|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Apr 24 2015, 10:45am
Post #1 of 32
(2824 views)
Shortcut
|
|
mixed, so mixed feelings right now
|
Can't Post
|
|
For a time I was a HUGE LOVER of the hobbit project, since the making off etc, sometimes I have been a huge PJ defender, more than sometimes, and I have being opened to the changes. But as time passes, I am not so.
There are some side lines that are completely (or almost) unjustified, not by the story itself but as a mere observation on the filmaking and screenplay writing perspective, that take off the interest of the main story, and make the story dragg. I am not making lesser the work of all of departments but my feelings went down last week for one thing:
THE SECOND STAR WARS trailer.
Watching people react, and having cried of joy myself only with that Han Solo and Chewacca come back, well, that gave me such a good vibe.
That lead me to think one thing: if you do a movies(LOTR) that are instant classics not only because the main story is awesome (the book) but for the way it was filmed, they intended to make LOTR images not realistic but as if they were pictures some inspired painter did about LOTR during renaissance period. I mean, they did reallistic all the design, but the photography and all that was more focused on an artistic way more than realistic, and it was just beautifull. Some CGI putted on service to this may aged, but they are still beautifull because the aim was to contribute to a higer sense of art.
What we have in hobbit movies?(and Im not talking about CGI armies wich LOTR had aswell and Im ok with that) Abrams understood that from the original star wars movies and in the trailer we can see that he, as a director, has addapted himself to the service of the story, not using the story at his will. And its effective because thats one of the reasons so many people got hooked by. The imaginery, Star Wars scent. Pj did the same in LOTR, but messed it all with the hobbit.
He took his own trade and very succesfull trade mark and threw it away. Some design and caracterization suffer the same. Love Richard Armitage, but I cant help to imagie how much depth an older Thorin would had add to the tale. Instead we have another action hero when he could have used this oportunity to show one thing LOTR movies didt treated deeply, wich is our relationship to elder people etc...
Not talking about the save in last moment moments wich the video everything wrong with the hobbit putted forth to my knowledge.
The edit of BOTFA is poor there were a lot of missed chances to put the level of tension higer instead of that we had the romance (wich Im not against at all, but not here) and all that. I dont know, I still want to see a 3 hour movie attached to the book, because this may be as Jurassic Park, where cientists didnt stop to think if they should do some things, they only did them because they could
Perhaps I will do my own take for myself.
The ten years ago heroic rush of PJ fiinishing a movie (LOTR) on the last time, this time has proven unjustificable. Giving poor results that time will prove, I fear.
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
(This post was edited by Mr. Arkenstone (isaac) on Apr 24 2015, 10:54am)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Apr 24 2015, 11:15am
Post #2 of 32
(2667 views)
Shortcut
|
Though I am very careful when it comes to SW... however, despite not being a major SW fan, the opening shot of the latest teaser looks so much better than most of the landscape stuff we got from TH (except those that were almost 100% New Zealand). A perfect blend of atmosphere, CGI and a real landscape.
I am still not sure how the Hobbit we got came about... somewhere I believe that PJ, FW and PB were not really sold on three movies and that a lot came from it. I simply cannot udnerstand the horrible structuring of TH trilogy if they really stood behind this 100%. Somehow I do not want to believe that these are the movies PJ wanted to make out of TH.
But a lot of this is probably coming from disappointment and wishful thinking... I mean TH certainly has captured a lot of people (though it is safe to say that it has almost no chance in reaching LotR's classic status... and that has imho nothing to do with the tale itself being different).
Looking at some coming tentpoles... TH already starts to age when ti comes to look (and that does not just mean CGI).
And yeah... do not even get me started on missed opportunities.
Sigh.
(Sorry to those who love these movies for the small rant... I don't do that to put you down... after watching BotFA digitally, however, I cannot help myself but feeling let down again. And this is the only place where people kind of understand ;) )
"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.
|
|
|
greenbalrog
Bree
Apr 24 2015, 12:39pm
Post #3 of 32
(2607 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Is it good? Yes. Could it be better? Yes. Is it better than LotR? No.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And it could never be better than LotR (or even at the same level). The story's epicness just isn't comparable.
