We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    912

    Just watched the Hobbit again and...

    When I watched The Hobbit the first time it was with all the bells and whistles... Projection 3D, HFR, IMAX, and I left extremely disappointed. I was so looking forward to this film but I spent the entire movie with my jaw on the floor - pointing at the screen in disbelief, muttering phrases like: "But that never happened... He never said that... Whaaa? A Moose?... But He's dead!!! - They are not mounts!" and so on...

    I was distracted (or deceived) by the bells and whistles and couldn't tell if I just really hated the movie (for its re-write and the PJ touch) or just thought the movie sucked (the 3D effects and HFR being interesting/discombobulating enough to salvage the flick from being a total waste of time/money.)

    Needless to say I watched it again a few days later - this time with out the HFR and only digital 3D in a regular theater - and it still sucked - but this time I didn't feel compelled to stand up in the middle of the movie and scream "For Frodo!!" and charge the screen. I began to appreciate what a great job Freeman did as Bilbo - and forgave McKellen, Holm and Lee for getting old. (older?)

    Time went by and just before it was pulled from the theaters I hit a solo matinee - no frills - no 3D - just a musty old down-town theater, occupied by a few guys in trench coats whispering in the back and a front and center mountain-o-man slurping a 3X mega-grande-ultimate-keg-o-cup of diet coke. And I hated the movie less than my fellow movie goers - progress.

    Fast forward to today - yep - bought the blue-ray - fired it up on the HD flatscreen and sat back and watched in the comfort of my own home...

    And I liked it... actually I liked it a lot!! I just kind of rolled with Azog, Scrotum beard and Bridcrap. Pretended that a crack is a crack - whether it slams shut in the back of the cave just in time to see goblins steal your ponies - or opens up under your feet as you are trying to ditch the company and go home. (I used the same type of rational for every re-write in the tale) In other words I looked at each change and asked myself - does the change manage to keep the overall spirit of the tale in the larger context? Or does it just seem like PJ is doing something unsightly to the family pooch?

    Update: No animals were harmed or violated in the making of The Hobbit, at least not from my perspective.

    I actually smiled - laughed - got goose-bumped - felt an emotion - inspired by speeches - got all misty-dewey and chest-thumpity ( occasionally accompanied by grunting.)

    I'm actually am looking forward to Part 2 now...

    Now why do you suppose I had such a drastic change of heart?

    It seems that the less tech (3D, HFR, etc.) the more I enjoyed it... On the other hand it could be I am just being being beaten into a conformist and I am justifying all the things I hated about the movie as ...acceptable - because I have no other option but to like this movie or not like anything - and I so want to have a film version of this tale (even a flawed version) for my Tolkien collection, to enjoy.

    When part 2 comes out I am going to reverse the order and see it low tech first and up the visual extravaganza with each re-watch ( because lets face it - even if it sucks - I'm going to give it as much chances to suck as I did for the first one: at least 1 watch in each format platform.) It will be interesting to find that all the visual foo-foo actually hinders or heightens my initial impression.

    Any thoughts?
    Take Care,
    D.
    [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?496094-The-Brief-Mr.-Bako-Bongo-In-Soup-Du-Jour."]My LOTRO Comics and Fan-Fiction[/URL]

  2. #2
    I hate 3D and have never enjoyed the experience when I go to see a 3D movie.
    Having read your post I´m now compelled to see the Hobbit again, it will be nice to watch it without developing
    a splitting headache like it gave me in the theater.
    Ceol rank 9 guardian, member of The Twilight Gathering on the Gilrain server EU
    I was a corner survivor

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceol-EU View Post
    I hate 3D and have never enjoyed the experience when I go to see a 3D movie.
    Having read your post I´m now compelled to see the Hobbit again, it will be nice to watch it without developing
    a splitting headache like it gave me in the theater.

