The Hobbit Page 43

  • Page

    of 51 First / Last

  • Widge Moderator 17 Jan 2013 13:36:20 12,595 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    Fuck knows how they'll tie in all the nonsense they added for this first film though.
    Appendices! They'll just rip out the extra flesh that Tolkien put at the end of Return Of The King. It'll probably be about the White Council vs. Sauron or something similar.

    _ _ _

    www.unpaused.co.uk - electronic noise adjective salad

  • nickthegun 17 Jan 2013 13:41:34 55,854 posts
    Seen 50 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah, they will just continue the strands. All the times gandalf vanishes in the A plot and you dont know where hes gone will now be intercut with him pissing about with the white council, trying to kill the necromancer.

    Its actually quite clever, really. They have just plugged all the gaps in the main story with logical and cannonical filler.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • yegon 17 Jan 2013 13:42:05 4,904 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The journey is the main thing in the hobbit. Its the reason smaug isnt in it that much and then gets offed by some random dude.

    Admittedly, thats not very filmic... they will probably change it to thorin doing a kamehameha right through his sternum.
    By best bits, I meant in the film. In the book, agreed, it's all about the journey.
  • Bremenacht 17 Jan 2013 23:56:26 15,753 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The journey is the main thing in the hobbit. Its the reason smaug isnt in it that much and then gets offed by some random dude.
    No it's not! It's a shortish story with little set-pieces that should serve to out-last the typical attention span of a child, or at least satisfy their bed-time story requirements for a week or so.

    Admittedly, thats not very filmic... they will probably change it to thorin doing a kamehameha right through his sternum.
    That's the stuff - an epic duel in which you think Thorin is going to be killed but Bilbo plays a key part by tossing Thorin the magic dwarf-axe of his father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father which inspires Thorin to perform an amazing dwarf-fu recovery-and-devastating-counterattack. We'll see the shock on Smaug's face just before the magic axe plunges into his chest, as he realises that he underestimated this dwarf and this hobbit; that he's a failure as a dragon, and that maybe he should have changed his ways years back but it's too late now and he's going to die. Yay! Go Bilbo! Go Thorin! A cinematic tour-de-force. Multiple technical oscars plus one for Gollum. A re-release of the book with all the new stuff added. Everyone is happy, except for those on page 1256 of this thread, who think it's all turned out shit; 3/10.

    Once an eagle taught me courage. And I will never forget that day

  • Bremenacht 17 Jan 2013 23:57:23 15,753 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    The journey is the main thing in the hobbit. Its the reason smaug isnt in it that much and then gets offed by some random dude.
    No it's not! It's a shortish story with little set-pieces that should serve to out-last the typical attention span of a child, or at least satisfy their bed-time story requirements for a week or so.
    Which is probably what you meant, thinking about it.

    Once an eagle taught me courage. And I will never forget that day

  • Daryoon 18 Jan 2013 02:49:57 4,555 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I've reached the conclusion that the Hobbit would have been an awesome film had it been made by Jim Henson in the 80s. It's not supposed to be some epic trilogy, it's a children's story like Labyrinth or the Dark Crystal.

    The problem with padding out the book to bring the tone in line with Lord of the Rings, is that you end up with...Lord of the Rings.
  • Dirtbox 18 Jan 2013 03:32:46 76,334 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I thought it would have made a cracking Terry Gillingham project myself, but Henson is a great call.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • cubbymoore 18 Jan 2013 08:08:02 36,441 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Terry Gilliam would also be good.
  • disusedgenius 18 Jan 2013 08:10:32 5,142 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Even Del Toro would have been an interesting choice, had it not been for all the faffing about with rights.
  • roz123 18 Jan 2013 08:59:37 7,107 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    What did people think of the Goblin Kings chin?
  • nickthegun 18 Jan 2013 10:13:30 55,854 posts
    Seen 50 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It was modeled on bernard mannings ballbag.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Max_Powers 24 Jan 2013 20:44:01 1,065 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I thought that The Hobbit would have been out long enough now that the cinema would be practically emtpy during showings. So a perfect moment to go see it. T'was the 3D IMAX 48fps version.

    If I wouldn't have know about the framerate thing I wouldn't have noticed I think. The image was just really crisp, which I liked. 3D didn't add much for me this time.

    The film itself is long but I was never bored except for perhaps at the Warg/Eagle scene as there had already been so much running and fighting before that. CGI action just fails to excite me.