More and more I'm starting to feel like some of the commentators here that criticize the Hobbit more for what it is and not so much for what it isn't.
I happen to find that BOFA was perhaps (if not) my best cinematic experience ever (no, I'm not 12). Seeing it in IMAX 3D HFR was an excellent experience. I don't remember feeling so invested and connected with the actors in a film before (e.g. Bard vs Smaug, Thorin's battle and death scenes, Thranduil's scenes, especially the conclusion part). And, yes, having three movies with all their details and extended editions, all that helped reach a more intense climax.
If you liked The Hobbit before, or more than you do now, than perhaps you should keep the experiences you had with the trilogy and move on. Do yourself a favor and stop ruminating on how much better the films could be. You'll only find flaws that will undermine the experience you had. And for what?
That's what I did. I moved on. Of course, I still lurk here, because I like to be in the company of other Middle Earth lovers so much :) Now I'm patiently waiting for the next chapter in the Middle Earth saga. Because, this cannot, will not, stop here ;)
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Apr 24 2015, 1:44pm
Post #4 of 32
(2552 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the three films are fantastic but they were never going to be better than the LOTR films. I will also agree the films could be better despite being some pretty good films.
I've said it before I feel bad that some don't enjoy the films, have had their enjoyment lessen, etc. I wish folks could enjoy them the same way I do. It is what it is though.
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 24 2015, 1:54pm
Post #5 of 32
(2541 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Part of enjoying these films was letting go of expectations
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Expectations ruined my first viewing experience. Was not crazy about AUJ, and I thought DOS was horribly plodding.
Sometime before BOFA came out, I rewatched the first two films on a lark. Yes, they are flawed, but on a second viewing, I was able to watch the films simply unfold unhindered by my expectations. To my surprise, I found myself really connecting with the characters: this is the one crucial thing that changed how I received these movies. Sure, the pacing is questionable, there's some really "huh?" scenes throughout, I'm not sure what they were thinking with Alfrid, and they went a little nuts with CGI and too frequently forgot about the existence of gravity.
But I find I can enjoy some very flawed media if the characters are good. I found this was definitely the case with the Hobbit films. For me at least!
(This post was edited by marary on Apr 24 2015, 1:54pm)
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 24 2015, 3:06pm
Post #6 of 32
(2499 views)
Shortcut
|
Hear the OP but.....
we've seen what I think of as the "rose-colored" glasses phenomenon before. Myself, I got a rush of "warm and fuzzies" seeing the first SW trailer (seeing what seems to be Tattooine and the adorable ball droid) and the second - OMG!!!!! WARM and FUZZY!!!
Funny re SW that probably the 1st film is my favorite, and I forget what I thought of as the silliness of the next two - whoops, now Luke and Leia are relatives, those wookies (wookies???) all look like fake fur, some bad CGI here and there...never mind the next three films that often slid down the slippery slope, including a key miscast IMO and much confusion and outright IMO boring parts...
W. LOTR - what's Arwen doing taking up so much screen time? Why are Denethor and Faramir characterized like that? VM doesn't then and now look like the Aragorn I had in my head....(The Balrog is still awesome tho....).
Yeah! Indiana Jones! Er, until the 4th film IMO tho the critics seemed to have seen a different film....
Love Richard Armitage, but I cant help to imagie how much depth an older Thorin would had add to the tale. Instead we have another action hero when he could have used this oportunity to show one thing LOTR movies didt treated deeply, wich is our relationship to elder people etc... This - with respect I just can't agree with at all, seeing as a key reason I'm a fan of the character is the depth and quality of the character and his complexity as brought to the screen by RA. You may or may not like the portrayal, but IMO the conflicted, tortured and unpredictable Thorin is IMO a fully realized, charismatic figure that I can readily believe would be both loved and followed across Middle Earth, and as depicted his relationships with Bilbo, Dwalin, Balin, and Gandalf are marvelous IMO.
Gandalf and Thorin sit in an inn at Bree and talk and I'm riveted, for example. I think the entry to Erebor IMO is one of the most beautiful portrayals I have even seen on film.
