|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fmaximus
Rivendell
Dec 27 2014, 1:34am
Post #26 of 34
(383 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I believe Peter Jackson took greater care
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just my humble opinion...
I believe Peter Jackson took greater care with the LOTR trilogy than he has with The Hobbit trilogy as a whole.
The work he had done to get the LOTR franchise off the ground is inspiring to say the least.
His attention to detail in those films was nothing short of incredible - he presented the story as if it were history and as a result it made the movies more believable.
I was hoping that The Hobbit films would have the same believability factor but unfortunately for me they don't.
I understand that this is partly due to The Hobbit being more of a childrens story than LOTR.
One would think that if 3 films are made out of one book, the attention to detail would be incredible and nothing would be left out, instead we have films that feel rushed and leave details unattended to. (Beorn?)
I'm also surprised that the effects are more believable in LOTR as well. With advancements made in special effects in the last 15 years one would hope the effects would be better.
It pains me to say this but the truth is that for me and many others the Hobbit looks more fake than LOTR (bad cgi instead of prosthetics, miniatures and bigatures)
Please don't misunderstand - I'm a huge PJ fan and really wanted him to direct The Hobbit over anyone else.
I just wish the PJ of Old would have directed the Hobbit...
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 6:23am
Post #27 of 34
(365 views)
Shortcut
|
...I would hope that PJ made these for himself. I know that was his rationale in making LotR - he often said that they had wanted to make films that they would like to see and enjoy. So I very much hope (and believe) that he has continued to operate in this way throughout the making of the Hobbit films.
In response to some comments further down, regarding the label of "flawed" (which I used), I should like to make it clear that I do not think even the vast majority of films I revere are necessarily "flawless" (except, in my humble opinion, Milos Foreman's 1984 masterpiece Amadeus). But, to qualify things a bit, I should like to say that I find the Hobbit films to be more flawed than, say, the Lord of the Rings films (whose flaws I personally find miniscule and of no real concern to me in the face of so much in them that is masterful). Or, to put more plainly and bluntly, there are just a fair amount of things in the films that I don't care for. Still, despite this, I maintain that I have quite a positive view of the films.
My honest opinion on the place of PJ's Hobbit films in the grand scheme of Tolkien-related material is this: the films are a very entertaining (and quite impressive) adaptation and/or retelling of the events known in Tolkien's mythology as The Quest of Erebor. As a straight adaptation of Tolkien's The Hobbit, I would say - and I don't mean this maliciously - that it is a failure. I think it misses much of the intent of the novel.
However, the novel itself - within the mythology - is Tolkien's translation (or interpretation) of Bilbo's tale as set down in the Red Book of Westmarch. As Brian Sibley has often put it - this is Middle-earth "as interpreted by Tolkien", while the films are Middle-earth "as interpreted by Jackson". To dismiss PJ's dramatization of these "events" is to, in my opinion, limit the scope of Tolkien's vast creation. Within Tolkien's storyteller conceit, it can be surmised that PJ is doing his own interpretation of the Red Book, or perhaps may even be using some additional outside sources that shine a different light on certain aspects of the tale.
Bottom line - as films, I do have some issues with the films that linger (most of all, I am not a fan of the dominant CG aesthetic of the films - nor the lack of realism in many of the action sequences) - but, as an adaptation of the events depicted in The Hobbit, I think I tend to give PJ a lot more leeway that most.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 27 2014, 6:33am)
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Dec 27 2014, 9:17am
Post #28 of 34
(336 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think you ask some really good questions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I definitely think Tolkien fans are a diverse bunch of people of all ages etc so as a group it is going to be difficult to please all.
I do think there is a general consensus that the LOTR trilogy was superior to this one (people have different reasons as to why).
For myself the hobbit trilogy has been a let down as i think it could have been done much better but never mind.
I have no doubt other people genuinely love these films but i do think there is a large number of people who like Tolkien's work and maybe liked the previous films who really really want to like this Hobbit trilogy and so try to convince themselves they do - going back numerous times to see if it grows on them etc. I used to be like that with AUJ - i was massively let down by it but i desperately wanted to like it as i felt like a party pooper, lol, plus it is more fun to be positive and like something than negative. Ultimately that was my reason for going off this site - whats the point of being negative. As i disliked BOFA it is the reason i shall leave again as life is too short to be negative and I'm way too busy!
