EPT[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 56
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
white_horse
1019 Posts
| ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 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... Yes. And they were also terrible. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
I always thought them to be shit, but that was because I wanted them to be exactly like the books. Only now did I realise that it's just not possible because books are a different medium and that Peter Jackson and his crew did an excellent job on converting the books to movies. You have to remember that people who haven't read the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion and all other published works should also be able to enjoy the movies set in Tolkien's universe. You have to make sure things make sense without requiring the viewer to read a few pages of description before every scene. You cannot have vague references and huge descriptive blocks of text in a movie. | ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
I think the riddle scene was well done, and I could get over the little things they changed from the book, but I don;t feel that Gollum had as much of an impact on me as he did in LotR. I didn;t really get the sense of hopelessness and utter despair. But then again he was only on screen for about 20 minutes, and the didn't have time to really flush out the character. Something that really bothered is that the goblin king spoke with a proper English accent, I wanted him to be more disgusting I guess. My biggest gripe about the movie was that I knew what scenes were written by Tolkien and what scenes were written by Jackson and his crew. I felt there was a lot of forced humour and somewhat corny lines thrown. The rabbit sled anyone? Overall I did enjoy it. But I really think they should have just stuck with the original story line and kept it in one movie. | ||
|
Shellebelles
51 Posts
9/10 - didn't give it a 10 because I was so hyped up thinking I would see Legolas again and he wasn't in the movie. | ||
|
TOCHMY
Sweden1692 Posts
On January 04 2013 02:01 Retgery wrote: SO I went and saw it last night with a friend, and she hasn't read the hobbit or seen any of the other movies, so I didn't have anyone to really discuss it with. On the topic of 48 fps, i had very mixed feelings on it. In any scenes with landscapes or panoramic views, I thought it looked absolutely incredible. Especially the last scene with the eagles. I feel like the higher frames made the special effects look more noticeable and not as realistic. Did anyone else notice that trees looked very different? I think the riddle scene was well done, and I could get over the little things they changed from the book, but I don;t feel that Gollum had as much of an impact on me as he did in LotR. I didn;t really get the sense of hopelessness and utter despair. But then again he was only on screen for about 20 minutes, and the didn't have time to really flush out the character. Something that really bothered is that the goblin king spoke with a proper English accent, I wanted him to be more disgusting I guess. My biggest gripe about the movie was that I knew what scenes were written by Tolkien and what scenes were written by Jackson and his crew. I felt there was a lot of forced humour and somewhat corny lines thrown. The rabbit sled anyone? Overall I did enjoy it. But I really think they should have just stuck with the original story line and kept it in one movie. What did your friend think, as she haven't read/seen LOTR or Hobbit`? | ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
On January 04 2013 02:11 TOCHMY wrote: What did your friend think, as she haven't read/seen LOTR or Hobbit`? She said she liked it, but she isn't really the kind to over analyse things like me. I had to explain quite a few things though, she didn't know what a hobbit was. | ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
On January 04 2013 01:51 Thorakh wrote: I recently watched them all again (after several years) and this time the extended editions and my goodness, the LotR movies are amazing. They all capture the spirit the spirit of Tolkien's masterwork. Really? Please tell me more. Amazing job, how Jackson captured the character of Faramir, amazing how he presented Sam. + Show Spoiler + Not. Jackson did not capture the spirit of Tolkien's work. Not at all. The movies may be good as movies, I don't know enough to judge them as movies per se. But they do not tell the story, which Tolkien tells us. You have to remember that people who haven't read the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion and all other published works should also be able to enjoy the movies set in Tolkien's universe. You have to make sure things make sense without requiring the viewer to read a few pages of description before every scene. You cannot have vague references and huge descriptive blocks of text in a movie. I don't want vague references and huge descriptive blocks of text in a movie. If Jackson claims to tell the story of The Hobbit, then I want him to do that and not make stupid and unnecessary changes, which pervert the character of some important persons and as a result the character of the story (e. g. Faramir, and introducing an alive Azog (!) in The Hobbit). | ||
|
mechavoc
United States664 Posts
