|
On December 31 2012 10:23 white_horse wrote:
lol I don't need an explanation of the nerdy backstories. I've read about them before in the books, appendices, etc. My point is that people who haven't ever read the books have absolutely no idea of what gondolin is or mithrandir. Like you said, it's great for people who know the little details about the books, but it's complete nonsense to the average watcher.
The part about radagast made me feel like I was watching a disney movie. A wooden sled pulled by rabbits? What the fack. Peter jackson must have been high when he green-lighted that idea.
That's a ridiculous complaint. Nearly every adaption of all forms will have some parts especially for the hard-core fans.
|
Saw it yesterday. Pretty disappointed overall. Too predictable, no tension, stupid one liners. "Well, that'll do it." Seriously? Come on.
|
Denmark1338 Posts
On December 30 2012 23:18 bluQ wrote:
Azog? Wtf...
Anyways nice movie. Seen for itself being a movie, it is again an awesome piece of fantasy movie and the next genius strike from Peter Jackson.
Compared to the books it feels ... a bit off. Too many little unneeded changes (gollum not sensing bilbo, bilbo "touching" gollum, gollum losing the ring, dwarves apear in the night etc.pp.)
Compared to general movies which came out this year: 10/10, compared to LotR epicness 9/10, compared to the book 6.66/10
This. Also i think they pushed many of the sequences with way to much action. The scene where they run and kill 1 gazillion trolls?
|
As a fan of Tolkiens books, this movie offends me.
|
I enjoyed it but wish there weren't so many action sequences. Kind of kills the narrative. Wish they'd casted someone else to play Bilbo too.
|
9/10 - 2D and no idea about the FPS lol.
I saw it today and overall I enjoyed it. I felt the beginning was too much at the time and it took too long to get going, but I felt the same watching the first LOTR film and by the time I'd finished watching both these long introductions felt appropriate.
I liked the character of Radagast a lot but I didn't like the cross-eyed thing he a couple of times and I felt the sled was unnecessary.
I think the main problem with this is that some people just want LOTR 2.0 and others want the accurate depiction of the novel and this film from what I can tell attempts to do both, so a lot either complain it was too childish, not childish enough or too much like LOTR etc
That said I think it struck an okay balance, personally I'd have been happy with a completely serious, non-childish film. I'd have preferred LOTR with less of the stupid scenes as well though they are some of my favourite films ever.
I thought the scenes on the mountain were fine, the stone giants were fine and the escape from the goblin kingdom was fine, but the terrible line from the goblin king at his death and him falling onto of the group afterwards definitely upset me.
I didn't really have a problem with them being hunted by the orcs at random points in the film, it's more entertaining.
I enjoyed the music and I liked all the references to the LOTR, this is after all set in the same fantasy world and contains a lot of the same characters. I don't see how complaining about similarities between the films is therefore relevant, why shouldn't Gandalf hit his head on the chandelier if that's the sort of thing he's prone to do?
I didn't pay attention to the music, I just watched the film and enjoyed it. I didn't even notice the same music repeating at points and I found the music fitted well.
I think some people watch a film with the intention of observing how well it's done in their opinion and to critique it afterward, for good or for worse, whereas I just try and enjoy it for what it is and sometimes when I find myself notice a "flaw" I'll deliberately try to forget about it.
I've read the Hobbit a long time ago now, and I'm glad I've all but forgotten it because it allowed me to enjoy it. I think reading a book almost makes your opinion about a film adaptation virtually null and void because you just compare it to the book and the whole time watching it you are disappointed about your favourite bits being missed out and offended at the new stuff they decide to add in, and the stuff that is included that was in the book isn't done the way you imagined it.
Every film I've seen where I've read the book first it's completely detracted from my enjoyment of the film. My rating isn't my opinion of this as an adaptation of the novel, I don't really care how similar or different it is, all I'm interested in is being entertained.
I was entertained a lot by this film but there were a few parts that didn't sit well with me, so I can't give it a 10/10, but I would definitely recommend it.
|
1019 Posts
On December 31 2012 10:30 Dakkas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 10:23 white_horse wrote:
lol I don't need an explanation of the nerdy backstories. I've read about them before in the books, appendices, etc. My point is that people who haven't ever read the books have absolutely no idea of what gondolin is or mithrandir. Like you said, it's great for people who know the little details about the books, but it's complete nonsense to the average watcher.
The part about radagast made me feel like I was watching a disney movie. A wooden sled pulled by rabbits? What the fack. Peter jackson must have been high when he green-lighted that idea. That's a ridiculous complaint. Nearly every adaption of all forms will have some parts especially for the hard-core fans.
That's good for the fanboys, I don't care. You could tell peter jackson was just smelling the money - we already know he's making two more parts, and the movie tries too hard to accommodate all audience types so that they can scrape money off of everybody. And the childish disney-ish parts, along with some of the physics bending that pushes the line too much (never falling off moving cliffs with rain and rocks falling around your head, falling 1000 feet and still surviving even after a 500 lb goblin falls on top of you, being able to fight and kill thousands of goblins without a single dead dwarf or even a scratch when you are probably outnumbered 10,000:1), is just cringing and distracts from the better parts of the movie.
Both LOTR and the hobbit are fantasy genre and so it's obvious to assume that they aren't going to be close to reality but at least LOTR was presented in a serious and believable manner such that you could become really engaged with middle-earth lore and the fantasy elements of the fighting and the action. You didn't feel any of that with the hobbit.
Yes, the hobbit book has a lighter mood than LOTR, so peter jackson has actually done a really good job being able to notice that, along with keeping the movie pretty much the same as the book in terms of the storyline, but that doesn't mean you had to make the movie so comical. Seriously...seeing radagast portrayed as this bumbling nerd loser with a bird's nest in his hair almost made me laugh in the middle of the theater. what the hell dude..
|
Yeah I'm not gonna get through to you
|
On December 31 2012 10:48 Cele wrote:
As a fan of Tolkiens books, this movie offends me.
these posts please tell me why? did you want the words just put to a movie? or a modern adaptation of the work that will reach a new audience and hopfully inspire a new generation with his work?
|
On December 31 2012 13:36 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 10:48 Cele wrote:
As a fan of Tolkiens books, this movie offends me. these posts please tell me why? did you want the words just put to a movie? or a modern adaptation of the work that will reach a new audience and hopfully inspire a new generation with his work?
It's not a modern adaptation of Tolkien' work, it's a perversion. How could such a movie, which doesn't have anything in common with the spirit of Tolkien's wokr, inspire a new generation. Please tell me.
|
Saw this movie twice already. I thought it was amazing and it didn't even feel as long as it was because I was entertained almost the entire time. A little slow at times yes, but it gave me the same epic feel the previous lotr movies did. Visually stunning at times as usual.
All the haters absolutely shitting on this film need to get a new hobby. Why can't things be enjoyed for what they are? No this is not an exact word for word adaptation of the books or what you had imagined in your mind, get over it. Go make me a better one.
|
Haven't read the books, I swear they spent half of the movie running away from something, and somehow none of the Dwarves managed to die after all the certain death moments and of course Gandalf bailed their ass out of certain death at least five times.
Not as good as LotR was for me but okay entertainment, didn't really feel some of the scenes though like the trolls and gollum while some people seemed to think he was best part of the movie, oh well.. Maybe too childish for me overall.
|
On December 31 2012 18:40 Frieder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 13:36 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:On December 31 2012 10:48 Cele wrote:
As a fan of Tolkiens books, this movie offends me. these posts please tell me why? did you want the words just put to a movie? or a modern adaptation of the work that will reach a new audience and hopfully inspire a new generation with his work? It's not a modern adaptation of Tolkien' work, it's a perversion. How could such a movie, which doesn't have anything in common with the spirit of Tolkien's wokr, inspire a new generation. Please tell me.
People watch the movie, like it, then read the book.
Crazy isn't it ?
|
All the haters absolutely shitting on this film need to get a new hobby. Why can't things be enjoyed for what they are? No this is not an exact word for word adaptation of the books or what you had imagined in your mind, get over it. Go make me a better one. Then you would tend to enjoy anything, even shit movies. A nice thought, but it is the awareness that something is shit, that makes you appreciate what is not, all the more.
People watch the movie, like it, then read the book.
Crazy isn't it ? Yeah, you are right. The book makes you aware that you tried to manipulate your mind into forcibly like the movie. That is pretty crazy.
|
To be fair, the hobbit is originnaly a child book.
|
Glad I saw it, but can't help feeling disappointed. Peter Jackson lacks discipline as a director, the movie was way too long and frankly sloppy. However I do think it was saved by amazing production values and great casting. Another complaint I have was that there was too much sentimentality and "epicness" for only the first film, it came across as forced. Save it for the climax FFS.
|
On December 31 2012 20:33 Vaelone wrote:
Haven't read the books, I swear they spent half of the movie running away from something, and somehow none of the Dwarves managed to die after all the certain death moments and of course Gandalf bailed their ass out of certain death at least five times.
Not as good as LotR was for me but okay entertainment, didn't really feel some of the scenes though like the trolls and gollum while some people seemed to think he was best part of the movie, oh well.. Maybe too childish for me overall.
The lacks of deaths only looks strange because Peter Jackson has ramped up the "epicness" of the plot. The book is a lot more tame, and is frankly better for it. I think the movie would've been better served by a more, not less, childish production.
|
|
|
On December 31 2012 22:51 J1.au wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 20:33 Vaelone wrote:
Haven't read the books, I swear they spent half of the movie running away from something, and somehow none of the Dwarves managed to die after all the certain death moments and of course Gandalf bailed their ass out of certain death at least five times.
Not as good as LotR was for me but okay entertainment, didn't really feel some of the scenes though like the trolls and gollum while some people seemed to think he was best part of the movie, oh well.. Maybe too childish for me overall. The lacks of deaths only looks strange because Peter Jackson has ramped up the "epicness" of the plot. The book is a lot more tame, and is frankly better for it. I think the movie would've been better served by a more, not less, childish production.
I couldn't agree more, I wanted to comment something along these lines but couldn't find the words to express it.
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
Great movie, saw it a bit late but enjoyed it alot. (critis are too harsh but the movie isnt perfect)
One thing I will say
If we are comparing The Unexpected Journey to The Fellowship of the Ring, the Unexpected Journey does not match up to Fellowship of the Ring's epicness and characters. Not saying the dwarves were terrible actors, but there just isnt enough time to get everyone acquainted with 13 dwarves in 1 movie despite it being 169 minutes long.
I think the 2nd and 3rd movies will be amazing. Probably necromancer for 2nd movie and 5 Army Battle for 3rd
Also I sat through the previews and there are like 20 movies that are Twilight ripoffs coming out. The fuck man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
