We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 35 of 35
  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    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 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).


    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.


    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'.


    What, even that scene where Saruman throws a fireball at Gandalf? Real quality scene, that one. Just so Tolkienesque


    It's nowhere near as good as the LOTR movie trilogy. 'Nuff said.
    First, I hated King Kong. I think PJ is a good, not great director. But, I think he's nailed the Middle Earth concept as well as any director could have.

    Second, what's wrong with childish? Like I said, it's a book for 7-15 year olds. A lot of other people just happen to read it. And the fight scenes are simply entertaining.

    Padding? I'd love for every single line of text, no matter how miniscule, to be in the movie. I LOVE padding. Sadly, that's not realistic, so I'll take what I can get. As for the fireball, yeah, not so realistic, but who cares? It's a 2 minute scene.

    You're right about the Tolkien thing. Yeah, it's pretty much 100% I'll go see whatever it happens to be. I think that makes me a true fan I'm really not sure what your problem with spending money on something that one finds enjoyable is however. I really don't see why it matters to you how many times I go see a movie, or how many movies I go see.

    I can't argue with you about which is better, as that's just an opinion. But the Cinemascores are the same, so apparently people enjoyed The Hobbit just as much. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. In the end, it's a movie. If PJ wan't to indulge himself he's perfectly entitled to it, and if people pay for it, he's clearly doing something that people want to see.
    [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]

  2. #27
    I watched it home, having never seen it in the theater. The best analogy I could use for it, was an expansion for the game, where they just reused all of the same animations and graphics but left out any real content.

    I got pretty bored tbh.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,113
    Quote Originally Posted by josh13333 View Post
    First, I hated King Kong. I think PJ is a good, not great director. But, I think he's nailed the Middle Earth concept as well as any director could have.
    When he tries to, yes. But not when he insists on trying to be funny.

    Your problem seems to be you don't want to admit flaws in this movie even when a ton of other people can see them (including a lot of critics, hence the less-than-stellar meta-score on Rotten Tomatoes).

    Second, what's wrong with childish? Like I said, it's a book for 7-15 year olds. A lot of other people just happen to read it.
    As I already said, in places the movie is MORE childish than the book! Looking at the book in retrospect, Tolkien felt he'd been condescending to his audience as it was whereas the movie has taken that very book and dumbed it down with those ridiculous action scenes. That's what's wrong with childish when it's overdone, it becomes infantile.

    And the fight scenes are simply entertaining.
    Only if you like your entertainment to be mindless, or if you're just mesmerised by heavy use of CGI. Or both. Especially sad when those scenes are so heavy on the CGI that they often lose any apparent connection to any sort of physical reality, they've become cartoon-like.

    Padding? I'd love for every single line of text, no matter how miniscule, to be in the movie. I LOVE padding.
    When I said padding I meant padding, extraneous invented stuff to pad a relatively slim volume (roughly a quarter the length of LOTR) into three overlong movies just so they can make more money. Especially given that PJ tends to fall back on generic fantasy when he outright invents things.

    Sadly, that's not realistic, so I'll take what I can get. As for the fireball, yeah, not so realistic, but who cares? It's a 2 minute scene.
    It's not the only stupid scene in the extended movies though, is it? The whole scene with the confrontation with Saruman is ridiculous, in the book he was standing on the balcony rather than on top of the damn tower, five hundred feet up. And PJ has Legolas shooting Wormtongue from where they're standing at the bottom of the tower, which is just plain stupid. Then there's the extended scene in the Paths of the Dead, with that ludicrous number of skulls coming from all over the place. Not to mention having the WiKi breaking Gandalf's staff. That sort of thing's not Tolkienesque at all, it's just bad.

    You're right about the Tolkien thing. Yeah, it's pretty much 100% I'll go see whatever it happens to be. I think that makes me a true fan I'm really not sure what your problem with spending money on something that one finds enjoyable is however. I really don't see why it matters to you how many times I go see a movie, or how many movies I go see.
    No, that just makes you someone who's easily exploited. And that you're a true PJ fan more than anything else.

    I can't argue with you about which is better, as that's just an opinion. But the Cinemascores are the same, so apparently people enjoyed The Hobbit just as much. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. In the end, it's a movie. If PJ wan't to indulge himself he's perfectly entitled to it, and if people pay for it, he's clearly doing something that people want to see.
    It's not just my opinion, the world in general thinks the LOTR movies were better. Telling that you're rattling on about Cinemascores and ignoring what the critics had to say. And no, no director is ever entitled to be so self-indulgent, that's always a flaw and it shows.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Mar 31 2013 at 06:02 AM.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Hallrandthir View Post
    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.
    How wasn't Gandalf violent in the book?
    [B]Hitchens[/B](r9 warg)[B], [/B][B]Glasgow[/B](R9 LM), [B]Lintalthir[/B] (R10 Hunter), [B]Rithun[/B] (R6 Captain) Brandywine server.
    [I]I fought alongside Silverest & Wuffles on Gladden when LOTRO began, nowadays on Brandwyne's PvP [/I]

  5. #30
    How are you not ignoring the audience's feelings? I think it's more important that normal viewers are entertained, and you seem to think it's more important that the movie critics are entertained. Why would critics(a very small portion of a films viewers) get more weight than the millions of average viewers? It's telling that you're rattling on about critics scores and ignoring the public at large.