    All in all I was glad to be back in the world, and I actually quite liked the whole setup before they go on the actual adventure which a lot of people hate.
  • Feanor 25 Jan 2013 19:39:16 13,921 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Post deleted
  • JinTypeNoir 10 Feb 2013 23:31:30 4,365 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't think The Hobbit was too long. I'm looking at it from a perspective of wanting to see as much of the books come to life come as possible. I love 'em. So when Bilbo mentions the Sackville-Baggins stealing his stuff at the beginning, it was great to see. Everyone always cuts that out of The Lord of the Rings, so it was great to see it here. I understand why, of course, because its incidental and doesn't matter to the principal plot.

    I just don't agree that incidentals and details that make for richer characters, better foreshadowing, help fill in the sense of where we are and what's around us or give us a better idea of what happened in a scene need to be cut. Those were primarily the things that were added in. It's nice to get some sense of who Gandalf was in the vast scheme of Middle Earth and adds quite a lot of dimensions to his character, when you see him interact quite differently to Galadriel, Thorin, Elrond, Radagast and Saruman. It is certainly a pleasure to see some scenes that give us more of an idea of why there are only 13 dwarves going back to take this wondrous realm back and why there are so loyal to Thorin. It's also something of a miracle that for me, 5 out of the 13 dwarves had recognizable characters that had some sort of development and I imagine the other eight will get more as we go along. It must be a nightmare juggling that. No, obviously, in order to tell The Hobbit you don't need a Necromancer in anything other than a brief suggestion, and you don't need Gandalf consulting with the other greats, nor added conflict with dwarves and orcs. But given the reality of film and how often it will be that a Hobbit adaptation of this scale can be made, I'm glad they strived to give me something truly different than the book, because I can always have the book whenever I want it.

    It isn't just fan glee either. I wasn't particularly impressed with the actual material from the book as it was represented in Rivendell. The only real good scene there was the one that wasn't in the book. I thought Bilbo's quick wit and Gandalf's ruse with the trolls had quite a bit more bite to it in the book as well. Both these felt just "okay" to me. Eh, oh well. I also at first thought it was a bad idea to stick Frodo in, because I thought they would take some contrived way for him to actually be there in that time period, but luckily it wasn't what I thought. In general, messing around with the source material so much makes for poor adaptations, I usually think, but I was impressed here.

    Some of the scenes are taken slowly so they could have a good amount of impact, like the Gollum encounter or the dwarves arriving. I feel if you don't take your time with them, they will often feel like a trivial launching point into the "good stuff," when really, speaking of story, that IS the good part of the Hobbit. The whole book puts quite a large focus on Bilbo fighting with his Took and Baggins' side, so the leisurely development of his conflicted character at the beginning was a much better visualization of that central conflict than past adaptations have.

    I realize there is a group out there who thinks it is necessary to cut out of all the stuff that doesn't need to be there so the pacing can be quick and mince along to the end. This group always tends to use an expression similar to "the pace was slow" with nothing else before or behind it. You get the feeling they just think a slow pace is automatically a bad thing. I could never in a million years agree with this type of thinking. I think it is one that has developed in the last ten years very rapidly with the expansion of the internet, cellphone culture spreading worldwide and a Facebook/Twitter-obsessed populace.

    That's why I'll always for movies like The Hobbit. I can see bloated blockbuster syndrome getting weary in properties that either don't have as strong of character development as The Hobbit does, or are not based on amazing written works with a huge amount of material ripe for adapting. But I want more slow movies that revel in the details and other than this franchise, that doesn't look like its the popular thing.
  • Dirtbox 10 Feb 2013 23:43:46 76,334 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The problem was, less than half of what was on the screen was in the book, so yes it was definitely too long and it strayed way too far from the original text. And looked like a UE tech demo from about 5 years ago.

    If you're trying to tell me they couldn't have fit the entire book into a 3 hour long movie then you're wrong. Dune is a good example of a book 10 times as long that fit snugly into a 3 hour film.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 23:45:30 10-02-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • disusedgenius 10 Feb 2013 23:57:58 5,142 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    If you're trying to tell me they couldn't have fit the entire book into a 3 hour long movie then you're wrong.
    Nah, 2 LOTR lengths would have done it justice, 3 normal length films including the Appendices stuff. There's way, way more in The Hobbit than anyone seems to give credit for.
  • mal 11 Feb 2013 00:03:58 21,958 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I find that hard to believe. My main recollection from reading Tolkein all those years ago is his description of places that last over a page, often more, before anything happens. Two second pan, five second montage at max in movie terms.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • disusedgenius 11 Feb 2013 00:06:35 5,142 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Sure, if you want to make a shit film then that's all it'll take. If you're trying to make something which matches the tone of the other films then you'll have to do it properly.

