|
On November 05 2013 00:11 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 22:40 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On November 04 2013 22:21 Gahlo wrote:
Ender's Game movie so goood. die in a fire This is seriously one of the most split-opinion movies I've seen in a long time. I've seen book readers love it, hate it, or say "it's as good as we'll get". I've seen non book readers love it, hate it, or just be confused. I haven't had a chance to go yet though 
They tried to please both crowds, erring in the side of book readers, but what ends up is just a limp product where you don't get the richness you wanted if you were a book reader, but you're left with no character development and tons of plot holes if you didn't read the books and can't fill in the blanks.
I enjoyed seeing the movie and felt the $7 I paid was worth it, but I wouldn't rate it higher than 6/10. (On the other hand, there have been some 8/10 movies that I didn't feel like seeing it was worth, so there is that).
|
On November 05 2013 00:28 ComaDose wrote:
Did anyone here see it in 48 fps? I heard it looked crisper but generally made audiences uncomfortable because it was different.
The fps change was... odd. Like, it had that "Uncanny Valley" vibe because you're not used to movies looking that "realistic", you kind of expect a certain visual vibe from a screen. I enjoyed it, but I can see mixed reactions.
On November 05 2013 00:27 Osmoses wrote:
I haven't seen it because I can't see how you can follow saving the entire world from evil (LOTR) with completely irrelevant treasure hunting (The Hobbit).
They're two separate but connected stories in the same universe. If you enjoy the Tolkeinverse, they should just be taken as two tales from the same era.
I'd love to see some of the Lost Tales put into film, honestly.
|
On November 05 2013 00:28 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:11 Requizen wrote:On November 04 2013 22:40 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On November 04 2013 22:21 Gahlo wrote:
Ender's Game movie so goood. die in a fire This is seriously one of the most split-opinion movies I've seen in a long time. I've seen book readers love it, hate it, or say "it's as good as we'll get". I've seen non book readers love it, hate it, or just be confused. I haven't had a chance to go yet though They tried to please both crowds, erring in the side of book readers, but what ends up is just a limp product where you don't get the richness you wanted if you were a book reader, but you're left with no character development and tons of plot holes if you didn't read the books and can't fill in the blanks. I enjoyed seeing the movie and felt the $7 I paid was worth it, but I wouldn't rate it higher than 6/10. (On the other hand, there have been some 8/10 movies that I didn't feel like seeing it was worth, so there is that).
I'm really easy to please when it comes to movies. Like, if it's at all entertaining, then I'll enjoy it.
But I feel really invested in the story and really nervous to go see it haha
|
United States15536 Posts
On November 05 2013 00:31 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:28 ComaDose wrote:
Did anyone here see it in 48 fps? I heard it looked crisper but generally made audiences uncomfortable because it was different. The fps change was... odd. Like, it had that "Uncanny Valley" vibe because you're not used to movies looking that "realistic", you kind of expect a certain visual vibe from a screen. I enjoyed it, but I can see mixed reactions. Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:27 Osmoses wrote:
I haven't seen it because I can't see how you can follow saving the entire world from evil (LOTR) with completely irrelevant treasure hunting (The Hobbit). They're two separate but connected stories in the same universe. If you enjoy the Tolkeinverse, they should just be taken as two tales from the same era. I'd love to see some of the Lost Tales put into film, honestly.
Um. Silmarillion movie would be PERFECT. All epic conflict, no established story to "screw up" other than some very basic things.
|
On November 05 2013 00:33 AsmodeusXI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:31 Requizen wrote:On November 05 2013 00:28 ComaDose wrote:
Did anyone here see it in 48 fps? I heard it looked crisper but generally made audiences uncomfortable because it was different. The fps change was... odd. Like, it had that "Uncanny Valley" vibe because you're not used to movies looking that "realistic", you kind of expect a certain visual vibe from a screen. I enjoyed it, but I can see mixed reactions. On November 05 2013 00:27 Osmoses wrote:
I haven't seen it because I can't see how you can follow saving the entire world from evil (LOTR) with completely irrelevant treasure hunting (The Hobbit). They're two separate but connected stories in the same universe. If you enjoy the Tolkeinverse, they should just be taken as two tales from the same era. I'd love to see some of the Lost Tales put into film, honestly. Um. Silmarillion movie would be PERFECT. All epic conflict, no established story to "screw up" other than some very basic things.
