Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Conclusion after many viewings...
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


Jan 4 2013, 3:02am

Post #26 of 37 (260 views)
haha genuine type sure, lol :P [In reply to] Can't Post

nothing wrong at all - though i just searched for Xenia Onatop and i am kinda shocked i liked her at 8 years old! I mean seriously, i am amazed my parents let me watch her, haha! She seems more like (well i dont know if i can say on here lol).

Think i will have to watch it again at some point. Tongue

Oh and sorry OP for side tracking the thread!


Jan 4 2013, 3:29am

Post #27 of 37 (236 views)
It REALLY was though! [In reply to] Can't Post

I was typing no need, and it ended up as no nude. And when I saw it, I prepared to alter, but then thought, well **** it. It works so well. lol And most people start picking up on beauty and attractiveness fairly early in life, even if they cannot sort it all out. lol

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Jan 4 2013, 3:29am

Post #28 of 37 (254 views)
Yes - the measure of a film is how often you want to see it again. [In reply to] Can't Post

For me it is FOTR (12 times in theater), TTT (11) and ROTK (10). So far I have seen AUJ twice - and liked it even better the 2nd time. I'll be seeing it again - and again....

(This post was edited by lyndomiel on Jan 4 2013, 3:33am)


Jan 4 2013, 3:49am

Post #29 of 37 (227 views)
I believe you :) [In reply to] Can't Post

And it was very fitting and funny!

I have just watched some scenes with her in and its so cheesy! Though i still think she is fine! She can stay with Rosario Dawson in Sin City - swoons as the women on here say, haha!

Have you ever had a celebrity you had a crush on, particularly if you were little at the time? Tongue


Jan 4 2013, 4:16am

Post #30 of 37 (243 views)
Sorry--it's all about Sean Bean [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
The only movie i have watched loads and loads is Goldeneye on video when i was younger - i was obsessed with Famke Janssen (the woman who kills people with her legs) - i was 8 and it was love at first sight, haha.


Jan 4 2013, 4:22am

Post #31 of 37 (224 views)
Not if you are male :P [In reply to] Can't Post

Though Sean Bean is a fantastic actor and from the city i live in he aint a patch on Xenia Onatop - she steals the show!

Swoon swoon swoon! lol

Grey Havens

Jan 4 2013, 8:43am

Post #32 of 37 (193 views)
Yup. [In reply to] Can't Post

I've always felt the best movies are the ones you want to see over and over again, and there are very few movies I feel that way about. I don't care what critics tell me; the more times I want to see it, the better a movie it is -- to me, at least.

You're spot-on with the thoughts on characterization. I love all three LOTR movies -- but there isn't a single character in any one of them that I find as complex and mesmerizing as Thorin. RA can say with his eyebrows what other actors can only say with a page of script. I think in the end I'm going to like this trilogy better than the LOTR trilogy, something that I had thought would be impossible, especially because I like book-LOTR so much better (as do many of us) than the much more superficial The Hobbit.

Tol Eressea

Jan 4 2013, 11:04am

Post #33 of 37 (211 views)
I have to say that I agree QT, if we look at things, perhaps the 2nd or 3rd film will be most affected by the switch (*book spoilers*) [In reply to] Can't Post

It's mind boggling, for instance, how much they'll have to squeeze into DOS assuming that it ends on the death of Smaug..

think about it, it's just so much!!!
To think that Phillipa Boyens said that it should be 'shorter' than AUJ!!
Mirkwood's going to be one hell of a small forest then TongueCrazy

--I'm a victim of Bifurcation--

Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!


Jan 4 2013, 4:14pm

Post #34 of 37 (184 views)
Blade Runner: Director's Cut and more thoughts on the consensus [In reply to] Can't Post

to be fair, the theatrical cut of Blade Runner is a LOT weaker than the director's cut. removing the voice-over and the denouement and the inclusion of the horse shot (and some of the other minor tweaks) may seem like not all that much, but for me it was the difference between a just okay sci-fi flick and a bona fide masterpiece. Director's Cut has such a greater sense of mystery to it, lets the visuals take center stage, and is so much less cheesy. seriously, that Harrison Ford voice-over was terrible, feels like noir parody.