    Edit: LotR Tolkein was quite different in tone to The Hobbit Tolkein as well. Much more to the point and with far less attention span. This was a book for bedtime reading, after all. They get through a lot of mini-adventures with a comparatively tiny page count.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 00:10:17 11-02-2013
  • Dirtbox 11 Feb 2013 00:11:53 76,334 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    1984 is a great book and a great film.

    It's 113 minutes long and the book is a full 15 pages longer than The Hobbit.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Dirtbox 11 Feb 2013 00:14:49 76,334 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @disusedgenius You're saying that like they didn't insert dialogue, scenes, characters and locations that didn't happen in the book. Which they did in great abundance.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • JonFE 11 Feb 2013 00:15:13 1,386 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    If you're trying to tell me they couldn't have fit the entire book into a 3 hour long movie then you're wrong.
    I don't think that he tries to tell you they couldn't fit it; he says that he is glad they didn't...

    :cool:

    Good read there JTN!

    Edited by JonFE at 00:15:53 11-02-2013
  • disusedgenius 11 Feb 2013 00:15:59 5,142 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The Hobbit is hardly a great book though - it's just a kiddie romp though a bunch of adventures. Really it would have made for a much better HBO series than film(s) anyway, but there have you.
  • JinTypeNoir 11 Feb 2013 00:16:18 4,365 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm trying to say, Dirtbox, that obviously the intention was to do something different than The Hobbit from the start, so you either accept that from the start or you don't. If you do, the way it was done, was not all that objectionable.

    Like I said, pace in movies I find to be rather problematic. As it is, for instance, the film STILL feels a little rushed in places. The Hobbit is not a long book, but what the words convey is a leisurely, slow tone where characters have the kind of musings about their predicament that allows them to be CHARACTERS and not little plot chess pieces that run from set piece to set piece. I feel if you are going to adapt that tone to a movie, one way to do it is to work in the greater narrative so we can see what's going in the grand scheme of things. That will help a lot of people to connect to slower scenes so the movie can be financially successful.

    I think the animated version, which I've also seen and love had a different approach, that worked well. It cut out quite a bit and focused on characters no matter what was happening, which meant action scenes were over quickly or never focused on the action. That worked for whenever it was released. I wonder if it would work today?
  • Dirtbox 11 Feb 2013 00:17:27 76,334 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It wasn't The Hobbit. that's the point I'm trying to make.

    All it boils down to is this: Was it a good movie?

    No.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 00:21:25 11-02-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • BritishBlue1 11 Feb 2013 00:21:18 128 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Overall I quite enjoyed the film, the first half went at an agreeable pace since there were so many faces to introduce and refresh. The final chase scenes dragged though, I bet Ian McKellen was tired of screaming "Run, you fools!" by the end. They certainly did a lot of running.
    Teh only time I really noticed the 3D was during the meeting of Saruman and friends and there were a small stream running along the bottom of the screen, I couldn't keep my eyes off it. Incidently, that same scene where Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman had a good old natter and a cup o' tea had me thrilled, it felt like I was seeing old friends again. I'm not entirely sure what that says about me...
  • JinTypeNoir 11 Feb 2013 00:21:31 4,365 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    1984 is a great book and a great film.

    It's 113 minutes long and the book is a full 15 pages longer than The Hobbit.
    Dude, no. This is absurd. The density of action and information in 1984 and The Hobbit is completely different. In 1984, we can understand what is happening very quickly and all of the drama is about whether what we think will happen does or not, while characters have lives that aren't as removed from what we have now as The Hobbit's characters do. There is no need to show what a Gandalf or a Thorin is, in a 1984 adaptation. A great 1984 adaptation regardless, of the book's length, will aim to reproduce the book's message over everything else. A great Hobbit adaptation, by comparison, will try to reproduce the book's atmosphere at great lengths.
  • disusedgenius 11 Feb 2013 00:22:09 5,142 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    @disusedgenius You're saying that like they didn't insert dialogue, scenes, characters and locations that didn't happen in the book. Which they did in great abundance.
    I'm not sure if I am saying that. But anyway, there was about half an hour of additional material in there (pretty much the Radaghast and White Council scenes iirc). Even if we call it 45 minutes that still leaves a 2 hour film which is much closer to what it should have been, imo.

    I don't think it was a bad decision to add the LotR material either, makes sense to tie it to the existing films and match their tone. They just seemed to have mixed up the Theatrical and Extended Editions when they sent the film to the printers.
  • disusedgenius 11 Feb 2013 00:24:13 5,142 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    It wasn't The Hobbit. that's the point I'm trying to make.
    It was the Hobbit+. I'm pretty sure you could edit out the additional LotR stuff and make a very good direct adaptation - better than the LotR one was, in fact.
  • Page

    of 51 First / Last

Log in or register to reply