|
On December 17 2012 11:24 Werk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 11:07 fofa2000 wrote:Saw it in Imax 3D 48 images per second. My comments: + Show Spoiler +Very disappointing movie.
I was going there with The Lord of the Rings trilogy in mind, the Hobbit might have been a decent movie For someone who never saw the previous trilogy and never really heard of Tolkien fantasy before. As a generic fantasy movie I would have said, ok, its not that bad.
But for the Hobbit?
No.
There was not a single memorable dialogue or interesting conversation in the entire movie. Was the best exchange of the movie that Cheesy Gandalf line with the philosophical music in the background and a zoom on his face :''True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare it''?
Lord of the ring was full of comic reliefs, clever sentences and comments. Here...nothing except some Hollywood Subpar caliber jokes.
Example: The goblin king surrounds the party and say something like ''what are you gonna do now you're trap'', gandalf cuts him in two and before dying he says ''this will do''. Is that the kind of line you except from The Tolkien world? What's next, memes? Oh yes i know....fucking rabbits replacing horses.
Then they fall and one of the dwarf says ''what worst could happen now'' big wink at the camera, then the Goblin King fall on them...Not very subtle my precious. It was much better done in Lord of the Ring.
Speaking Of camera, the shooting method was horrible. Much of the movie was made of face close-ups.
The fighting scenes were shot as if a dwarf in the melee had a camera on his shoulder, which caused you to barely see anything from happening. You had the painful impression it was all done in a studio.
And of course, as the Dwarf party is on an adventure into the unknown, showing immense panoramic of the whole surrounding wasn't very clever either. You aren't supposed to see the entire world while going in an adventure into the unknown.
Besides that a lot of things were wierd, the fluid hyper hd realistic filming gave you the impression to be watching actors acting in a play. It prevented immersion as you would often look at their play from the outside rather than feeling things flow naturally.
They also decided to put lots of Chain reaction events making things very unbelievable in the movie (goblin mine fight for example) which is contrary to what Tolkien wanted for his world. Not very realistic, not talking of the Stone Giants that are supposedly mythic because no one ever saw them but how would no one ever see them if they measured 1km Each.
The Enemy Boss they created was very empty, not a charismatic wizard like Saruman Who changes sides because power for him is what matters most, no, simply a Big Orc. The kind of Boss orc that you see five minutes and then dies.
Finally the worst in this movie was the repetitive pattern of action in the way things would happen, always with a situational music. Everything was predictable and sometimes overused (The eagles sigh...really, use them a third time?).
A lot of other things didn't fit in the Tolkien universe (like the mini Goblin scribe which comes Directly From Guillermo del Torro Labyrinth of Pan).
This Movie didn't have the inspiration of the Lord of the ring, even if it wasn't meant to be the same movie. It could have been perfect but this wasn't. And unfortunately I'm afraid lot of people will force themselves to like it and convinced themselves it wasn't that bad when in fact, it was. You saw the movie with the wrong thing in mind. This isnt LOTR. This is the hobbit...none of the bad guys in the hobbit are support to last, aside from maybe the dragon..the hobbit just kinda throws you into middle earth and shit happens,i thought it was nice having multiple events happen. And things were supposed to be predicated because the book has been out for like...90 years? = /
I+ Show Spoiler +ts not because its not Lord of the Rings that it isn't Tolkien world, and they treated the world as something Tolkien wouldn't have approved of. Its fine if there are no bad guy in the Hobbit, they should have kept it this way then, not put inside a terrible bad guy. And...they created this bad guy as a lasting one...he doesn't even die at the end of the Hobbit which means we will see him again.
|
|
|
On December 17 2012 12:05 fofa2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 11:24 Werk wrote:On December 17 2012 11:07 fofa2000 wrote:Saw it in Imax 3D 48 images per second. My comments: + Show Spoiler +Very disappointing movie.
