|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
May 25 2015, 2:42pm
Post #26 of 37
(1318 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Speaking as someone who was deeply disappointed in LOTR...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...I'm surprised I like the Hobbit movies as much as I do.
I mean, I have no real urge to go back and watch any of them again -- Hobbit or LOTR -- but I feel much less disappointment over the Hobbit, even though the changes and differences are much larger and more blatant.
I think it's because the Hobbit book isn't as close to my heart as LOTR is.
"Being negative only makes a difficult journey more difficult. You may be given a cactus, but you don't have to sit on it."
--Joyce Meyer
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP
--Leonard Nimoy
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 4:20pm
Post #27 of 37
(1294 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Some at odds quotes about discontent - to remind me of perspective
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
“The ones that always, always want something better, will never find better.”
― Anthony Liccione
“Let thy discontents be thy secrets”
― Benjamin Franklin
“Restlessness is discontent — and discontent is the first necessity of progress. Show me a thoroughly satisfied man — and I will show you a failure.”
― Thomas A. Edison, Diary and Sundry Observations of Thomas Alva
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 25 2015, 8:19pm
Post #28 of 37
(1268 views)
Shortcut
|
As the end of LOTR came hugely out as a trauma for being a never-to-be-lived-again experience, I'm quite surprised to find that so many people indeed had expectations for living it again.
What I expected was to get some different experience. And that is what I got.
The main thing coming out, IMO, was the cinematography. You know, the 3D/high rate stuff. Something that is totally absent of LOTR, and totally there in each frame of TH.
It IS gorgeous. Having at home a recent 3D-television with active lenses, I know that those movies will withstand years to come, just because each of them are so beautiful. How can people talk so much about the story and so sparsely about the pictures we get... I don't get it.
For the storyline, as Dormouse stated, all that could be reasonabily expected was trouble time. Basically, LOTR was a rewind of TH, on a larger scale and drama tense. How could The Hobbit withstand a comparison when being shot afterwards, without getting hurt in the process ? Tolkien himself could never solve the problem. Had he solved it himself, none of the usual complains we hear would be heard.
DID Tolkien care about the fate of Kili/Fili characterization before he wrote them dead ?
Did he care about the curse of the Ring, about the signification of the Arkenstone, about the cinematography of his own "barrel ride" ? Of course he didn't. And I think it's a good precaution to remember the storyline weaknesses of the original material before throwing it all to P Jackson's face.
The Hobbit movies did flesh up the Hobbit book. Thirteen dwarves had to be fleshed up, and they were. Who did expect that they could be fleshed up as if they were only nine fellows coming from four different races ? I did just expect the thirteen dwarves to be characterized as thirteen dwarves, none of them, including Thorin, standing out as specially heroic of memorable. In the book they were more a block than anything else, so their relative lack of characterization ends IMO like a faithfulness to the book, period.
I was happy to learn about the cast of Evangeline Lilly, curious about Mikael Pernsbrand, Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Orlando Bloom, Stephen Fry Benedict Cumberbatch, Sylvester McCoy, Many Bennett. Beorn is unique, Tauriel is vibrant and dynamic, Legolas meets an unexpected doom, Thranduil is far above any expectations, Bard IS Luke Evans, The Master could have afford a slightly fairest treatment, Smaug is awesome and Radagast as innocent as wise.
Should any of them be overshadowed by a script dedicated to each of the dwarves ? Who would think so ?
For Kili and Fili, it's true they don't really have an arc. But That's exactly their fate : they die before finding their arc, as it happens to any youngster dying, including 'young' Thorin himself. It's not only as brutal as in the book, it's even more moving : Thorin should have reigned, Kili should have coped with his weird love for an elf, and Fili should have make his own in time. All cut green.
