rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 16, 2013 17:26:48 GMT -6
After reading the reviews and seeing the trailers and after taking in the critic's appraisals, I will not be supporting continued movie iterations of Tolkein's works. I believe he would have blanched at the utter commercialization of it all by extending out The Hobbit for more than one movie and with the obvious intent of milking it for all it was worth. The art in Tolkien's book has been atomized to a semblance of its former luster and I will not add to the diminishing of that sheen by voting with my dollars in support of such enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 16, 2013 17:47:59 GMT -6
I've seen it twice and overall enjoyed it but have to admit it's a pretty crappy movie. There are just huge problems with tone throughout, alternating willy-nilly from melodrama to comic relief to mindless CG action sequences. With the exception of the camaraderie between Balin and Dwalin, I thought the portrayal of the dwarves was just despicable. Thorin was basically just recycled Aragorn from the LotR movies, and if you've read the books, you know Thorin and Aragorn are VERY different characters. The only high points for me were the visual depiction of Erebor, the "what were they smoking?!?" performance of Barry Humphries as the Goblin King, and of course Andy Serkis doing his usual good job. (But Brother Theodore will ALWAYS be the definitive Gollum in my opinion.) I am looking forward to Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug in future episodes.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 12, 2013 16:01:09 GMT -6
ONE YEAR LATER: In preparation of the new Hobbit II movie coming out tomorrow, I decided to re-watch the Hobbit I movie on DVD last night. 1. It's a better movie than I remembered, overall. 2. Some of the CGI stuff still bothers me. Some of the characters look too CGI for my liking (I'd prefer to see more actors in makeup and fewer cartoon characters.) 3. I agree that the tone is strange, as it's serious one moment and comedic the next. I still don't get the point of the storm giants. 4. I'm still bothered by the "Indiana Jones Temple of Doom" effect, where some scenes are so much like a roller coaster and so little like a bunch of dudes running around. Can't wait to see the next one.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Dec 12, 2013 18:38:17 GMT -6
I was talking to one of my players about going to see The Hobbit part two. As a LotR fan he is keen to enjoy the movies as much as he can because there is nothing remotely like them in the cinema for those who enjoy fantasy literature. I on the other hand have not watched Jackson's movies for a number of years now, I don't have his LotR on dvd though I did fast forward through The Hobbit part one on dvd instead of seeing it on the big screen - I thought the Dwarves' song was very good. What I am trying to do is cleanse myself of Jackson's imagery because I prefer my own imagery/characterisation/tone when reading the books and the books are far more valuable to me.
Have the movies for you become a substitute for reading LotR & The Hobbit? FotR was out in 2001. If you do read them do you find Jackson's films have become your default visualisation?
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 116
|
Post by Baron on Dec 12, 2013 18:42:02 GMT -6
For me it's not difficult to keep the two versions of Middle Earth separate in my mind. The movies do not in any way replace the books for me. They are simply one interpretation in a different medium, although I confess that they can get me fairly cranky at times.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 12, 2013 20:21:46 GMT -6
I’ve seen the LotR Extended movies once. I’m ignoring The Hobbit movies. I don’t see the film actors or imagery in my head when I re-read the books.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Dec 12, 2013 20:55:46 GMT -6
Is there any real danger of confusing Jackson's LotR with Tolkien's, except in a temporary "can't get this annoying song out of my head" kind of way? I haven't seen Jackson's Hobbit, but I assume it's more of the same. To Kill a Mockingbird is the only film I can think of that has overtaken the source in a substantial way: if I were to read that book today, I would picture and hear Gregory Peck throughout.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 12, 2013 22:55:24 GMT -6
If you do read them do you find Jackson's films have become your default visualisation? No, not at all.