but no, critical consensus should not be some ultimate barometer of credit being given where it is due. there are a lot of politics and current trends and cultural circumstances that affect the general critical perspective--with The Hobbit, you have its status as a prequel to a very popular trilogy working against it from the get-go (and, let's face it, prequels or long-delayed follow-ups [think Crystal Skulls] don't have a very good track record). automatically, a lot of critics are going to view the film's motivations as commercially oriented and nothing else and feel like the filmmakers will only be self-indulgent as prior success alleviates some of the pressure to make a movie that's as good as possible. i think that this viewpoint is mostly untrue when it comes to AUJ, but some of these critics are only seeing what their expectations let them see. there is also a rock and a hard place situation for The Hobbit--make it as much like the book as possible, or attempt to bridge the gap between the source material and the LotR movies that have already been made? AUJ goes for a balance and within that balance is an endless spectrum of critics who criticize the movie for losing the book's charm (at the same time that they bemoan the material that's actually right out of the book) or critics who wanted the book to be more ruthlessly edited and changed for cinematic purposes. also, the current trend of criticism is moving away from genre movies with real dramatic and thematic aspirations. i mean, compare the critical consensus of The Avengers vs. The Dark Knight Rises. there is no doubt in my mind that TDKR is the more ambitious and ultimately more rewarding movie, but because The Avengers only sought to entertain as effectively possible, it rendered itself somewhat critic-proof and enjoys a far greater consensus percentage than TDKR. also, adaptations of popular properties aren't being given much credit these days because i think critics have gotten tired of that. and i understand why, but it seems unfair to the movies coming out now like AUJ or Les Mis, both of which are spectacularly well-done adaptations and yet are receiving a middling consensus (Les Mis' is actually worse than AUJ's). the babies are getting thrown out with the bath water.

on top of all that is the HFR, which some cineastes' seem to feel it is their righteous duty to strongly oppose (which is weird to me because i view HFR as basically just an enhancement of the 3D but i guess it's something new for people to complain about rather than continuing to harp on 3D, which is old hat by now). that's fine, but i read quite a few reviews that seemed like they would have been positive if they had seen the movie in 24fps 2D. there are others where they mention it and then act like they'll try to review the movie apart from that, but you can tell that their whole immersion in the experience was greatly affected. it's to the point where i think that if AUJ had been screened for the press in the traditional format, we'd see the aggregate tallies in the mid-70 percent, at least. we'll see if WB changes its press screening strategy for DOS.

(This post was edited by unexpectedvisitor on Jan 4 2013, 4:19pm)


Jan 4 2013, 4:26pm

Post #35 of 37 (151 views)
Good post :) // [In reply to] Can't Post



Jan 4 2013, 8:09pm

Post #36 of 37 (137 views)
well... [In reply to] Can't Post

to be fair, the theatrical cut of Blade Runner is a LOT weaker than the director's cut

yes but the final cut is even better.

compare the critical consensus of The Avengers vs. The Dark Knight Rises. there is no doubt in my mind that TDKR is the more ambitious and ultimately more rewarding movie, but because The Avengers only sought to entertain as effectively possible, it rendered itself somewhat critic-proof and enjoys a far greater consensus percentage than TDKR

On the subject of critics. The early 1980s were days when film critics had real power, to make or break a movie and those critics with power were limited to a handful of key publications and names.

Pre-internet,and the early days of video rental (my parents spent a months wages on a betamax recorder the size of a large microwave..ah memories Laugh) the only guide the audience had as to what to spend their movie dollars on was the critics, and word of mouth proper, i.e. what their mates told them to see, not what some 100,000 random strangers think.

The last decade has changed all that, critics have become powerless, but they still want to appear powerful. Picking a decent, no-brainer box office success like Avengers and heaping it with praise creates a discursive construct that allows critics to puff up their collective chests and yell; 'LOOK WE MADE THIS MOVIE WHAT IT IS, look how successful it is it is bow at out feet, see how mighty we are'

The reverse is also true. Tearing into a a prequel/sequel of a critically and commercially successful franchise (trilogy) in the hope that when and, if the box office numbers are less than stellar, also gives them appearance of how mighty and powerful they are. Even better still if they can draw parallels with another successful film trilogy and it's prequels and try and get history to repeat itself, then their authority and supremacy are sealed.

(This post was edited by glor on Jan 4 2013, 8:11pm)

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Jan 12 2013, 8:57pm

Post #37 of 37 (121 views)
I think you nailed it [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
I think, purely from film-making perspective, it might even be better than FOTR or any of the LOTR movies. Its greatest weakness, if you can call it that, is the fact that The Hobbit as a story doesn't quite have the same epicness as LOTR, so it doesn't necessarily evoke the same level of feelings as LOTR does, but from film-making viewpoint it holds its own and is, in some ways, even better than its predecessors.

I've seen it 7 times now and it still feel like I haven't had enough of it.

when you say that it isn't the EPIC that LOTR was and that's because of the nature of the source material. At least PJ didn't dumb it down to just a child's story! It's clearly a 'lighter' tale with more comedic moments in keeping with the tone of the book, and we don't have those incredibly emotional scenes in it, like Gandalf's fall at Moria and Boromir's death, to say it was a gut-wrenching film. Hah! Just wait till #3!! I think it will be even more devastating and moving than the LOTR films. At least I'm hoping it will be, knowing what in general is coming down the line.

And I think it's unfair to compare it to FOTR because FOTR was the very first time we got to see Middle-earth visualized in such an astonishingly grand manner. With TH we are already used to that world, so it didn't take us by surprise.

I've seen it 10 times now....and still counting!! (Legolas! 10 already!)

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.