EPT[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 54
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
musafischer
19 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On January 03 2013 09:18 white_horse wrote: that isn't an excuse for the worst parts of the movie, namely radagast and the cartoony singing/dancing. They had the right idea making it less intense than LOTR but they way they did it seriously distracts you from the storyline. His complaint wasn't "if they removed Radagast" it was "if they removed the childish stuff". And the singing and dancing was awesome, I fucking loved it. It was a huge part of the Hobbit. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
Watched the movie on IMAX 3D (I am told it was 24FPS), and that ended up being my biggest gripe with the film. Whenever there were scenes involving fast camera movement the picture quality went to shit and everything blurred severely. I will go rewatch it in 2D in a week or two, I think, as the blur made it hard to enjoy several scenes. Thread Comment: Don't know why some of you struggle so hard to understand/accept that some people will have different opinions to you... Nobody is 'right'. | ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
On January 03 2013 03:29 Seuss wrote: I think what we've learned here is that you can't be all things to all people. Diehard fans of the book are upset because Peter Jackson made changes/additions that tie in with the original trilogy. These additions largely reflect the more epic scope of the Lord of the Rings, and end up being out of place in a more childish tale. However, without these changes the people who have never read any of the books and only know Tolkien through the recent movies would be confused by the dramatic shift in tone. But not every diehard fan. I think I could go toe to toe in Tolkien geekiness with most Tolkien geeks here. I knew a lot of the changes going in and knew many of the reasons for it and I enjoyed the film. I can see people not putting it in their top 10 films of 2012, but I don't agree with CNN's "worst movie experience of 2012." It was the film I enjoyed the most in theatres this year, but I think I only saw 3 in theatres and superhero films aren't really my thing so even if they're well done, they will necessarily be lower for me. | ||
|
iSometric
2221 Posts
| ||
|
skatblast
United States784 Posts
| ||
|
Ario
Canada73 Posts
One of the main things I disliked in the movie was how every fight scene seemed to all be really similar. It was either: - Gandalf was with the group, they all run from the enemy and end up getting saved by someone else. - Gandalf was not with the group, and ends up being the one saving them. Are the dwarves really so bad that they can't win a single fight against anyone without wizard/eagle/elf help? | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
There were a lot of things that could have been improved though. Many have been mentioned in this thread (the Radagast scene was pretty bad, I don't think they should have aimed this film at a younger audience). The biggest thing for me though was the lack of stage presence some of the dwarves had. Balin was the only one that really stood out as an interesting character. Thorin so far has been completely underwhelming. I think they should have got John Rhys-Davies back to play Gloin. He was so awesome as Gimli it would've worked; but considering how much they're stretching this out I expect Gimli will turn up at some point. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On January 03 2013 11:48 Ario wrote: Question for the people who have read the book: were any of the battles changes in the movie? One of the main things I disliked in the movie was how every fight scene seemed to all be really similar. It was either: - Gandalf was with the group, they all run from the enemy and end up getting saved by someone else. - Gandalf was not with the group, and ends up being the one saving them. Are the dwarves really so bad that they can't win a single fight against anyone without wizard/eagle/elf help? No... they are actually supposed to be awesome but it doesn't really come across. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On January 03 2013 11:00 Falling wrote: But not every diehard fan. I think I could go toe to toe in Tolkien geekiness with most Tolkien geeks here. I knew a lot of the changes going in and knew many of the reasons for it and I enjoyed the film. Same here. I went through a phase in 7th grade during which I would carry around my atlas of Middle Earth and the Silmarilion, taking advantage of every spare moment to compare the figures and estimates in the atlas with the text of my favorite Tolkien work for accuracy, and even I enjoyed the movie. I feel as though a great many people make the mistake of assuming that a good piece of literature can be entirely converted into film or theatre, when in fact the best literary movies are more like elaborate works of homage than accurate recreations (Jackson's LOTR is an excellent example). I can't help but feel as though a lot of the people who are like "Oh my God Peter Jackson ripped out my little Hobbit heart with this movie" are simply the sort of who enjoy negativity when prompted for critical reflection. That the movie is "horrible" seems like a very difficult position to defend. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 03 2013 11:48 Ario wrote: Question for the people who have read the book: were any of the battles changes in the movie? One of the main things I disliked in the movie was how every fight scene seemed to all be really similar. It was either: - Gandalf was with the group, they all run from the enemy and end up getting saved by someone else. - Gandalf was not with the group, and ends up being the one saving them. Are the dwarves really so bad that they can't win a single fight against anyone without wizard/eagle/elf help? 1) None of the battles were described in the book. Tolkien detailed the build-up, came up with a reason why you never actually say it (mostly Bilbo wasn't there), and then made some comments about it being awesome after the fact. 2) Yeah, the Dwarves basically lost a lot. The Trolls actually ambushed them, so there wasn't even a struggle, and Gandalf never did the rock breaking thing (Bilbo just talked and stalled them). Goblins were mostly the same, though I think Gandalf was with them from the start. I think they fared slightly better against the Orcs, but they were just random Orcs in the book...no big bad Pale Orc. And it really doesn't get better for the Dwarves in the second half. | ||
|
Whiplash
United States2928 Posts
 | ||
|
Ario
Canada73 Posts
On January 03 2013 12:13 WolfintheSheep wrote: 1) None of the battles were described in the book. Tolkien detailed the build-up, came up with a reason why you never actually say it (mostly Bilbo wasn't there), and then made some comments about it being awesome after the fact. 2) Yeah, the Dwarves basically lost a lot. The Trolls actually ambushed them, so there wasn't even a struggle, and Gandalf never did the rock breaking thing (Bilbo just talked and stalled them). Goblins were mostly the same, though I think Gandalf was with them from the start. I think they fared slightly better against the Orcs, but they were just random Orcs in the book...no big bad Pale Orc. And it really doesn't get better for the Dwarves in the second half. Well, that explains a lot. A little bit disappointed that it doesn't get better for them, I was honestly hoping that they would eventually be a mini army of Gimlis :p. Ah well, I'll probably still watch the rest just to see how it ends. I thought it was a decent movie overall, just didn't live up to the hype of being a second LotR trilogy. | ||
|
Kouda
United States2205 Posts
Honestly, I got so glued to it. It was insanee how much i enjoyed it | ||
|
Spiffeh
United States830 Posts
book was way better | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On January 03 2013 11:33 iSometric wrote: People should realize the Fellowship/TTT/ROTK movies changed a lot from the original books as did this movie, so chill... I am actually more annoyed by the ending of LotR than I am of the changes to the hobbit. I think a great deal of the message from LotR was lost due to the omission whilst the changes and omissions of the hobbit is more cosmetic so far. | ||
|
vasculaR
Malaysia791 Posts
| ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On January 03 2013 10:05 Whitewing wrote: His complaint wasn't "if they removed Radagast" it was "if they removed the childish stuff". And the singing and dancing was awesome, I fucking loved it. It was a huge part of the Hobbit. Whether or not the singing/dancing is good is everyone's own opinion. Also, singing/dancing is not a "huge part" of the book. "Childish" doesn't mean putting in gay little antics and cartoony characters like radagast. What "childish" should mean is something like "lighter in tone and atmosphere than LOTR". jackson got that right but he did it in the wrong way. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
On January 03 2013 09:18 white_horse wrote: that isn't an excuse for the worst parts of the movie, namely radagast and the cartoony singing/dancing. They had the right idea making it less intense than LOTR but they way they did it seriously distracts you from the storyline. Chip the glasses and crack the plates! Blunt the knives and bend the forks! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates— Smash the bottles and burn the corks! Cut the cloth and tread on the fat! Pour the milk on the pantry floor! Leave the bones on the bedroom mat! Splash the wine on every door! Dump the crocks in a boiling bowl; Pound them up with a thumping pole; And when you’ve finished if any are whole, Send them down the hall to roll! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates! So, carefully! carefully with the plates!! O! Where are you going With beards all a-wagging? No knowing, no knowing What brings Mister Baggins, And Balin and Dwalin down into the valley in June ha! ha! Fifteen birds in five firtrees, their feathers were fanned in a fiery breeze! But, funny little birds, they had no wings! O what shall we do with the funny little things? Roast 'em alive, or stew them in a pot; fry them, boil them and eat them hot? Old fat spider spinning in a tree! Old fat spider can’t see me! Attercop! Attercop! Won't you stop, Stop your spinning and look for me! Sing we now softly, and dreams let us weave him! Wind him in slumber and there let us leave him! The wanderer sleepeth. Now soft be his pillow! Lullaby! Lullaby! Alder and Willow! Sigh no more Pine, till the wind of the morn! Fall Moon! Dark be the land! Hush! Hush! Oak, Ash, and Thorn! Hushed be all water, till dawn is at hand! There's a lot of "detracting" songs in the hobbit. | ||
|
bjwithbraces
United States549 Posts
On January 03 2013 17:51 igotmyown wrote: There's a lot of "detracting" songs in the hobbit. you made my night/day, thank you. | ||
| ||
