| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On January 01 2015 00:23 Grumbels wrote: Peter Jackson has to be one of the worst hacks ever to accidentally make something brilliant (Heavenly Creatures, LotR), all his other movies are in some ways an affront to good filmmaking. I feel like George Lucas deserves a mention in that context. | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
On January 01 2015 00:23 Grumbels wrote: I watched it yesterday. "If this is love, then why does it hurt so much?" "Cuz' it's real.." Peter Jackson has to be one of the worst hacks ever to accidentally make something brilliant (Heavenly Creatures, LotR), all his other movies are in some ways an affront to good filmmaking. You know theres context to that cheesey line right. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 01 2015 00:38 Capped wrote: You know theres context to that cheesey line right. Yeah, a romance that started because the dwarf made a "something down my pants" joke. The whole thing needs to burn with (dragon)fire. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On January 01 2015 02:05 Grumbels wrote: Yeah, a romance that started because the dwarf made a "something down my pants" joke. The whole thing needs to burn with (dragon)fire. Thing is we almost got a really good moment (I think.) But it got completely missed. I was willing to forgive the shaky start of the romance if we got a good payoff. I've been slowly reading Anna Karenina and so I've been considering what happens you abandon everything in your life for the person you love, and then you lose that person too? In the second film, I liked the idea that Tauriel had never been out of Mirkwood and that when the dwarves come, they shake up her world. It wasn't that well executed, but I liked the idea that Tauriel through Kili becomes intrigued by the outside world and she leaves as much to find the dwarf as to discover the outside world... unfortunately that second motivation never really comes up again once she leaves Mirkwood. In the third film... + Show Spoiler + Her actions cause her to be banished- she loses everything she ever knew for following Kili. But when Kili died she had this wild look in her eyes and hurled herself and Bolg off the cliff… that was a really raw moment. Imagine if she and Bolg and died there. I want to hold on to that idea/ that fleeting emotion I felt and use it somewhere in some future story. Because unfortunately BOTH of them survived and Legolas ends up doing the killing. I thought that was a less effective choice. I really like the idea of her hurling herself off the cliff with the murderer of her love and them both perishing. Potentially very powerful. Imagine then, Legolas berefit of his Bat-flying, Mario-hopping, Shadow of Mordor-controlling trolls antics discovering the bodies of Tauriel and Bolg with Kili on top of the cliff. Does he blame the dwarves? Does he blame his father? I think that's an interesting character moment for Legolas leading into Lord of the Rings. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
imJealous
United States1382 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
| ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
As for the Hobbit, I fucking watched these 3 shit movies and I can't say I can make a case that these movies are better than the Star Trek reboot. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On January 02 2015 08:28 Naphal wrote: all criticism aside... damn was that dwarf army awesome! xD dwarves are pretty dope | ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On January 02 2015 08:28 Naphal wrote: all criticism aside... damn was that dwarf army awesome! xD Haha. I loved them- they were so eager to get into battle. Orc army is a coming and they could hold their position on the high ground and let the Elves take the brunt of the attack, but nope. They've got to run around the Elves to get out front and fight. Very funny. | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
On January 02 2015 10:35 Falling wrote: Haha. I loved them- they were so eager to get into battle. Orc army is a coming and they could hold their position on the high ground and let the Elves take the brunt of the attack, but nope. They've got to run around the Elves to get out front and fight. Very funny. It was funny, yes. They weren't afraid to die because they weren't going to die because they weren't real persons because none of this was convincing. They weren't only fake cgi-looking wise but also story-wise. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
They weren't only fake cgi-looking wise but also story-wise. What do you mean fake story-wise? | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
Tolkien was anti-war. He spend WWI in the trenches at the frontline of Battle of Vimy Ridge. Why are all these battle scenes in this movie based on his book? This movie makes me understand all these people that skip pages when a fighting scene comes up in a novel. In fact, now that I think about it. When I watch a movie on my computer and a fighting scene starts I usually go to windowed mode and open my browser until the story starts to move forward again. | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10657 Posts
