|
On December 22 2012 09:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 23:44 Poopi wrote:Saw it wednesday, in 2D (don't think we have as many options in theaters here in France, like 48FPS and stuff). The music and visual were beautiful, the pace seemed fine to me I didn't feel bored at all during the 3 hours. + Show Spoiler +I do think they ran away from fights a bit too much but I guess they weren't in enough numbers to fight straight up. Plus since I didn't read the books yet I always wonder why Gandalf doesn't just wipe out the enemies? I know he is limited in his human form but still. Too bad we didn't see much of Smaug also, dragons are cool but I read on this thread there is a battle or something that will happen between him and the middle earth inhabitants, can't wait to see it. Seeing it motivate me to read The Hobbit that I bought not so long ago, and the LOTR trilogy :D. Well honestly, most of Tolkien's magic doesn't really translate into what you could call ?combat spells? Much of it more intangible- like the most powerful effect of the Nazgul isn't that they're fling fireballs or are these super epic warriors. Their sheer presence creates fear. Most men would fly from terror rather than stand in fight (unless hardened by Gandalf or Prince Imrahil and his knights.) Similarily much of the 'combat' through magic is amongst others that also have power. A contest of power or authority. Gandalf vs the Balrog or Gandalf vs Saruman- which is a much more subdued affair than Jackson made it. Or if you go back to the Silmarillion, many of the great battles between powerful beings: Elves and gods (Maiar/Valar) were through song creation. (Finrod vs Sauron or Luthien before Morgoth) or a contest of wills Luthien vs Sauron. None of this translates very well onto the screen. Going back to The Hobbit, Tolkien's thoughts on magic in Middle Earth were probably not fully formed, but it still is pretty subdued. Much of Gandalf's power is through influence or calling into being things that didn't seem to exist before- "If I say he is a burglar, then a burglar he is." This is consistent with Gandalf being known to send Hobbits in the past 'mad' for adventure or even his awakening of Theoden in Two Towers. (And perhaps his failed attempt with Denethor.) Gandalf "Stormcrow," but he tended to kindle fires in the hearts of individuals and peoples where-ever he went. Offhand the two main instances of true magic that I recall in The Hobbit was the big flash and explosion to distract the goblins and the fire-pine cones. And he was considering hurling himself down to take out the Wargs and destroy himself in the process. And his fireworks. I really don't recall much else in regards to combat magic in The Hobbit.
That's specially true for the Wizards, since they were sent to Middle Earth specifically to advise and encourage the mortal races, not engaging in direct confrontation with Sauron or any other evil. But yeah, even for elves and other beings of power magic is never really obvious, it has a more "poetic" aproach. Take the One Ring for example, it's mentioned how Galadriel or Gandalf could become so very powerfull by using its power, but how that power manifests is never really mentioned. It's just "power". Throwing fireballs around or calling down lighting doesn't really fit into Tolkien's style.
|
On December 22 2012 09:11 Falling wrote:Well kinda hard to call it basic fantasy and lacking in character development if you slept through most of it 
Halfassed reviews are the most fun to write. Still from all the fantasy books / movies ive seen books are vastly superior. Fantasy is mostly based upon character development within a created world. Fantasy movies spend most of their time building a world and little on character development.
|
Loved it! Had many a goosebumps and laughs!
|
On December 21 2012 23:44 Poopi wrote:
I do think they ran away from fights a bit too much but I guess they weren't in enough numbers to fight straight up. Plus since I didn't read the books yet I always wonder why Gandalf doesn't just wipe out the enemies? I know he is limited in his human form but still. Too bad we didn't see much of Smaug also, dragons are cool but I read on this thread there is a battle or something that will happen between him and the middle earth inhabitants, can't wait to see it.
Seeing it motivate me to read The Hobbit that I bought not so long ago, and the LOTR trilogy :D.
He is limited but yes, he could have wiped out enemies if he wanted to. There are instances of him using overt power in the books as others have stated, but his philosophy on using magic is a lot different than the other powerful characters in the books. It's all there in the books and movies; he doesn't believe that one person can solve the worlds ills, so his power is used to influence normal folk to take matters into their own hands because he believes that mass empowerment is a stronger force than singular power. Being known as the wisest Maiar, it's interesting to see how his viewpoint clashes with someone like Saruman. You see this belief manifest all throughout the books. He uses legitimate diplomacy a lot rather than trying to force his opinion on another, that is, via a suggestion, although he does sometimes persuade others to join in his viewpoint if they are making a bad decision with catastrophic consequences that stems from their mortal failings, i.e., dwarfish pride, a hobbit's reluctance or fear, racial hatred, mortal greed, etc. He sometimes strays from his philosophy as you will no doubt recall, but it's only in times where success is mandatory and there is no other way. Remember, he is looking at things from a much more broad perspective than mortals (as evidenced by certain events, like when he seems to reel in his consciousness when he first meets Bilbo in The Hobbit, or when he comes back as Gandalf the White in TTT and has to "remember" Gandalf the Grey) and even though he is there with his group of Dwarves or there with the Rohirrim, he is pushing Manwë's much larger agenda.