So I disagree that an "older Thorin" would have improved anything at this point, and disagree that either with LOTR or the Hobbit that older people have been depicted with anything less than great respect and depth - the older Bilbo, Saruman, Theoden, the older dwarves especially Balin, Gandalf - even Percy! My hero, out in BOFA firing arrows at orcs head on (love Percy! )
But re earlier posts agree - as others have - that the editing of BOFA IMO needed to be relaxed. But re an earlier post - well, I don't know why PJ decided to adopt his "short and snappy" approach to BOFA. But PJ has given us so much (and I have no doubt when the Hobbit is remade folks will be bemoaning not having PJ's touch and saying "PJ's version was better" - ye gawds, look at what happened to the Three Musketeers over the years for example, compared to Richard Lester's version).
But I think PJ - even with my own fussing re the "dwarfless" BOFA - deserves some leeway. After all, wasn't SW #6 improved after the pounding #5 got (and yes, I know, in the SW universe those really are movies 2 and 3....). Has not Disney, re POTC, deliberately let a fairly large gap of time go by "to give it a rest" before the next film? I wouldn't call PJ an insensitive director - for me he has filmed some of the most beautiful visuals and scenes I have ever seen on screen.
Finally of course - I think PJ did something really well with the Hobbit, and far more difficult in its way than LOTR . LOTR is epic fantasy, possibly "unfilmable" but you have a lot of starting material, through a whole arc. With the Hobbit - how to blend the whimsy of a relatively short book, without a lot of details, with an underlying darkness and make it any more than an art film, or a film for children, with possibly a limited audience, at a time when getting ANY film funded had become very difficult?
LOL if the BOFA EE is awful, then I will be with everyone grieving I am sure. In the meantime think I will watch some Hobbit this weekend.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Apr 24 2015, 6:22pm
Post #7 of 32
(2371 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bomby thinks it's a Natural thing to experience..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some withdrawl during the Gap between EACH of our
3 TE's & the long Wait for the EE's...
IT
seems there was
some of this
same thing, each time we waited...between the previous TWO..?
The constant Excitement of a
continuous Barrage of NEW found things
during this past Christmas Season
...was Anticipation...
&to be EXPECTED
Now, we just wait...
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 24 2015, 6:27pm
Post #8 of 32
(2378 views)
Shortcut
|
..you, Arannir, anyone who wanted to like the Hobbit and finds they can't. I don't know why that should be, but what I do know for sure is that Peter Jackson has thrown nothing away. The Hobbit films have been made with the same love, care, depth of skill and attention to detail as Lord of the Rings. He came into the project late and ill, faced extraordinary difficulties and somehow managed to come through it and pull off three extremely good and enjoyable films. Could they be better? Yes, I expect they could - but what they are is at best so powerful and beautiful and unlike anything else that I'd rather engage with what they are and salute what the people involved with them have achieved than keep looking for things that might be wrong with them.
And as for your saying that the second Star Wars trailer has put you off the Hobbit, I'm baffled. Star Wars is nothing to do with the Hobbit. It's a film franchise with a wildly enthusiastic fanbase; the films are good or bad in their own right and they have nothing, nothing to do with the Hobbit. Since you say you love Richard Armitage and you don't mind CGI battles and you're not against the romance, could it just be that Star Wars is giving you that one, wonderful, elusive thrill of a film to look forward to again - all the joys of anticipating how special it will be - while the Hobbit is over and finished now and there will be no more Middle Earth films to look forward to. Do you think you might be kicking Peter Jackson for walking out on you?
In any case, if I felt about the films as you say you do I'd leave them for a year or two. Enjoy your Star Wars and whatever else you like, then maybe have another look at the Hobbit one day with no expectations. You might just surprise yourself.....
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Apr 25 2015, 6:52am
Post #9 of 32
(2140 views)
Shortcut
|
Wise Bomby has touched the point, the wait it is also more than crazy, and makes the judgement more subjective
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Apr 25 2015, 6:58am
Post #10 of 32
(2144 views)
Shortcut
|
Iim not tryting to compare them with LOTR, different story (though filmakers wanted to make ir alike) but on the looks.