For all that, I had almost no expectations, but mostly curiosity. And I've found the outcome much more interesting than anything I had expected.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on May 25 2015, 8:24pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 25 2015, 9:06pm
Post #29 of 37
(1257 views)
Shortcut
|
I have the utmost respect for you and your insights and while I don’t entirely disagree with you about the structure of The Hobbit movies, I wouldn’t go nearly as far as you do in your criticism.
As for my original post, I’m not saying that everyone should have liked everything about the Hobbit movies just because we could predict some things about them. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t complain about the things that they disliked. I just don’t get why anyone was surprised about many of those things, given what LotR was like.
About PJ as director: some directors, like GDT, like to plan their movies out in detail and their movies are basically created before they actually start shooting; many a great movie has been made that way. PJ’s approach is different, more fluid and more visual: he likes to change things at the last minute, incorporate new suggestions that he likes and abandon things he finds doesn’t care for. It must drive his crews crazy. For better or worse, I have long thought that PJ’s films are really made in the editing room and it usually works. The disadvantage is that sometimes he hasn’t got the footage he wants and has to do pickups or skip something entirely.
In my opinion in making The Hobbit it was necessary to strike a balance between including some of the iconic characters and events of the Hobbit novel and getting on with the story that PJ was telling. I was glad he included all thirteen Dwarves and gave each a distinct visual image and a bit of personality during the Unexpected Party, as well as kind of group character. Thereafter most of them were background characters, but individuals were brought forward when needed and otherwise added visual and textual richness to many scenes. The trolls, the Goblin King, and Beorn don’t really propel Bilbo’s story forward but are part of the Hobbit brand so to speak even if, like Beorn, PJ didn’t always use them well. I think that in addition to Bilbo’s saga, PJ was also telling a kind of geopolitical story, which included Thorin, Thanduil, Bard, Azog and Sauron. So I would not cut any of these plotlines, though of course there are many different ways those characters could have been used since there is so little canon.
I do feel that not all of these elements were concluded in a completely satisfactory way. PJ toyed with a bit of a story for Fili but never went anywhere with it. The Arkenstone goes from being a jewel to some kind of object of symbolic power back to being a jewel again. Unless they are planning a movie called “The Adventures of Aragorn and Legolas”, Legolas’ and Thranduil’s last scene seems a bit inane to me. Was Balin in charge in Erebor after the battle? One might think so. And so on. Some of these strands felt cut off to me, perhaps because of the push to get the movie’s length down. For the first time, I’m hoping that the EE will improve the movie instead of just giving us stuff to geek out over.
I love the all three of the Hobbit movies, BOTFA included, warts and all, but not as much as I love The LotR films and their warts too. The two trilogies are different from each other but not as different as the books are. PJ made TH epic and world-shaking, but he chose another tone and didn’t try to duplicate the “realism” and gravitas of his LotR and that is a major difference. It works for me. I greatly prefer the LotR book to The Hobbit novel; I’m not quite sure yet if I don’t prefer TH movies to the book.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 10:01pm
Post #30 of 37
(1219 views)
Shortcut
|
GREAT Summary,,"Thang you Berry Buch"...///
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 10:20pm
Post #31 of 37
(1223 views)
Shortcut
|
I was happy to learn about the cast of Evangeline Lilly, curious about Mikael Pernsbrand, Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Orlando Bloom, Stephen Fry Benedict Cumberbatch, Sylvester McCoy, Many Bennett. Beorn is unique, Tauriel is vibrant and dynamic, Legolas meets an unexpected doom, Thranduil is far above any expectations, Bard IS Luke Evans, The Master could have afford a slightly fairest treatment, Smaug is awesome and Radagast as innocent as wise .
Should any of them be overshadowed by a script dedicated to each of the dwarves ? Who would think so ?
Er, yes? To a degree. Just sayin'. Tho I think this is a matter of opinion, to a degree. As films alone, and I am repeating myself here, that IF characters are presented in a certain way in a first film AND there is a large amount of associated PR worldwide, along with companion books, and the adaptation is based on a well-known work where -
while the dwarves may not have been fleshed out by the original author,
they were certainly key components that would be on the quest through the entire arc of the journey, with the main character, re:
In the book they were more a block than anything else, so their relative lack of characterization ends IMO like a faithfulness to the book, period.
