The Hobbit Page 40

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 10:50:52 44,503 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yep, wiki tells me that I misremembered 'Morgoth' and that y'all speak the truth.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 10:51:47 44,503 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Yeah, Necromancer is 100% Sauron. I'm surprised they didn't hint at this more explicitly in the film tbh. Perhaps that would be naughty from an IP perspective.
    Can't see how to be honest, they stuck Frodo in without textual justification and the whole book is crawling with LOTR central figures anyway.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:53:13 88,336 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I thought him being Sauron was a Silmarillion thing, which they don't have the rights to. But yeah, if it's mentioned in LotR appendices then it's not that.
  • Deleted user 3 January 2013 10:53:26
    kalel wrote:
    CharlieStCloud wrote:

    Tell me, why is this 'too long' when The Dark Knight Rises is just as long? They are both a shy over 160 minutes.

    TDKR was also ridiculously long.

    To paraphrase Mark Kermode, Kubrick's 2001 manages to cover around a million years in 140 minutes. That's the benchmark for other films to aspire to.
    It was very long but in DKR's (brief) defence, a lot does happen and it does go at a pretty fast pace.

    The Hobbit is just really slow, scenes feel dragged out. It's less that there are too many scenes and they should have cut them out completely, more that those scenes should have been faster and shorter.
  • MrSensible 3 Jan 2013 10:54:57 25,204 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm pretty sure that Gandalf will discover that it's Sauron in the next one. It seemed to be building towards that.
  • Deleted user 3 January 2013 10:58:04
    I didn't see anything that hinted Gandalf gave a fuck who it was.
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 11:01:19 5,394 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Books don't come drier than the Silmarillion though so I'm not going to read through all that business again.
    Yeah, it was never really written as a narrative - just a bunch of his notes dressed up a bit. I wouldn't bother much either - just read the wiki instead!

    The Silmarillion doesn't have anything to do with the 3rd Age anyway, I think.
  • MrSensible 3 Jan 2013 11:03:10 25,204 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Really? That whole plot line was pointing in that direction, I thought. Maybe because I'm so familiar with the books I'm just reading into it though.
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 11:04:06 88,336 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The thing about editing is that you don't really have to cut anything major or important. It's about nips and tucks. You can get a three hour film down to two with very little difference to the audience in terms of storytelling. These films are just long to indulge the filmmakers' (Jackson and Nolan) sense of importance, not for the benefit of their audience.

    It's really only quite recently that normal Hollywood blockbuster type films have crept towards the three hour mark, and it's no coincidence that it's filmakers that fancy themselves as above the average blockbuster who are making them. I really think they need to get over themselves. Again, there are stories that justify being three hours long, but Batman, King Kong and The Hobbit (a third of it in fact) are not those films.
  • brokenkey 3 Jan 2013 11:04:54 7,085 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    - the radagast stuff
    Is Radagast a baddie? He had one simple job - lead the wargs away from the dwarves. Yet every time the dwarves went somewhere, there was Radagast, leading the wargs back to them.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • brokenkey 3 Jan 2013 11:07:53 7,085 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Tolkien didn't see fit to give the dwarves individual personalities beyond the very broadest of brushstrokes. Why Jackson thinks he knows better is beyond me.
    I think Jackson did fine here. There's Thorin, Liverpool, Porkins, Santa and some others.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 11:08:25 5,394 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    thefilthandthefury wrote:
    Really? That whole plot line was pointing in that direction, I thought.
    Well, it's the actual plot from the books. They'll get there eventually!
  • brokenkey 3 Jan 2013 11:10:33 7,085 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    deleted

    Edited by brokenkey at 11:11:42 03-01-2013

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 11:13:26 60,415 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    thefilthandthefury wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that Gandalf will discover that it's Sauron in the next one. It seemed to be building towards that.
    Gandalf does exactly that and the superfriends of the white council go to bust him up.

    Its a kind of pointless addition to be honest. It would have been better for him to be explicitly growing his power insidiously, hinting at it being the long road to the war of the ring, rather than giving them another baddie to fight, just to give gandalf and his bum chums something to do.

    Edited by nickthegun at 11:13:58 03-01-2013

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • evild_edd 3 Jan 2013 11:19:07 3,132 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    CharlieStCloud wrote:

    Tell me, why is this 'too long' when The Dark Knight Rises is just as long? They are both a shy over 160 minutes.

    TDKR was also ridiculously long.

    To paraphrase Mark Kermode, Kubrick's 2001 manages to cover around a million years in 140 minutes. That's the benchmark for other films to aspire to.
    It was very long but in DKR's (brief) defence, a lot does happen and it does go at a pretty fast pace.

