|
On December 25 2012 01:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
@apolo : you're just saying that the scenario sucks... Obviously you've read every book adaptés into a movie you saw before giving your opinion about them... I try to judge the movie without referencing the book, for its own merit.
Yes, i haven't. But if i had, my opinion on those movies would probably change either for better or worse. What i'm saying is that on this specific movie, reading the book would most likely improve your opinion about the movie than if you hadn't read it.
|
Let's get one thing straight...
the scenes of "Riddles in the Dark" were amazing!
Gollum stole the show imo.
|
On December 25 2012 02:28 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 01:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
@apolo : you're just saying that the scenario sucks... Obviously you've read every book adaptés into a movie you saw before giving your opinion about them... I try to judge the movie without referencing the book, for its own merit.
Yes, i haven't. But if i had, my opinion on those movies would probably change either for better or worse. What i'm saying is that on this specific movie, reading the book would most likely improve your opinion about the movie than if you hadn't read it.
Maybe, maybe not, I don't think it's really clear. For some specific kind of fanboys maybe. But I think it would mainly come from kind of shared love of the universe than anything else. I mean, I've read the book and I don't like the.movie, and I'm not alone.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Watched it
I loved it, Gollum was really good.
|
On December 25 2012 01:41 BlackPaladin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote:On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote: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. On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote:On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote:On December 24 2012 07:21 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
I think the problem is a lot of people were expecting intense gritty action, when The Hobbit is a fucking kids story I read in third grade. I came in expecting fun lighthearted adventure with a little darkness thrown in, thats what I got, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, ^ 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 "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. 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. 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. ;-;
In the DVD appendices, Philipa Boyens explains the massive change to Faramir's character as something that had to happen in order to drive Frodo and Sam's storyline. Otherwise, you lack a clear "conflict" in their storyline, and a climax as well. You could disagree with it or not, but it was a decision made by professional writers who loved Tolkien's work, but wanted to tell it from their own movie-making perspective. Honestly, much of the criticisms received by the Hobbit, and by extension the Lord of the Rings, were mostly changes made by the writing staff to appeal to the general movie-going audience.
|
So just got back from watching The Hobbit 24p 3D. I'm a massive fan of the books and PJ's LOTR trilogy, however he really dropped the ball with this one.
The more I thought about it on the drive home, the worse it became. I'd rate it a 4/10, extremely disappointing and just a poor adaptation overall.
It had massive potential, some scenes were very good, but they couldn't make up for the ridiculously bad parts of the movie.
Martin Freeman was absolutely garbage (my personal opinion of course)as Bilbo and proved to be my biggest grime with the movie. On the other hand Richard Armitage did a fantastic job portraying Thorin and I'm looking forward to seeing him in the upcoming sequels. Worth noting the returning LOTR actors, especially Andy Serkis, were on form and delivered a good performance.
Unfortunately I walked away terribly disappointed and fearful for the upcoming sequels quality.
My 2 cents...
|
On December 25 2012 13:45 Poyo wrote:
So just got back from watching The Hobbit 24p 3D. I'm a massive fan of the books and PJ's LOTR trilogy, however he really dropped the ball with this one.
The more I thought about it on the drive home, the worse it became. I'd rate it a 4/10, extremely disappointing and just a poor adaptation overall.
It had massive potential, some scenes were very good, but they couldn't make up for the ridiculously bad parts of the movie.
Martin Freeman was absolutely garbage (my personal opinion of course)as Bilbo and proved to be my biggest grime with the movie. On the other hand Richard Armitage did a fantastic job portraying Thorin and I'm looking forward to seeing him in the upcoming sequels. Worth noting the returning LOTR actors, especially Andy Serkis, were on form and delivered a good performance.
Unfortunately I walked away terribly disappointed and fearful for the upcoming sequels quality.
My 2 cents...