Disagree here - because PJ & co. themselves talk about what works in a book, and what works on film, and the dwarves sure look like distinct characters to me:
And so then yes, I would say that certainly even the "less prominent" dwarves like Ori and Bifur should not have been overshadowed, script-wise, by a wholly imagined character whose NEED FOR at all is questionable, or by a cameo appearance of an LOTR character - e.g.,
if Tauriel and Legolas and even Radagast hadn't been in the films at all, could the movies realistically moved through the entire story arc without them? Of course.
So I would say, re script overshadowing, it depends, on the assumed weight a character would be given based on the original material. But re AUJ and its PR, and the original book, and finally - the skill and quality of the dwarf actors - should that skill set have been put aside, in favor of the prominence of other, introduced in some cases, characters?
And I will leave it at that, because that's probably going too OT but would make possibly a separate interesting thread. But I am hard pressed to think of, at the moment, any other film (tho I am sure they exist re under-used characters) where a warning label IMO should have been attached, e.g., "don't start getting attached to these appealing hairy little guys, no matter how many talk shows we send them to, because even if they don't die, the thing is, PJ & co. really like the OTHER stuff they come up with - elves and such."
Even IF, as actors, not utilizing them to the fullest extent possible IMO is a waste of wonderful talent.
Re:
The main thing coming out, IMO, was the cinematography. You know, the 3D/high rate stuff. Something that is totally absent of LOTR, and totally there in each frame of TH.
It IS gorgeous. Having at home a recent 3D-television with active lenses, I know that those movies will withstand years to come, just because each of them are so beautiful. How can people talk so much about the story and so sparsely about the pictures we get... I don't get it.
Nice. I don't know the technology, but just on BR, the Hobbit is jaw-dropping in its beauty and details. And for me, associated with that, is the lighting - e.g. in particular at the moment the tones of a "northern region light" at Laketown and Erebor - the slant of a north region sunlight...it really struck me re-watching BOFA last night, how beautifully the changing regions of the journey were handled.
IMO it's notable you mention "standing the test of time" as for me, in certain areas re the cinematography? for me in certain sections, LOTR has not - e.g. to me looks dated here and there, tho certainly remains magnificent in other sections.
And frame by frame, Smaug is stunning - I can't even fathom better, right now. I suppose it will happen, in time - but what an achievement Smaug is.
|
|
|
Istaris'staffs
Rivendell
May 26 2015, 5:49am
Post #32 of 37
(1180 views)
Shortcut
|
I probably expected way too much, looking back at it. After seeing the first teaser trailer, I became immensely excited for the movie, thinking it would be in the same tone/universe of PJ's LOTR movies. I was not expecting the movie to follow the tone of the books. I was looking forward to the appendics material.
I became weary when 3 films were announced. It seemed like the last chapter would be the worst, and it turned out to be that way, because PJ had to make an hour long battle. AUJ was somewhat of a disappointment, mostly because of Azog and where the movie ended. For me AUJ and parts of DOS were the only areas of the film trilogy that came close to expectations.
It was perhaps unfair to judge these films through the lenses of the LOTR films. Ultimately, however, PJ invited this critique when he chose, especially in TBOFTA, to harken to LOTR so much.
"Are you mad? You'll never out run them, those are Gundabad warns!"
"And these are RHOSGOBEL rabbits! I'd like to see them try."
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
May 26 2015, 5:48pm
Post #33 of 37
(1113 views)
Shortcut
|
|
interesting question - perhaps less indulgence and more consistency
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Unlike LoTR, where I did not reflect on my expectations at all and as a consequence spent much more time reconciling myself with PJ´s adaptation of and vision for the story, I did some thinking about what I wanted and expected from the Hobbit films before they were released.
