|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2015, 8:19pm
Post #1 of 18
(1619 views)
Shortcut
|
Here's an excellent video essay
|
Can't Post
|
|
on The Hobbit films in relation to The Lord of the Rings... Style vs. Substance in The Hobbit Says perfectly so many of the things that i think about these films, for better or for worse.
(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Jan 29 2015, 8:24pm)
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jan 29 2015, 8:22pm
Post #2 of 18
(1208 views)
Shortcut
|
does nothing to emphasize the biggest difference between the two trilogies: Expectations.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2015, 8:29pm
Post #3 of 18
(1162 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd say that LotR had it's fair share of expectations going in,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the difference being that, for the most part it either met or exceeded them. And i think that LotR, much more so than The Hobbit, had failure written all over it. The Hobbit had much more good will going for it leading up to it's release.
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jan 29 2015, 9:02pm
Post #4 of 18
(1139 views)
Shortcut
|
The Hobbit had more good will going for it than LOTR, LOTR changed not only the fantasy genre but film in general. It was something that people hadn't seen before. Since 2001 every fantasy/epic/blockbuster/war film has in some way borrowed from LOTR and now people are used to it. The Hobbit would have had to redefine cinema for it to get the same response that LOTR did and it just wasn't possible. HFR was a noble attempt but it wasn't a good one, or good enough one. But anyway, to counter your argument...yes, The Hobbit did have good will going with it and that is exactly why it has been under appreciated. People were surprised by LOTR, therefore its reception was wonderful. People's expectations for The Hobbit were as high as they could possibly be because of LOTR, and The Hobbit no matter how good could ever live up to those expectations. I'm not saying that The Hobbit is as good as LOTR, in many ways it is not. It is better in some ways. I'm just saying that expectations play the biggest role in the difference in reception of the two trilogies.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 29 2015, 9:30pm
Post #5 of 18
(1134 views)
Shortcut
|
I like the focus on the screenplay and character. I'm very much in agreement that trying to make The Hobbit in the style of LOTR did not work tonally, and that the new story threads did not feed into the central narrative, or have consequences for the main characters. Also the arguments about the extended action sequences lacking any real tension is also how I felt about these movies (except Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's encounter with Smaug- though these are naturally as much character as action driven scenes). Not sure about the Thorin argument though, I don't see him as a Boromir entirely. I think any Hobbit movie would inevitably have to develop Thorin's character more. The LOTR vs Hobbit comparison of how much story is covered in the same amount of screen time is quite an eye-opener!
|
|
|
Legolas_Shoehorn
Bree
Jan 30 2015, 6:54am
Post #6 of 18
(978 views)
Shortcut
|
Expectations is the wrong word ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... it's the case of: I DID NOT ASKED FOR THIS! I did not asked for ... a wizard with bird poop in his face. I did not asked for ... completely digital orcs. I did not asked for ... a elven/dwarf love story. I did not asked for ... three movies. I did not asked for ... videogame asthetics. I did not asked for ... 3D. I did not asked for ... High Frame Rate. I did not asked for ... an older looking Legolas with weird eyes. And so on ...
My English is not that good, my Elvish is better ;-)
(This post was edited by Legolas_Shoehorn on Jan 30 2015, 6:55am)
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jan 30 2015, 1:10pm
Post #7 of 18
(940 views)
Shortcut
|
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 30 2015, 4:48pm
Post #8 of 18
(910 views)
Shortcut
|
The expectations were as different as night and day.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For LOTR, fans. we were just hoping that the films would not be too embarrassing and that the second and third films would be released, instead of going straight to DVD. It was not hard to exceed those expectations, and the LOTR films far, far exceeded them. For The Hobbit, the expectations were very high, with many people anticipating another Oscar sweep and billion-dollar-plus box office revenues. The expectations could not be much higher. I'm not at all surprised some people are disappointed given the pre-movie anticipation. In both cases, expectations were very skewed, but in the opposite direction.
(This post was edited by entmaiden on Jan 30 2015, 4:48pm)
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 30 2015, 5:42pm
Post #9 of 18
(887 views)
Shortcut
|
that's about what I see....
Na 'Aear, na 'Aear! Mýl 'lain nallol, I sûl ribiel a i falf 'loss reviol... To the sea, to the sea, the white gulls are crying, the wind is blowing and the white foam is flying...
