|
Post by xerxez on Dec 15, 2012 11:29:25 GMT -6
Didn't see where to post this, so Fin, it may need moved. I can cut and paste it if a thread exists. NO SPOILERS other than to say the film itself was, well, not spoiled but a bit sour.
I went my son last night and it had been long awaited, for this was a story beloved and read aloud or given to us to us in both our boyhoods. And I went knowing it would not be exactly Tolkien but hoping it might get it as close as the first trilogy.
Let me say it was not a waste of time nor a very bad or even mediocre film. I recommend it seen on the big screen once or twice.
However, if you are a huge fan of the original book and Tolkien himself, I will simply state that, for people like you, the 1977 Rankin/Bass animated work must remain at present the definitive Hobbit Film.
All that I can say is that if P.J. had felt so obliged to re-write the entire tale himself, he might have at least retained the original protagonist of Bilbo Baggins.
He might also have realized he could have retold the entire Book through film in about 3 hours if he had not brought in addended cameos and plot lines, Indiana Jones style CGI flashbangs, and needles battle scenes that never happened in Tolkien's world of Middle Earth.
Thus, even though in the first twenty minutes it was so familiar and well characterized that I was willing to forgive any deviations on the understandable grounds of sheer scope, it quickly devolved into a hodgepodge of muddled subplots that became totally irreconcilable to the Unexpected Journey.
Forgive me if you liked it. I will concede that it did delve into some real ME history, and highlighted some characters that get no more than a single passing mention. Also, Rivendell was a truly glorious sight to behold in this movie, as was The Hall Under the Mountain. Gorgeous and awe inspiring. Acting and humor were great. And the jewel of the entire movie are the scenes with Gollum and the Riddle Game, which were very evocative of the book.
So all in all, the movie has very bright rays here and there, but it is my hope that someday, someone will make a live-action film adaptation of the Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 15, 2012 11:44:13 GMT -6
I watched it in IMAX hoping to also catch the rumored 9-min Star Trek teaser. There was a regular trailer, but nothing close to 9-min. However...
I enjoyed it. Jackson has taken some elements from the LotR Appendix in order to fill in some of the gaps. I like the fact that Thorin has a little more of a purpose and motivation to undertake the quest. I like the fact that you get to see some of what Gandalf is doing in scenes where he is "off camera" for the book.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Not as much as Fellowship, which remains my favorite of the four so far, but it was pretty good.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Dec 15, 2012 20:51:43 GMT -6
I really liked it, although I think it could have shed about half an hour and been a hair better. Not sure if I saw it in 24 or 48 fps, but I had no problem with the way it looked.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 15, 2012 20:52:09 GMT -6
Matthew on the Knights & Knaves message board wrote: 'All the sins of those [LotR] films have been "turned up to eleven" here [in The Hobbit film].'
Matthew's statement sums up my cardinal dislike of the film. I loathed the scenes with the stone giants and with the dwarves in goblin town. The dwarves would go from helpless, cowering wretches to invulnerable warriors at the drop of a hat, and the action in goblin town was so fake looking. Gandalf and the dwarves would run, swinging their weapons about, and the goblins would be blown away like leaves.
The pacing of the film was glacial. In my naivety, I thought, "Well, at least with 9 hours of screen time we'll get to see a lot of the book." Wrong. We get to see a lot of stuff made up by Peter Jackson and friends.
The CGI was terrible in many places. That white orc was the fakest of the fake, and the wargs were not much better. (Consider how much better the CGI wolves in the first Narnia movie look.)
Sadly, there was not a single scene that I really enjoyed. They ranged from mediocre to terrible. Perhaps the least bad scene was the dinner in Bilbo's hobbit hole, and that was bad enough.
The only parts of the movie I thoroughly enjoyed were the sweeping panoramic shots of New Zealand's wilderness. I wish the whole movie felt like that. Instead, it alternated between boring and silly.
I give the movie a letter grade of D.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 15, 2012 21:57:55 GMT -6
The dwarves would go from helpless, cowering wretches to invulnerable warriors at the drop of a hat [...] To be fair, though, they did go from helpless, cowering wretches throughout most of the book to invulnerable warriors when fighting goblins, which I thought was lacking continuity when I was 15 (I was a latecomer to the book). I shall probably approach it with a DM mindset and spend most of my time looking at the details (I was very impressed when I visited the new Hobbiton set in New Zealand). Luckily plenty of cinemas here are showing it in 2D, so at least I won't get a headache watching it. The bad news is the the TV is now full of adverts for 3D television sets ...