    And if JJ Abrams or any other director produced a Tolkien adaptation tomorrow, I'd see it. The director really doesn't matter.

    Every movie from now on is going to be mainly CGI. You know why? Because it looks much better. They can literally make anything they want without being constrained by budget, setting, or realism. The orcs in the Hobbit look much better than the orcs in LoTR.

    Of course the movie has flaws. So did LoTR. But I'm not sure why you can't just enjoy the movies for what they are, adaptations. I'm sure in 50 years a new director will come along and redo the movies, and they will be in his style. I'm grateful that the first trilogy and now the Hobbit is bringing more people to reading the books and finding out about the wonderful world Tolkien created. Even if I hated them, I'd still feel that.
    [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]

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by josh13333 View Post
    The orcs in the Hobbit look much better than the orcs in LoTR.
    Well... That's just your opinion, man...
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/2521c00000023047e/01000/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,619
    If 'the critics' had their way Tolkien's works would not have
    been published. Nor JK Rowlings, & no doubt CS Lewis' too.
    [B]Hitchens[/B](r9 warg)[B], [/B][B]Glasgow[/B](R9 LM), [B]Lintalthir[/B] (R10 Hunter), [B]Rithun[/B] (R6 Captain) Brandywine server.
    [I]I fought alongside Silverest & Wuffles on Gladden when LOTRO began, nowadays on Brandwyne's PvP [/I]

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by CarltheRed View Post
    If 'the critics' had their way Tolkien's works would not have
    been published. Nor JK Rowlings, & no doubt CS Lewis' too.
    The critics @ Tolkein's publishers should have been burned as witches!!!! Why? Because Tolkien died with the disappointment that his TRUE masterpiece, Silm, had not been printed in his lifetime. The Book of Lost Tales 1&2 had been his first venture into writing of mythology. Yes, Christopher published these books, but not his father.

    WHY did they NOT publish Silm? The jerks wanted a sequel to the Hobbit. So, for certain reasons... I have to say "Go take a walk, Bilbo!"
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0a20b0000000c4b15/01001/signature.png]Goling[/charsig]

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    18,103
    Quote Originally Posted by josh13333 View Post

    Of course the movie has flaws. So did LoTR. But I'm not sure why you can't just enjoy the movies for what they are, adaptations. I'm sure in 50 years a new director will come along and redo the movies, and they will be in his style. I'm grateful that the first trilogy and now the Hobbit is bringing more people to reading the books and finding out about the wonderful world Tolkien created. Even if I hated them, I'd still feel that.
    And this is why I enjoyed the movie, even though it really did not follow the book.
    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

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,113
    Quote Originally Posted by josh13333 View Post
    How are you not ignoring the audience's feelings? I think it's more important that normal viewers are entertained, and you seem to think it's more important that the movie critics are entertained. Why would critics(a very small portion of a films viewers) get more weight than the millions of average viewers? It's telling that you're rattling on about critics scores and ignoring the public at large.
    This is weak - as if the movie had to be that exact way in order to entertain. That's just another excuse for ignoring its flaws.

    And if JJ Abrams or any other director produced a Tolkien adaptation tomorrow, I'd see it. The director really doesn't matter.
    O'rly? So how come the director is routinely blamed when movies turn out badly? As a facetious example, just imagine if it were Uwe Boll making a Tolkien adaptation - if you'd go see something like that just because of that Tolkien label, then you'd be guaranteed to have wasted your money because the guy makes such awful movies. Or for that matter, just imagine if it were Michael Bay.

    Every movie from now on is going to be mainly CGI. You know why? Because it looks much better. They can literally make anything they want without being constrained by budget, setting, or realism.
    Indeed they can - they can abuse it, and do action scenes that look foolish because they treat apparently flesh-and-blood characters like indestructible cartoons. Hello, this is cognitive dissonance calling... immersion is important. If the CGI is too wildly unrealistic when the characters otherwise look and act realistically, it's jarring.

    Of course the movie has flaws. So did LoTR. But I'm not sure why you can't just enjoy the movies for what they are, adaptations. I'm sure in 50 years a new director will come along and redo the movies, and they will be in his style. I'm grateful that the first trilogy and now the Hobbit is bringing more people to reading the books and finding out about the wonderful world Tolkien created. Even if I hated them, I'd still feel that.
    Just because something being based on Tolkien immediately hypnotizes you into forgiving every flaw in the adaptation, however glaring, that doesn't mean the rest of us should just switch off all our critical faculties and sit there drooling next to you. And the LOTR movie trilogy really has nothing to do with this - PJ simply did a better job, there, in general terms. It's no reason for forgive him messing about forever after. I dislike this movie because it's a sadly and above all needlessly flawed adaptation - the same flaws that were visible in the LOTR movies have come back redoubled in this one.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

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