|
On January 03 2013 10:05 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 09:18 white_horse wrote:On January 03 2013 01:59 Whitewing wrote:On January 02 2013 17:07 Hider wrote:
Had they removed the "childish" stuff and replaced it with some awesomeness instead + increased the paceness in the beginning (though I just skipped that), it would have been really awesome and close to on level with LOTR.
As it is right now, it was kinda average. It's SUPPOSED to be more childish than LOTR you dolt. -_- 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.
The books contain loads of singing and poems, finally they made it into the movies (LOTR had like 1 sing moment?). The singing and "childish" stuff was really good IMO!
|
I wish they'd committed more to the singing! It's a really interesting part of the book and adds to the character of the dwarves and to the back-story as a whole.
|
|
|
On January 03 2013 19:32 krndandaman wrote:
I might just be ignorant because I've never watched or read LOTR/Hobbit but I thought the movie was dreadfully boring. Watched it with 2 friends, both of them fell asleep while I forced myself to stay up. Too much pointless singing/dancing, predictable outcomes, and no logic at all in the flow of events. The whole theater as they left were muttering about how boring it was. It might be because I know nothing about the story or it just might not be my cup of tea, but I'm kind of convinced that it's just bad.
It's probably just because you know nothing about the story, I'm not going to lie. The singing is a part of all the books, and I believe Tolkien really enjoyed writing the songs and poems.
|
You don't have to read the singing in the books, it's all clearly marked and you can just skip over it like most people will do. They are also not very memorable songs, there is a reason Tolkien didn't start a music career. :o
In any case, I watched this movie a week ago and I can't say I wasn't entertained. It's marvelous as a production, well-acted, well-paced, the action sequences were good, there were even some emotional moments. However, this is while being in the movie theater - honestly afterwards I could scarcely remember any incident from the movie. Nothing stands out as particularly awesome except maybe a few iconic scenes. Even so I can't see this as the "worst movie experience of 2012", that's ridiculous.
I didn't think it was a very good movie though, it was heavily padded with uninteresting story additions. And before anyone says that Peter Jackson simply lifted them from LotR appendices, so they are canon... who cares? If Tolkien makes an appendix with a brief story outline of "gandalf and some others ousted the necromancer" then why is it necessary to film this? Lord of the Rings was interesting because it was an interesting story, not because it was a basic plot outline of "hobbit finds artifact, travels to volcano to destroy it, meanwhile war happens + note to self: create interesting monsters". Frankly I don't think it could have worked out even with a different director. It becomes tricky to have more incidents happen that aren't mindless character-growth or action scenes, because you are clearly making up something that's not in the books. I think the problem ultimately lies with the decision to try and copy the style of Lord of the Rings, when the source material couldn't support it. It disrespects the qualities The Hobbit does have, imo, I thought it was a very fun children's book and I would have loved to see a single movie that focuses instead on Bilbo's ingenuity and courage as opposed to dwarf, orc, goblin, elf wizard scheming.
I also went through the trouble of watching The Frighteners and King Kong, the two movies Jackson made before and after LotR, and actually they have pretty much the same flaws as The Hobbit: self-indulgence, too much love for the technical side of things, a lack of good story structure, overly long, lack of editing, a bad sense of humor. I read reviews for The Lovely Bones, another movie he made, and the reviews were similar. I can't help but think that Jackson is a frustrating filmmaker and is simply incredibly overrated after he got lucky with Lord of the Rings. I think that LotR was simply so dense and already so filled with story and dialogue that it was hard to ruin for any competent director. Jackson would have needed to edit it down to manageable lengths, so he couldn't be as self-indulgent.
|
Grumbels you know the necromancers is Sauron right?
|
From what I had read I was expecting pretty much Episode I: A Phantom MenaceAn Unexpected Journey complete with Jar Jar/Radagast, but I was pleasantly surprised. Not as good as the original trilogy, it was entertaining and I'm looking forward to the next two, which hopefully improve on the first one (Episode II > Episode I, so Desolation of Smaug >An Unexpected Journey?).
|
On January 03 2013 20:06 kollin wrote:
Grumbels you know the necromancers is Sauron right?
Yes, I'm aware. It was made painfully obvious in the movie. I still don't see why it's necessary to film this, if all PJ is going to do is flesh out this plot point by adding generic speeches and action sequences. To make this legitimately interesting you'd need to invent new plot developments, and I don't trust Peter Jackson to do this, nor do I think the fans will allow him to give it a try.
|
I enjoyed it. I haven't read the book, but it felt a little too 'epic'. Like, some seemingly unnecessary big special effects and action, and some downright laughable bits (barely keeping their footing on the stone giants when its raining... then they start fighting and they're somehow able to hold on perfectly fine).
My friend who was a huge fan of the book started raging after we saw it, complaining about some bits that were in the movie that werent in the book and stuff.
|
On January 03 2013 19:09 TOCHMY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 10:05 Whitewing wrote:On January 03 2013 09:18 white_horse wrote:On January 03 2013 01:59 Whitewing wrote:On January 02 2013 17:07 Hider wrote:
Had they removed the "childish" stuff and replaced it with some awesomeness instead + increased the paceness in the beginning (though I just skipped that), it would have been really awesome and close to on level with LOTR.
As it is right now, it was kinda average. It's SUPPOSED to be more childish than LOTR you dolt. -_- 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. The books contain loads of singing and poems, finally they made it into the movies (LOTR had like 1 sing moment?). The singing and "childish" stuff was really good IMO!
Lotr had at least 5 sing moments. The most famous one would be Pipin singing "home is behind" but then he and marry also dance and sing on the table in the beginning of trotk. Also Aragorn sings right after he get crowned and during the EE of tfotr he sings about his mother. And the last one i remember is Eowyn singing in the EE of TTT at the funeral of the rohan prince.
|
I feel like part of a minority that think the first one at least is more entertaining than any single installment of Jackson's LotR trilogy. It may be that my love for the source material combined with Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo are clouding my vision or something, but I absolutely loved it even considering the changes.
|
On January 03 2013 21:43 Kaien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 19:09 TOCHMY wrote:On January 03 2013 10:05 Whitewing wrote:On January 03 2013 09:18 white_horse wrote:On January 03 2013 01:59 Whitewing wrote:On January 02 2013 17:07 Hider wrote:
Had they removed the "childish" stuff and replaced it with some awesomeness instead + increased the paceness in the beginning (though I just skipped that), it would have been really awesome and close to on level with LOTR.
As it is right now, it was kinda average. It's SUPPOSED to be more childish than LOTR you dolt. -_- 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. The books contain loads of singing and poems, finally they made it into the movies (LOTR had like 1 sing moment?). The singing and "childish" stuff was really good IMO! Lotr had at least 5 sing moments. The most famous one would be Pipin singing "home is behind" but then he and marry also dance and sing on the table in the beginning of trotk. Also Aragorn sings right after he get crowned and during the EE of tfotr he sings about his mother. And the last one i remember is Eowyn singing in the EE of TTT at the funeral of the rohan prince.
Thanks for reminding me. I only remember the song that pipp sang to the douche king. I now vaguely remember the song Aragorn sings. Some of what you mentioned are in the extra material version, I belive. I haven't seen those.
|
It should have been cut down to a 2 hour movie and everything beyond that should have gone in the directors cut. I still wouldn't have thought it was a good movie, or a story deserving a trilogy, but at least I would have finished watching it without it feeling like a chore.
It has all the flaws of LOTR (bad dialogue, poor acting), but lacks the 'big' good vs evil storyline plus characters you can distinguish from eachother (13 dwarves are largely interchangable) and its like Jackson tried to cover it up with even more CGI and shots of nature. Waste of money for the almost 20 euros you spend on watching this in 3d with a beer and popcorn in cinema.
|
Saw it for the first time on new years day, was very impressed. I haven't read the hobbit since I was ~10 (18 years back!) but I was impressed by how much of the actual dialogue from the book was used (and how much I remembered). I greatly appreciated the things they brought in from other source material - it made the Hobbit movie fit better into the mythology than the Hobbit the book did. This shouldn't be so surprising, it was written first before most of the mythology was conceived. It makes all the sense in the world to me to go back and reincorporate the mythology to make it fit. Not really a fan of the bunny sled, but didn't mind Radagast in general. I feel like Jackson really captured children's story soul of the Hobbit while making it more serious at the same time.
I'm surprised there's so much criticism, I greatly enjoyed it. I also don't like how so many people are saying that Jackson is milking the story for more money by splitting it into 3 parts - If he wanted to do that he'ld make a trilogy of 1:45 movies instead of a trilogy of 3 hour long movies! He's made it a trilogy to accommodate the additional material from that he's pulling from other canon sources. I also can't understand the 48 Hz criticism, it's just nonsense. I bought a 120 Hz LCD last year, turned on the full 120 Hz interpolation and have left it on since. It took about a week to get used to it, but now that I'm used to it, it's the future. People complain because they like to complain.
|
I feel like the other LOTR films overshadowed the Hobbit in so many ways, apart from magnificent camerawork and screenplay I don't think the Hobbit was realistically that good, Twin Towers brought to life the characters whilst keeping the integrity of the genre and delivering some powerful messages regarding loyalty and trust, the Hobbit left a bad 3-hour taste in my mouth as I wondered what I was actually watching? If you wanna go see mindless killing there are 100s of Saw lookalikes. Just my opinion as a film enthusiast 
|
I feel like they bastardized Radagast. When reading the book I never pictured him as some crazy dude with bird shit in his hair. Not imposing what so ever. Radagast was always the bad ass hermit, I guess I'm just nitpicking.
|
^ yeah, Radagast is bad ass in the book , takes bear form/kills wargs etc .
|
On January 04 2013 00:44 FireS wrote:
^ yeah, Radagast is bad ass in the book , takes bear form/kills wargs etc .
Isnt that Beorn?
|
On January 04 2013 00:47 Slakkoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 00:44 FireS wrote:
^ yeah, Radagast is bad ass in the book , takes bear form/kills wargs etc . Isnt that Beorn? Yes.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 03 2013 23:20 revy wrote:
Saw it for the first time on new years day, was very impressed. I haven't read the hobbit since I was ~10 (18 years back!) but I was impressed by how much of the actual dialogue from the book was used (and how much I remembered). I greatly appreciated the things they brought in from other source material - it made the Hobbit movie fit better into the mythology than the Hobbit the book did. This shouldn't be so surprising, it was written first before most of the mythology was conceived. It makes all the sense in the world to me to go back and reincorporate the mythology to make it fit. Not really a fan of the bunny sled, but didn't mind Radagast in general. I feel like Jackson really captured children's story soul of the Hobbit while making it more serious at the same time.
I'm surprised there's so much criticism, I greatly enjoyed it. I also don't like how so many people are saying that Jackson is milking the story for more money by splitting it into 3 parts - If he wanted to do that he'ld make a trilogy of 1:45 movies instead of a trilogy of 3 hour long movies! He's made it a trilogy to accommodate the additional material from that he's pulling from other canon sources. I also can't understand the 48 Hz criticism, it's just nonsense. I bought a 120 Hz LCD last year, turned on the full 120 Hz interpolation and have left it on since. It took about a week to get used to it, but now that I'm used to it, it's the future. People complain because they like to complain.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