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Dec 15, 2012 22:26:53 GMT -6
Geoffrey, I'm glad you brought up the Stone Giants.
That was not only felt conceptually wrong, it was bad CGI and is incomprehensible to people who've read the book, let alone people who have not.
I didn't care for the conceptual changes in the orcs, either, especially the Pale Orc.
I did not hate on this film. I went in trying to like it and give it a chance because I liked the LOTR trilogy.
It's just that, after waiting so long and really, really looking forward to "seeing" the story, my disappointment only grew with each successive scene--it was akin to going back to your old neighborhood, fully expecting to see the old sights and finding its all been torn down for a strip mall.
I must regard it as a failure on grounds of authenticity.
To be fair, though, it seemed the theater goers liked it. While we waited for it to start (we were 2nd in a very long line as we showed up 2 hours early...), the kid next to me was writing in runes on his ipad and scribbling rune notes he was teaching his little sister to decipher. He could write the runes as fast as you and I could write normally and I thought that was really cool.
No lie, I would love to see an "art" hobbit film based solely on the book. I know with the licensing issues it most likely would never happen but it'd be nice.
Some of the most powerful films I've seen are those that are based solely upon the book--one example that comes to mind is the Outsiders by SE Hinton and Francis Ford Coppola's screen rendition. I know Middle earth has different issues than a story like that in translating it to film, but still, I wish they'd taken the chance.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 15, 2012 22:43:17 GMT -6
When I saw each of the LotR films in theatres, I enjoyed them. I also bought the Extended Editions of each of the films. For me, TT and ROTK do not hold up well, and I no longer watch them. I still watch the theatrical version of FOTR, though I hold the remote in my hand and use the fast forward button, so it takes me about 2 to 2.5 hours to watch this 3-hour film.
I rank the films thus, from best to worst: FOTR TT and ROTK (tie) The Hobbit
I got the feeling that, for all their flaws, Peter Jackson and company really tried with the LotR films. The Hobbit, however, feels like a cash-grab. ("Why make 1 film when you can make 3?") Little things throughout the movie today were off. For example, Thorin near the end of the film referring to Bilbo as a "halfling". That word is not found in The Hobbit. It is a word found in LotR, used by men to describe Hobbits. Why? Because 3' Hobbits are half the height of men. But why in the world would a dwarf think of a Hobbit as a "halfling"? A Hobbit is most certainly not only half the height of a dwarf. Little things like that plagued the movie, and they make me feel that Jackson and company don't care as much this time around.
I hope nobody takes me for a party-pooper. If you like the movie more than I did, more power to you! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 15, 2012 23:07:29 GMT -6
In the book, Thorin is the only dwarf who fights in Goblin-town, because he found a sword in the trolls’ lair.
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Dec 15, 2012 23:14:10 GMT -6
No, but perhaps a bit nit-picky in your dissappointment.
I'll see it tomorrow, but I am not expecting much. In fact, I was going to give it a pass until I heard part of the score. That does make it seem like Jackson and company did indeed care about the movie. It sounds great. Too much cgi was my main complaint about the original trilogy (I agree FOTR was the best of the three, because it had the least obvious cgi and the best fight scenes, therefore - esp the fight in the woods near the end). Sorry to hear this one has amped the cgi up.
I don't really mind the padding, as there are few movies for me these days anyway.
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Dec 16, 2012 14:15:48 GMT -6
Riddles in the dark was the best bit, the rest was repetitive and drawn out.
Not entertaining enough for me, and I usually like battles with dynamic terrain.
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Dec 16, 2012 17:56:39 GMT -6
I saw it this afternoon, and thought it was great. I have no problems with it at all.
Five stars out of five from this well seasoned movie goer.
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 115
|
Post by Baron on Dec 16, 2012 19:00:07 GMT -6
Disappointed, but it could've been worse. I really get annoyed at all the camera angles and tricks simply designed to make a 3-D film more intense. It's as pathetic today as it was fifty years ago. Moreso since I'm not interested in 3-D, and went to a 2-D showing.
But Radagast's portrayal really got me ticked off.
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Dec 16, 2012 19:32:02 GMT -6
Really? Why so, just out of friendly curiosity? He was just an absent minded (very) wizard.