Most people have an opinion of exactly the opposite. Everyone though Bilbo was awesome and Thorin was stupid.
|
On December 25 2012 12:21 Caladbolg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 01:41 BlackPaladin wrote:On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote:On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote: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. On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote:On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote:On December 24 2012 07:21 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
I think the problem is a lot of people were expecting intense gritty action, when The Hobbit is a fucking kids story I read in third grade. I came in expecting fun lighthearted adventure with a little darkness thrown in, thats what I got, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, ^ 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 "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. 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. 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. ;-; In the DVD appendices, Philipa Boyens explains the massive change to Faramir's character as something that had to happen in order to drive Frodo and Sam's storyline. Otherwise, you lack a clear "conflict" in their storyline, and a climax as well. You could disagree with it or not, but it was a decision made by professional writers who loved Tolkien's work, but wanted to tell it from their own movie-making perspective. Honestly, much of the criticisms received by the Hobbit, and by extension the Lord of the Rings, were mostly changes made by the writing staff to appeal to the general movie-going audience.
I would only add that the trilogy spent a lot of effort driving home the terrible power of the ring. To have a guy walk in and say "meh the ring has no power over me" -- after watching the ring tempt the most powerful beings in Middle Earth -- would have completely robbed the ring of all power. The writers made a smart decision with Faramir.
|
saw this at the IMAX3D.. was pretty good I'd say.. new bilbo was alright, really used to ian holm though.
I think my favourite part was when elrond was analyzing orcrist and glamdring.. sweet blades.
can't wait for the other films though.
XD
|
On December 25 2012 12:21 Caladbolg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 01:41 BlackPaladin wrote:On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote:On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote: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. On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote:On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote:On December 24 2012 07:21 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
I think the problem is a lot of people were expecting intense gritty action, when The Hobbit is a fucking kids story I read in third grade. I came in expecting fun lighthearted adventure with a little darkness thrown in, thats what I got, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, ^ 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 "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. 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. 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. ;-; In the DVD appendices, Philipa Boyens explains the massive change to Faramir's character as something that had to happen in order to drive Frodo and Sam's storyline. Otherwise, you lack a clear "conflict" in their storyline, and a climax as well. You could disagree with it or not, but it was a decision made by professional writers who loved Tolkien's work, but wanted to tell it from their own movie-making perspective. Honestly, much of the criticisms received by the Hobbit, and by extension the Lord of the Rings, were mostly changes made by the writing staff to appeal to the general movie-going audience.
Yes. And this is nonsense. They obviously don't love Tolkien's work and don't understand it.Did they ever think, that Tolkien wanted to tell the story in this way and not in another (if he wanted to create a Faramir like in the movie, wyh didn't he do it? pls explain it to me). Faramir is one of the most heroic figures: he is full fo wisdom, full of virtues, he is an example of the ideal Catholic knight in the Middle Ages. Professional writers or not. They perverted a important character and with him they changed the last part of Frodo's trip.
Such grave changes, which are not necessary! and only darken the beauty of the story, are a sign of disrespect toward Tolkien and his work.
|
One word review: awesome.
|
I saw the movie. I thought it was extremely BORING. The progression wasn't as fluid as the other LOTRO movies. You spend the first hour or so just watching dwarves be dumb. The action makes up for it, but the action is kind of lackluster as it spends more time using special effects than actual person to person combat scenes. Riddles with Gollum was what I believe to be the best part of the movie and was played out perfectly. As a dvd pickup, it's a thumbs up. But for a movie theater experience, I'd pass on this one. Compared to the other LOTRO movies, it just wasn't worth it. Good thing for the Hobbit, this is one of the few decently titled movies out at this time. Not many competing with this genre so it gives fans of the genre a reason to watch something in theaters and more money for them.
|
It's the first of the trilogy. They always start a little slow, and although the first hour of the movie was perhaps a tad bit slow, it served the purpose of giving us information and providing light humour. I was very entertained throughout the movie. If you watch the first hour of Fellowship of the Ring, you will see a similiar pattern with lots of focus on giving us info and light humour. And you know what, when I rewatch LOTR now,my favourite is Fellowship of the Ring (if I have to watch it in one stretch) and I think it is because it has the perfect balance between light humour, action&FX, and a good pace of storytelling. I look forward to the next one :-) GJ Peter Jackson!