What. How would you even do a Silmarillion movie? Would you do it piecemeal, 15 minute shots of all the major events with a narrator? There's really no single thread to follow, it would be like making a movie of the Old Testament lol.
|
Funny thing is I thought LOTR the book was horrible but the Hobbit was great xD
|
United States15536 Posts
On November 05 2013 00:35 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:33 AsmodeusXI wrote:On November 05 2013 00:31 Requizen wrote:On November 05 2013 00:28 ComaDose wrote:
Did anyone here see it in 48 fps? I heard it looked crisper but generally made audiences uncomfortable because it was different. The fps change was... odd. Like, it had that "Uncanny Valley" vibe because you're not used to movies looking that "realistic", you kind of expect a certain visual vibe from a screen. I enjoyed it, but I can see mixed reactions. On November 05 2013 00:27 Osmoses wrote:
I haven't seen it because I can't see how you can follow saving the entire world from evil (LOTR) with completely irrelevant treasure hunting (The Hobbit). They're two separate but connected stories in the same universe. If you enjoy the Tolkeinverse, they should just be taken as two tales from the same era. I'd love to see some of the Lost Tales put into film, honestly. Um. Silmarillion movie would be PERFECT. All epic conflict, no established story to "screw up" other than some very basic things. What. How would you even do a Silmarillion movie? Would you do it piecemeal, 15 minute shots of all the major events with a narrator? There's really no single thread to follow, it would be like making a movie of the Old Testament lol.
It's just a bunch of moments that someone could weave a story through rather than adapting a story to the movie.
SHUT UP IT WOULD WORK.
|
On November 05 2013 00:26 AsmodeusXI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:24 Ketara wrote:
Ugh I hear Hobbit hate all the time.
It was amazing. Stop h8in. Yeah... it wasn't that great. Looked pretty though. There's like an hour and a half of movie that could've been used to advance the plot of the book. I mean, basically, there's no reason for there to be three films. Riddles in the Dark was fucking phenomenal though.
See, I get that people thought it moved slowly. It did move slowly, and I was a little surprised at it being 3 films too. I'm interested in seeing how much Legolas fanservice they add into the second movie, and how much time they devote to the big battle with the Necromancer.
But here is my argument against it moving too slow.
For starters, I get lots of complaints from people that the beginning portion is too long, and it takes too long for them to leave the Shire.
You've got to understand that the entire point of the plot of the movie is that Bilbo is the kind of person who doesn't go on adventures or ever do anything interesting. He is not this kind of person, and yet he's thrown into the story basically against his will and ends up rising to meet the challenge. It would be impossible to get that across if they didn't spend an extended amount of time with him being flustured at his house, mad at the dwarves, smoking and relaxing and doing dishes, etc. I honestly think they didn't cover that side of him enough, nowhere near doing it too much.
And secondly, I see people complain about all the extended sequences of them walking across hills and mountains and through beautiful scenery and such.
I know it's more personal preference here, but as someone who has actually done things like taken a plane to India and walked 15-20 miles outside a city to see prehistoric rock carvings, gotten attacked by wild dogs, drank milk from straight under a cow and slept in a sleeping bag next to a dumpster, I can say with some certainty that 95% of such stories really is just walking across hills and mountains and through beautiful scenery and such. The actual action only involves the other 5%. That's part of why Tolkien is such a good writer, because he covers that 95% and makes it interesting and fun to read. I thought the movie was very true to the book in that regard, and if you didn't like those scenes in the movie, you probably didn't/wouldn't enjoy the book.
On November 05 2013 00:27 Osmoses wrote:
I haven't seen it because I can't see how you can follow saving the entire world from evil (LOTR) with completely irrelevant treasure hunting (The Hobbit).
It's a prequel. It's the story of how they find the ring in the first place. So it's obvs much less big-epic.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
|
United States15536 Posts
On November 05 2013 00:37 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:26 AsmodeusXI wrote:On November 05 2013 00:24 Ketara wrote:
Ugh I hear Hobbit hate all the time.
It was amazing. Stop h8in. Yeah... it wasn't that great. Looked pretty though. There's like an hour and a half of movie that could've been used to advance the plot of the book. I mean, basically, there's no reason for there to be three films. Riddles in the Dark was fucking phenomenal though. See, I get that people thought it moved slowly. It did move slowly, and I was a little surprised at it being 3 films too. I'm interested in seeing how much Legolas fanservice they add into the second movie, and how much time they devote to the big battle with the Necromancer. But here is my argument against it moving too slow. For starters, I get lots of complaints from people that the beginning portion is too long, and it takes too long for them to leave the Shire. You've got to understand that the entire point of the plot of the movie is that Bilbo is the kind of person who doesn't go on adventures or ever do anything interesting. He is not this kind of person, and yet he's thrown into the story basically against his will and ends up rising to meet the challenge. It would be impossible to get that across if they didn't spend an extended amount of time with him being flustured at his house, mad at the dwarves, smoking and relaxing and doing dishes, etc. I honestly think they didn't cover that side of him enough, nowhere near doing it too much. And secondly, I see people complain about all the extended sequences of them walking across hills and mountains and through beautiful scenery and such. I know it's more personal preference here, but as someone who has actually done things like taken a plane to India and walked 15-20 miles outside a city to see prehistoric rock carvings, gotten attacked by wild dogs, drank milk from straight under a cow and slept in a sleeping bag next to a dumpster, I can say with some certainty that 95% of such stories really is just walking across hills and mountains and through beautiful scenery and such. The actual action only involves the other 5%. That's part of why Tolkien is such a good writer, because he covers that 95% and makes it interesting and fun to read. I thought the movie was very true to the books in that regard, and if you didn't like those scenes in the movie, you probably didn't/wouldn't enjoy the book.
Actually I kinda had the opposite problem. I feel like the "epic" moments were all falsified and silly. Like the whole character of the "white orc" to give an initial bad guy. Things like the dish cleaning song and the troll scene were much more consistent with what I remember The Hobbit being. I'm similarly excited for the wine barrel scene.
I realize that as filmmakers they felt like they had to "outdo" LotR, but as a Tolkien fan, I didn't think The Hobbit needed to be EPIC.
I actually had a more meta problem of feeling like the fanservice was a little over the top. Like, I get that Gandalf darkening Bag End when angered is from the originals, but like... why the fuck would he get equally angry over Bilbo's character and THE FUCKING ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL. Those kinds of callouts that distracted from the consistency of the characters themselves bugged me.
Not to pimp my blog or anything BUT a while ago I wrote a review as a conversation with a friend of mine with whom I saw the movie. Most of my ups and downs are there.
It's as I feared. T_T
|
When I notice the light on my mouse telling me the battery's running low, I get another one near the laptop and I just switch before I go play. When I'm done I switch back, and keep going until the first battery runs out (which won't happen while I play), at which point I just put back the new one till it runs low.
On November 05 2013 00:16 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:11 Requizen wrote:On November 04 2013 22:40 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On November 04 2013 22:21 Gahlo wrote:
Ender's Game movie so goood. die in a fire This is seriously one of the most split-opinion movies I've seen in a long time. I've seen book readers love it, hate it, or say "it's as good as we'll get". I've seen non book readers love it, hate it, or just be confused. I haven't had a chance to go yet though So it's like the Hobbit movie? I am like the biggest Tolkien fan ever and every time somebody tells me the Hobbit movie wasn't perfect I die a little inside.
Eh, fuck the battle scenes. The one right before the eagles come, with the dwarven leader standing all high and strong and handsome and with that determined, badass look of determination made me go all "UGH" because it was so cringy.
And as much as people complain that the film was too long, you know what's too long? The friggin' escape from the mines, where it's all the same shots rehashed over and over of people running and tossing a goblin aside and running and jumping and slashing a goblin and running and sometimes the archer shoots a goblin too.
WE GOT IT YOU WANT TO SHOW A FIGHT BUT GET TO THE POINT DAMMIT
|
yea that's pretty much how I feel
But at the same time it seems like they did do the best they could to please everyone so it was by no means as adulterous as you describe its detriments.
I don't think you could sell a movie that's 2 hrs of character development now that we've had the joyous emancipation of Michael Bay
|
Baa?21248 Posts
On November 05 2013 00:58 xes wrote:yea that's pretty much how I feel But at the same time it seems like they did do the best they could to please everyone so it was by no means as adulterous as you describe its detriments.
I think that's the wrong approach to take. You should never half-ass many things if you can whole-ass one thing!
I feel like anyone who read and was somewhat touched by the book should understand that they literally cannot adapt everything to a satisfactory extent in a two hour film, so I don't know why they tried to cram in so much and failed at all of it :|
|
On November 05 2013 00:44 AsmodeusXI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 00:37 Ketara wrote:On November 05 2013 00:26 AsmodeusXI wrote:On November 05 2013 00:24 Ketara wrote:
Ugh I hear Hobbit hate all the time.
