gets me chuckling is those who criticize the Hobbit films point to how faithful to Tolkien the LoTR movies were. And there were the criticisms of the sets in LoTR as not being real that are now being praised as being realistic looking compared to the Hobbit. SIGH
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 1:10am
Post #36 of 65
(1242 views)
Shortcut
|
I also remember the negative posts on Arwen, on Eowen, on Treebeard, on Faramir, on Legolas, on the cgi characters in Moria and so on.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jan 29 2015, 1:56am
Post #37 of 65
(1220 views)
Shortcut
|
Not the cold part though. lol
I'm doing well. I took a much needed break from the net right around the time of the film. Something got to me and I had to walk away. I'm back though and need to get some reviews done of my new Middle-earth statues from Weta. Other than that just taking everything day to day hoping spring will get here soon.
(This post was edited by Elessar on Jan 29 2015, 1:57am)
|
|
|
MechaGodzilla
Rivendell
Jan 29 2015, 2:12am
Post #38 of 65
(1223 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's hard for any of us to say *now*, but it's not impossible
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Many films throughout history were released to mixed critical reception and/or poor box office returns, etc. and later became classics over the years. Vertigo and Blade Runner come to mind as two good examples. Who knows, maybe in 20 or 30 years the Hobbit trilogy will be more highly regarded than it is now? Hard to predict these things.
(This post was edited by MechaGodzilla on Jan 29 2015, 2:12am)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 4:27am
Post #39 of 65
(1226 views)
Shortcut
|
There are aspects to admire in the films- some good performances, great design, and fantastic visual scenes with Smaug and Gollum. But many of the writing decisions are just plain bad- the three film adaptation approach really was a huge mistake, the new characters are all weak, the pacing is off, tone misjudged, dialogue often poor. And ultimately BOTFA just doesn't deliver the excitement and emotional climax that a great film trilogy needs.
LOTR really does get better the more times you watch it. It's not flawless by any means, but it has so many brilliant directorial decisions, fantastic pace, great economy of writing, so many epic scenes and strong performances. It fully deserves its classic status and critical acclaim.
I think over time the gap in quality between Jackson's LOTR and The Hobbit films will become even more apparent than it already is, and the franchise marketing claims that The Hobbit is part of a "six film project" will look increasingly silly. I also agree with other commentators pointing out that the overuse of CGI in The Hobbit is not going to help it age either, again comparing unfavourably to the physical approach of LotR.
Everyone remember this is just my opinion. I really hate being negative all the time but I completely agree with this post. The hobbit movies just don't have the same magic as LOTR. The biggest thing that stands out for me is when people call it a 6 film saga. To me, the hobbit looks and feels so different from LOTR that it doesn't seem like it's part of the same series. That's been a big issue for me since I saw the second trailer to AUJ. The methods that PJ used for these movies creates a very different visual for middle earth than what we had in LOTR. People can try to convince me all they want that it's a different time, Bilbo's memory, etc. but the fact remains the same that it just isn't the same middle earth.
I guess that's neither here nor there with regard to the main topic. I honestly think the majority of people out there will look at the hobbit trilogy the same way people look at the SW prequels. While the hobbit isn't nearly as bad as the SW prequels, there will still be a sense that this is an inferior trilogy that could have been much more.
Edit: I want to end on a more positive note since I feel like I don't do it enough on this board. In the end it doesn't really matter how these movies look in the future. All that matters is how each person individually receives the film. If you don't like the film, you don't like it. If you like it, then you like it. And nobody else's opinion is really going to change any of that, no matter how many years go by.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Jan 29 2015, 4:33am)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2015, 6:47am
Post #40 of 65
(1184 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree totally with you on this. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2015, 7:27am
Post #41 of 65
(1178 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOL.. I absolutely share your optimism, dormouse! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2015, 7:36am
Post #42 of 65
(1188 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Analysis of the LOTR past that is quite true,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and augurs well indeed for the future fuller recognition of TH.
I had actually just now written a post pointing out exactly the same phenomenon, and then some technical problem made it disappear!!! I was shocked and dismayed at first with the loss of my post, and then I started suspecting some other post must be already there in this thread, saying the same thing I had wanted to say... and I found your post!!! You see, you have unwittingly written it for both of us, so thank you!
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2015, 7:45am
Post #43 of 65
(1178 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You are speaking of the critics and their reviews,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
while in the other post what is remembered is the reactions from the fans, which were just as hotly discussed on these TORn forums as the TH films are now.
This is why your memories are different, and not because of any skewering of history by the other poster. You are simply not speaking of the same thing...!!!
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 9:31am
Post #44 of 65
(1202 views)
Shortcut
|
It will be remembered as a mild dissapointment for years to come. "Good Enough" is the phrase that comes to mind.
The CGI will age teribbly, and there is no emotional attachment to make future generations have some sort of epiphany about this trilogies quality. It is what it is.
