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:
Deeper reasons for the lack of perfection
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 28 2013, 2:18pm

Post #51 of 57 (101 views)
Shortcut
Well, I think they do add up to something bigger and more meaningful.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... or will do once the adaptation is complete, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. Not that it would matter to me if I were alone in this. I see good writing and direction and some outstanding acting performances - better, in some cases, I think, than in the previous films. The music, for DOS particularly, is beautiful, the art design and special effects... And enlarged as the storyline is, there is an awful lot of Tolkien reference there, even in places I didn't expect to see it. For sure, there are things in the adaptation that I personally wouldn't have done, but that's true of the previous films too, much as I love them - and until we've seen the whole sequence it's hard to judge the weight and direction they're giving to some of the storylines.

And did I say there was a 'conspiracy of people' wanting these films to take them back to the past? Of course not, I'm not that daft. It doesn't require a conspiracy to make human beings do something that comes naturally to us all. Wanting things to be as they were... Just look at the OP's post. It's not the same... the perfection has gone.... they don't have the same passion, the same excitement in their eyes... and so on. That's not a conspiracy, just human nature.


imin
Valinor


Dec 28 2013, 2:38pm

Post #52 of 57 (99 views)
Shortcut
Some people just don't think they are as good. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think this is due to nostalgia, they simply are not as good films. Just the same as how Alvin and the chipmunks is not as good as the Lord of the rings films. It's not they are both equally good but due to rose tinted glasses lotr seem better, just one film is not as good as the other. (this is for people who see hobbit films as not so good as lotr films).

Saying that I do think expectations play a big part in this. For myself I went into auj, thinking the standard would be as high as lotr, for me it was short of this and made me disappointed. For DOS I had very low expectations due to auj, and as such didn't have such high hopes, meaning I could see it for what it was rather than hoping it would be some classic.

A big part for me I think is I was the target demographic for lotr films when it came out (I know it had broad appeal) where as these films are for everyone but with children in mind (as I think it should be). I'm not a child anymore and so some of the things I wouldn't notice if I were to watch the hobbit films as a child, I do now.

For me its really simple. Pj and crew are all still super passionate, just as hard working but it's a less serious tale which they have let themselves have more fun on and let it be more of a traditional blockbuster. But at the end of the day the films aren't in that same bracket of films lotr are (top 40 etc).

For the people who think the hobbit films are incredible then great, pleased for you all.

All posts are to be taken as my opinion.


DavidDevant
Lorien

Dec 28 2013, 3:23pm

Post #53 of 57 (86 views)
Shortcut
Ah yes - I agree with you in the main [In reply to] Can't Post

And fascinating it is too - an almost entirely opposing set of valuations from "fans" and everyone else.

It seems to me that one group demands "you must make the films work" and the other "you must make the book(s) work" (I say books, plural, for this latter group is itself divided into those who say "tra-lally- worry-not about LOTR whimsy" and those who say "more grit, more epic, let it not ever be silly or I will summon the secret fire")

DOS is the real test of this. With AUJ there was much consternation and harrumphing and cognitive dissonance. "What do they mean they didn't like Bag End, and the singing - that was good and literal?" but somehow the arguments rolled around to the lack of taste of critics, popcorn munchers and the like (despite the fact that many of these critics and oi polloi were the same souls whose approval of LOTR we sagely welcomed). And we sort of ignored the fact that Riddles was much praised, since then we struggle to cobble together the argument about taste. But in the end, if you didn't look too closely and squinted a bit, and stuck your fingers in your ears , you could sort of say that the real reason AUJ wasn't as good as LOTR was because Jackson "changed more".

And then along comes DOS, a far less literal adaptation, and yet far better received. And specifically the best received bits frequently picked out as those most "changed".

And so, it seems to me, the argument collapses.


(This post was edited by DavidDevant on Dec 28 2013, 3:28pm)


Loresilme
Valinor


Dec 28 2013, 3:34pm

Post #54 of 57 (84 views)
Shortcut
Thank you dormouse [In reply to] Can't Post

for taking the time to express so well. I agree completely Heart.


simonjamesmoore
The Shire

Dec 28 2013, 4:18pm

Post #55 of 57 (82 views)
Shortcut
.....really? [In reply to] Can't Post

To say that PJ has "lost his passion" is a comment that can only be taken seriously when uttered by someone who either knows PJ extremely well or works with him extremely frequently - preferably both. A pretty shocking claim to raise against a man who has dedicated such a large proportion of his life to creating these films and the Middle Earth of our generation/s.


KW
The Shire

Dec 28 2013, 5:14pm

Post #56 of 57 (75 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

The films themselves offer plenty enough to talk about critically, pro and con, without trying to come up with some grand theory or speculate on things like ego or passion of the filmmakers (or speculate on ulterior motives among critics). It's possible that a creator just fumbled the ball, (or not depending on your reaction) or whatever. It's better to just look at any critical response as an individual viewpoint to consider, discuss, or disagree with.

Sorry, don't mean to lecture.. Just I think it is too tempting to slide into easy speculation like this based on nothing other than whether or not you liked a movie.


(This post was edited by KW on Dec 28 2013, 5:18pm)


sycorax82
Rohan

Dec 28 2013, 7:41pm

Post #57 of 57 (64 views)
Shortcut
Nope. The rot was setting in with ROTK and then Kong [In reply to] Can't Post

While parts of TTT were a mess (warg fight, Aragorn falling etc) it was still a great film. ROTK was when things got out of hand. CGI and 'coolness' took over, as well as rubbish additions and story decisions (like Frodo sending Sam home)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 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.