| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 24 2012 04:59 fabiano wrote: Guys, the people complaining about the movie have clearly not read the book nor have any clue about Tolkien's work... rofl Read most of his work, have a lot of problems with this movie. | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote: ^ If you go in expecting the movie will be exactly like the books you're going to be disappointed. What you should do is view the movie as an adaptation of the book set in the universe Tolkien created and stop nitpicking on every little changed bit. You'll enjoy it that much more. I didn't like the LotR movies as well when I first saw them because I was stuck in the EVERYTHING MUST BE EXACTLY THE SAME OR ELSE!!!!!! mindset. Years later I can thoroughly enjoy them because I don't view them as the books in movie form anymore, I view them as the movies by themselves. I can not stress this enough: Jackson doesn't get Tolkien's universe and his worldview. Everything must be exactly like in the books, if not you do not tell the story of the LotR or The Hobbit, you tell some perverted shit. Of course you can and must make some adjustements to fit the genre, but not like Jackosn does it. He makes idiotic and weird changes (adds nonsense, changes totally the character of some figures (e. g. Faramir, why doesn't he understand that Faramir is one of the most heroic figures), changes the storyline (e. g. adding Azog pursuiting the Company)), which totally pervert the character of the stories and their "message" (I know, you can't use the word "massage" talking about Tolkien's Middle-earth, but I don't know how to paraphrase it). You may enjoy the movies by themselves (and they may be pretty good movies, I don't know enough about movies to evaluate them as movies per se), but they are not an adaption of Tolkien's work. They tell a totally different story. Edit: corrected typing error. | ||
|
Bloodash
Netherlands1384 Posts
-the story flow just didn't feel right, it stop-started a whole lot of times wich just doesn't do the movie any good. -48 fps just doesn't work -would've been better if it where only 1 or 2 movies | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
On December 24 2012 09:03 Dfgj wrote: rofl Read most of his work, have a lot of problems with this movie. Haha, yeah that's a pretty dumb statement from him when you take into consideration that Christopher Tolkien hates all the PJ movies. On December 24 2012 04:56 Skiblet wrote: Im sorry did you just say The Hobbit was a little bit childish at times? The Hobbit?! The famous CHILDRENS BOOK WRITTEN FOR CHILDREN?! What an outrage sir, thank you so much for pointing it out! The Hobbit movie has a "hollywood" childishness to it though, which was not present in the book. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On December 24 2012 06:10 Forikorder wrote: the problem is you went to watch a movie, it was the exact opposite of the type of movie you wanted to see, and now your complaining the point of the movie was to take the book and make it into a movie, to copy and paste as much as possible if they had rushed the pacing it would have pissed of the fans of the hobbit who were the exact type of people they were trying to please evidently you did not like the movie but thats not because it was a bad movie it just wasnt to your taste I'd like to know what type of movie I wanted to see... This is exactly what I'm fighting. Instead of arguing about the movie and the critics, you argue about the people. Wrong expectations, or even worse, the youdidntreadthebook argument... I'll help you, defend the introduction by saying the cgi and imagery were beautiful, and that it creates intimacy with the viewer by alluding to LoTR. You know talk about the movie if it is that good. Imagine if I was dismissing every overly positive review by saying the writer knows nothing about cinema and has seen a lot less movies than I ? That would be annoying, wouldnt it ? And I'd be a lot closer to the truth... | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
 .When they went into the goblin town I kept singing 'down down to goblin town' in my head. The music for the film was amazing by the way. And I really like Martin Freeman. | ||
|
ramon
Germany4842 Posts
i don't quite understand why he added stuff but left out other stuff but i still found the movie very enjoyable and look forward to see how smaug looks | ||
|
TearsOfTheSun
Canada995 Posts
| ||
|
KarneEspada
United States72 Posts
On December 16 2012 06:44 mutantmagnet wrote: I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves. Incorrect. They are the same creature, it is explained in the prologue. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On December 24 2012 05:37 corumjhaelen wrote: 1) stop dismissing people's opinion because they haven't read the book, I don't see why their judgement shouldn't count. On December 24 2012 05:53 TheRealArtemis wrote: Suprised by the amount of people trying to defend the movie, by saying you should have read the books. like it would breathe life into a bad movie. Actually, people saying that those who didn't read the book don't have the right to have a good opinion or that reading the book would breathe life into the movie are kind of right. Watching this movie without reading the book, is kind of like watching a movie sequel without watching the first one. This movie has a lot of stuff that was only put there for the people that read the book, and know about the world of the middle earth. Actually, P. Jackson said in some interview that he loved the world of middle earth, but in lotr there wasn't much time to show it, because the movies had long story that had to be told. These 3 hobbit movies will be a way of better portraying this world. I can imagine, for instance, that for someone that has never seen Lotr or read tolkiens books, seeing Radagast, Gandalf and Saruman, without any real explanation of what they are or where they came from, or the giants of stone fighting, the eagles, those things may seem random and like they don't make sense --> hence saying the movie is bad. On the other hand, for those who are into this world, those things are connected and make sense. And even if some look out of place, like the giants of stone fighting, they are still good to watch, because those are things we could only imagine, and it's good to finally see them. So in a sense, yes, people who haven't read the book may have a very different opinion (generally more negative) than those who read, because for them, the movie will seem more disconnected and random. | ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote: I can not stress this enough: Jackson doesn't get Tolkien's universe and his worldview. Everything must be exactly like in the books, if not you do not tell the story of the LotR or The Hobbit, you tell some perverted shit. Of course you can and must make some adjustements to fit the