The Midde Earth flavour PJ gave us on LOTR is a trade mark, and a very succesfull one. In the Hobbit he has gone other way around and tried different things with no clear direction it seems AUJ looks so different from DOS and BOTFA that I fin myself having problems to see all of them as parts as the same frame of time.
PJ said that he wnted the films to become darker as they go , but I see DOS and BOTFA equelly the same, not a progression, looks like they had a bad feedback about AUJ crispy vibe (wich I liked) and made DOS somehow more gray, but not an effective one IMO
I know Star Wars and LOTR Hobbit ARE not comparable. I putted the example to emphasize of a director that has understood the importance of keeping some elementes of an originall and succesfull imaginery intact. Specially when you are dealing with classicswether you have created them or not.
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 25 2015, 8:21am
Post #11 of 32
(2121 views)
Shortcut
|
I disagree almost completely that the look - the aesthetic - of The Hobbit is different from Lord of the Rings. Far from it - now we're seeing short films using clips from both trilogies they mesh together perfectly - and that's exactly what I would expect, given that the same artists are designing the two trilogies, the same director directing. I'm completely baffled by people who say it's all different - what I see are two stories set in the same recognisable, beautiful world.
The one discernable difference is that The Hobbit was shot for 3D. I'm torn about that. I was against it at the beginning and would still be happy if they had stuck to 2D and film. But they didn't. The world moves on and they used the newest technologies - just as they did for Lord of the Rings, only a decade on the newest technologies are very different. And in the cinema the HFR 3D was amazing - though I'm equally happy to watch the films in 2D at home.
And as for Peter Jackson not understanding the importance of preserving the original imagery, I'm baffled that anyone who has seen the behind-the-scenes footage and heard him speak could think that for a minute. Of course he has - to the extent that people who aren't complaining that he has changed too much are complaining that he has included too many references and links back to Lord of the Rings. Couldn't win really, could he?
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Apr 25 2015, 11:02am
Post #12 of 32
(2067 views)
Shortcut
|
|
not references needed in fact, only a coherent ahestetic or imaginaery would have been enough
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
thatīs the only thing he sould have needed. I know is nots easy to picture. The movies are good, and the adaptation is grandieur, but Im pretty confidente that a closer approach to the book would have been more successfull (im not talking about cash grab here)
And Im not sure about CGI in LOTR was used as a higher level against artistic sense. I mean, in the hobbim looks like, looks like it was CGI over art, in LOTR looks like art is overCGI. So im pretty confident that in some cases in LOTR they didnt use ALL of the CGI potency they could have used in order to not loosing some of that artistic scent
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 25 2015, 11:37am
Post #13 of 32
(2057 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But the aesthetic is coherent, consistent and true...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Alan Lee, John Howe - their style and sensibilities, their understanding of Tolkien's world, their imagination and eye for detail is as strong in The Hobbit as it ever was in Lord of the Rings, and it shows. (And they both work on computer now as well as on paper. CGI is an art form). The same people in the film's art department and in Weta, the same director.
All six films are works of art - that's what I love most about them. I'm not fussed about action and orcs don't interest me except that I know they have to be there. Sometimes the script is a bit too modern for me and occasional scenes I can take or leave. But the artistic throughline is absolutely true and it runs from today - John Howe was back in New Zealand not long ago working on the EE - all the way back to a time when Lord of the Rings was their baby and none of us had seen a single frame. Visually they are beautiful, beautiful films - and as an artist, when I look at the artwork in them I'm in awe of what their makers achieved.
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Apr 25 2015, 11:46am
Post #14 of 32
(2051 views)
Shortcut
|
|
in the design backdoor perhaps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But there are some choices made by the director that I really dont undersstand, for example, Dainīs pig. Or some dwarven armours that were awesome in design, later they dont appear in the film.
Perhaps is due to that the budget runned out.