On January 02 2015 08:28 Naphal wrote: all criticism aside... damn was that dwarf army awesome! xD Best part of this movie was that we finally got to see a dwarf army. In LOTR they were all presented as dead and wiped out in Moria, a bit of a bummer since Gimli was really hyping them up. Thats about the only good thing I have to say about this movie though. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On January 02 2015 17:32 Alcathous wrote: Tolkien was anti-war. He spend WWI in the trenches at the frontline of Battle of Vimy Ridge. Why are all these battle scenes in this movie based on his book? This movie makes me understand all these people that skip pages when a fighting scene comes up in a novel. It's a little hard to say exactly what Tolkien thought about war- unless you've read a lot of his letters on the subject (I haven't.) Because based strictly on the book, one would conclude he has a slightly more nuanced view than simply being anti. Based on some of thing Faramir says, I suspect he has no love of people who love wars and warriors and there is tremendous sadness threaded throughout all his books regarding the loss in war. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise. But for all that, his characters to not put down their weapons and become pacifists. Even the peaceful Shire-folk are forced to pick up arms at the end to overthrow Saruman's half-orcs and corrupt men. (Although, Frodo is principally interested in preventing futher loss of life to both sides.) Why are all these battle scenes in this movie based on his book? Because in the book there is a chapter titled: The Battle of Five Armies. That rather necessitates a battle or two. Nor, do I think you could pull the stunt that Tolkien did in the book- knocking out the main character in the middle of the battle and have the rest of the battle described after the fact by another character. I'm quite certain that would outrage people. It worked in the book, but it seems to me it has been too often since then, to the point where when Paolini's Inheritance series came out there was a general mockery "if you're not sure how to end a battle, just knock out your main character." I don't think you could've knocked out Bilbo and cut scene- even if this was a one film adaptation. And if a battle is going to take up significant screen time, you will need different phases to it, so taking the hill or falling back into the city, that stuff I didn't mind. Just all the Legolas antics and how all the single-combat pulled from the main fight so that it somehow forgot what was going on in the bigger picture. (And the big old whiff with the second army coming over the ridge that did absolutely nothing despite how much they hyped it.) In fact, now that I think about it. When I watch a movie on my computer and a fighting scene starts I usually go to windowed mode and open my browser until the story starts to move forward again. In that case, you'd have to admit that this movie could never have satisfied you, even if it was executed as well as the Lord of the Rings. No more then you could enjoy much of Braveheart, that is if you truly skip fighting scenes. For myself, I enjoy films like Mo Gong that revolve around a single siege or Gettysburg, which is a four hour film on one battle. The Hobbit films ultimately don't measure up, but in many cases I believe they were heading in the right direction. But if you dislike fights for their existence rather than their execution, then this film was never your sort of film and never could have been. The Hobbit book is filled with fights- not long ones, but in film adaptations, what takes long in books is short in films and vice versa.Tolkien's long descriptions just turn into background, whereas fights typically require more space in order to make sense. Yes there are more fights than in the book and they took up greater space... but that was also true of the Lord of the Rings, and most people don't think that didn't affect the quality of those films as adapations (Besides those of Christopher Tolkien's persuasion.) | ||
|
Koromon
United States304 Posts
On January 03 2015 04:27 Falling wrote: It's a little hard to say exactly what Tolkien thought about war- unless you've read a lot of his letters on the subject (I haven't.) Because based strictly on the book, one would conclude he has a slightly more nuanced view than simply being anti. I think as with many young men, Tolkien went off to WWI thinking war was something romantic (the guy was a book worm afterall) and like those who survived... they found it to be quite tragic. His letters to his son do confirm his great dislike for war. As for The Hobbit, at the start of chapter 18 it's pretty much his WWI experience... where's it's just gloomy and "victory" meant... you still had people alive.. somewhere, whereas the "enemy" were dead or scattered. Add on the obvious fact that he couldn't care less about describing the battle and just had Bilbo happily knocked out. Tolkien's description of the Sarumon's militarization of Isengaurd and it's surrounding areas was pretty much more of his disgust with war. I think in the 1978 film adaptation when asked what to cut, he also chose the battle at Helm's Deep. I think it's somewhat safe to say that Tolkien was much more interested in for The Hobbit initially telling a kids story and then transitioning to something deeper with Thorin's character (hence Smaug dying.. rather quickly + 5 armies battle cut ultra short) and... I'm super off track of Tolkien being anti-war  . | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
I can understand that they could not just end the battle with knocking Bilbo out like in the books but after what felt like 1 hours of battle scenes I got really bored and just wanted the story to move on. | ||
| ||
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #106
NightMare vs CreatorLIVE!
TBD vs Nicoract
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