Also, on the subject of TH vs. LOTR reception. Perhaps among huge Tolkien fans, the reception has been similar. But as films? No. Way.
I would go as far to say anyone who thinks The Hobbit has been received the same way amongst film fans as LOTR is downright delusional. I'm not just talking about critics, but people who are more critical of them strictly as films rather than adaptation.
It actually boggles my mind that anyone could see The Hobbit as being on par with LOTR strictly as films. Its so obvious to me that LOTR is vastly superior in character development, editing, and score.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.
(This post was edited by jtarkey on Jan 29 2015, 9:36am)
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 29 2015, 11:32am
Post #45 of 65
(1158 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps but to some degree there was a need for a "new prequals"...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think the narrative will be established that these are "Jackson's Star Wars prequels" and that that is how they will be remembered, despite not being accurate.
Pity.
My view is that the negative reaction to the Starwars Prequals has become almost a culture onto itself when it comes to both reviewers/commentators and the more general public. There failings are of course worth of a good deal of criticism but I think disliking them has become a bit of a safe touchstone, something you could bring up without really making an interesting point or with the risk of being disagreed with.
I think it was pretty clear even before release that there was a strong desire for the Hobbit films to follow this path from a lot of people.
It will be interesting to see whether this opinion lasts, my guess is that it may well not simply because the attraction of it is that it be near universal. If you get a decent minority challenging it then lazy critical articles won't get as positive a response and people who don't like having there opinions questioned will look elsewhere.
Ignoring this aspect I don't think the films will ever be as well regarded as LOTR as there simply not as good but I do think that like LOTR there certainly rewatch friendly in the density of there character/plot/design as is the case with most of Jacksons work.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 29 2015, 11:48am
Post #46 of 65
(1204 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This statement (quoted below) actually boggles MY mind
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is obvious to me that The Hobbit is in fact vastly superior to LotR in terms of casting, acting, character development and the visuals at the very least. As for the scores – they are simply different in style from each other, one (LotR) being 'in your face', and the other (Hobbit) being much more subtle. It simply depends on what you prefer. As for the CGI, it will age no more than that for LotR films has aged since those films were aired. It very much pushed boundaries and did so successfully on the whole (and spectacularly in some cases, e.g. Smaug), which is more than can be said for other films relying on CGI these days.
However, having said this, I prefer to view the LotR trilogy and Hobbit trilogy separately, since they are very different in tone and style, and (to me) not really comparable.
IMHO.
It actually boggles my mind that anyone could see The Hobbit as being on par with LOTR strictly as films. Its so obvious to me that LOTR is vastly superior in character development, editing, and score.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 1:21pm
Post #47 of 65
(1186 views)
Shortcut
|
(LotR) being 'in your face', and the other (Hobbit) being much more subtle
Yeah. The Hobbit trilogy is way more subtle. The company and legolas literally defying physics in a total poetic fashion. Not in your face at all.
Also... The new Planet of the Apes films blow The Hobbits CGI out of the water. That's why DOTPOTA's is going to win the vxf Oscar this year. It deserves it.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.
(This post was edited by jtarkey on Jan 29 2015, 1:27pm)
|
|
|
Skaan
Lorien
Jan 29 2015, 1:28pm
Post #48 of 65
(1157 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it should've been pretty obvious
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That Glorfindela was talking about the music.
|
|
|
Ilmatar
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 1:55pm
Post #49 of 65
(1169 views)
Shortcut
|
there is no emotional attachment to make future generations have some sort of epiphany about this trilogies quality.
There is no way for you to know about anyone else's emotional attachments, or lack thereof, but your own, so I wouldn't claim such things as facts. Future generations may very well be able to see beyond the CGI and into the heart of the story as well as I have been able to enjoy many movies made before I was born.
Quote
The Hobbit fandom...
Is officially crazy and delusional.
This was probably said jest, but as a straight answer to another poster's view, I find it offensive. Just because someone likes something you don't, it doesn't make them crazy or delusional and gives you no right to go insulting them.
...Unless, of course, we all just shrug at the haughty post(er)s and embrace our shared madness. Glorfindela, BlackFox, Riven Delve and dormouse - I'm in good company, so can't complain!
(I don't belog to any "official fandom" either.)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 29 2015, 2:04pm
Post #50 of 65
(1144 views)
Shortcut
|
I was talking about the music in my response here, NOT about the films in general.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. I disagree.
(LotR) being 'in your face', and the other (Hobbit) being much more subtle Yeah. The Hobbit trilogy is way more subtle. The company and legolas literally defying physics in a total poetic fashion. Not in your face at all. Also... The new Planet of the Apes films blow The Hobbits CGI out of the water. That's why DOTPOTA's is going to win the vxf Oscar this year. It deserves it. |
|
|
|
|