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 115
|
Post by Baron on Dec 16, 2012 20:32:19 GMT -6
Just as Gimli was Jackson's comedy-relief buffoon in LOTR, Radagast becomes not one of the Istari, but a bird-crap smeared, crosseyed clown. Gandalf has a light, humorous side, but Radagast's portrayal made me ill.
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Dec 16, 2012 21:11:07 GMT -6
I haven't read any but the four main books, so I am not familiar with Radagast as presented in other stories. He's only a name, so I had no idea that he was not portrayed as the same in any of the books. Most people won't.
Sorry it took away some from the movie for you.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 17, 2012 3:29:40 GMT -6
He is described by Gandalf in the book, The Fellowship of the Ring.
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 115
|
Post by Baron on Dec 17, 2012 9:05:18 GMT -6
He is described by Gandalf in the book, The Fellowship of the Ring.Yes, page 308. Depicted as an Istari, a wizard. Refers to the Shire as "uncouth." Quite at odds with the comic relief of Jackson. I wish the man had more respect for the source material and for the author. These books made a profound impression on many people, often in our early, impressionable years. They hold a special place in our hearts. It's not The Hunger Games, it would be more appropriate, IMO, for him to refrain from interjecting his own elaborations.
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Dec 17, 2012 11:19:00 GMT -6
As yet I've not seen the film, so of course I'm in no position to judge it. I can, however, make an observation about what Peter Jackson has tried to produce, based on the trailers, marketing and various interviews Mr Jackson has given in recent weeks. Essentially, I think the decision was made not to film The Hobbit but to film a prequel to the earlier Lord of the Rings film trilogy. There is no way for the tone of a faithfully adapted version of The Hobbit to fit with those earlier films. Putting aside matters like length, pacing and padding (about which I am hearing largely consistent reports) I suspect that one simply has to understand the creative decision underlying the entire film and not go into it hoping for dwarves wearing their best detachable party hoods. Hopefully I'll enjoy it, but I don't believe for a moment that it will be a film of The Hobbit; luckily, that glorious little book remains unaffected, regardless. But then, what do I know? I'm the chap who wishes they'd stop cutting Tom Bombadil out of the adaptations
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Dec 17, 2012 11:48:43 GMT -6
Count me among the haters, I'm not going to see the film until it shows up on TV. The franchise desperately needed a divorce from Peter Jackson; all potential for an acceptable film was eliminated when he forced out Guillermo del Toro.
Jackson is subject to no traditional restraint. You've got New Line and MGM nominally in charge, but they are no longer actual studios with production executives and production facilities and whatnot: they simply warehouse intellectual property. Warner Bros. is onboard solely as a distributor, for a fixed fee -- they have no say in production. So you just have Jackson running the show, with no counterbalance to say "no" or offer a different perspective. And he's squirreled away production down to his home, uses his own company for production and below-the-line services, and brings on his usual collaborators as co-writers (who have no Hollywood writing credits whatsoever other than Peter Jackson movies). Complete cocoon.
How long until the copyright expires on the book? That's when there's a chance to see a genuine The Hobbit film.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 17, 2012 14:06:15 GMT -6
I still enjoyed the movie and am looking forward to a second viewing.
On the other hand, I liked John Carter. I guess that says something about my taste in movies.
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 115
|
Post by Baron on Dec 17, 2012 21:04:06 GMT -6
As yet I've not seen the film, so of course I'm in no position to judge it. I can, however, make an observation about what Peter Jackson has tried to produce, based on the trailers, marketing and various interviews Mr Jackson has given in recent weeks. Essentially, I think the decision was made not to film The Hobbit but to film a prequel to the earlier Lord of the Rings film trilogy. There is no way for the tone of a faithfully adapted version of The Hobbit to fit with those earlier films. Putting aside matters like length, pacing and padding (about which I am hearing largely consistent reports) I suspect that one simply has to understand the creative decision underlying the entire film and not go into it hoping for dwarves wearing their best detachable party hoods. Hopefully I'll enjoy it, but I don't believe for a moment that it will be a film of The Hobbit; luckily, that glorious little book remains unaffected, regardless. But then, what do I know? I'm the chap who wishes they'd stop cutting Tom Bombadil out of the adaptations Really. The movie, The Hobbit, is not meant to be a film version of the book, The Hobbit. I see. How silly of me. And, there is no way for a faithful adaptation of the book to fit with those earlier films. Oh. Except that the book (The Hobbit) did indeed fit with The Lord of the Rings trilogy. In book form. But, I'm sure it makes perfect sense the way you've explained it.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Dec 17, 2012 23:33:56 GMT -6
Fin, John Carter was actually pretty good to me, guess I'm inconsistent on that point as relates to being a Puritan regarding exact book-likeness of films based on literary works.
