Oh you are banned Anyways. The entire notion that stories ought to as its primary purpose tell a moral lesson would rankle Tolkien. He hated the didactic nature of children's stories of his days that mostly an excuse to teach Johnny to be a good boy (Tom Brown's School Days.) The point is to tell a good story for its own sake. That is cause enough for Tolkien. If it is applicable, all well and good.
As for tone. You have to understand, that was one my single greatest hatreds of the original trilogy. Amped up battles, crazy antics, stupid dwarf tossing jokes. Everything was bigger, louder, and brasher and Lothlorien darker. A battle which lasted 20 pages would last one third of the movie whereas the trilogy was much more understated with violence and a greater sense of sorrow post-battle. No question that the LotR's film trilogy will be objectively better when all is said and done, but the tonal shift was as significant for me.
But if we are comparing tones we are also comparing book to movie, which you also say one is bound to be disappointed. Which is why coming into The Hobbit, I was not expecting a book to movie translation. But rather given how Jackson has interpreted Middle Earth to the screen, how will he interpret The Hobbit to match the same world he created before.
I've said this before, but many of the changes by Jackson are ones made by Tolkien to bring The Hobbit more in line with the rest of universe. Yes it gets Hollywoodized- the Forge Fight and pirroetting and rail-sliding Elves (which if I take a step back, are my least favourite changes.) But the change in tone I am completely fine with as Tolkien was trying the same thing. It's uneven in places and sometimes it doesn't work, but I appreciate the Quest of Erebor inclusions.
I don't think Jackson's interpretation will be the last word on the matter, but it is one word. I see it more in terms of different twists and retellings of the same story. Think for instance, 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood vs Disney's cartoon Robin Hood (1973) vs Prince of Thieves 1991 vs Robin Hood 2010. Or Nosferatu vs Coppola's Dracula or 1939 Four Feathers vs 2002 Four Feathers. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Some are stronger than others and for different reasons, but each leaves its mark on the retelling. And to me it's interesting to see another person approaches the same story. Some of the most boring adaptations are the truncated ones where they tried to copy the book and just cut parts out for time. Some things that work on the page don't work on the screen.
re: film battles I was kinda wondering about that. It seems then, the more it focuses on battles the more it moves into a sort of film that you tend to not like intrinsically whether it is well told or not (and Helm's Deep I think is better told then the Forge Fight.)
Peter Jackson should've just rendered this version of the hobbit (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/) into live action sequence. I remember watching it when I was little and was drawn by the mystical elements and lore. It was hauntingly impressive.
When they cut off the Beorn scene (and I always thought he'd look like beastmaster, he was supposed to be a tank of a man), then they truncated mirkwood, I thought, ok, it's a movie, and Peter Jackson has to adapt the pace to save time in the movie.
Then there were goblins in mirkwood, and I realized this really wasn't the hobbit, but a cinematic interpretation of the hobbit (or set in the story of the hobbit), where Peter Jackson could do Peter Jackson things.
Watched it today and it was very nice, if they'd chopped off the tauriel along with the ridiculous smaug chase it would have been perfect. Well, considering how difficult it is to translate tolkien to the big screen and that this movie is just a moneygrub, then yes it was pretty cool.
I'm 29, a Tolkien fan, and I enjoyed it. Much better than the first part, I thought Smaug in particular was very well done; certainly the best cinematic portrayal of a dragon I've ever seen.
Hopefully the battle of the five armies delivers next year!
watched this today. Loved the dragon lol. The way he was taunting Bilbo or just taking his sweet time although cmon guys, trying to kill a dragon by fire, seriously? lol. Also, as mentioned Legolas, man, amazing elf XD He pretty decimated everyone that stood in his way but it seemed like he was more of the strict and less relaxed guy from LoTR. Maybe that's how I saw him though.
On December 29 2013 13:57 publicenemies wrote: If Legolas was like this in the LOTR trilogy, those movies would have been a lot shorter... He single-handedly destroyed like all of the orcs.
On December 29 2013 13:57 publicenemies wrote: If Legolas was like this in the LOTR trilogy, those movies would have been a lot shorter... He single-handedly destroyed like all of the orcs.
He does that in LOTR too.
He had more difficulty then. He had like one or two fantastic moves, but overall he wasn't LEGOLAS DESTROYER OF WORLDS AND ORCS as he was in this movie. It was probably the only thing I didn't really appreciate (I mean, the different tone of action from LOTR, which tried its best to be realistic with just a little flash, and the Hobbit 1 & 2, which were circus stunts with bows and axes).
He didnt kill as much because every character around him killed a tonne of shit too so there was less for legolas to kill. Amon Hen/ Moria/ Helms deep/The entire return of the king movie are all scenes where legolas kills a bunch of stuff
I really don't understand why people think Legolas killing lots of Orcs is a big deal (in this movie as opposed to the LotR movies). It was made pretty clear that Legolas (and Gimli) was a (were) great warrior(s). Did you forget them comparing their body counts?
And yes, as Kwark has shown, as far as the original movies go, the action scenes were just as over the top.
I liked the movie overall but there are just a few things that were so bad about it in my eyes that they really pulled the whole experience down: Tauriel Smaug after having this awesome conversation , being so easily fooled and acting so irrational Thandriel acting like a spoiled brat, he seems more like a human tbh Tauriel - Killi falling in love omg whyyyyyyy thorin swiming through the river a molten gold 1 inch above thousand degree hot metall and not giving a shit Beorn didnt seem mighty at all more like a weak old guy Tauriel
If I ignore those aspects I can say a enjoyed it a lot and after seing all the bonus material of middle earth so far (part 1-8) I really enjoy all the details and thought that went into the design. I guess I am enjoying the movies knowing they will be very different from the books.
Ok, I liked this one much more than the first. I watched the first one 1 or 2 times and only thing I remember from that experience it that I don't like singing and that it was way, way to dragged out and long, witch was exactly what I expected when they announced it's going to be more than one movie.
Surprisingly I found this one to be much more gripping and exciting, with few similarities with the first one, like the 30 minute sequence where a huge and insanely smart dragon that knows every corner of his lair can't chase down a hobbit and later on a few dwarves.
I didn't mind the comical portrayal of action since I liked it in the LOTR, and I thought that both the barrel scene and the fight in Laketown were really well done.
I also didn't mind the addition of Turiel and Legolas, but that's mostly bacouse I fell in love with the actress and I like when Legolas jumps around and shoots stuff (but yeah the dwarf elf love story was pretty dumb).
What worries me is the fact that Jackson clearly decided to spend a lot of time and money on Smaug chase scene, when it was clearly universally the biggest gripe most people have with this movie. That scene and a few others from this and the previous movie convinced me that they decided to go with a trilogy and not 2 parts clearly as a cash grab. It is painfully obvious that they left the most hard hitting and blockbuster making moments for the third movie and that the first 2 could easily be compressed into one 3 hour movie.
On December 30 2013 07:09 Brett wrote: I really don't understand why people think Legolas killing lots of Orcs is a big deal (in this movie as opposed to the LotR movies). It was made pretty clear that Legolas (and Gimli) was a (were) great warrior(s). Did you forget them comparing their body counts?
And yes, as Kwark has shown, as far as the original movies go, the action scenes were just as over the top.
As I said, those are pretty much the only two examples of an over the top scene involving Legolas. We didn't see him stepping on the head of every orc (I know I know he stepped on the dwarves) decapitating them with arrows left right and center as he did in The Hobbit 2.
EPT