    No matter which movie I see, I hate 3D. Can't stand it.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarendele View Post
    Now why do you suppose I had such a drastic change of heart?
    Damned if I know, because you can take away the 3D and the HFR and what remains (as in the movie itself, the bit that matters) is still sadly flawed. It has its moments, but nothing's going to fix Radagast And His Ridiculous Rodents, or that scene with the giants, or any of those silly action scenes in Goblin Town. Are we to assume Dwarves are made of rubber and feathers, then, that they can fall that far and not get so much as a scratch? Or that Goblins can be casually batted up in the air like footballs?

    And that's without mentioning so much as one plot or character change, you'll notice

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mostly Middle Earth
    Posts
    876
    I watched it at the theater in IMAX then HFR 3D and then in 2D and again today at home on 2D BluRay, and I'm sorry to disagree with you all, but I enjoyed THE HOLLYWOOD ADAPTATION of the book every time I watched it.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Damned if I know, because you can take away the 3D and the HFR and what remains (as in the movie itself, the bit that matters) is still sadly flawed. It has its moments, but nothing's going to fix Radagast And His Ridiculous Rodents, or that scene with the giants, or any of those silly action scenes in Goblin Town. Are we to assume Dwarves are made of rubber and feathers, then, that they can fall that far and not get so much as a scratch? Or that Goblins can be casually batted up in the air like footballs?

    And that's without mentioning so much as one plot or character change, you'll notice
    I didn't mind Radagast too badly. Just gave a little too much weigh to Saurman's comments (simple, birdtamer, fool). I was really quite happy that they included the stone giants, which was one the most whimsical things Tolkien ever wrote. If anyone fell that far their heart would seperate from their aorta and they would bleed out(there I agree with you). What I most didn't like was how pitch black tunnels somehow became huge open cavernous spaces (I have the same problem with Moria) and the meeting of the White Council Fiasco. Wherever they departed from Tolkien it stuck out like a sore thumb (Case in point- Great Goblin's last line "That would do it.")

    As a whole however, I liked it and think the OP likes it more because he is used to it without the bells and whistles and got used to the changes with subsequent watchings.
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapold View Post
    and I'm sorry to disagree with you all, but I enjoyed THE HOLLYWOOD ADAPTATION of the book every time I watched it.

    This is what so many people do not get. It's not a Tolkien move, it's a Peter Jackson movie. I participate in a war game forum, and the people there thrash a John Woo movie called "Wind Talkers" because it has over the top explosions. What do you expect? It's a John Woo flick. Same thing with "The Hobbit", it's a Peter Jackson movie.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphonic View Post
    This is what so many people do not get. It's not a Tolkien move, it's a Peter Jackson movie. I participate in a war game forum, and the people there thrash a John Woo movie called "Wind Talkers" because it has over the top explosions. What do you expect? It's a John Woo flick. Same thing with "The Hobbit", it's a Peter Jackson movie.
    Damn straight, it's not about Tolkien - I deliberately avoided any mention of plot or characters (although there are the usual set of questionable changes there), it's about PJ making a sub-par movie because he was self-indulgent. People can shout 'THE HOLLYWOOD ADAPTATION' all they like, but that's missing the point by a mile - this time around, the flaws in PJ's style of movie-making were glaringly obvious, far less forgivable than they were before.

  9. #9
    @Radhruin_EU
    to appreciate your comments on the Tolkien-related movies, I would like to know what movie adaption of a book satisfies your pretension. Do you have an example? (as an extra: is there also a movie adoption of a book which is "better"(TM) than the book, in your eyes?)

    (don't want to derail the thread or go off topic, just would like to know)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    89
    I feel that Peter Jackson has made some very nice technical improvements. The scenery and the shots are also very impressive.

    However the portrayal of some of the characters, as well as a few of the action scenes are just childish.
    I do not imagine either of the Istari to behave the way they did:
    I was shocked to see Gandalf acting so violent and sudden. I much prefer the way Radagast behaves in the game compared to how he is in the movie.