I guess I just feel strongly about this book and author, like I know many of us do whether we love or hate the movie or simply enjoy the movie.
Like Baron, I don't think tie ins to the other movie or creative needs of the film makers justified the alterations to the tale.
I did get the little part in the beginning, with Frodo and that tie-in, I think that was understandable given a need to let younger movie goers who saw the other movies to know where it fit--but from there I think P.J. should have striven to, yes, innovate on and interpret some things a bit yet keeping within the perimeters of the story.
|
|
|
Post by noffham on Dec 18, 2012 12:00:10 GMT -6
I for one, don't get the haters. There are two things in the movie not mentioned in the book (or the LOTR appendices): The white orc and the conference in Rivendell about the Necromancer (which was more a time displacement than an invention).
The orc business was a clever way to highlight what Oaken-shield really meant regarding Thorin- a bad-ass fighter.
The portrayal of Radaghast was a bit jarring to me too, but given that Tolkien did write the bit about the Bull-roarer inventing golf I think PJ can be forgiven a bit of humor.
It may just be me, but given that I lived through Hawk the Slayer I am more than thrilled that we finally got a Hobbit (or any fantasy film) as good as we have here.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 18, 2012 18:38:12 GMT -6
One question: do the trolls speak in elegant prose?
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Dec 18, 2012 21:07:41 GMT -6
Noffham, I'm most certainly not hating. I'm just stating the obvious for those who've seen it.
Much more was changed than those two items.
Arguably, its more about Thorin than Bilbo, for starters.
Bilbo didn't go chasing the dwarves until he was shooed out of the house by Gandalf.
They didn't come to Rivendell by the manner shown in the film.
They didn't almost get it into a scrap with the elves.
Thorin didn't descend the burning tree to duel the orc and wasn't saved by Bilbo.
Bilbo didn't try to sneak away from the cave where they were taken by the goblins (and their ponies should have been in the scene).
And unless my memory fails me, there was no place for the meeting between Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, and Gandlaf during the Party's stay at the Last Homely House.
And this is just what I can recall at the moment. These aren't minor interpretation innovations--they are major changes and they pandered without needing to.
I have no hate for this movie. It simply was not JRR Tolkien's story. And I must disagree--I'm not thankful for what I get when it comes to film. Not when you tell me years in advance "Hey, we're making the Hobbit" and I go there as my 8 year old self again only to find that you have cruelly deceived me these many years. They ripped the book from my hands.
And just ask yourself--would Tolkien have liked it. I really don't believe he would have. Maybe now that he's wholly spirit and has perfect understanding he doesn't care, but in his lifetime, I ask you--would he have liked it?
I was not kidding--the 1977 film is FAITHFUL to the book, has great music, great voice actors, good pace...these are not arguable...and in my belief, very good art work and animation for the time. Smaug was a classic there. So it is still the go to Hobbit movie for the real story.
Now, yes, I am going to see the other movies but I was just saying.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 18, 2012 21:31:50 GMT -6
To me, every scene was off. The closest a scene came to being like the book was dinner in Bilbo's hobbit-hole.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 18, 2012 22:49:41 GMT -6
I just saw the movie tonight, in non-3D and non-high-frame-rate, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Martin Freeman was born to play Bilbo (and Watson and that guy in the UK Office ). I enjoyed all of the additions/changes. I've read the book so many times I'd be bored if they did a straight adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Dec 19, 2012 11:03:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by noffham on Dec 19, 2012 15:54:21 GMT -6
Xerxez, I wasn't singling you out by any means, sorry if it came across that way. In addition, as I mentioned, the whole deal with the white orc was one of the things I noted was not in the book.
I'm sorry that you felt your inner child was violated by the film, but dude, it is just a movie.
I'm done here, I don't want to upset people with my opinions. Have a healthy and happy Holiday.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Dec 19, 2012 17:35:42 GMT -6
Sorry Noffham, this is a case of tone not making it into text. I understood your original post and I apologize if my post came across wrong. Merry Christmas to you and everybody.
|
|