I was going there with The Lord of the Rings trilogy in mind, the Hobbit might have been a decent movie For someone who never saw the previous trilogy and never really heard of Tolkien fantasy before. As a generic fantasy movie I would have said, ok, its not that bad.
But for the Hobbit?
No.
There was not a single memorable dialogue or interesting conversation in the entire movie. Was the best exchange of the movie that Cheesy Gandalf line with the philosophical music in the background and a zoom on his face :''True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare it''?
Lord of the ring was full of comic reliefs, clever sentences and comments. Here...nothing except some Hollywood Subpar caliber jokes.
Example: The goblin king surrounds the party and say something like ''what are you gonna do now you're trap'', gandalf cuts him in two and before dying he says ''this will do''. Is that the kind of line you except from The Tolkien world? What's next, memes? Oh yes i know....fucking rabbits replacing horses.
Then they fall and one of the dwarf says ''what worst could happen now'' big wink at the camera, then the Goblin King fall on them...Not very subtle my precious. It was much better done in Lord of the Ring.
Speaking Of camera, the shooting method was horrible. Much of the movie was made of face close-ups.
The fighting scenes were shot as if a dwarf in the melee had a camera on his shoulder, which caused you to barely see anything from happening. You had the painful impression it was all done in a studio.
And of course, as the Dwarf party is on an adventure into the unknown, showing immense panoramic of the whole surrounding wasn't very clever either. You aren't supposed to see the entire world while going in an adventure into the unknown.
Besides that a lot of things were wierd, the fluid hyper hd realistic filming gave you the impression to be watching actors acting in a play. It prevented immersion as you would often look at their play from the outside rather than feeling things flow naturally.
They also decided to put lots of Chain reaction events making things very unbelievable in the movie (goblin mine fight for example) which is contrary to what Tolkien wanted for his world. Not very realistic, not talking of the Stone Giants that are supposedly mythic because no one ever saw them but how would no one ever see them if they measured 1km Each.
The Enemy Boss they created was very empty, not a charismatic wizard like Saruman Who changes sides because power for him is what matters most, no, simply a Big Orc. The kind of Boss orc that you see five minutes and then dies.
Finally the worst in this movie was the repetitive pattern of action in the way things would happen, always with a situational music. Everything was predictable and sometimes overused (The eagles sigh...really, use them a third time?).
A lot of other things didn't fit in the Tolkien universe (like the mini Goblin scribe which comes Directly From Guillermo del Torro Labyrinth of Pan).
This Movie didn't have the inspiration of the Lord of the ring, even if it wasn't meant to be the same movie. It could have been perfect but this wasn't. And unfortunately I'm afraid lot of people will force themselves to like it and convinced themselves it wasn't that bad when in fact, it was. You saw the movie with the wrong thing in mind. This isnt LOTR. This is the hobbit...none of the bad guys in the hobbit are support to last, aside from maybe the dragon..the hobbit just kinda throws you into middle earth and shit happens,i thought it was nice having multiple events happen. And things were supposed to be predicated because the book has been out for like...90 years? = / I + Show Spoiler +ts not because its not Lord of the Rings that it isn't Tolkien world, and they treated the world as something Tolkien wouldn't have approved of. Its fine if there are no bad guy in the Hobbit, they should have kept it this way then, not put inside a terrible bad guy. And...they created this bad guy as a lasting one...he doesn't even die at the end of the Hobbit which means we will see him again.
I think we are forgetting that this is a children's story. Also, I'm not sure you knew Tolken well enough to put words in his mouth. Chances are, he probably doesn't aprove of any of the films Peter Jackson made.
|
On December 17 2012 12:05 fofa2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 11:24 Werk wrote:On December 17 2012 11:07 fofa2000 wrote:Saw it in Imax 3D 48 images per second. My comments: + Show Spoiler +Very disappointing movie.
I was going there with The Lord of the Rings trilogy in mind, the Hobbit might have been a decent movie For someone who never saw the previous trilogy and never really heard of Tolkien fantasy before. As a generic fantasy movie I would have said, ok, its not that bad.