I expected the film makers to make the dwarves more individual, to dwell more on the background and motivation for the quest and delve more deeply into Thorin´s personality: all my expectations were met. I also hoped for more exploration of a number of key dwarves, and my hopes were met.
I hoped Martin Freeman would be brilliant as Bilbo, and my hopes were met.
Given the fact that the film makers stated that we were going to see more of Sauron, I expected that there would be more material directly related to Dol Guldur and the White Council. However I expected it to be more in the vein of AUJ, where the sub plot hovers around the margins of the story, and not be so closely tied to the various parts of the main plot as it was in Dos and BoTFA.
I expected Bard to be introduced earlier in the story and to be developed more, but I didn´t expect the idealization of the character we get in the films nor the amount of invented material which is not based on either the book or the appendices. I expected Legolas to be a part of the story, but to be assigned less time and a smaller role.
I expected additions and changes and use of relevant parts of the appendices, but I didn´t expect the inventions based on other and more irrelevant parts of Tolkien´s legendarium, or the purely made-up parts of the inventions. As a whole the basis of the script is from a too varied set of sources, which are also applied somewhat inconsistently.
I expected a mix of the tone of the Hobbit and that of LoTR, which was also what I got in AUJ, which I liked best, but considerably less so in BoTFA. I did not however expect the blatant copying of plot items and scene set-up from the LoTR films
Like you said I knew that PJ was fond of over-the-top action sequences and gross humour. And I didn´t mind some of the gross humour either, when I thought it fitted the scene (I´m a big fan of both Radagast´s character and the troll scene). However, I expected the film makers to rein these aspects more in, like I felt they had done with the LoTR films, and not leave so much of the over-the-top material in the theatrical editions.
|
|
|
The Grey Elf
Grey Havens
May 27 2015, 2:01pm
Post #34 of 37
(1068 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Simply put, these were not the movies I was hoping for NOR what I feel I was lead to believe we'd receive
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Peter Jackson is extremely talented as a director and from all reports, just a really lovely guy. In his defense, despite being a children's book, I do not think The Hobbit is an easy book to bring to the screen if only for capturing the right tone. But I think PJ's ambitions for the movie in a way set him up for failure. I don't know that making a great adaption was so much his priority as making a believable prequel to LOTR and technologically advancing cinematic experience for the sake of the beleaguered movie industry (and fueled not a little by his own techie passions). I don't feel as though the additional material added from Tolkien's appendices are justified by the final result. So as an adaption, the movies let me down. Except for an odd moment here or there, I never felt like the book had come to life.
That being said, purely as entertainment, the movies offer much to enjoy and enjoy them I did for many of the same reasons I enjoyed LOTR: gorgeous to look at, listen to plus a glorious cast of gifted and charismatic actors.
Speaking for myself, I am still waiting for an adaption of The Hobbit that gives me the same feels as reading the book does. In the right hands, I still maintain a TV limited series is the way to go. But time will tell. Perhaps in my lifetime. 
Hernevernen!!
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 29 2015, 3:32pm
Post #35 of 37
(993 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree. If this were just a movie not based on a beloved piece of literature I would say that it was a decent enough popcorn flick. But the fact that it is based on a beloved book by a beloved author, it hurts to see the final results of this adaptation. Christopher Tolkien didn't think the lotr films captured his father's vision, I can only imagine what he would think of these films.
One truly sad thing about this was the fact that they had such capable talent working on it. It should have been so much better. Another sad thing is the fact that these movies will be what many people will think of when they hear the title "The Hobbit", and not the charming children's story it truly is. So in conclusion, I would say to parents whose kids like the films, to encourage them to read the book. It is a far richer experience, one that will stay with them for a lifetime.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 29 2015, 6:23pm
Post #36 of 37
(967 views)
Shortcut
|
I just wanted to say how much I appreciated your reply. Not at all defensive, or combative or in denial it is a pleasure to exchange with you.
Trying to discuss the films with a range of strangers is never going to be entirely satisfactory but I think many of us make quite a good fist of it. My view in general is this, and please bare in mind my love of all film :-
I do not judge the Hobbit by its predecessor.
I do not judge it by the source material.
I simply judge them as films and compare them in very general terms to other films.
Do they set out their store clearly.
Do they then get on with the story and character journey.
Do they then resolve them satisfactorily.
It can be comedy, a love story an action film some thing from the 1940's. I watched the Stephen Hawkin film the other night and "12 years a slave" my daughter bought me "Out of Africa" and I want to see the remake of "Far From The Madding Crowd" I have enjoyed the Ape movie reboots and Daniel Craigs bond series.
However I happen to be a life long Tolkien fan and I find the themes of loss and death and journey gain more power and resonance as i grow older. I am always re reading and currently it is "The Letters".
I have a Skype pall in Wellington and each year we have seen the films at the Embassy together. He thinks my expectations were much greater than his and that explains why he is satisfied and I am not.
I know from those who worked on these films PJ has brilliant vision and wrestles every last penny out of Warners to make the best films he can.
As you know I have been a steadfast supporter of these films as they emerged. Like others I sense they are an easy target for the all pervasive cynicism of the net but now I have a Trilogy to watch I know he made decisions which took these films away from me.
I will just make two quick points as I have a big piece of work to share in December once we have the E.E.
Spriggan, who I sometimes struggle with, made two very good points recently :-
1) They never settled on an overarching consistent tone for the films.
In the first instance is this a sombre grave teenage plus work which starts innocently and builds to a grave and tragic climax like the LOTR. If it is like the LOTR it would have lighter moments the rockets at the party, apple throwing by Aragorn and Merry and Pippin welcoming the war party at Isengard. But it went much much further than that and the Troll incident just do not fit that notion.The Dwarves presentation at Rivendell was pure slap stick and cross dressing Alfrid makes the movies light entertainment (obvious low humour, massive action set pieces which are impressive but devoid of substance) but its intermingled with moments of quiet genius and breath taking realisation of ME put simply its uneven and inconsistent.
2) They didn't take the overall story by the scruff of the neck and shake it down. Right this is what we are gonna do lets stick to it.
The best examples of this are :-
The sub plot, how do we reveal it dramatically no ironically, whose involved and whose the antagonist.
How do we tell the Thranduil group story without distraction. ironically it grew hugely but we never really got Thranduil's back story or that conclusion.
How do we tell the Master/Bard story fully but with the minimum of effort to get Bard to Thranduil as the co equivalent leader of men for the negotiation and battle.
You can see these three themes running away from them which is why they do not tell the story within even three films.
The story being BIlbo's transformative journey (done), Thorins full arc to spiritual and political redemption(no) and the achievement of Gandalfs geo political designs the restoration of Erebor and Dale (no).
Where we have to agree to disagree is over investment and return. If some one sets up a character and invests time in it as a completer finisher I need answers (but unlike Gandalf as he says in the final scene shot for the two films not a horse).
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on May 29 2015, 6:26pm)
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Jun 5 2015, 7:25am
Post #37 of 37
(887 views)
Shortcut
|
[replyOne reason for this, I think, beyond the fact that I will always try to look for the good in things - it makes life so much more enjoyable - one reason is that in these films we've been given an extra and equally compelling story in the background material. We've seen the people behind the films, got to know them, learned at least something of all the triumphs and traumas that happen off camera. I can see how hard they work and how much they care, and how much they put into it, and I find that however 'wrong' they may get something (meaning, of course, that it doesn't appeal to me) I can't heap scorn on them the way some people do. And with these films particularly I suspect they've had a great many more difficulties than the ones we know about - and goodness knows, the ones we know about were bad enough.
|
|
|
|
|