I dont know. I dont see a line, there is of course, but I dont know. Anyway, there is no point in going on with this, e have differents points of view, and mine , in this moment, is this
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
frodolives
Lorien
Apr 25 2015, 10:40pm
Post #15 of 32
(1916 views)
Shortcut
|
My feelings about the Hobbit films has suffered over the past few months. Before the first film came out, there were worries that PJ might 'do a Lucas' and become too obsessed with CGI and forget what made the original trilogy so great. In some ways, I think PJ fell victim to Lucasitis even more than Lucas did. At least with the Star Wars prequels, there wasn't excessive bloat. The Hobbit is filled with it. Alfrid is the poster child for unnecessary stuff. Bilbo gets shunted to the background of his own story in favor of ludicrous moments of Legolas breaking the laws of physics, Alfrid dressing as a woman, the dreadful love triangle
it makes me sad to see the focused storytelling of LOTR disappear in favor of vanity scenes.
I like about 65% of the Hobbit films. The first movie is largely wonderful. The second was great up until the endless absurdity of Laketown. The third movie is 50% filler. What vexes me most is how unnecessary many of the scenes and changes are. I'll get over it. I'll edit my own versions and be happier
but I wish it had been tempered by people saying "no, not that" to PJ.
This is just my opinion. I know there are tons of people here who love the films. Overall, I still like them. I may grow to like them more as time passes. PJ certainly owes me nothing. As fans, we often act as if we 'know better.' That we could somehow have done a better job. I don't think that. I just see a multitude of phenomenal scenes surrounded by head-scratching scenes. It's kind of hard to reconcile sometimes.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Apr 26 2015, 12:29am
Post #16 of 32
(1876 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with a lot of what you've said. For me, I enjoyed about 50-60% of the Hobbit films. I enjoyed a slightly higher percentage of the Star Wars prequels, but that's because my expectations of the story were different.
The thing that people need to remember when comparing the Star Wars and LOTR/Hobbit films, is that Star Wars belonged completely to George Lucas. He wrote the stories and produced the films- there weren't any existing books or novels that we could have compared to the prequel films especially. With The Hobbit, everyone knew and loved Tolkien's story and it was a shame for many to see Peter Jackson turn that story into something less enjoyable. Especially after he gave us such excellent adaptations of LOTR.
I have said many times that there is one good Hobbit film buried beneath three mediocre ones. After finishing my fanedit of the Hobbit, I can definitely say that is true. It is so nice to watch Bilbo's story unfold without all the unnecessary fluff that was in the original films.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 26 2015, 12:45am
Post #17 of 32
(1872 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Percentages seem to such a different way of viewing.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To my own, and I dare say the general audience. I think it's fair to say that people usually take the film as a whole as the unit of judgement. They like it, dislike it, love it or hate it as a film. Possibly some might go as far as broad movements in the film and suggest that the film, say, dragged in the middle or didn't conclude well.
However, the idea that judgement is broken down into percentage points seems very alien. I guess this is based on the idea that one likes scenes 1,3,6,7 etc. but dislikes scenes 2,4,5,8 etc. and can't help wondering if this is a helpful way to engage with a film or, as I suspect, not.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Apr 26 2015, 1:13am
Post #18 of 32
(1859 views)
Shortcut
|
I disagree; a person's opinion of a film is not limited to love or hate. We all have varying opinions, and many times they are in a grey area. I'm sure you've watched a film and thought to yourself "yeah I didn't care for that movie, except for any scene that *insert actor's name* was in it. He was the best part of the film!"
Very often do I find myself liking or disliking sections of films. War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise for example, I thought the first hour or so was some of the best sci-fi/thriller I had ever seen, and the second hour was some of the worst. I still cannot say whether I actually liked the film or not as a whole. As for the Hobbit, I can certainly give an approximation for how much of those films I did not care for, and I'd say it's a little under half. I enjoyed almost every scene that was from the book, and most anything with Bilbo and/or Thorin. The other scenes, not so much. But thanks to modern technology and my background in video editing, I no longer have to watch those scenes I didn't like, and now I have a version of The Hobbit that is far more enjoyable for me!
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 26 2015, 1:35am
Post #19 of 32
(1850 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think I suggested that - instead I suggest that the unit if judgement is the film and not on a scene by scene basis. Just so with a book. I think we judge the book as a whole and find it odd to think of someone saying they liked 36% of the chapters.