But for the Hobbit?
No.
There was not a single memorable dialogue or interesting conversation in the entire movie. Was the best exchange of the movie that Cheesy Gandalf line with the philosophical music in the background and a zoom on his face :''True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare it''?
Lord of the ring was full of comic reliefs, clever sentences and comments. Here...nothing except some Hollywood Subpar caliber jokes.
Example: The goblin king surrounds the party and say something like ''what are you gonna do now you're trap'', gandalf cuts him in two and before dying he says ''this will do''. Is that the kind of line you except from The Tolkien world? What's next, memes? Oh yes i know....fucking rabbits replacing horses.
Then they fall and one of the dwarf says ''what worst could happen now'' big wink at the camera, then the Goblin King fall on them...Not very subtle my precious. It was much better done in Lord of the Ring.
Speaking Of camera, the shooting method was horrible. Much of the movie was made of face close-ups.
The fighting scenes were shot as if a dwarf in the melee had a camera on his shoulder, which caused you to barely see anything from happening. You had the painful impression it was all done in a studio.
And of course, as the Dwarf party is on an adventure into the unknown, showing immense panoramic of the whole surrounding wasn't very clever either. You aren't supposed to see the entire world while going in an adventure into the unknown.
Besides that a lot of things were wierd, the fluid hyper hd realistic filming gave you the impression to be watching actors acting in a play. It prevented immersion as you would often look at their play from the outside rather than feeling things flow naturally.
They also decided to put lots of Chain reaction events making things very unbelievable in the movie (goblin mine fight for example) which is contrary to what Tolkien wanted for his world. Not very realistic, not talking of the Stone Giants that are supposedly mythic because no one ever saw them but how would no one ever see them if they measured 1km Each.
The Enemy Boss they created was very empty, not a charismatic wizard like Saruman Who changes sides because power for him is what matters most, no, simply a Big Orc. The kind of Boss orc that you see five minutes and then dies.
Finally the worst in this movie was the repetitive pattern of action in the way things would happen, always with a situational music. Everything was predictable and sometimes overused (The eagles sigh...really, use them a third time?).
A lot of other things didn't fit in the Tolkien universe (like the mini Goblin scribe which comes Directly From Guillermo del Torro Labyrinth of Pan).
This Movie didn't have the inspiration of the Lord of the ring, even if it wasn't meant to be the same movie. It could have been perfect but this wasn't. And unfortunately I'm afraid lot of people will force themselves to like it and convinced themselves it wasn't that bad when in fact, it was. You saw the movie with the wrong thing in mind. This isnt LOTR. This is the hobbit...none of the bad guys in the hobbit are support to last, aside from maybe the dragon..the hobbit just kinda throws you into middle earth and shit happens,i thought it was nice having multiple events happen. And things were supposed to be predicated because the book has been out for like...90 years? = / I + Show Spoiler +ts not because its not Lord of the Rings that it isn't Tolkien world, and they treated the world as something Tolkien wouldn't have approved of. Its fine if there are no bad guy in the Hobbit, they should have kept it this way then, not put inside a terrible bad guy. And...they created this bad guy as a lasting one...he doesn't even die at the end of the Hobbit which means we will see him again.
Did you even read the Hobbit? If you wanted things that Tolkien would have approved of, would you have rather the Elves in Rivendell singing and dancing and carrying on like that when they arrived there?
|
What I thought.
+ Show Spoiler +
Ugh, I just saw it, what a disappointment. While there were some generally humorous happenings, in general it was incredibly corny, like transformers 2 bad. Jackson still hasn't learned how to edit and the film was too long and pacing was slow at points and transitions were sloppy. I saw it on 48FPS 3D and I didn't like it, and the use of CGI seemed gratuitous. The white orc did not need to be in CGI, the ururkai were all normal actors and they seemed much more menacing.
