EPT[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 89
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + How would anyone know who Aragorn was especially when he is just a child(?), and more to the point if Gandalf knew what was about to happen then why didn't he destroy the ring in the first place. | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
On January 03 2015 04:27 Falling wrote: I don't think you could've knocked out Bilbo and cut scene- even if this was a one film adaptation. Why not? You typed a great a lot of stuff and halfway it seems you have come to understand my position; a position you set out to refute. The book is about the story. Why shouldn't he movie be? 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.) These fighting scenes aren't in the movie to create immersion or to keep the continuum of the story going. They are in there for their own sake. 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. Why not? I liked the book. I liked the normal battles in the first 50% of LotR. I like most fights in GoT. I did skip that one episode where they were just fighting at the wall. In fact, I am a biit of a military history buff and maybe that is part of the problem. I read Ceasar's bello gallico among other things. In movies, battles are more like dancing than like fighting. To me it is often a completely unbelievable travesty. When it is a martial arts movie, I can at least get satisfaction from the athleticism. But when it is cgi hopping randomly about, what is the point? The thing is, realistically depicted war isn't entertaining. Hollywood created a parallel universe of battle and fight scenes that are supposed to dazzle the viewer, just like they had car chases in old action movies. And each new movie would try to top off what was previously done. That is the problem. 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. I liked Braveheart when it first came out and I think I did see A Battle of Wits, but I don't remember much so I guess that's not a good sign. Look, I never said I don't like movies about war. What I want to say is that I dislike pointless/silly battles and fights in movies that only act to interrupt the story. I watched like 10 seasons of Japanese taiga drama. (though recently they have gotten worse and worse) That's 42 episodes about samurai and their wars. Google my name. It is from my favorite book. Why does it matter if Tolkien didn't like war? Because it is supposed to reflect in the story. And the movie tells his story. (of course it doesn't according to Christopher and I have to agree with him). But that is why it matters. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 03 2015 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The ending just adds more confusion: + Show Spoiler + How would anyone know who Aragorn was especially when he is just a child(?), and more to the point if Gandalf knew what was about to happen then why didn't he destroy the ring in the first place. Aragorn isn't a child. He's like over 100 by LotR, and dies at like 300 or something. He's half-something-or-other and lives forever, like everyone in Middle Earth that isn't some poor human sap. Gandalf always knew that Bilbo had a ring. He just never knew it was the Ring until Fellowship when he gets Bilbo to drop it. That was made fairly clear in the Fellowship book as well (and it was kind of required, considering that the LotR was retconned into being a direct sequel to the Hobbit). | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
But of course Legolas doesn't exist in the Hobbit and wasn't retconned in so he was never send away to meet the Dúnedain. Maybe they want to set up enough spinoff seeds, including an Legolas&Dúnedain fight A/B/C movie trilogy. It is the sequel movies that bring in the cash in Hollywood. I don't think Tolkien estate can sue if they make a non-canon movie with LotR characters. | ||
|
Phredxor
New Zealand15076 Posts
On January 03 2015 11:35 Alcathous wrote: I think they assumed that anyone who knew Aragon's full name would also know that Aragon would be alive during the Hobbit(I believe Aragon would be 10). But of course Legolas doesn't exist in the Hobbit and wasn't retconned in so he was never send away to meet the Dúnedain. Maybe they want to set up enough spinoff seeds, including an Legolas&Dúnedain fight A/B/C movie trilogy. It is the sequel movies that bring in the cash in Hollywood. I don't think Tolkien estate can sue if they make a non-canon movie with LotR characters. A 10 year old of great promise. Kind of annoyed me too as it was completely unnecessary. Enjoyed the movie overall though. :D | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11466 Posts
On January 03 2015 12:53 Alcathous wrote: Don't forgot the 17 years between Bilbo's birthday and the moment they set off to destroy the ring. Yes, but the movie skips the 17 years (along with any travel time- I think it takes a day or two to get from the Shire to Gondor by Gandalf's horse and half an evening to get from Beorn's house to Dol Guldor in Azog travel time.) As to your other points- Ok, I think I understand your point more. You originally seemed to be saying you didn't like fights at all, which is very different from disliking how Hollywood depicts most fights. I stand corrected. I also dislike the one-upmanship and I am frustrated by the undiscernable mob where to make a battle 'epic' they just copy-paste cgi the army with no sense of positioning, reserves and the like. But that's a criticism I level at movies in general rather than The Hobbit specifically. Why does it matter if Tolkien didn't like war? Because it is supposed to reflect in the story. And the movie tells his story. (of course it doesn't according to Christopher and I have to agree with him). But that is why it matters. For this- yes and no. I like to see films that understand the themes of the source material. However, I think in good adaptations we should see the stamp of the new creator. We aren't seeing the same story translated onto screen, we are seeing something new an interesting take on it. Telling and retelling stories in different ways is something we've done for a long time. The medievals certainly weren't shy about borrowing Greek stories for Sir Orfeo. Or how many different stories have been told of Robin Hood in book and in movie? Now we get the same thing with Sherlock (BBC's version comes to mind.) It matters less if it is different than if it is good and unfortunately, that's the part where The Hobbits stumble. ...and that's a long way to come for a hardcore book purist, which I once was. | ||