Some parts were done very well I liked the riddles in the dark, I liked the bag end meal, I really like the build up/history where they told the story of iron mountain. It was like a video game the silliness of riding on the mountain giant's leg, the arcade like fight in the goblin cave (slide at the end, come on now), the trees hitting one another like dominoes, The Brown, riding the sled of rabbits, come on now. Really I feel like there were two distinct sides to this film the underlying story which Tolkien laid out (the good parts ) and the silly Hollywood parts that are meant to keep an attention deficit prone audience fed with a steady stream of action every second. (I have read LOTR and TH several times) | ||
|
TotoroHren
Croatia31 Posts
| ||
|
Soulstice
United States288 Posts
| ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
Another thing that hadn't occurred to me until my friend pointed it out was that there's like no women at all, which is true to the book, but still probably turns off a lot of girls/women. I'm pretty sure Galadriel is the only female character with lines at all. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On January 04 2013 02:46 Frieder wrote: I can agree that there are some dubious changes in The Hobbit movie, but I fail to see your point with Faramir and Sam. Yes, Faramir might've hestitated a moment to help Frodo, but in the end he did. Given the backstory in the movie about how Faramir feels rejected by his father, it makes perfect sense for him to claim the ring as gift for Denethor, yet his true self still shines through in the end and he lets Frodo go.Really? Please tell me more. Amazing job, how Jackson captured the character of Faramir, amazing how he presented Sam. + Show Spoiler + Not. Jackson did not capture the spirit of Tolkien's work. Not at all. The movies may be good as movies, I don't know enough to judge them as movies per se. But they do not tell the story, which Tolkien tells us. I don't want vague references and huge descriptive blocks of text in a movie. If Jackson claims to tell the story of The Hobbit, then I want him to do that and not make stupid and unnecessary changes, which pervert the character of some important persons and as a result the character of the story (e. g. Faramir, and introducing an alive Azog (!) in The Hobbit). And Sam? Care to elaborate? | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5711 Posts
On January 04 2013 01:21 white_horse wrote: seems like most people who enjoyed it are those who read the book. I read the book and that's the only reason why I was able to enjoy the movie. I can't imagine someone who hasn't read the book having a good time watching the movie. Like people said, too predictable and too stretched out. If you read the book at least you know whats going on and are able to anticipate the next scene when your at a boring ass part of the movie. Haven't read the book, enjoyed the movie thoroughly. One of the best movies I saw in 2012 easy. People need to understand why it's predictable. It's based on a book that has been around since 1937. Ofc it's going to be predictable, if anything this is one of the books that established how stories and adventures like these are told. Can't wait for other installments and for them to deal with the necromancer and what happens with the ring. | ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
On January 04 2013 04:58 Thorakh wrote: I can agree that there are some dubious changes in The Hobbit movie, but I fail to see your point with Faramir and Sam. Yes, Faramir might've hestitated a moment to help Frodo, but in the end he did. Given the backstory in the movie about how Faramir feels rejected by his father, it makes perfect sense for him to claim the ring as gift for Denethor, yet his true self still shines through in the end and he lets Frodo go. And Sam? Care to elaborate? Faramir, as described by Tolkien is the ideal Christian knight (of our Middle Ages). He is full of wisdom, fidelity and knowledge. In his person the just war theory is expressed directly. He is one of the most heroic figures. How Jackson presents him, his mostly negative. Yes, with his backstory he fits into the movie, but he is not Tolkien's Faramir. About Faramir there are some older posts. Yeah, Sam was not the best example. He is not drastically changed, like Faramir. About him maybe another time. | ||
|
Ganfei2
473 Posts
On January 04 2013 02:46 Frieder wrote: Really? Please tell me more. Amazing job, how Jackson captured the character of Faramir, amazing how he presented Sam. + Show Spoiler + Not. Jackson did not capture the spirit of Tolkien's work. Not at all. The movies may be good as movies, I don't know enough to judge them as movies per se. But they do not tell the story, which Tolkien tells us. I don't want vague references and huge descriptive blocks of text in a movie. If Jackson claims to tell the story of The Hobbit, then I want him to do that and not make stupid and unnecessary changes, which pervert the character of some important persons and as a result the character of the story (e. g. Faramir, and introducing an alive Azog (!) in The Hobbit). you need to calm down just because someone liked something you didn,t | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 04 2013 05:24 Zooper31 wrote: Haven't read the book, enjoyed the movie thoroughly. One of the best movies I saw in 2012 easy. People need to understand why it's predictable. It's based on a book that has been around since 1937. Ofc it's going to be predictable, if anything this is one of the books that established how stories and adventures like these are told. Can't wait for other installments and for them to deal with the necromancer and what happens with the ring. Yes, adventure stories were invented in 1937... The predictability of the movie comes strictly from 1. familiarity with the source material - most people have read the novels or watched Lord of the Rings, which goes over the events of the hobbit often and 2. lazy plotting by Jackson in order to fill time. The second reason is clearly the biggest offender, because it is rooted in movie cliches while you are watching a movie. Hence it's more to blame for the predictability than the first reason, since you are usually still wondering how a scene from the books will be brought to life exactly. | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On January 03 2013 23:35 Arkless wrote: 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. Well Jackson pretty much had a blank slate with Radagast. He never directly appears in the narrative of any of Tolkien's works. He's either gone or people are talking about what he did or said. So realistically, one could fill in Radagast with pretty much anything. Jackson decided to make Radagast, Sylvestor McCoy and it didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. That said, I'm not overly fond of any of the drug jokes in the trilogy or here and I'll grant you I had imagined Radagast a more graver fellow. I had at one point thought he might even be on the White Council until I came across Tolkien's musings that perhaps Radagast had failed in his task. On a wizard/White Council side note, I loved the reference to the unnamed blue wizards. Something that would pass by your average viewer no doubt, but terribly funny for someone that has read everything they could get their hands on for more information on wizards/Istari/ the White Council. I had always imagined the White Council a rather larger body of people- Celeborn and Cirdan or Cirdan's representative seemed a given to me. And Glorfindel seemed pretty likely given how powerful an elf-lord he was. Erestor was a longshot, but the other three seemed highly probable. But the only ones that were confirmed for sure by Tolkien appeared in the movie and it would be too complicated to add all those extra elves. I just love the extra White Council stuff because of the amount of wondering I have done over the years on who exactly were in the White Council and what exactly they did. It's nice seeing a version of that wondering on screen. I would agree with the goblin king's last words complaint though. The entire time Jackson is doing a balancing act between the whimsy and fairy tale of The Hobbit story and the darker more complex narrative that Tolkien had later recontextualized with The Quest of Erebor. The goblin king's exit was a swing back into light-hearted territory, but it was less successful than other parts of the movie. On January 04 2013 05:50 Frieder wrote: Faramir, as described by Tolkien is the ideal Christian knight (of our Middle Ages). He is full of wisdom, fidelity and knowledge. In his person the just war theory is expressed directly. He is one of the most heroic figures. How Jackson presents him, his mostly negative. Yes, with his backstory he fits into the movie, but he is not Tolkien's Faramir. About Faramir there are some older posts. I'll admit this is one of the changes that drove me crazy when I first watched LotR's. There was a period where I refused to buy the films because of these sorts of changes. But I got the Fellowship extended for a Christmas and listened to a lot of the commentaries for that film and than later for the other two. I would go one further- Aragorn and Faramir are both characters that a modern reader have a hard time with because they are not 'relatable' they aren't the struggling everyman on a heroes journey. They are heroes much more in the vein of medieval literature. They are above the common man and are echoes of how great men of Numenor used to be. It's the hobbits who are relatable. That come from a mundane world where nothing particularly exciting happens, but come into contact with these great men that do great deeds. (One of Sam's highest aspirations is to go see Elves) We are introduced to fantastical world through the eyes of some pretty unassuming characters. Jackson decided to tone that down, giving Aragorn identity things to wrestle about- it was never a question for Aragorn in book on whether he would take up kingship- saving the sword for the final film is indicative of this change. They were concerned with undermining the power of the ring with how Faramir reacts to the ring in the book. Parallel changes can be seen by making Frodo younger and Thorin as well so that they have more of a coming into their own story arc. That particular story arc is portrayed visually a little easier when the characters look younger rather than a 50 year old bachelor and eldest of the dwarf company. In the end, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all the changes made. But I understand the changes and I understand the thought process behind the changes- and that it wasn't just thoughtless changes. And I think that was largely what enabled me to make my peace about the film adaptations. (That and listening to a lot of Professor Corey Olsen's podcasts. He has a pretty reasonable take on the films.) Just came across this article in the Huffington Post: In Defence of The Hobbit | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 04 2013 05:50 Frieder wrote: Faramir, as described by Tolkien is the ideal Christian knight (of our Middle Ages). He is full of wisdom, fidelity and knowledge. In his person the just war theory is expressed directly. He is one of the most heroic figures. How Jackson presents him, his mostly negative. Yes, with his backstory he fits into the movie, but he is not Tolkien's Faramir. About Faramir there are some older posts. Yeah, Sam was not the best example. He is not drastically changed, like Faramir. About him maybe another time. Faramir was essentially a canon Marty Stu character. He was so incorruptibly pure that The One Ring couldn't touch him...a trait shared only by Tom Bombadil. | ||
|
white_horse
1019 Posts
| ||
| ||