I can honestly say I haven't had the experience you suggest in your example.
In a sense I am pleased you are pleased but I fear the two issues are not unconnected and the "solution" is probably part of the problem.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Apr 26 2015, 1:53am
Post #20 of 32
(1845 views)
Shortcut
|
Sure, I may in a film that I don't like find scenes or moments I like but I don't give that a percentage. I end up judging the film as a whole just as I would a book as you said. I love The Hobbit films. I don't love every moment but as a whole I love them. Picking a percentage seems kind of a screwy way of approaching movies.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Apr 26 2015, 4:11am
Post #21 of 32
(1823 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you guys are getting a little too hung up on the percentages thing. It's a guess, an approximate guess. Roughly half of the Hobbit trilogy was enjoyable to me and the other half wasn't. It was very clear what scenes worked and what scenes did not work for me, perhaps this was a more unique case than most other movies I've seen. Again, the percentage thing was a ballpark guess but I know that's somewhat accurate because I took a 9-hour trilogy and edited it into a 4.5 hour long film, one that I really enjoy now.
I am not sure what you mean by saying the solution is part of the problem...
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Apr 26 2015, 5:31am
Post #22 of 32
(1805 views)
Shortcut
|
I just think strange way to express things. Not that in the end do I really gives a rats bottom. You've now got a version you like and a version others may enjoy. I've got three films from PJ that I throughly enjoy. We both win.
In the end to the OP original post. There are going to be people who end up loving the films less over time and those that love them more. Both starting from the opposite ends as is the case with this thread. Then you'll have folks like me, DM, etc that loved them from the start. It is what it is.
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Apr 26 2015, 8:13am
Post #23 of 32
(1782 views)
Shortcut
|
And i agree completely.
On another point there is a clear difference in the look of the two trilogies and they do not mesh together coherently at all. The places may be the same and the actual designs the same but the way the lighting is or how much post production shine is added is totally different. LOTR looked more sombre and faded, where as the hobbit is sickly sweet in colour. I honestly don't know why people can't see that. It was a stylistic choice from PJ to go down that route and i think they did it to give a physical image to the hobbit meaning to be a more child friendly, childrens movie. Or maybe to show the age the hobbit is set in is a more innocent time, either way for me it really didn't work and gave a very fake feel to things.
Like you i would have preferred differently designed people and in general a vastly different movie as i don't really think the original story was given as much respect as LOTR. This doesnt meant to say i think PJ didn't try on this trilogy, i think he tried very hard to make the best movies he could. I do think though he got too caught up in different technologies when he should have been looking closer at the story.
People are saying leave the movies and come back to them. I think, there is nothing wrong with not liking films that aren't very good. People will take this as me saying that as fact, but only so much as others stating are they good films without stating imo etc.
If you don't like them now after a couple of years, chances are you just won't like them. It is sad you were excited for them and found them disappointing, it was the same for me. One day though someone will remake them and hopefully do the hobbit in a way you (and i) find more appealing.
The LOTR movie trilogy for me will always remain classics and i felt although there are things i would change - PJs indulgences i think he kept them in check for the films and i can go back and enjoy them. For me, i have watched AUJ a couple of times, DOS twice at cinema and TABA twice at cinema (i have friends in different places who want to see it with me) otherwise i have no inclination to ever really watch them again (i rarely watch films multiple times, unless they are good).
For me i much prefer the books and they are where i get my enjoyment from, it might be the same for you?
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Apr 26 2015, 8:15am
Post #24 of 32
(1776 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the three films are fantastic... some pretty good films.
.
Just messing, we know where we both stand, just thought that was a funny sentence from you.
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 26 2015, 9:43am
Post #25 of 32
(1752 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it is probably very revealing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of a different approach in engaging with films / these films (so not a matter of getting hung up but, I suspect, of a genuine difference).
What I mean by problem and solution, is that it is good that you are happy with your product but the process which leads you to such a solution may well be the same which leads you to view the films as reducible to their constituent scenes - and from a certain angle that may well be a problem in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
1