The difference between the power of the Maiar is more expressed by how they wield it. If it were Saruman in, say, at Helms Deep fighting vs the Orcs and not Gandalf (as it should have been), he would have expressed his power much more overtly with fireballs and lightning bolts (Saruman was known to command weather), but at what cost? True, he would have won the battle easily, but that display of power would no doubt put the men there in fear, knowing what he is capable of. That fear would breed a number of ill effects, none of which are actually beneficial for the people there. In this case, even in winning the battle they would have lost a lot more. They would be fearful and unable to fend for themselves, relying on Saruman to fix their plight rather than themselves, or they would be contemptuous of the power he wields, yearning to remove him from his seat of power and in the process supplant him with one of their own. Either way, it creates an unstable and hostile environment that would not be the source of any ouce of good.
|
On December 22 2012 09:19 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 09:11 Falling wrote:Well kinda hard to call it basic fantasy and lacking in character development if you slept through most of it Halfassed reviews are the most fun to write. Still from all the fantasy books / movies ive seen books are vastly superior. Fantasy is mostly based upon character development within a created world. Fantasy movies spend most of their time building a world and little on character development.
What? Are you serious? There's a lot of different kinds of fantasy out there.......
|
On December 22 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 09:19 Eppa! wrote:On December 22 2012 09:11 Falling wrote:Well kinda hard to call it basic fantasy and lacking in character development if you slept through most of it Halfassed reviews are the most fun to write. Still from all the fantasy books / movies ive seen books are vastly superior. Fantasy is mostly based upon character development within a created world. Fantasy movies spend most of their time building a world and little on character development. What? Are you serious? There's a lot of different kinds of fantasy out there.......
He's right, if the characters in a world are unbelievable and uninteresting then the world doesn't really matter. The best fantasies are driven by the characters within them.
|
On December 22 2012 10:02 Ren91 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On December 22 2012 09:19 Eppa! wrote:On December 22 2012 09:11 Falling wrote:Well kinda hard to call it basic fantasy and lacking in character development if you slept through most of it Halfassed reviews are the most fun to write. Still from all the fantasy books / movies ive seen books are vastly superior. Fantasy is mostly based upon character development within a created world. Fantasy movies spend most of their time building a world and little on character development. What? Are you serious? There's a lot of different kinds of fantasy out there....... He's right, if the characters in a world are unbelievable and uninteresting then the world doesn't really matter. The best fantasies are driven by the characters within them.
Hm... I feel characters are this movie's strongest point. Stronger than in LotR, which I feel is more about the conflict than about characters.
|
Heh, never liked LotR films either. Shit is bland character based on common stereotypes compared to the books. They removed my favorite character from the book and its just a haphazard race to the finish.
|
On December 22 2012 10:02 Ren91 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On December 22 2012 09:19 Eppa! wrote:On December 22 2012 09:11 Falling wrote:Well kinda hard to call it basic fantasy and lacking in character development if you slept through most of it Halfassed reviews are the most fun to write. Still from all the fantasy books / movies ive seen books are vastly superior. Fantasy is mostly based upon character development within a created world. Fantasy movies spend most of their time building a world and little on character development. What? Are you serious? There's a lot of different kinds of fantasy out there....... He's right, if the characters in a world are unbelievable and uninteresting then the world doesn't really matter. The best fantasies are driven by the characters within them.
Characters can be plenty interesting and quite believable without them being the driving force of a story, you're mistaking preference for genre rule. Tolkien's writing, for instance, is of such a grand scale when viewed across multiple novels that a feature specific criticism becomes rather arbitrary. Oh, you like Tolkien's characters and think they drive The Hobbit? Well, you'll likely find a fair amount of good textual evidence that this is the case, and could make a compelling if not overly narrow critique. And therein lies the problem. One can find just as much textual evidence that points to Tolkien being instead obsessed with allegory, metaphorical device, and political opinion. Or you could focus on geographics, rhetorical map making and setting craft. Hell, you can even focus entirely on linguistics and marvel at how Tolkien implements fictional languages. Any lens works, with proper rigor, given that one acknowledges that every lens brings with it a vision of some sort of truth. And proving that characters drive any of Tolkien's works seems like a pointless venture.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are fantasy works that are almost explicitly character driven (R.A. Salvatore immediately comes to mind), but that aspect does not define the genre. Not by any stretch.
|
Saw it yesterday, finally. The Hobbit is one of my favourite (if not my #1) books. I thoroughly enjoyed it but I wish I hadn't seen it in IMAX 3D. The image looked really blurry if I tilted my head at all, so due to being tired, having an irritated day, trying to squirm around in my seat a bit made the 3 hours kind of uncomfortable (also too much popcorn). Maybe I'll watch it again in 2D (or 3D HFR if I can find it?) I really want to see it again actually>_<
The lore additions were a bit strange at first, but I enjoyed them after thinking about it later. I was the only person in the theatre who laughed at Saurman's mushroom comment, probably due to Koreans not getting the reference. That amused me all the more.
|
On December 23 2012 13:25 SoleSteeler wrote:
Saw it yesterday, finally. The Hobbit is one of my favourite (if not my #1) books. I thoroughly enjoyed it but I wish I hadn't seen it in IMAX 3D. The image looked really blurry if I tilted my head at all, so due to being tired, having an irritated day, trying to squirm around in my seat a bit made the 3 hours kind of uncomfortable (also too much popcorn). Maybe I'll watch it again in 2D (or 3D HFR if I can find it?) I really want to see it again actually>_<
The lore additions were a bit strange at first, but I enjoyed them after thinking about it later. I was the only person in the theatre who laughed at Saurman's mushroom comment, probably due to Koreans not getting the reference. That amused me all the more.
The muchroom comment made my theater laugh too. Was out of character for him but was a perfectly placed joke lol.
|
I saw wreck it ralph and this in theatre recently and I would rate wreck it ralph slightly better. Both really good movies though. My complaint on the hobbit is it starts out really strong then really dies out towards the end. the last 1/4th of the movie is really quite bad.
|
as a non lotr fan. i enjoyed this movie
|
On December 22 2012 09:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 23:44 Poopi wrote:Saw it wednesday, in 2D (don't think we have as many options in theaters here in France, like 48FPS and stuff). The music and visual were beautiful, the pace seemed fine to me I didn't feel bored at all during the 3 hours. + Show Spoiler +I do think they ran away from fights a bit too much but I guess they weren't in enough numbers to fight straight up. Plus since I didn't read the books yet I always wonder why Gandalf doesn't just wipe out the enemies? I know he is limited in his human form but still. Too bad we didn't see much of Smaug also, dragons are cool but I read on this thread there is a battle or something that will happen between him and the middle earth inhabitants, can't wait to see it. Seeing it motivate me to read The Hobbit that I bought not so long ago, and the LOTR trilogy :D. Well honestly, most of Tolkien's magic doesn't really translate into what you could call ?combat spells? Much of it is more intangible- like the most powerful effect of the Nazgul isn't that they're flinging D&D fireballs or are these super epic warriors. Their sheer presence creates fear. Most men would fly from terror rather than stand in fight (unless hardened by Gandalf or Prince Imrahil and his knights.) Similarily much of the 'combat' through magic is amongst others that also have power. A contest of power or authority. Gandalf vs the Balrog or Gandalf vs Saruman- which is a much more subdued affair than Jackson made it. Or if you go back to the Silmarillion, many of the great battles between powerful beings: Elves and gods (Maiar) were through song creation. (Finrod vs Sauron or Luthien before Morgoth) or a contest of wills Luthien vs Sauron. None of this translates very well onto the screen. Going back to The Hobbit, Tolkien's thoughts on magic in Middle Earth were probably not fully formed, but it still is pretty subdued. Much of Gandalf's power is through influence or calling into being things that didn't seem to exist before- "If I say he is a burglar, then a burglar he is." This is consistent with Gandalf being known to send Hobbits in the past 'mad' for adventure or even his awakening of Theoden in Two Towers. (And perhaps his failed attempt with Denethor.) Gandalf "Stormcrow," but he tended to kindle fires in the hearts of individuals and peoples where-ever he went. Offhand the two main instances of true magic that I recall in The Hobbit was the big flash and explosion to distract the goblins and the fire-pine cones. And he was considering hurling himself down to take out the Wargs and destroy himself in the process. And his fireworks. I really don't recall much else in regards to combat magic in The Hobbit.
The problem is people are too warped by dragonball Z and superhero movies to be open minded about what power is.
Who's more powerful, Barrack Obama or the strongest man/powerlifter in the world?
Or Mao vs some generic superhero (barring planet destroying ones). Mao made people cut steppes into all these mountains in China, he literally reshaped hundreds or thousands of mountains.
Gandalf worked tirelessly for centuries or longer (forgot where I found the quote) to bring down Sauron. He doesn't find Erkenbrand Helm's Deep falls. He doesn't go to the leaders of Rohan/Gondor, they surrender without a fight. He doesn't go to Gondor to research the Ring, the Nazgul capture it. If he doesn't a diversion at the black gate, they probably catch Frodo and Sam. If he doesn't rally the three armies at lonely mountain, they get start fighting and get backstabbed and destroyed by the goblins (and they get purged instead of the goblins). Even if Gandalf didn't know a single spell, he was one of the most powerful beings on middle earth.
|
Took my parents to see it today. They have never watched any of the lotr films, but they very much enjoyed this! I never think movies come close to the books, no matter how good they are. However, I enjoyed this film a lot. It's crazy seeing the locations in film after imagining them in your head while reading. I never imagined any of the locations to look the way they did, but I believe they looked great.
|
On December 22 2012 10:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:02 Ren91 wrote:On December 22 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On December 22 2012 09:19 Eppa! wrote:On December 22 2012 09:11 Falling wrote:Well kinda hard to call it basic fantasy and lacking in character development if you slept through most of it Halfassed reviews are the most fun to write. Still from all the fantasy books / movies ive seen books are vastly superior. Fantasy is mostly based upon character development within a created world. Fantasy movies spend most of their time building a world and little on character development. What? Are you serious? There's a lot of different kinds of fantasy out there....... He's right, if the characters in a world are unbelievable and uninteresting then the world doesn't really matter. The best fantasies are driven by the characters within them. Characters can be plenty interesting and quite believable without them being the driving force of a story, you're mistaking preference for genre rule. Tolkien's writing, for instance, is of such a grand scale when viewed across multiple novels that a feature specific criticism becomes rather arbitrary. Oh, you like Tolkien's characters and think they drive The Hobbit? Well, you'll likely find a fair amount of good textual evidence that this is the case, and could make a compelling if not overly narrow critique. And therein lies the problem. One can find just as much textual evidence that points to Tolkien being instead obsessed with allegory, metaphorical device, and political opinion. Or you could focus on geographics, rhetorical map making and setting craft. Hell, you can even focus entirely on linguistics and marvel at how Tolkien implements fictional languages. Any lens works, with proper rigor, given that one acknowledges that every lens brings with it a vision of some sort of truth. And proving that characters drive any of Tolkien's works seems like a pointless venture. Now, don't get me wrong, there are fantasy works that are almost explicitly character driven (R.A. Salvatore immediately comes to mind), but that aspect does not define the genre. Not by any stretch. It becomes a problem if characters become bland. While most of what you say holds true, and you can marvel at the creativity and beauty of the settings within the world in which the characters perform. Tolkien did indeed have fully fleshed out characters, but at least when it came to Lotr, they didn't capture it. A book can afford to have all kinds of distractions, but a movie that wants to capture the richness in which Tolkien created, then it is still the fullest breech of what he wanted in making the characters bland, and the world full of richness.
Haven't seen the Hobbit yet, but yet another story about the character(s) and what Tolkien(or rather the many folklore tales that inspired him) wanted to say with it.
Lastly, anyone writing fantasy such as RA Salvatore, are all character-driven, because that is the premise of that genre. RA Salvatore is one who in fact likes to add other ingredients than character-driven content, much like Tolkien, but it goes for both that the characters are of foremost importance, while the setting and feel is also important.
Fantasy without identification within the characters, is only the fantasy part, and not good fantasy. So as such, character-driven is always part of fantasy, and always take the front seat. If that fails, then the novel fails. Tolkien could have left out any of those other ingredients, and it would still be great, due to the main aim; the characters and their obstacles. He wouldn't have succeed if he only created a rich world. The characters within are not interesting due to the world as such, but because he gave them life. His stories are elevated that he breathed life into his worlds as well, but that is another thing.
|
Without the 3d, I liked the previous films better. Hope to see how part 2 is.
|
On July 31 2012 06:44 corumjhaelen wrote:
So a director with little sense of pacing is going to adapt a short lively exciting novel into a 9-hour tunnel ? Why in the name of god must poor Tolkien endure this... :-(
|
Tolkien just rolled over in his grave when he heard that The Hobbit [1 Book] Is going to be a movie trilology
|
Saw it tonight, awesome movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