|
annedeman
Netherlands350 Posts
On January 03 2015 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The ending just adds more confusion: + Show Spoiler + How would anyone know who Aragorn was especially when he is just a child(?), and more to the point if Gandalf knew what was about to happen then why didn't he destroy the ring in the first place. Aragon is 87(which is 60 years after the hobbit) when he meets frodo, he is from the linage of elros(the brother of elrond, both are half elves and got the choice to be a man or an elf), humans out of the linage of elros get very old by human standard, the comment still seemed really really random, especially as legolas never went to look for him, he went to rivendel some 60 years later | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 03 2015 17:16 annedeman wrote: Aragon is 87(which is 60 years after the hobbit) when he meets frodo, he is from the linage of elros(the brother of elrond, both are half elves and got the choice to be a man or an elf), humans out of the linage of elros get very old by human standard, the comment still seemed really really random, especially as legolas never went to look for him, he went to rivendel some 60 years later Well, in Fellowship Legolas knew exactly who Aragorn was (during the council at Rivendell), and Aragorn talked to him with some familiarity too. | ||
|
annedeman
Netherlands350 Posts
On January 03 2015 17:49 WolfintheSheep wrote: Well, in Fellowship Legolas knew exactly who Aragorn was (during the council at Rivendell), and Aragorn talked to him with some familiarity too. ah must have forgotten that, i havent seen lotr for a couple of years | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12076 Posts
Especially sad about the trilogy of hobbit movies since the book was better than LotR books (in my highly subjective opinion). An example of what this movie did wrong would be the entire dragon attack on the city. It didn't feel emotional or tense. It has all the backdrop you need for a great scene and they just waste it. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On January 04 2015 02:39 Roe wrote: At the ending, where the dwarves come out to help Billy Connelly, why did they take OFF their armour?? Like you see Thorin clad in heavy metal armour like the dwarf army is, but then after he has his redemption/psychedelic moment, he just charges blindly at the army in a leather jacket. And it's not like it's done for speed. You saw the dwarves rush out clad in heavy armour before to meet the orcs. Because it's dumb. The same reason why Thorin and friends ride some armored Rams up the mountain despite the fact there was CLEARLY no such animals with the Dwarf army when it arrived, nor in the mountain. Dumb. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 04 2015 02:39 Roe wrote: At the ending, where the dwarves come out to help Billy Connelly, why did they take OFF their armour?? Like you see Thorin clad in heavy metal armour like the dwarf army is, but then after he has his redemption/psychedelic moment, he just charges blindly at the army in a leather jacket. And it's not like it's done for speed. You saw the dwarves rush out clad in heavy armour before to meet the orcs. It's symbolic, and also hard for actors to move in heavy platemail. But really, it just comes down to "movie logic". | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + There is no such thing. Elrond mentions during the council that Legolas is sent there by his father as a messenger. The message he carries is that Gollum has escaped from their hand. Gollum was captured by Aragorn near Dead Marshes while Gandalf was on his way to Gondor archives, so well into beginning of war of the ring. (Fellowship of the Ring: Elrond's Council) So by no means Legolas leaves home or what not 60 years earlier. Telling him to find Dunedain and/or Aragorn is even more bs. | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On January 04 2015 06:09 On_Slaught wrote: Because it's dumb. The same reason why Thorin and friends ride some armored Rams up the mountain despite the fact there was CLEARLY no such animals with the Dwarf army when it arrived, nor in the mountain. Dumb. The funny thing is that in the trailers, there is a scene of a battalion of Dwarves riding on rams, and charging at the Orcs. In fact, there are plenty of scenes in The Hobbit movies that didn't make it to the theatrical release, which are probably going to be in the Extended Editions. As for the battle itself, there are plenty of things that was dumb, although epic, but still dumb. Others mentioned that the Dwarves set up a phalanx to prepare for the Orc charge, and yet, without any agreement between Thranduil and Dain, some of the Elves jump over the wall of shields. u wot m8. If I was one of the Dwarves and I see some Elves running at you from behind, I would have thought they were the enemy. Some of the Elves had bows, but we never saw them shooting except for that one scene of Thranduil giving an order to fire and you hear the volley in the background during the first couple of minutes of the battle. Also, it feels like Peter Jackson forgot the height of these Orcs. In the original trilogy, the only tall Orcs were the Uruk-Hai, who were as tall or taller than Men and Elves, and they stood upright unlike their Orc and Goblin counterparts, who were weaker, shorter, hunched back, and lanky. | ||
| ||