    Simply put, The Hobbit is less elegant than the trilogy.
    "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

  11. #11
    I agree with all the OP points although having never seen it in 3D I have no idea how it looks that way.

    I think maybe the best way to approach the movie is to never have read the book. If this sounds like I'm excusing Peter Jackson for the various inaccuracies then I probably am haha. In a purely entertainment perspective it was fun but way way too long. The whole movie could have been cut by 30 minutes at least. The Goblin cave scenes went on and on and had me yawning.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Talaixa View Post
    @Radhruin_EU
    to appreciate your comments on the Tolkien-related movies, I would like to know what movie adaption of a book satisfies your pretension. Do you have an example? (as an extra: is there also a movie adoption of a book which is "better"(TM) than the book, in your eyes?)
    Bit of a non sequitur, that - I wasn't looking for the movie to be as good as the book: it's hard to pull that off, let alone to make a movie that's better than the book it's based on. The latter is rare, but it does happen every now and again - I'll come back to that. In this case, I'm simply disappointed with the end result because we already know PJ can do better, when he sets his mind to it. What he's done with The Hobbit is to take a comparatively slim novel (255 pages) and pad it out into three over-long movies, and it's what he's padded it out with that I have a problem with. Spurious action scenes, chiefly (I imagine that the second and third movies will follow this established pattern) and it's even worse when they're silly as well.

    To answer your question, though, the example I tend to hold up of a movie adaptation that I consider to be inarguably better than the book is Fight Club. It's far from the only example, though.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Lecherous_Dwarf View Post
    . The Goblin cave scenes went on and on and had me yawning.
    I agree with you, and I also think that the Goblin caves scenes went on and on. No argument there.

    Like I said in some thread somewhere, it reminds me of the T Rex scene in King Kong where he had a similar fight with the T Rexes falling through a bunch of large vines down a cliff. That's all I could think of while watching the movie.

    And just like King Kong, he also put his own little sub plots in The Hobbit, like Bilbo turning down Gandalf in the beginning and Thorin going way over board in saying that Bilbo was useless.

    I can put up with it though, that's just PJ's style.

    The Hobbit movie made in the 70s bored me to tears so I'd much rather watch the modern version.


    Is spite of it's flaws I still enjoyed it.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    In this case, I'm simply disappointed with the end result because we already know PJ can do better, when he sets his mind to it. What he's done with The Hobbit is to take a comparatively slim novel (255 pages) and pad it out into three over-long movies, and it's what he's padded it out with that I have a problem with. Spurious action scenes, chiefly (I imagine that the second and third movies will follow this established pattern) and it's even worse when they're silly as well.
    .

    This is true. I can see him stretching it out to two movies, but three? And yes, he can do better.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphonic View Post
    And just like King Kong, he also put his own little sub plots in The Hobbit, like Bilbo turning down Gandalf in the beginning and Thorin going way over board in saying that Bilbo was useless.
    That first example's the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a movie adaptation - in the book, there's narrative about how there's this inner struggle going on between the Took and Baggins aspects of Bilbo's character. A little elaboration brings that point across on-screen. What I'm not much of a fan of, though, is PJ's unsubtle approach: his way it seems Thorin can't just just dislke Elves, he has to despise them. Thorin can't just be initially dubious of Bilbo, he has to slag him off repeatedly. (I'd have thought that dubious looks and dismissive body language would have done). And then there's that scene when Bilbo saves Thorin's life - having him play the hero and making him Thorin's new best buddy all of a sudden was way too much - in the book, Bilbo truly proves himself later when he rescues the Dwarves from the spiders, and again when he gets them out of the Elvenking's halls. That's right, PJ, throw half the character development out the window in the first movie... *sigh*

    I can put up with it though, that's just PJ's style.
    Oh sure, we can put up with it but it's still facepalm-worthy, it's so ham-handed at times. Audiences can pick up on subtler queues perfectly well, I do wish PJ could dial it back a bit.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Hallrandthir View Post
    I feel that Peter Jackson has made some very nice technical improvements. The scenery and the shots are also very impressive.