    The Hobbit is just really slow, scenes feel dragged out. It's less that there are too many scenes and they should have cut them out completely, more that those scenes should have been faster and shorter.
    How long a film feels is very much a personal thing. For me, The Hobbit flew by whereas TDKR really dragged. And I loved BB and TDK. TDKR was a massive let down IMHO. As was Prometheus. The Hobbit was the only blockbuster to meet my expectations this year - The Avengers the only one to exceed them!

    Why look, it's a blog:
    http://www.edwardlaven.blogspot.co.uk

  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2013 11:54:30 7,654 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @kalel 100% agree. I'm of the opinion that, these days, too many films are much longer than they need to be. Some directors are worse culprits - Nolan and Jackson come to mind. Although, at least Jackson had an excuse (of sorts) with LOTR, having to stay somewhat faithful to the source material. No such excuse for King Kong.

    And most of Nolan's stuff is much longer than it needs to be, which affects the pacing, and my enjoyment. It's almost a mark of arrogance, this refusal to cut the fluff out, or even recognise it as such.

    Worst of all, though, is Michael bay. Why a film about talking robots needs to be almost 3 fucking hours is beyond me.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 11:56:30 60,415 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It was quite an achievement that he managed to make a film about giant battling robots so fucktastically boring. The chicago scene seemed to go on forever.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2013 12:01:09 7,654 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Say what you want about The Avengers being Bay-esque; I found it nowhere near as boring or self-indulgent.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 12:03:29 60,415 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its because when things werent going bang or punching each other, the people on screen were interesting and engaging, rather than just a pair of shouting twats and a gang of retarded jarheads.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2013 12:05:12 7,654 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    OPTIMUUUUUUUUS
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 12:05:19 88,336 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I can't believe King Kong is as long as Dr Zhivago. Incredible.

    I wonder if Jackson regrets only making three films out of LotR in retrospect. It could easily have been nine. Maybe twelve.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 12:17:33 60,415 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Although, weirdly, he kept the lovely bones reasonably compact, despite it being a turd.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 12:20:19 5,394 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    King Kong was as much about keeping Weta going post-Rings, from what I hear (and a bit of childhood wish-fulfilment). It kinda had to be a bit grand.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 12:25:10 60,415 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You could still have kept most of the effects shots even if he had managed to get the story to the island in less than 90 minutes.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 12:33:04 5,394 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Ah, maybe. That's probably the childhood wish-fulfilment/being too close to the material end of things. I've never bothered to sit though the entire thing so I didn't quite appreciate how bloated it got! :)
  • Deckard1 3 Jan 2013 12:33:19 28,680 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The Lovely Bones is possibly my most hated film ever. It makes me angry even thinking about it.

    Still yet to see The Hobbit despite being a LOTR nerd. For some reason I just don't feel the urge to watch it. I can't see me having much of a problem with the pacing though, I loved all the extra tat the extended editions put in.
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 12:39:05 88,336 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Again, just nips and tucks could have taken an hour off. He probably could have kept all the effects in and all his "childhood wishes" (I really don't buy that guff for a minute btw, but I'll let it slide).

    It's about ego. Thanks to the likes of Zinnerman, Gance and Lean, a long film equals an important film. The likes of Jackson and Nolan like to think they're making important films instead of Hollywood fluff (which is the reality), and so they make their films 3 hours long.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 12:42:31 60,415 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Ah, maybe. That's probably the childhood wish-fulfilment/being too close to the material end of things. I've never bothered to sit though the entire thing so I didn't quite appreciate how bloated it got! :)
    Honestly, its just insanity. Well over an hour is devoted to Adrien brody just fucking about and giving pointless characterisation to sailors who either die or are never mentioned again.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2013 12:43:46 7,654 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Speaking of Jackson, more people should see his earlier stuff. I'm not just talking about bad taste, but other film fanboy stuff like Forgotten Silver. It's sensational.
  • Lukus 3 Jan 2013 12:47:05 19,247 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Weirdly I thought the pacing was fine, and I'm usually a strong advocate of 'no film needs to be over 2 hours long'.

    If anything I thought it was a bit erratic, going from one set piece to another and hardly showing the real passage of time. But, I've said this already, that's pretty much exactly what the book is like too.

    Perhaps he should have just tried to do a few choice scenes really well and cut down the overall running time, rather than shoving everything in, making it long and schizophrenic.

    I liked it. I had low expectations coming in. Same thing with Prometheus. Plus I didn't expect another LotR. I think these are important factors.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply