Has anyone else seen the Hobbit TDOS yet?
Yep. Not as good as the first part. :smiley:
Yep. Still not clear on why a book I was able to read in a single day was turned into a trilogy. (wrong)
To be honest, even the first movie felt odd- watered down and blown upat the same time; I am all for adaptional extensions but here I felt they just wanted to make yet another trilogy of awesomeness. I'll still watch them all, there's something about a beloved book being turned into lots and lots of images.
I'm seeing it in the new year (assuming my local cinema is still showing it).
It was originally going to be two films but they decided to make it into a trilogy just because they can.
I don't think even Jackson would deny that they're milking it a bit.
The barrel scene - one of my favourite scenes in the book - got turned into an action fight scene, and dragged on WAY too long. :sad:
Quote from: Frodo on Tue 24/12/2013 09:21:30
got turned into an action fight scene, and dragged on WAY too long. :sad:
Yeah well, that's the movies. I mean, did Legolas really surf on a shield firing arrows very sexily anywhere in the book? Did Harry dangle on that flying car when they stole it to fly to Hogwarts? Was there an explosion of candy in the original Chocolate Factory?
Sometimes it works. Sometimes, not so much. And sometimes they don't even notice. I'm looking at you, so-called-prequel-trilogy-of-Star-Wars-movies. See that? Red eyes, take warning!
The Hobbit was way too unrealistic for me. Yeah I know "but it's a fantasy!" yet even fantasies shouldn't exceed the framework of the world it's set in. Eg everything in Lord of the Rings or GoT is believable if you accept the basic rules of the fantasy world. But I'm pretty sure the hobbit and dwarves wouldn't survive a 10 million foot drop inside the goblin kingdom, and that chase scene was way too action movie-ey, and there was a genuine WTF moment when I saw that messenger on the string that the goblin with the deformed ball sack on his head speaks to. I also hated the whole White Orc subplot, not withstanding the CGI for it just looked so out of place for some reason. And in the trailer for Desolation of Smaug I saw Thorin jump about 10 feet into the air off a cliff, that would never happen.
I was hoping to see something in the same vein as the LotR but it turned out to be a dumb children's movie (the scene where that hedgehog called Sebastian dies actually made me angry). At least PJ stayed faithful to the text as it's essentially a children's book anyway. As a massive LotR fan I still hated it though.
The only thought that keeps me happy is to think of these movies as Hobbit-inspired prequels to Peter Jackson's LOTR.
Well I was neither impressed nor disappointed by Hobbit 1, except for the fact I will have to wait 3 years to see it finished. Hobbit was one of the first "bigger" books I've read and I still remember all the magic I felt from even seeing the cover of the book...it was magical and nothing can take that memory of reading it through some summer evenings. And all the tracking of the journey on the map inside the covers...magical.
(this is the cover btw FRONT (http://www.knjiga.ba/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/slike/hobit_algoritam.jpg) and BACK (http://www.algoritam.hr/slike/proizvodi/792_4.jpg) )
Hobbit is just a brilliant book to read as a kid, these movies are made for adults as well, but in that way they also lost some of the brilliance and mystery and magic)
A while after that I gobbled up first book of LOTR, second was stretched out and third I finished barely, because last 100 pages or so were such mind numbing drag. And movies reflected this, ending of the third movie being just stupidly long in such a way it ruins the whole movie and just overly sappy. Some worlds were very interesting when brought to life, some places only movies can take you, but it's all seriously dragged out.
There's no question about the relevance of Tolkien's work, they're basics, the origin of modern fantasy, but that's just it, there have people after Tolkien who made fantasy more modern and added more interesting ideas into the mix.
It really feels like "TOO BLOODY MUCH" on everything! The cliffhanger in the end actually annoyed even my kids (aged 10 and 11 right now), and in all it is highly ridiculous. Yes I've watched it and yes I've enjoyed it, but it simply is too much of everything!
Plus that love triangle between a dwarf and two elves? For fucks shake...
It builds on tolkien's world, but in general I'm not overly impressed with middle earth at all! :-/
I totally agree with the assessments of the action scenes being "too much". I was particularly miffed by the number of "yeah right" moments in the first Hobbit instalment when they were fleeing the Goblins under the mountain. For the Desolation of Smaug I had a similar feeling when it came to the barrel scene: I mean, fantasy is fantasy, but c'mon. C'mon. The barrel flips out of the water and runs over how many orcs, exactly? C'mon. The orc was propelled how high into the air to have his head cut off from a boat in water that would absorb the shock of anything falling into it? C'mon. C'mon!