So i think in the end there is a whole range of people - from loved it, to meh, to convinced themselves successfully to tried to convince themselves but failed, to just disliked the films.
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Dec 27 2014, 2:16pm
Post #29 of 34
(315 views)
Shortcut
|
You ask some interesting questions, but I'm dubious about the use of the wording "really as good as we want it to be". Tolkien fans are so diverse as a group and some people cherish the films exactly because they change the tone of the original material and because of the changes both in the framing of the adaptation and in the introduction of extra characters. Also I suspect that at this stage the majority of people who frequent this board will be likely to be those who generally enjoyed the Hobbit films.
Personally I think the weaknesses in BoTFA are considerable and so obvious to see, especially considered as a film (lack of endings for major plot points, new and insufficiently developed character arcs, weak dialogue and development of Kili-Tauriel sub plot, seemingly rushed editing, less attention to detail etc).. IMO BoTFA represents a significant drop in quality compared to AUJ and also comes off a noticeably weaker film than DoS. Still the scenes that some people think represent a blemish on the film(s) are for others a particular treat
I can understand why PJ decided to meddle with the storyline and why he wanted to introduce both Azog, Legolas and Tauriel. What I seriously question, though, is why backstory for LoTR characters should be treated as equally important to the film as the main storyline. In the end only AUJ managed to maintain a good balance between the main storyline and the sub plots/tie-ins from LoTR. Also the quality of the material written for both Legolas and Tauriel in BoTFA is IMO simply just too poor to merit the time assigned to it or to earn its place in the film.
|
|
|
Escapist
Gondor
Dec 27 2014, 2:31pm
Post #30 of 34
(315 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Probably not, but I think it is still quite enjoyable for most.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
By now, so many people have developed their Tolkien "grey areas" along their own imagination's whimsy that there is no way to make everyone happy at every turn. Expectations are a big issue with these movies all around and for so many reasons.
You ask some interesting questions:
_______________________________________________________________________________
It is just under two weeks since I saw the film in 3D at a Version Originale showing in Angouleme in France, so I have had time to consider my thoughts and feelings about it.
>> I saw it on a Tuesday because of Marcus Cinema's awesome Tuesday deals and my new busy life. I just enjoyed watching it, not with much of a critical eye or looking for anything in particular.
I haven't been able to get to see it again but we are heading back to the UK in January so will hope to see it again.
>> I also hope to see it again but am kind of waiting to see if I can coordinate schedules with a few people. If it doesn't work out I might go anyway this upcoming Tuesday (such a deal - $5 tickets and free popcorn for members!) If no one else coordinates with me then I still need to see it in 3D since the people I went with last time preferred 2D.
I have been reading loads of reviews both on this forum and other web sites and IMHO a lot of them are overly positive, when IMHO the film is clearly flawed as so much of it (last third particularly) veers away from the book and then the end is rushed and skimped over. Yes the EE may improve the rushed/skimpy feeling of the last third, but for me the films in the Hobbit trilogy do not hold together well compared to the LOTR trilogy.
>> From my perspective, having not been on TORn quite as much lately, my browsings of the forum have shown a wide range of reactions. However, it does seem that the responses are more close to the RT audience ratings than the RT critic ratings. I guess that isn't super suprising.
Do people feel that there is a tendency to be over positive about the Hobbit trilogy amongst Tolkien fans for the very reason that we are Tolkien fans and therefore want the films to be great? Personally I feel AUJ is the best of the three and even that is not perfect.
>> I think some Tolkien fans are major fans of TH, others like LOTR, others like the Sil, and some like a mix of the above. Not everyone who loved JRRT's LOTR loved TH equally. Also, some that feel especially close to the estate for whatever reason may be swayed toward criticism, in fact, because of the critical reaction of some of the estate family members and leading TS folks. Overall, I do agree with some other posters here in that there is much more of a "mixed bag" among Tolkien fans than may be assumed at first glance.
I will never understand P.J's decision to meddle so much with the storyline or the need to bring in characters like Azog, Legolas and Tauriel? I do enjoy the films but they could have been a masterpiece and a faithful interpretation of the book.
