|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Aug 14 2016, 10:10pm
Post #26 of 33
(2009 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, I didn't read them in full
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Getting through these rants is a bit of a chore and I have other, more enjoyable things to do this weekend ... like scrub the toilets and clean out my sugar glider cage.
I dont know what you think I should be getting out of these rants. The author strikes me as taken with his/her own experience and brilliance (like so many critics). Some points are valid, most are at best minor nits that s/he wants to blow up into major drama or simply differences in artistic taste and expression (like the color palette used -- BTW, I will cheerfully acknowledge my distaste for Thorin's "pimp fur" and most of the dwarven costumes in The Hobbit trilogy as being on the same level). To some extent, I see these rants as being the flip side of my complaint about PJ and WETA being so taken with their artistic "vision" that they ignored the actual text and tradition in portraying Tolkienesque dwarves.
Case in point: Yes, I agree, the oliphaunts in LOTR were too big and I preferred the somewhat vague references in the text. I also thought the animated Legolas sequences were over the top. Did these things ruin the film for me? No, no more than the Great Goblin sequences in AUJ did (and for largely the same reasons).
This "conversation" started because I responded to the original question by saying if PJ had done this version of "The Hobbit" first, I likely wouldn't have bothered with LOTR and that would have been a great loss. I still stand by that assessment. I know there are others who think very very differently but for me, this trilogy was a horrible adaptation of the novel, far far below what PJ did with LOTR. I don't know how much of it was due to PJ rushing in to replace GdT, how much was due to the writers' and creators' egos getting the better of them after such spectacular success with LOTR and Narnia, or what other factors might have been involved. All I know as a multi-decadal Tolkien fan was that this trilogy falls in the camp of the Star Wars prequels, Star Trek V, Superman III/IV, Roger Moore's last 2 or 3 ventures as 007, and Disney's adaptation of The Black Cauldron: the only way they will ever enter my personal collection is as part of a larger collection I just have to have (Star Trek V, Superman III/IV, and Roger Moore's 007 films fall in that category).
I am glad PJ did LOTR first; it seemed to me his heart was much more in LOTR and he spent the time necessary to prepare and more-or-less nail it.
As with anything involving opinion and personal tastes, your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Aug 15 2016, 12:13am
Post #27 of 33
(1999 views)
Shortcut
|
If this exact version of the Hobbit would have been released first, there is no way I would have bothered to see what he would have done with LotR...and truthfully, let's face it, the Hobbit didn't exactly set the world on fire. The main reason it did well finacially was the fact that it was a prequel to a much much better series of films. If this had come out first it would have been soon forgotten and chances are, the LotR might have gone to another director.
|
|
|
LittleHobbit
Lorien
Aug 15 2016, 3:17am
Post #28 of 33
(1991 views)
Shortcut
|
No, I didn't read them in full.
The question ''did you read the two rants in full?'' was not directed at you, but at Otaku-sempai.
|
|
|
LittleHobbit
Lorien
Aug 21 2016, 3:08am
Post #29 of 33
(1910 views)
Shortcut
|
they represent the same sort of mindset/thinking. If I were to be overly concerned with details and nitpicking, then I would gladly be on the side of the author of said rants regarding LOTR and on Omnigeek's, wizzardly's, or any other posters who post negative opinions about the Hobbit trilogy here. To me, the vast majority of the criticism of both of these trilogies amount to no more than that: nitpcking. Therefore I am saying these people are inconsistent/hypocritical in defending criticism of Hobbit but not accepting criticism of LOTR.
Of course, they would argue that this is not the case, and that no, the flaws in LOTR aren't comparable to Hobbit's, but I would stand that they are -- IF I were to take a critical stance. And I think many of the arguments of the author of said rants are rather unbeatable, in this regard.
I hope this explains it to you.
And by the way, what does ''write off'' means? I think that's another English idiom I am not familiar with... 
|
|
|
LittleHobbit
Lorien
Aug 21 2016, 3:27am
Post #30 of 33
(1907 views)
Shortcut
|
I also thought the animated Legolas sequences were over the top.
Are you referring to the animated sequences of Legolas in LOTR or Hobbit?
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Aug 21 2016, 5:42am
Post #33 of 33
(1892 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR but it applies to the Hobbit even more
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The context was in response to those rants about LOTR so I was talking about the LOTR movies. The animated Legolas segment with him climbing up the oliphaunt was over-the-top IMO but didn't really affect my enjoyment of the movie. The animated Legolas segment in the BOFA was even more over the top but it didn't affect my view of THAT movie (in part because I didn't have a high opinon of the movie in the first place).
|
|
|
|
|