It was amazing. Stop h8in. Yeah... it wasn't that great. Looked pretty though. There's like an hour and a half of movie that could've been used to advance the plot of the book. I mean, basically, there's no reason for there to be three films. Riddles in the Dark was fucking phenomenal though. See, I get that people thought it moved slowly. It did move slowly, and I was a little surprised at it being 3 films too. I'm interested in seeing how much Legolas fanservice they add into the second movie, and how much time they devote to the big battle with the Necromancer. But here is my argument against it moving too slow. For starters, I get lots of complaints from people that the beginning portion is too long, and it takes too long for them to leave the Shire. You've got to understand that the entire point of the plot of the movie is that Bilbo is the kind of person who doesn't go on adventures or ever do anything interesting. He is not this kind of person, and yet he's thrown into the story basically against his will and ends up rising to meet the challenge. It would be impossible to get that across if they didn't spend an extended amount of time with him being flustured at his house, mad at the dwarves, smoking and relaxing and doing dishes, etc. I honestly think they didn't cover that side of him enough, nowhere near doing it too much. And secondly, I see people complain about all the extended sequences of them walking across hills and mountains and through beautiful scenery and such. I know it's more personal preference here, but as someone who has actually done things like taken a plane to India and walked 15-20 miles outside a city to see prehistoric rock carvings, gotten attacked by wild dogs, drank milk from straight under a cow and slept in a sleeping bag next to a dumpster, I can say with some certainty that 95% of such stories really is just walking across hills and mountains and through beautiful scenery and such. The actual action only involves the other 5%. That's part of why Tolkien is such a good writer, because he covers that 95% and makes it interesting and fun to read. I thought the movie was very true to the books in that regard, and if you didn't like those scenes in the movie, you probably didn't/wouldn't enjoy the book. Actually I kinda had the opposite problem. I feel like the "epic" moments were all falsified and silly. Like the whole character of the "white orc" to give an initial bad guy. Things like the dish cleaning song and the troll scene were much more consistent with what I remember The Hobbit being. I'm similarly excited for the wine barrel scene. I realize that as filmmakers they felt like they had to "outdo" LotR, but as a Tolkien fan, I didn't think The Hobbit needed to be EPIC. I actually had a more meta problem of feeling like the fanservice was a little over the top. Like, I get that Gandalf darkening Bag End when angered is from the originals, but like... why the fuck would he get equally angry over Bilbo's character and THE FUCKING ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL. Those kinds of callouts that distracted from the consistency of the characters themselves bugged me. Not to pimp my blog or anything BUT a while ago I wrote a review as a conversation with a friend of mine with whom I saw the movie. Most of my ups and downs are there. It's as I feared. T_T
I can agree that the fanservice was over the top. I am a little worried that I won't like the next movie as much because they'll make it all about Legolas. I don't mind them including Legolas, I think that makes some sense. But he should not be a major character, his father should be.
Reading your review, I kind of agree with your friend. You have to remember that they are going to be adding everything (and then some probably) that was in the LotR appendixes to link all the movies together. That's why it's going to be 3 movies, this next film will have very little direct Hobbit storyline in it. It's going to be all about Gandalf, the elves and Sauron. All the stuff about Thorin and the white orc is canon, they're just giving the orc way way more screentime than he had in the books where he's mentioned briefly in one appendix. All the stuff with Saruman and Radagast and Galadriel and the Necromancer is also canon.
If you're ready for that and you can go with the flow there you should enjoy it, but if you don't want all that expanded extra stuff and fight against it, you're going to have the wrong feeling.
|
Also fuck their depiction of Radaghast.
|
Why, because it was perfect?
PS: I did think the rabbit sled was a bit over the top. I liked it anyway though.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
Radagast depiction was literally the best part of the Hobbit movie.
|
The rabbit sled and the chase sequence highlighted the one thing that annoyed me about the Hobbit, that they just tried to put too much action into it. Don't get me wrong - I love the movie, gonna see the the next one, I think it was a pretty good adaptation.
But the book is mostly whimsical adventure aside from a couple suspenseful parts (Riddles in the Dark, Naming of Sting, and Smaug). I would have been probably a bit happier if they left it that way, but that's my only nitpick.
|
The rabbit sled chase sequence was basically the only full scene that they added that wasn't canon. And I agree that it was a little awkwardly placed. If they really wanted them to be attacked by wolf riders they could have just had them rescued by elves, I think that would have been the right kind of awkward.
It goes back to saying that the fanservice was over the top though. It was, but it's pandering to people who haven't read the book and aren't deeply invested into the characters. They need that extra fanservice to stay into it across a 3 hour movie.
I hope they give Beorn an extra scene like that. Cuz
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm not asking for Radagast to be a solemn and poised and stuff magician like Gandalf or Saruman, but when I read the few lines that described him in LotR as being a bit removed and closer to animals and stuff than men, it made me think more of a guy perceived as weird because he's got different priorities and interest than a full-blown looney who looked almost as much "ridiculous for the kids" as, say, Jar Jar.
The whole depiction felt like "let's make him ridiculous so we can have a laugh and use him as comic relief" more than actually showing a character, to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's one thing in particular I receive badly about characters (treating them as canvas/tools for the others rather than characters on their own) unless done with a specific purpose.
Afaik, the 3 lines we get in LotR are the only information about him (as in I read that there's nothing else) so I'm basing my perception on that, but your posts seem to suggest otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www-images.theonering.org/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Gandalf_and_Beorn.jpg)