|
On December 25 2012 15:22 scissorhands wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:21 Caladbolg wrote:On December 25 2012 01:41 BlackPaladin wrote:On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote:On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote: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. On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote:On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote:On December 24 2012 07:21 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
I think the problem is a lot of people were expecting intense gritty action, when The Hobbit is a fucking kids story I read in third grade. I came in expecting fun lighthearted adventure with a little darkness thrown in, thats what I got, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, ^ 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 "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. 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. 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. ;-; In the DVD appendices, Philipa Boyens explains the massive change to Faramir's character as something that had to happen in order to drive Frodo and Sam's storyline. Otherwise, you lack a clear "conflict" in their storyline, and a climax as well. You could disagree with it or not, but it was a decision made by professional writers who loved Tolkien's work, but wanted to tell it from their own movie-making perspective. Honestly, much of the criticisms received by the Hobbit, and by extension the Lord of the Rings, were mostly changes made by the writing staff to appeal to the general movie-going audience. I would only add that the trilogy spent a lot of effort driving home the terrible power of the ring. To have a guy walk in and say "meh the ring has no power over me" -- after watching the ring tempt the most powerful beings in Middle Earth -- would have completely robbed the ring of all power. The writers made a smart decision with Faramir.
You don't get what the power of the ring is about, the writers did not either. What's interesting is that everybody reacts differently in front of the ring. Faramir is the less tempted because he accepts that he can't save the world alone, that his power is limited.
If you understand Frodo's arc, it's clear that it doesn't need much more tension. But you need to transmit that tension from the book to the movie. The writers chose the laziest option, an action scene. It wasn't even good...
|
I liked the part where the necromancer appeared
|
An awesome movie. Took a bit to get used to the new framerates but once accustomed it was a really enjoyable ride. At the end of the movie it even felt too short.
|
On December 25 2012 17:55 Frieder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:21 Caladbolg wrote:On December 25 2012 01:41 BlackPaladin wrote:On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote:On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote: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. On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote:On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote:On December 24 2012 07:21 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
I think the problem is a lot of people were expecting intense gritty action, when The Hobbit is a fucking kids story I read in third grade. I came in expecting fun lighthearted adventure with a little darkness thrown in, thats what I got, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, ^ 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 "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. 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. 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. ;-; In the DVD appendices, Philipa Boyens explains the massive change to Faramir's character as something that had to happen in order to drive Frodo and Sam's storyline. Otherwise, you lack a clear "conflict" in their storyline, and a climax as well. You could disagree with it or not, but it was a decision made by professional writers who loved Tolkien's work, but wanted to tell it from their own movie-making perspective. Honestly, much of the criticisms received by the Hobbit, and by extension the Lord of the Rings, were mostly changes made by the writing staff to appeal to the general movie-going audience. Yes. And this is nonsense. They obviously don't love Tolkien's work and don't understand it.Did they ever think, that Tolkien wanted to tell the story in this way and not in another (if he wanted to create a Faramir like in the movie, wyh didn't he do it? pls explain it to me). Faramir is one of the most heroic figures: he is full fo wisdom, full of virtues, he is an example of the ideal Catholic knight in the Middle Ages. Professional writers or not. They perverted a important character and with him they changed the last part of Frodo's trip. Such grave changes, which are not necessary! and only darken the beauty of the story, are a sign of disrespect toward Tolkien and his work.
It was the middle movie in a trilogy, and they made the change so that it would have a climax. This is a special consideration for the movie, because they couldn't leave the movie's ending just hanging in air. Tolkien oviously intended his books to be read as one, and published them together right away, unlike the movie which had a year of pause in between part II and III. So, I don't particularly like it that they stupified Faramir, but I can see their reasoning. Making a movie is just not the same as writing a book, and unfortunately it requires some changes.
|
Am I the only one that could barely understand what gollum was saying, especially in the riddles sceen?
Awesome movie though, however I'm one of the dumbasses that didn't know it was a trilogy
|
On December 26 2012 05:23 Mattchew wrote:
Am I the only one that could barely understand what gollum was saying, especially in the riddles sceen?
Awesome movie though, however I'm one of the dumbasses that didn't know it was a trilogy
I had troubles too, but my first language is French and I saw it in English so I'm not quite sure I'm a good example to make you feel better!
|
On December 26 2012 05:43 JeanBob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:23 Mattchew wrote:
Am I the only one that could barely understand what gollum was saying, especially in the riddles sceen?
Awesome movie though, however I'm one of the dumbasses that didn't know it was a trilogy I had troubles too, but my first language is French and I saw it in English so I'm not quite sure I'm a good example to make you feel better!
Same here. The riddles in the dark scene was brilliant but hard to understand because they talk so fast and the subtitles went pretty fast so there was no time to think and actually get it all piece for piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