|
|
machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
Post by machpants on Dec 13, 2013 0:12:36 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. Just found this thread but my thoughts exactly. Was comically bad, the goblin town fights. I am not even going to bother to see the second, and I looooooooved the LotR trilogy and am owner of: VCR then DVD then extended blu ray of LotR movies.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 13, 2013 7:50:44 GMT -6
Have the movies for you become a substitute for reading LotR & The Hobbit? FotR was out in 2001. If you do read them do you find Jackson's films have become your default visualisation? No. I'm re-reading The Hobbit right now in preparation of the second movie, and I'll probably move on to re-read LotR when I finish The Hobbit. Doesn't change my visualization much at all, but when I run a M-E campaign I tend to use some of the pictures from the films as props to help my players see what their characters would see.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Dec 13, 2013 11:47:37 GMT -6
Its funny, I remember reading LotR over 20 years ago picturing Christopher Walken as Aragorn. I think the artist Angus Mcbride modelled him on Paul Newman.
For me the one impressive presentation of a character was Saruman. I might have to credit C. Lee with that though his sleek as a fish look was very fine. McKellen is an excellent actor but he was too pious for me. Gandalf is more cranky, irritable and fallible - big nose, big hands, extravagant gestures.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 13, 2013 15:27:32 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]. I found looking at the Fellowship was a good moment, but I was a little startled by some times. By the Two towers, the startling moments were becoming annoying. They were positively cringe-worthy for me by the Return of the King (the indignifing treatment Denethor received being not the least) Viewing the Extended DVD version was an ordeal. When I realised that the Hobbit was going to receive the same treatment (i-e: the moment I learned it was going to be ... a Trilogy!) I decided I was not going to see this movie. Presentely, I re-reading with my children the excellent graphic novel illustrated by David Wentzel.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 13, 2013 15:41:34 GMT -6
If you do read them do you find Jackson's films have become your default visualisation? To be fair, with Allan Lee and John Howe behind the concept art for the PJ's movies, this was probably a lesser evil. I really loved the visual of the three movies for the settings, but, as far as it goes for the characters , I to prefer by far the illustrations Angus MacBride did for MERP.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 13, 2013 15:45:47 GMT -6
Gandalf is more cranky, irritable and fallible - big nose, big hands, extravagant gestures. The Ralph Bashki version, as far as I remembered, milked en entire stable of giants cows! Aaaand... He had very bushy eyebrows!
|
|
|
Post by kent on Dec 14, 2013 12:59:23 GMT -6
Bakshi's LotR is a work of genius in my view.
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 116
|
Post by Baron on Dec 14, 2013 13:13:08 GMT -6
Bakshi's LotR is a work of genius in my view. I'm a great fan of Bakshi's.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Dec 14, 2013 14:22:27 GMT -6
I love the books. I love Jackson's LotR and Hobbit films. I love Bakshi's LorR. I love the Rankin-Bass Hobbit and even The Return of the Kinf. The movies don't affect my personal visualization of the books. I'm a-okay with the films being different. Film is a very different artistic medium. I'm at peace with it.
Being born in 1974 and a kid during the 80s, my first exposure to the books were my oldest sister's copies of the Silver Jubilee edition boxed set with the Darrel K. Sweet covers, so the atmosphere and tone of his art does effect my own mind's eye view of the material. (though I sort of saw Aragon as an even more rough Robert Urich c. 1986)
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 116
|
Post by Baron on Dec 14, 2013 14:26:34 GMT -6
Well, lest we go quietly into the night, I'll go on record as saying that I get really ticked off at PJ for taking the liberties he has with the source material. Often doing exactly the kinds of things Tolkien himself went on record as being firmly against in any screen version of his work. Pity the professor didn't get 'JK Rowling' control over the thing.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 14, 2013 15:06:52 GMT -6
I cannot speak about The Hobbit movies, not having seen them, but, in the LotR , I found that Peter Jackson's additions, instead of adding any dramatic tension , as intended, were rather mood-killers, and often created gaping "plot-holes"
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 14, 2013 15:11:11 GMT -6
Even Michael Martinez (who has defended all the movies so far) is calling the latest one a “total piece of crap”!
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Dec 16, 2013 22:59:19 GMT -6
On the other hand, I found the new one a blast, because I've embraced the fact that this is not Tolkien's Hobbit, this is BBC!Sherlock's D&D game for Watson and 14 of his mates.
|
|