>> I understand it for at least 2 reasons that "jump out at me". For one, TH is coming out after LOTR (which was quite famous) so Legolas will be an obvious plothole if not dealt with. I guess that Tauriel is just part of a collection of embelleshments of existing characters in the story that are kind of hand-waved by the narrator voice.
I do get the love for these films as there is much to love,but do people deep down feel that they are nowhere near as good as they should be?
>> I think that there is a lot to love between a sprinkling of awkward moments. That's just my opinion, though and I don't assume it represents others in general.
_________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Dec 27 2014, 4:40pm
Post #31 of 34
(312 views)
Shortcut
|
boils down to the observation that the films are different from the books. In my opinion, that makes them neither better nor worse than the LotR films (or any other films). To me, the question would be that, as movies, telling a certain story (their own, inspired by the book) with certain characters (the ones we meet on screen) are they effective and well made? You've not addressed that in your post. Quite possibly, you feel they are not, but you've not told us why.
I can tell you why I think the "rushed" ending was a high point. If one accepts that the three film adaptation has as its project, showing Bilbo's journey "there and back again"with a focus on his growth and his relationship with Thorin (which, I think it did, in the end!) then the "rushed" ending is perfect. What made it "rushed"? The elimination of all sorts of 'happily ever after" scenes in which Bard becomes King, Dain becomes King, Thorin/Fili/Kili are buried and honored by the survivors, we see a glimpse of the prosperous future, etc.
Instead, what do we have? W\e have the first 2/3 of the film in which Bilbo sees Thorin's descent into madness, and takes actions to try and save his friend, or failing that, to save the other Dwarves from the consequences of Thorin's madness, culminating with Thorin's attempt to throw Bilbo over the battlements.
What do we see in the last 1/3? Bilbo sees his friend recovered from his madness. We have the (IMO) excellent death scene of Thorin with Bilbo (which has, IMO, a wonderfully calculated mix of Tolkien's own language and dialogue that recalls film moments of importance between Bilbo and Thorin). And then we have a somber series of scenes focusing almost exclusively on Bilbo and his slow and gradual coming to terms with Thorin's death. I thought it was well done. I could not say whether I will loves this movie (and its two companions) as much as I love the LotRs (still, 10+ years later), but I would give it the 8+ out of 10 very positive review which you find excessive.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Dec 27 2014, 7:25pm
Post #32 of 34
(280 views)
Shortcut
|
I cannot speak for Hobbithole, but I agree with his assessment of the rushed ending of BoTFA and the weakness of the last third of the film.
Seeing it from your point of view, I can understand why you enjoyed it very much and it's certainly an interesting perspective. As I see it it's based on a premise which IMO overlooks much of the larger project of the three film adaptation, which clearly devotes much time to other characters and aspects than Bilbo & Thorin's relationship. Especially it devotes quite a lot of attention to Bard and as BoTFA progressed I felt that he was handled quite unsatisfactorily and more or less forgotten.
I'm not sure I agree either that you can use the distribution of the hoard and the various conflicts surrounding it as an important plot point in a film and then completely gloss over it afterwards.
The worst thing really was including bits of scenes which are mere tokens. The hint we saw of Thorin's funeral amounted to just that and I wondered why it was there after all. If you want to cut such elements from the film/story, then they must be cut properly and not in a half-hearted fashion.
Did I dislike the last third because we didn't get the happily ever after endings? Perhaps. I at least missed the sense of the growth in Bilbo's perspective, which for me is about more than just his relationship with Thorin. But given the overriding importance placed on connecting the ending to the start of LoTR it was perhaps inevitable I also felt that the rhythm of the ending and the editing of it simply didn't work. It felt like it was stitched together from various bits and pieces which were palpably incomplete and not very well connected to each other.
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Dec 27 2014, 10:06pm
Post #33 of 34
(269 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The best way I can answer is to say...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1.) The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books are on my list of all-time favorite books.
2.) The Fellowship of the Ring is on my list of all-time favorite films.
3.) None of the films in The Hobbit trilogy is on my list of favorite films...
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 27 2014, 11:22pm
Post #34 of 34
(259 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How good did you want them to be?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