What I liked. I liked the gollum scene and thought that was done well. I also thought Ian Mckellen, Maritn Freedman, and Andy Serkis acted well. There were some allusions to the fellowship which I enjoyed and I felt could give some context (like why Gimili didn't like elves). I would not recommend it unless you are a big tolken fan.
|
Loved the movie. I felt the pace of the movie to be perfect and cover the main points very well.
i read reviews of people thinking it was too long but personally i was hoping the movie wasn't going to end after every scene.
having read all of the books, i am very please with this movie
|
I enjoyed it. Aesthetically it was beautiful and the action was cool and, well, it's The Hobbit so the story was great, especially since I read the book so long ago I had forgotten everything except for the super main ideas. I wasn't a fan of the non-stop last second saves. Every time something was about to happen, Gandalf or Bilbo had to show up at the last second and save the world. I know it's a children's story but c'mon  .
I also hated that whole thing with Azog. Oh and wtf was up with Saruman making that shroom joke? Felt so uncharacteristic.
Also, what's Gandfal's history with the eagles? How is he able to summon them? I don't remember reading about this or seeing it in any of the movies but, again, it's been a really long time.
|
Oh and Martin Freeman was the greatest choice for a young Bilbo ever.
|
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe).
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe).
In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old.
|
About the lotr eagles, if you watched the audio commentary they talk about how throwing in some other wizard for one other scene would have completely confused and distracted anyone who hadn't read the book.
Not sure about The Hobbit, but I'm guessing that while it's ok for a movie to reinterpret/deviate from a book, it's stupid if a movie series deviates from itself (see highlander).
|
On December 17 2012 17:55 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe). In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old.
It's not asinine. Consistency is a perfectly good reason to make such a small modification. Not only that, having the eagles just show up wouldn't make as much sense without the clarity of text to explain their appearance (and having Gwaihir talk to Gandalf wouldn't look good on the big screen).
I'd kinda love to see the mess an uncompromising Tolkien fan would make were they director of The Hobbit. So many terrible complaints in here.
|
On December 17 2012 17:55 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe). In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old.
I don't care about how they summoned the eagles, I care 1st that they arrived 3 minutes later and that they arrived at all. It was cool in lotr for gandalf to use them after days being stuck on that tower, but this way in Hobbit it was just stupid. It was a stupid Deus Ex Machina solution to a interesting situation.
|
On December 17 2012 07:48 FlawlessFeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:33 HaRuHi wrote:
When they are chased in the troll cavern I really had to think about how tolkin refused that disney would ever do Lotr, yet the slapstick childlike animation and choreography awoke memories of disney cartons. There is just no substance in the second half of the movie. And that white orc looked worse than real time Urdnot Wrex. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:40 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
the trolls were supposed to be featherbrained. I just dont approve that tom and jerry humor when the goblin king lands on top of all the dwarves to get a bit of laughter. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking scenes were too childish.
It's a childrens book. As in , meant to be read by/for small children. And you complain that it is childish? Wut.
|
I think that Peter Jackson forgot that this book was for kids... I enjoyed it overall, but the tone and general penchant of the movie is at odds with each other. At one point its very LotR, serious and foreboding, and another its more lighthearted and jovial. This is the main issue with the movie, as it ends up being very uneven in spots, though I would agree that the Bilbo/Gollum scene really is the highlight of this movie.
Basically, as some have already mentioned, the source materials are somewhat incongruous with one another and Jackson is trying to bridge the gap between them...and you can't do that without these oddities happening as a result.
|
On December 17 2012 20:07 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 17:55 Telcontar wrote:On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe). In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old. I'd kinda love to see the mess an uncompromising Tolkien fan would make were they director of The Hobbit. So many terrible complaints in here.
The movie is terrible. Jackons doesn't get what The Hobbit is about. At least it is better than LotR
|
On December 17 2012 17:55 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe). In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old.
When I saw the Hobbit, I was certain that Radagast would come riding one of the eagles, since that would actually make sense movie-wise since we were introduced to Radagast and knew he was an animal lover. Having him arrive with the eagles would also have his role on AUJ to not be as pointless as it was now. It would have made very much sense for a non-Tolkien-reader to see the eagles save them and linking it with Radagast.
Instead, Gandalf whisper to a moth, and 5 minutes later they are miraculously saved by a couple of eagles without introduction or any hint. Imagine what a non-reader think if this scene? It ought to appear very random that out of nothing comes some huge birds and saves the day. With Radagast involved they would atleast make the connection: Radagast-animal friend-eagles.
Any of you guys who did not read the books? Did it seem strange that the company was saved by some kind of huge eagles all of a sudden?
|
On December 16 2012 11:05 Dontkillme wrote:
Watched this today. I thought it was okay but apparently a lot of people seemed disappointed :s
This will always be the case when you are translating a classic into film, you just can't satisfy everyone. I imagine that if you have read the book, but are not extensively well versed in the lore you will enjoy the film a great deal more. There is less room for creative disagreement.
|
On December 18 2012 01:18 HowardRoark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 17:55 Telcontar wrote:On December 17 2012 13:59 BlackPaladin wrote:
Gandalf is a maiar and the eagles are meant to essentially be the messengers and lookouts for the valor and maiar. They're constantly watching over the world, bringing news to them when needed. The books never specifically state how gandalf himself might specifically contact them. In the story radagast simply is asked to contact the eagles and have them bring news to gandalf. In peter jackson's lotr trilogy he got rid of radagast so had gandalf specifically contact the eagles by relaying messages to insects (some type of butterfly or moth i believe). In The Hobbit, the eagles happen on Thorin's party by investigating why the wargs and gobins were gathering. This whole moth-eagle taxi service introduced by Jackson might have conveniently served the plot in the LOTR films, but to use it in The Hobbit as well is just asinine. It's a shame Jackson has become arrogant enough to just do with the material as he wishes. It's not even about adapting the book to the big screen anymore. It's just Jackson doing whatever he can to nicely tie his new trilogy to his old. When I saw the Hobbit, I was certain that Radagast would come riding one of the eagles, since that would actually make sense movie-wise since we were introduced to Radagast and knew he was an animal lover. Having him arrive with the eagles would also have his role on AUJ to not be as pointless as it was now. It would have made very much sense for a non-Tolkien-reader to see the eagles save them and linking it with Radagast. Instead, Gandalf whisper to a moth, and 5 minutes later they are miraculously saved by a couple of eagles without introduction or any hint. Imagine what a non-reader think if this scene? It ought to appear very random that out of nothing comes some huge birds and saves the day. With Radagast involved they would atleast make the connection: Radagast-animal friend-eagles. Any of you guys who did not read the books? Did it seem strange that the company was saved by some kind of huge eagles all of a sudden?
I haven't read the Hobbit in so long that I consider myself a non-reader for the purpose of watching the movies, but I didn't think it was strange because I've seen LotR. As soon as he released the moth I knew what was going to happen, but if a viewer hadn't seen LotR I'm sure it was probably confusing.
As for my thoughts, I liked the movie. I rank it about the same as Fellowship of the Ring, which was my least favorite of the LotR movies, but that's not saying much, as I liked that entire trilogy. There were certain parts of the movie that seemed strange to me, and my girlfriend who has read the book recently disagreed with some of the changes they made, but I was entertained, awed by the aesthetics, and even chuckled at some of the cheap laughs.
While I didn't think it was a "great" movie, they can still salvage the trilogy and make it as epic as LotR...they just need to improve for the next two movies.
|
Loved the movie, but it was a bit slow at the beginning. However, it was clever to tie the two movies together in the beginning, because obviously the movie-goers were introduced to the LotR story first, unlike most Tolkien fans who first read The Hobbit. Some artistic freedom is always needed when transferring such a comprehensive story from paper to film, so I understand the changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