    However the portrayal of some of the characters, as well as a few of the action scenes are just childish.
    I do not imagine either of the Istari to behave the way they did:
    I was shocked to see Gandalf acting so violent and sudden. I much prefer the way Radagast behaves in the game compared to how he is in the movie.

    Simply put, The Hobbit is less elegant than the trilogy.
    I agree with you that The Hobbit movie is a bit more silly and childish, as well as less elegant, than the LOTR trilogy. However, it is my impression that the source material - the books - are also this way. The Hobbit seems to have a more childish feel, with silly songs and poems, 13 often bumbling dwarves, being rescued from trolls by tricking them, and Tolkien's use of 'goblins' instead of 'orcs', just to name a few things. The LOTR books have a more mature feel to them compared to The Hobbit, so I don't mind that the movies are a bit the same way.
    "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," Faramir in TTT by JRRT.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mostly Middle Earth
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphonic View Post
    I can see him stretching it out to two movies, but three?
    9 Hours may be a bit excessive (probably longer if there's going to be an extended cut), but 3 movies probably makes sense.
    Logically the journey to the Carrock or possibly as far as Beorn would be part 1, Mirkwood deserves a movie to itself to do it justice, and Dale/Erebor/Battle of the 5 Armies would make part 3, so 3 movies is totally justified.
    They probably could have shaved 30mins or so off the theatrical releases though and left everything as is for the extended cut.


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapold View Post
    9 Hours may be a bit excessive (probably longer if there's going to be an extended cut), but 3 movies probably makes sense.
    Logically the journey to the Carrock or possibly as far as Beorn would be part 1, Mirkwood deserves a movie to itself to do it justice, and Dale/Erebor/Battle of the 5 Armies would make part 3, so 3 movies is totally justified.
    They probably could have shaved 30mins or so off the theatrical releases though and left everything as is for the extended cut.
    you have a good point there.


    BTW, nice kin name!
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  19. #19
    Seeing it in IMAX 3D, my eyes were too busy itching for me to enjoy the movie. I saw up to the part where Gandalf marks Bilbo's front door and peers into the window. I hated how Frodo & Bilbo's wigs seemed longer than they were in the trilogy.

    I re-watched it on DVD at a friend's house and was pleaseantly surprised. Let's just say there was a certain Wizard in there I had not expected to see... and it was not Saruman.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,550
    My TODO list for the weekend has cutting out some of the more ridiculous stuff, namely the escape from Goblin town with the stone surfing. Will make a much more enjoyable movie.

  21. #21
    To the OP: I don't think you can blame Alan Lee and John Howe for the outrageous looking dwarves etc.

    From art to Hollywood:
    Thorin's Company --> Hollywood
    The last dwarves arrive --> Hollywood
    Wandering Dwarves --> Hollywood
    Thorin Oakenshield --> Hollywood
    The Great Goblin --> Hollywood

    Oh, and I've got an axe embedded in my skull.
    Orly!? --> Yarly

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1
    I must confess, PJ's made certain dwarves too attractive for my coronary health. I'm already hoarding tissues for the final movie.

    Seriously though, I never really expected the Hobbit to actually follow the book, and to be perfectly honest, the book isn't all that descriptive to begin with. The movie crew had taken enormous liberties with the characterizations and the plot, surely in a way that they thought would be the most profitable, since (sadly) actual Tolkien fans are probably small in number compared to the vast majority of their intended audience.

    But still, I didn't mind the movie too much, and found some of PJ's interpretation oddly endearing. We COULD really do away with the goblin king and the stone giants though. I had originally cringed at the idea of Thorin and Bilbo constantly risking their lives for each other (the cliff, Azog, etc.) but then gave in entirely for the "awwww" factor. By the end of the movie I've already forgiven Jackson, because I'm shallow like that.