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 31 2015, 12:28am
Post #10 of 18
(846 views)
Shortcut
|
...it was a disappointment that Jackson did not think that The Hobbit was a good enough story on it's own to be able to satisfy movie-goers. Yes, I was all for including the Dol Guldur subplot even though it has little to nothing to do with the main story, but he went way beyond that. He effectively copied the narrative of LotR in a few spots with his additions, for example the Orc chase in AUJ and DoS is an imitation of the Nazgul chase, there's also the forbidden interracial romance, there's Legolas with more character development than most of the book characters, and there's turning Thorin into a Dwarven Aragorn when he should have very little in common with Aragorn. IMO it's not to do with expectations as much as it's to do with Jackson's narrative choices.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 2:41am
Post #11 of 18
(848 views)
Shortcut
|
My Expectations Were Driven By What The Film Makers Said
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When they announced they were dropping the bridge film idea and by explaining Gandalf's absenses on screen they had developed a strong 2 film story I was very excited. My expectations were built round that and the excellent first trailer in 2011. The Misty Mountain Song, Martin Freeman and Gandalf and n Thrain hinted at a well structured more sombre adult version infused with the appendices. My greatest surprise subsequently has not been the amount of complaining or the numbers shifted it has been two things :- 1) The chaotic way in which the films have been assembled. 2) The unsympathetic use of the appendices material whilst at the sometime shackling yourself with difficult concepts from the book. I to see the LOTR methodology Sellotaped into the narrative why not take the opposite approach with Tauriel make her the warrior who became reluctant to fight preferring to protect and heal others.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 3:40am
Post #12 of 18
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
The LOTR vs Hobbit comparison of how much story is covered in the same amount of screen time is quite an eye-opener! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a good deal in the video and I was impressed that rather than one off put downs he explains what his concerns are. I would just tie two things together his point about the sense of urgency and achievement within each film and your point about how far we have come after 87 minutes . There are two really crucial objectives in the Hobbit reach the mountain by Durins day and find out what is going on at Dol Gulder. Its telling that after 87 minutes of the first film we have no idea they are the objectives. Once we have experienced the White Council, which must be at about the 110 minute mark, we finally know what the point of the films are. At last we have tension get to the mountain by Durins Day and check out the High fells and then DG. Of course all of that is lost because we will only hit the carrock after 163 minutes and the DG sub plot has not even begun. In the T E you have got to start the narrative after 30 minutes to give 120 minutes to get to both Erebor door and DG. Given we have made the journey from Bag End to Rivendell before its obvious how to solve the problem and without any lack of exploration of the Took/Baggins dichotomy.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jan 31 2015, 11:27am
Post #13 of 18
(823 views)
Shortcut
|
Biggest difference and the one that IMHO really hurt the Hoibbit movies:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bad structure, no focus, not enough planning (of the storyline). TH being received much less enthusiastically may have a little bit to do with LotR already being there. But come on, LotR was "burdened" with a lot of expectations itself. Had these been better movies they would have been received better, IMHO. The tonal and character aspects they talk about are IMHO not the main issue. It really comes from thr massive storytelling flaws. Probably caused by 1) late takeover by PJ 2) late change to three movie 3) too many lose ideas crammed into the movies. IMHO.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jan 31 2015, 11:29am)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Feb 1 2015, 12:35pm
Post #14 of 18
(773 views)
Shortcut
|
A movie doesn't have to redefine cinema to get recognition...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It could just be a well crafted film. Similarly people don't have to be surprised to appreciate a film. Otherwise why would they watch the same films and same genres over and over? Why would we watch so many adaptations and remakes? We like knowing the story going in, it's part of the enjoyment. It's also why we have trailers - we don't watch films unless we know what to expect. The Hobbit didn't need to break new ground or surprise people. If they had made a film that was faithful to the book with nothing surprising or new and in the aesthetic style of LotR people would absolutely love it, they wouldn't find it predictable or old fashioned, they'd appreciate it for fulfilling its role, complimenting the larger story as a ten year anniversary celebration of LotR's success. It could have been a really beautiful and simple thing with an innocent, nolstalgic pleasure. A celebration, a last revisit and a loving farewell. THAT, handled honestly and skillfully, would have gotten academy attention and audience appreciation. But what we got didn't come from the heart, it came from the pockets. PJ tried too hard to fill his own boots when he should have realised that the boots are his in the first place, and he didn't need to try. He just needed to be himself, not try to be who he was.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Feb 1 2015, 1:18pm
Post #15 of 18
(785 views)
Shortcut
|
Can you imagine a single Hobbit film?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit: There and Back Again (2011) Using the same cameras, crew and techniques as LotR - miniatures, masks and all. Released on the ten year anniversary of FotR. Just a simple story about a simple hobbit that compliments and leads into LotR. It could have been beautiful. ------------------------------------- That is what I was expecting after the green-light. When I heard all the stuff about two films I was intrigued, who wouldn't want to see what Gandalf gets up to? That makes sense - so two films seemed fine. Heck, even a trilogy, as crazy as it sounded, could work wonderfully if handled well. As it went on though, it just got out of hand. The result is messy chaos in which even the fans have no idea if they like the films or not because they're just so confusing and complicated. Somewhere in there is that originally planned story but it's hidden under layers of madness which can only be understood through multiple viewings and comprehensive analysis. I've never seen a movie before where the viewer has to take an active role in researching and doing mental back-flips, in order to understand things like why a character's face inexplicably melts away in the middle of a conversation How general audiences see these films is beyond me, it must just be confusing to them.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Feb 1 2015, 1:19pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 1 2015, 1:33pm
Post #16 of 18
(782 views)
Shortcut
|
But I don't think TH films feature on my list of things I have had to mentally wrestle with to understand!
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Feb 1 2015, 3:20pm
Post #17 of 18
(770 views)
Shortcut
|
Or maybe it's just so over my head that I haven't even realized.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 1 2015, 9:29pm
Post #18 of 18
(760 views)
Shortcut
|
If PJ and co had wrenched themselves away from the notion of a pre equal to theie own films here is the difficulty, the most loved and faithful element of the films on this board is the first 50 minutes before the story telling starts. Today many films are only 110 minutes long. No I think they were right to aspire toward a serious 2 film adaption covering Gandalf's other business and tonally re imagine the Hobbit narrative as pre equal to the LOTR.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
|
|