On a positive note, however, I thought the movie did more credit to Thorin's character, actually having him
Spoiler
come down into Smaug's lair and face the dragon. In the book the dwarves always seemed to be just a little chicken-shit for not standing with Bilbo, who had helped them out of danger two or three times by that point. At least with the director's cut version you can say they're honourable.
I liked the dragon, although I've annoyed my wife to no end by constantly spouting the last line "I am fire! I am death!" in a dragon-like voice, but replacing those terms with happy friendly things like "sunshine" and "music", or "salt" and "bacon", etc. The set and life-world of Lake Town was awesome too (although the laughable administration of the town was nothing short of silly) -the elf world on the other hand seemed pretty bland.
But the one thing that gets me is
Spoiler
Gandalf battling Sauron. Seriously? Seriously? I mean, if he knew it was Sauron, why all the research into knowledge that was "lost" in the Fellowship of the Ring movie after reading the fire-runes on the ring if he knew Sauron was out and about? Gah, I can't stand that kind of continuity error. Not to mention the fact that the villains again suspend Gandalf over their army-building works, I guess to gloat but inevitably giving him the opportunity to escape and frustrate their plans. WILL THEY NEVER LEARN!!!! Just kill him! Jeeze! If he uses another butterfly to summon the eagles to rescue him I swear I will shit myself in the cinema next December -my fellow patrons, you are warned!
So in conclusion, although it didn't follow the book very religiously and cut out some parts I was really looking forward to, and I didn't really like the overdone action scenes, and there were some sadly predictable clichés and continuity errors, I did like about half the movie and some of the director's decisions to take the story in a slightly different direction. So I guess in the end I'm feeling kind of neutral on the whole experience.
I was really disappointed that they rushed through Mirkwood, and the giant spiders. It also seemed like the cut Beorn's scene a lot. :cry:
And this was just so they could add that ridiculous over-the-top far-too-long silly action barrel sequence, that was more about special effects and stunts, rather than telling the story. :angry:
Quote from: Anian on Thu 26/12/2013 00:26:13
There's no question about the relevance of Tolkien's work, they're basics, the origin of modern fantasy, but that's just it, there have people after Tolkien who made fantasy more modern and added more interesting ideas into the mix.
Pshaw! While there are a few other worthy fantasy authors, I don't think anyone yet has bettered Tolkien. But then I don't agree that the end of TLOTR drags in the least (in the book; the film is a different matter).
Anyway, I care too much for The Hobbit to watch this film. The moment I heard it was going to be split in three, I knew I would never see it. Everything people say, as well as the trailers, appear to bear out that decision.
All you've said may be true but I don't mind having a Tolkien based movie every Xmas, and c'mon guys, the movie wasn't that bad. I too have read the Hobbit and still hold great memories of it but it doesn't kill the experience I had. In fact, watching it made me go back to book 5 of the Wheel of Time and finish it, a book that was gaining spider webs for nearly 3 years!
Since posting this, I've been going on a blog-bing trying to nurse my frustration. Part of me wants to agree with miguel. How bad is it really? We get to go back to Middle Earth one more time. Not a bad thing. Then part of me doesn't understand how these two movies could be so off track.
I've been listening to the LOTR soundtrack, and I just can't reconcile how you can go from the epic feel of the haunting music and lyrics of "In Dreams" to the non-stop CGI silliness of the Hobbit films. If you recall, "In Dreams" even pays homage to The Hobbit. "When the seas and mountains fall / And we come, to end of days / In the dark I hear a call / Calling me there, / I will go there / And back again"
Then it hit me... The real change. It's Nerd Jackson vs. Hipster Jackson! Was the original trilogy fueled by Cheetos and Mountain Dew? Was it!?!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cPQr5HL6cnI/TCVkU_LvyOI/AAAAAAAAAHw/n7bRJELCtd8/s1600/PeterJackson.jpg)
(Okay... so I feel mean for saying it... honestly, I'm happy for his heart. (nod))
I understand what you're saying but is it really that bad that PJ lost weight and has a different look?
As far as I can see from the 2 movies, the message is still the same of Tolkien: friendship, honour, believing in one's capabilities and so on.
The Lord of The Rings was a global thing that moved people that didn't know Tolkien to the cinemas, I think that the people with the money were afraid that The Hobbit wouldn't do as well if it was a more conservative kind of movie so we got CGI sequences and all that. Do we Tolkien fans appreciate it? Probably not, but new generations will have to decide either to see The Hobbit or 47 Ronin...
I'd really want to see The Wheel of Time done by Jackson and his crew. That would be epic in every way, it's a massive work and Jackson proved that he can turn epics into movies.
Well at least he wouldn't be ruining anything since the books are already crap. :P
Blasphemy!
I've heard negative feelings about TWOT before and then have people actually growing fond of the characters and become addicted. But of course it's all down to taste and what one expects from fantasy books.
I heard they're splitting the final movie into two movies. And then they'll make a third movie on the credits alone, making a trilogy within the trilogy.
One a side note:
I saw it, and it was exactly how I had expected it to be - long, full of special effects, super ninja elves and whackiness.
When I read The Hobbit I was a child (I think I was 10 or so). I didn't tackle The Lord of the Rings until high school. I remembered, going into LotR, the "magic" that I felt from the Hobbit (wizards, dwarves and dragons) and tLotR was too serious and dark comparatively. I couldn't get past the first few chapters (and not just because of Tolkein's writing style, which was daunting). It took me years to finally hunker down and read the entire story of LotR. I fell in love with the world but I always felt a disconnect between the Middle Earth of the Hobbit and the Middle Earth in the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is much more of a children's book, while LotR is (admittedly) the origin of modern Sci-fi/Fantasy and more geared towards an older reading audience.
So when I went to see An Unexpected Journey last year (and The Desolation of Smaug a few weeks ago) I was expecting a much more light-hearted and whimsical (more fantastical) movie than the previous Middle Earth trilogy; and I wasn't disappointed. It is supposed to be that way. Another thing to consider is that The Hobbit is told (more clear in the movies) from the memories and perspective of Bilbo. He's relating the story and his memories are more vivid and fantastical than the reality probably was. Hence the "jumping 10 feet" or "barrel hitting 20 orcs" etc. So my experience, so far, with the Hobbit trilogy is more or less what I was expecting (and more enjoyable since I wasn't comparing it to the first trilogy). The Hobbit feels like you're being told a story and the Lord of the Rings feels like you're watching the events happen.
About the only complaint (and it's not really a complaint, more just an observation) that I have is that while I was expecting the more child-like nature (and disconnect) from the LotR trilogy... Jackson is really trying to tie it all together with the supplemental material being added in (which directly links the events of the Hobbit to the LotR, which the Hobbit (book) doesn't even really hint at). I was kind of hoping just for the Hobbit and letting the viewer make the connections). The addition of these materials that weren't in the book do clash a little with the more whimsical material from the book. I have noticed, however, that the parts of the movie(s) that are not from Bilbo's recollections (from the book) do tend to be darker and more dingy (more like LotR) which I think is a nice touch.
I do have to admit that I was, by the end of the Desolation of Smaug, rather tired of Legolas' spinning and general bad-assery. It wasn't that it was over the top (I liked that) it was that there was just too much of it (and Tauriel's as well). Oh look he's spinning and stabbing again! Didn't ruin the experience for me (Peter Jackson is known for too much of a thing; walking scenes, the entirety of the movie King Kong) but it was getting a tad annoying.
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 24/12/2013 17:44:11
The Hobbit was way too unrealistic for me. Yeah I know "but it's a fantasy!" yet even fantasies shouldn't exceed the framework of the world it's set in. Eg everything in Lord of the Rings or GoT is believable if you accept the basic rules of the fantasy world. But I'm pretty sure the hobbit and dwarves wouldn't survive a 10 million foot drop inside the goblin kingdom, and that chase scene was way too action movie-ey, and there was a genuine WTF moment when I saw that messenger on the string that the goblin with the deformed ball sack on his head speaks to. I also hated the whole White Orc subplot, not withstanding the CGI for it just looked so out of place for some reason. And in the trailer for Desolation of Smaug I saw Thorin jump about 10 feet into the air off a cliff, that would never happen.
I was hoping to see something in the same vein as the LotR but it turned out to be a dumb children's movie (the scene where that hedgehog called Sebastian dies actually made me angry). At least PJ stayed faithful to the text as it's essentially a children's book anyway. As a massive LotR fan I still hated it though.
No, they ruined it. It was completely different in the book, he didn't stay faithful to the text WHATSOEVER. He strayed from the plot too much, he also added way too much. The scene with Sebastian in it was not in the book at all. He added action where it wasn't nessisary, and it kind of ruined the point of the book. He added way too much extra plotline. The "Necromancer"
Spoiler
Who we all know is Sauron
was never in it.
Hopefully, the "rumpus" in my last post was clear, even if this isn't the rumpus room. :-D I'm sure that PJ's creative energy is not tied to his weight and heart health.
I really liked it, but I can't stand the HFR, makes everything look "cheap", or a really bad BBC special or something (I'd like to see it again at 24fps). I'd say it was better than the first Hobbit movie, but not as good as the Lord of the Rings movies.
I just watched the extended edition of The Unexpected Journey. I don't know if it's because it wasn't as rushed or because I was so turned off by the HFR/3D of my first experience, but I liked it much better. Perhaps the extended version of The Desolation of Smaug will be a little better, too.
I've really enjoyed the films so far, I can tell they are stretching it out a bit too much, but still good fun. I haven't got round to reading the books, something I'd like to do one day. My sister has all the books, I found it interesting that The Hobbit is the thinnest of the four, and they're making THREE films out of it!
It doesn't bother me if a film of a book changes things though.
I'm not a fan of HFR either, it's almost like there's too much visual information for my brain to handle, and it's like everything that moves, moves too fast. It's hard to explain.
I saw the first Hobbit in 3D at the cinema, it's like being cross-eyed for 3 three hours. I'll admit the effects were brilliant, the best 3D I've seen in a film. But I don't think it's necessary. When it was released on DVD I enjoyed it much more.
I have better than 20/20 vision, maybe that's a factor in all this. EDIT: (Or perhaps some undiscovered mental condition....hmm)
I don't care about the 3d (I don't even notice after the first few minutes), and The Hobbitses have followed the LOTR pattern of the first 30 minutes set in the shire being the only bit I really enjoyed, but I'm really loving the HFR and wish all movies would adopt this.
I can actually look at stuff when the camera is panning horizontally! It's like magic.
To each their own I suppose. I had a dreadful experience watching it in HFR, it totally broke my immersion, every movement looked accelerated, during a couple scenes I had the Benny Hill chase theme playing in my head, the whole time I was constantly reminded I was sitting in a dark room, with a bunch of other people, in front of a screen. I dunno, maybe it's my brain that's wrong or maybe it's the projector at that cinema that wasn't suited for HFR.
I went there a second time to watch it in 2D, no glasses, no HFR, and I really had a blast the second time around, I could instead focus on what was going on in the movie rather than the quality of the picture.
Personally I freakin' love the HFR (particularly when coupled with the 3D because it really helps the 3D look brighter (I'm not a huge fan of 3D though, but the Hobbit(s) have done it the best I've seen so far)). It's a new theater experience rather than the old 24fps. Finally something fresh! My guess, as to the reasoning behind it, was a desperate attempt (from Hollywood and theater owners) to get people coming back to the theaters. Ticket sales have plummeted over the years as home theaters have gotten better and better. I have a 120" screen at home and feel very little need to go sit in a theater with a bunch of ignorant and inconsiderate idiots who can't sit there and just watch the movie without texting, talking, etc. I now consider going to the theater and "occasion". And my wife and I go to this theater called the "Premiere" and you sit up in the balcony (on very comfy couches) over the general seating. You can get food (and BEER!!) delivered to your seat as well. It's twice as expensive but it serves two purposes as the people that pay the extra money are there to see the movie and not use their goddamn cellphones and I don't like sitting down amongst the peasants.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 29/01/2014 12:58:32
I have a 120" screen at home
Whoa! Have you ran a low res feed through it yet? Imagine the giant pixels 8-0 I've always wanted to play something pretty like Simon the Sorcerer on a big cinema screen.
Quote from: Chicky on Wed 29/01/2014 17:06:30Whoa! Have you ran a low res feed through it yet? Imagine the giant pixels 8-0 I've always wanted to play something pretty like Simon the Sorcerer on a big cinema screen.
I plugged some old consoles into it (the N64 most recently) and it looks great! Mario Kart at 120" is fan-freakin-tastic! I played Space Quest III on it as well. The pixels are noticeably huge, but it just gives it more charm :)
+1 for dinner theaters.