genre, but not like Jackosn does it. He makes idiotic and weird changes (adds nonsense, changes totally the character of some figures (e. g. Faramir, why doesn't he understand that Faramir is one of the most heroic figures), changes the storyline (e. g. adding Azog pursuiting the Company)), which totally pervert the character of the stories and their "massage" (I know, you can't use the word "massage" talking about Tolkien's Middle-earth, but I don't know how to paraphrase it). You may enjoy the movies by themselves (and they may be pretty good movies, I don't know enough about movies to evaluate them as movies per se), but they are not an adaption of Tolkien's work. They tell a totally different story. Faramir - Faramir seemed pretty darn heroic in the film, maybe something was lost in translation but I can;t imagine what. Azog - was needed to provide a substantial villain. It's not the best but he pulled it off well. "massage" - I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. | ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
On December 25 2012 00:11 Praetorial wrote: What this movie did right was expand upon the original story. Instead of creating a stylized cutting like the LOTR movies did, Jackson managed to add on a great more detail about the world of Middle-Earth while at the same time remaining faithful to the story. Faramir - Faramir seemed pretty darn heroic in the film, maybe something was lost in translation but I can;t imagine what. Azog - was needed to provide a substantial villain. It's not the best but he pulled it off well. "massage" - I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. Where is Jackson faithful to the story? Introducing unnecessarly Azog (who is dead!), which changes totally the character of their trip. Introducing the White Council in Rivendell? Radagast? Faramir maybe semm heroic because of his fighting, but not because of his virtues (!). Jackson totally changed the character of Faramir, who in Tolkien's work is the example of the ideal Christian knight of the Middle Ages. Read "message". Typing error in the post corrected. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Didn't think it was very good, nor very bad. I didn't watch the first 3 in their entirety (because I read all of the LotR trilogy 7x each before I turned 13, the hobbit 3-4 times and silmarillion another 2 or so....) so can't really compare. Think it would have been a better movie without the Orcs, and with significantly less screen time for the goblins. | ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote: Where is Jackson faithful to the story? Introducing unnecessarly Azog (who is dead!), which changes totally the character of their trip. Introducing the White Council in Rivendell? Radagast? Faramir maybe semm heroic because of his fighting, but not because of his virtues (!). Jackson totally changed the character of Faramir, who in Tolkien's work is the example of the ideal Christian knight of the Middle Ages. Read "message". Typing error in the post corrected. IDK Faramir seems pretty heroic because of his virtues as well... Going out to protect Osgilath when it was overrun because it was his duty Letting Frodo and Sam go even though "your life will be forfeit" Not saying Jackson didn't change the character, because he certainly changed characters, particularly Denethor... who he changed from a seemingly good and capable ruler to a madman who doesn't give a shit. But Faramir still comes off as the most heroic non-main character in the movies. | ||
|
HowardRoark
1146 Posts
On December 24 2012 05:41 herMan wrote: Suprised by the amount of people bitching about the movie. Sure, it wasn't the greatest ever but still good. I've read the hobbit, silmarillion and lotr and it was quite nice that the movie referenced silmarillion a few times. The few gripes I have for this movie are the stone giant scene and the goblin kingdom escape. Gandalf just shows up as the deus ex machina outta nowhere and then they comically run away and escape with cringeworthy cgi. Peter Jackson is forbidden by the Tolkien estate to reference any Silmarillion material in the Hobbit movie. Maybe you think about the Return of the king appendices? | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
About Faramir Jackson changed his attitude toward the Ring and Frodo's Quest, so more or less the whole character given what LoTR is about. | ||
|
BlackPaladin
United States9316 Posts
On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote: IDK Faramir seems pretty heroic because of his virtues as well... Going out to protect Osgilath when it was overrun because it was his duty Letting Frodo and Sam go even though "your life will be forfeit" Not saying Jackson didn't change the character, because he certainly changed characters, particularly Denethor... who he changed from a seemingly good and capable ruler to a madman who doesn't give a shit. But Faramir still comes off as the most heroic non-main character in the movies. Eh, from what I got from it, faramir in the movies was tempted by the power of the ring like his brother was, and decided to take frodo to his father to appease the "father that doesn't love him" complex. Then Osgiliath went under attack (cause peter jackson ran into issues having the scene during helms deep action scenes, so needed to keep the action feel), so he brought frodo with him during his retreat to minas tirith, going through osgiliath first to fortify them. Then after a small speech by sam that faramir happened to overhear, he decided "hmm, maybe I should help them out" for no real reason and let them go. Then later, decides to go off to die in a single charge at a fortified position because daddy doesn't love him. He appeals to teens. Faramir in the book is just fucking awesome, almost gandalf-like in his deep knowledge and wisdom. He HELPS frodo. He feeds him, gives him extra food for his journey, and even warns him of the dangers of gorgoroth and that gollum shouldn't be trusted, even though frodo has nearly given in and began to trust his "guide," it helps to solidify sam's feelings for gollum. He's basically a beacon of light on the edge of darkness. Faramir in the movies is not this. Like, I really love the lotr's movies myself, but the faramir downplay gets me in the feels. ;-; | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
There was a lot expanded that was only hinted at in the book, especially the Necromancer storyline which I'm sure will take up a fair bit of the next film. I can see why many don't like the additions but for the most part they seemed in line with Tolkein's work. I just wish Jackson would resist the ened for a big set-piece escape from an underground goblin lair - way too similar to the Moria/Balrog scene  disclaimer - have actually read the book many times. One of my favourites, in fact | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
wasted my 4000 on this. At least I'm a guardian :D