  23. #23
    I don't have parasites! YOU have parasites!

    Just wanted to say that.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0a20b0000001f51a2/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  24. #24
    I loved the Hobbit just as much as the original PJ trilogy. I saw it 3 times in theatre, and bought the Blu-Ray on the first day. Participated in the live preview of the next film, ect.

    Yeah, there are changes, but I don't mind. I thought Ragadast was hilarious. Not how I pictured him after this game, but still, funny. I almost had tears of joy when I saw Gandalf for the first time. I also appreciated the humor they threw in for him.

    I think the comedy aspect is a key thing. Yeah, it's a serious story on some level, as there is a lot of violence and fighting ect, but The Hobbit was a children's book. It should be funny and less serious than LOTR is.

    I love everything Tolkien related, so I really couldn't have not liked it if I tried. I've also always loved the idea of 3 movies. I would rather have 3 long, more detailed movies than only two with less detail. I have the patience to sit through them and enjoy them, so I don't see why not. Basically, just give me as much Tolkien content as possible. Heck, I paid for the extended collector's edition of the trilogy, which was like $100 at the time, and those are 4 hours long each. Love them even more for it.

    And, apparently, most people feel that way. 65% on Rotten Tomatoes is just average, but it got an A cinemascore, meaning that almost everyone who went and saw it felt good about it. Plus, it hit $1 billion, so it's already made 3 times it's budget back.
    [b]The thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond its reach.” - J.R.R. Tolkien[/b]

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,457
    Quote Originally Posted by josh13333 View Post
    I loved the Hobbit just as much as the original PJ trilogy. I saw it 3 times in theatre, and bought the Blu-Ray on the first day. Participated in the live preview of the next film, ect.
    So New Line and PJ would appear to own the contents of your wallet no matter what they do. Noted.

    (And by the way it's 'etc.', short for 'et cetera').

    I think the comedy aspect is a key thing. Yeah, it's a serious story on some level, as there is a lot of violence and fighting ect, but The Hobbit was a children's book. It should be funny and less serious than LOTR is.
    I think you've confused 'funny' with 'childish' (more than the book itself is!), 'stupid' and 'condescending'. Tolkien himself worried that he'd been condescending to his audience for The Hobbit, and what he wrote didn't engage in such ludicrous excesses. One thing in particular: he did NOT do mindless fight scenes. He didn't in LOTR (no hobbits whacking Orcs over the head with pots and pans to be found there) and he didn't in The Hobbit, either. And besides, far better comedic fight scenes have been filmed before (the 1973 version of The Three Musketeers comes to mind). It seems PJ's just not very good at that sort of scene (especially by forgetting that action scenes need to look at least somewhat plausible).

    I love everything Tolkien related, so I really couldn't have not liked it if I tried.
    Again, handy for PJ and New Line that anything with that 'Tolkien' label stuck on it will be guaranteed to extract money from your wallet, repeatedly, no matter what.

    I've also always loved the idea of 3 movies. I would rather have 3 long, more detailed movies than only two with less detail.
    Yup, and that means you're all for giving them three chances to part you and your money multiple times, too. Plus you've confused 'detail' with 'padding'.

    I have the patience to sit through them and enjoy them, so I don't see why not. Basically, just give me as much Tolkien content as possible. Heck, I paid for the extended collector's edition of the trilogy, which was like $100 at the time, and those are 4 hours long each. Love them even more for it.
    What, even that scene where Saruman throws a fireball at Gandalf? Real quality scene, that one. Just so Tolkienesque

    And, apparently, most people feel that way. 65% on Rotten Tomatoes is just average, but it got an A cinemascore, meaning that almost everyone who went and saw it felt good about it. Plus, it hit $1 billion, so it's already made 3 times it's budget back.
    It's nowhere near as good as the LOTR movie trilogy. 'Nuff said.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload