|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 8 2016, 5:43pm
Post #26 of 39
(658 views)
Shortcut
|
I liked the films. I just didn't think they were very great.
So you could say I found them entertaining as popcorn flicks, but that I, at the same time, found them lacking in emotional depth. I'm not saying they were completely devoid of depth, I'm just saying it lacked in many places. Most of the time, it just felt like a theme park ride - not one that is very exciting, just one that takes you through places and has a few occasional swoops at the corner, where at the end you get out, feeling a bit empty about it, not too satisfied.
Basically, what I mean by "the masses" would be the general audience of moviegoers, of which the majority of these people would be satisfied with mere popcorn flicks. Not to say that they're wrong in doing so, but critics will obviously be looking at the films with more of a critical eye, and not be as accepting just because they're labeled as a Middle-Earth film. And I am certain this is actually the case with many people - the label, "The Hobbit", does it for them. Probably not if it had been any other fantasy film outside of the realm in which The Lord of the Rings took place. I've enjoyed films with much lower ratings before.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 8 2016, 5:45pm
Post #27 of 39
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
True, I was just hoping we'd get to see it somewhere, because the whole storyline with Thrain and Dol Guldur still feels somewhat distanced from the actual story. I thought that might help connect it a bit more on an emotional level for one of the main characters.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 8 2016, 6:21pm
Post #28 of 39
(644 views)
Shortcut
|
I forgot a chunk of my post.. can't edit it anymore.
It was supposed to say this:
"I've enjoyed films with much lower ratings before, sometimes because they were just enjoyable films like that, and at other times because they were part of a franchise I happened to like. I remember watching the POTC movies years ago, and my favourites were always the second one and the third one, even though those were the lowest rated and least liked POTC films among not only critics but also audiences. But I liked them at the time and allowed myself to be dragged along by the films many many times, but over the years I became more critical towards movies in general. Movies can be enjoyable but bad at the same time, you know. I enjoy the Hobbit films, but again, I don't find them to be very great for a number of reasons. I suppose it solely depends on whether you're willing to look at it on a technical level, or whether you'd just like to judge the movie by how enjoyable it was. Both are fine, but I personally deem the former to be the best method of judging a film, unless you know its sole intent is to serve as a popcorn flick, and that is something I had never hoped The Hobbit would be for me. They lack the grandeur of The Lord of the Rings - the suspense, the level of emotion. With the LOTR trilogy, I felt like it really pulled me in - all of those three films were engaging, packed with emotion and thrilling action, realistic effects and visuals that brought the fantasy to your world..."
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Feb 8 2016, 6:25pm)
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Feb 8 2016, 6:24pm
Post #29 of 39
(643 views)
Shortcut
|
Sounds like Michael Bay.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 8 2016, 6:26pm
Post #30 of 39
(636 views)
Shortcut
|
those would be movies like Transformers. The Hobbit is still far above that, nonetheless, but my "far" may be less far than what others would consider "far" here, so that depends.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Feb 8 2016, 6:27pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 8 2016, 6:38pm
Post #31 of 39
(636 views)
Shortcut
|
One of the most ill conceived, miscast, and poorly made movies in all of cinematic history. The cinematography is awful, the dialogue is cringe-worthy, the acting is sophomoric, the basic concept laughable, and unfortunately we can’t judge the choreography because the camera direction is totally incompetent.
However, watching it always makes me happy.
On the other hand, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935) is an absolute technical masterpiece of filmmaking and is one of the greatest and most cinematically influential movies ever made.
However, anyone who says they enjoyed it obviously has something very very wrong with them.
******************************************
Fimbrethil, Warrior Entwife
Sez: "Why don't we terraform Earth? It's closer."
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 8 2016, 7:07pm
Post #33 of 39
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
I may not know those films but those must also be fine examples of other ways a movie might end up being. Sometimes a movie hits almost all of the right notes, another movie may hit a different set of notes causing it to do something for you regardless of it being one of the worst combinations of notes possible, save for a few notes, and at other times a movie hits a part of the right notes but misses one or more fundamental ones, and then all balance is lost.
|
|
|
HOBBITFAN13
Lorien
Feb 8 2016, 8:34pm
Post #34 of 39
(597 views)
Shortcut
|
Extended Editions included..
FOTR-100%
TTT-100%
ROTK-99%
AUJ-64%
BOFA-58.5%
DOS-27%
Personally, my favorite is TTT but ROTK and FOTR come a tad close.Sorry, but never liked DOS including the EE.
(This post was edited by HOBBITFAN13 on Feb 8 2016, 8:34pm)
|
|
|
HeadingSouth
Bree
Feb 8 2016, 10:35pm
Post #35 of 39
(580 views)
Shortcut
|
was just interested if that were the case.
Do you prefer the EE's of all of them?
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 8 2016, 11:06pm
Post #36 of 39
(570 views)
Shortcut
|
I haven't watched the theatrical versions since the EEs came out.
Not that I was unhappy with the theatrical versions, but it seemed such a special thing to be given more of a film I already loved - not in the form of 'deleted scenes', which are never more than tantalising for me, but properly edited in - that I would miss the new scenes now if I watched the films without them.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 9 2016, 11:36am
Post #37 of 39
(536 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think its down to the shift to net based criticism personally
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...is that the Audience scores are significantly better than the Critic scores:
AUJ: 83% (19% better)
DOS: 85% (9% better)
BotFA: 75% (15% better)
This means something.
RT seems to now be mostly made up of net critics but really I think the way they approach criticism is fundamentally different from old media critics.
For one thing I think standards are now much lower as a lot of these criticial positions are most likely quite poorly paid. For another I think theres been a shift away from looking to inform to playing to their audience which results in criticism heavily influenced by expectation.
Really who reads net reviews for films? is it potential viewers looking for direction about which film to see? I would guess its mostly fans wanting to see there own opinion reflected back at them.
The Hobbit films for a number of reasons had clearly been picked out as a potential critical disappointment to the degree I think a lot of the kind of people who read such critics had already invested emotionally in their being so before watching them.
Now a more negative critical reaction than LOTR is I think certainly justified given that I don't think the films are as good BUT then again I think there better than the recent Star Wars or indeed Abrams previous Trek films that scored more highly because IMHO they were on the right side of the geek "whats hot and whats not" scale.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Feb 9 2016, 11:39am)
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Feb 11 2016, 4:18pm
Post #38 of 39
(443 views)
Shortcut
|
RT seems to now be mostly made up of net critics but really I think the way they approach criticism is fundamentally different from old media critics.
For one thing I think standards are now much lower as a lot of these criticial positions are most likely quite poorly paid. For another I think theres been a shift away from looking to inform to playing to their audience which results in criticism heavily influenced by expectation.
Really who reads net reviews for films? is it potential viewers looking for direction about which film to see? I would guess its mostly fans wanting to see there own opinion reflected back at them.
The Hobbit films for a number of reasons had clearly been picked out as a potential critical disappointment to the degree I think a lot of the kind of people who read such critics had already invested emotionally in their being so before watching them.
This also dovetails with various online reviews/blogs I randomly read - and not just for the Hobbit films, but various films in general. Also the impression I kept getting that for some of these writers, even if the Hobbit had different base material, all they really wanted was LOTR all over again.
I'm also suspicious that many critics these days have little training in the history of film, knowledge of acting, cinematography, etc. or even writing. Instead the "training" is watching a lot of films and trying to out-snark one another, or - for instance I remember reading a critique of BOFA that was actually pretty positive - the writer only focuses on few elements of a film.
In that case the writer was enthusiastic about the battle and RA's and MF's performance, which is fine, except with a large multi-cast film I'd like some more information. Another article I read re DOS - and this sticks in my head because I thought it was ludicrous, personally - gushed that "Legolas hadn't aged a day!!!". I AM NOT pinging on OB here. OB is a handsome, athletic man and he's Legolas we know.
But IMO to imply that he doesn't look different than he did 10 years ago to me sounds as tho someone went into the film with pre-conceived ideas. Or dismissing RA's PERFORMANCE because a writer can't get past the fact that said writer thinks the character should be an old dwarf. That doesn't tell me anything, as a reader. It's as though a number of these writers don't even bother to actually watch the film they are reviewing - like some of the folks who make the Oscar nominations .
I do read critic reviews, blogs - but in the end I'll make up my own mind. And I appreciate the more conscientious critics - and it's easy to tell from the writing - which of them take the time to give a fair, thoughtful, review for any film, covering performances, pacing, costumes, camera work, script, and is not just reaching for snark. And in the end, it's still a person's opinion. It's a shame that "bad buzz" can sink a film now before it's even released.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Feb 11 2016, 4:45pm
Post #39 of 39
(439 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, everyone's response is different......
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They lack the grandeur of The Lord of the Rings - the suspense, the level of emotion. With the LOTR trilogy, I felt like it really pulled me in - all of those three films were engaging, packed with emotion and thrilling action, realistic effects and visuals that brought the fantasy to your world..."
Just sayin', because I loved LOTR just like "everyone". Er, more or less. I hadn't given it much thought, as it was always in my "top 3" or "top 5". But, as time has passed, some stuff in LOTR that initially bothered me is bothering me even more *frown*. Although I am appreciating Gollum more and more as time passes .
And IMO there's some glorious visuals in LOTR.
But the LOTR performances - with some exceptions like Gandalf - weren't ones I "sank into". IMO good, to very good, but IMO often good, not great. But hey, it was LOTR, and there was nothing to compare it to. So now there's the Hobbit, and performance-wise, many visuals, cast - well, I just feel spoiled rotten with the Hobbit films. Especially the cast, and not just RA and MF. I want Ken Stott and James Nesbitt and Lee Pace and Bill Connolly. I want someone who can make a speech or say lines that I can feel in my heart. I want Smaug scorching Laketown. I want the warm firelight of Bag End and those creepy Mirkwood trees and the way the light plays over Laketown. I'm spoiled, now.
I find myself appreciating the Hobbit films more and more. Not sure what you mean by a "willing to look at it on a technical level" as the Hobbit film has some gorgeous CGI/landscapes/camera work and so does LOTR. Smaug alone IMO is mind-blowing in execution, the eagles, the spiders, Dol Guldur, Erebor...
IMO neither set of films is EXACTLY what I, personally would have done. But PJ never did call me, can't think why.
|
|
|
|
|
How could such a thing happen with "professional" critics saying they didn't like it as much? 
