The Hobbit Page 44

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • Dirtbox 11 Feb 2013 00:26:55 79,216 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'd like to see a directors cut where he cuts out all the shit and turns it into a movie that isn't just blatant fan service to LoTR.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • disusedgenius 11 Feb 2013 00:28:17 5,625 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    sajasanman wrote:
    Not that much happens in the hobbit though really.
    Does it fuck.

    ...

    Does it not fuck.

    ...

    Whatever, you're just wrong there.
  • JinTypeNoir 11 Feb 2013 00:44:47 4,392 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    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.
    Okay, so then we get into the nasty business of who decides what is and isn't The Hobbit in movie form and down that road, no good can come.

    Was it a good movie? Yes. It used the strengths of the medium well. There was a lot of good cinematic language being used to convey things in a movie-like way, it used good performances to bring life to good lines and visualized scenes we've all had in our head in a spectacle only the movies can bring.

    Two things they added that were not in the book, that I really liked as cinematic material were these:

    1) Tolkien fans are away that Bilbo wrote a book about his adventures called There and Back Again, but didn't tell the whole truth, especially about the ring. Eventually the truth came out and the book was rewritten and its a kind of nifty real-world explanation of why we have The Hobbit in the first place and not The Lord of the Rings: The Early Years.

    In movie terms, its hard to adapt the process of writing or the movie as a written work, precisely because movies have become so different and adhering to book storytelling doesn't always do them a lot of good. So how do you convey that what you are seeing on the screen is not just an adaptation of a book, but an actual physical book in the world of the story that you are hearing someone think or narrate about? It's tricky without betraying film language.

    If you put it at the end of the last film, it works only as a nifty bookend. It can never frame the story because we didn't know about it at the end and it doesn't seem significant, other than "One day, I'll write a book about this, maybe it was this movie, ho ho ho!"

    So Jackson framed it as a much older and wise Bilbo rewriting There and Back Again, before he left to Rivendell in The Lord of the Rings. Some people like this scene because it connects to the other three films, but I like it because it effectively gets across the fact that The Hobbit is There and Back Again: Revised as it being told to us by the person who experienced it AND that since this is somebody rewriting history they are adding in things they know about now. (I believe Bilbo actually finished the book in Rivendell before the whole mess of The Lord of the Rings was over, but after he knew about the seriousness about what was going on at that time.) So what happens in An Unexpected Journey is not a 1 to 1 replication of his memories, but a somewhat fabricated tale based on what he knows now. This is interesting because it is not only Jackson giving himself permission to screw around but because it is gives us a frame of an unreliable narrator trying to be more reliable. Book framing accomplished with movie language still in tact. Lovely.

    2) I'm not sure if anyone else noticed it, but when we get our brief glimpse of the Necromancer it is the almost exact same type of shot used to frame the introduction of Galadriel, a zooming in close-up of an intimidating figure standing in the middle of a palatial structure, even some of the music cues are similar. This is quite subtle, but I think also intentional, because usually when we get "zoom-in close up of character in the middle" it's our clue that this is an important central character to the plot. In the wider scheme of things, of all the people who appeared in the movie, the Necromancer and Galadriel would be seen as two different poles of an age old conflict. There is no good way to convey this in movie terms by hitting us over the head with an exposition character to tell it to us, so this is a good way, cinematically to show us that Galadriel is who is good and who we trust, and very, very powerful and the Necromancer, who is bad and we should not trust, and much more powerful than the characters realize yet.
  • GuiltySpark 11 Feb 2013 04:02:09 6,470 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The point is, it can never be The Hobbit.

    It's a prequel to a massive, massive film trilogy - which most of the fans wouldn't have even read the books - more than it is an adaptation of The Hobbit.

    This was always going to happen, and it makes perfect sense. The LOTR links make perfect sense.

    The film is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, and that's just going off spectacle alone.


    Only the internet will care how faithful it is, or will still be arguing about it two months after seeing it.

    Edited by GuiltySpark at 04:03:43 11-02-2013

    Get bent.

  • Savatage 11 Feb 2013 06:02:09 38 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    The Directors Cut?
  • timetraveler 19 Feb 2013 12:59:00 61 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I watched it twice at cinema (and that's how it should be watching). It's huge. Everyone had huge expectations about this movie and i think they weren't disappointed.
  • morriss 9 Apr 2013 19:15:36 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Is there going to be a UK version with the Bilbo minifig!
  • Dirtbox 9 Apr 2013 19:57:29 79,216 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    timetraveler wrote:
    I watched it twice at cinema (and that's how it should be watching). It's huge. Everyone had huge expectations about this movie and i think they weren't disappointed.
    Yes they were, it was fucking shit.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • beastmaster 9 Apr 2013 20:37:36 12,017 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    What was going to be two films has been extended to three. The Hobbit came in at just under three hours. So there's going to be (probably) three hours of padding.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • Dirtbox 9 Apr 2013 20:39:16 79,216 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    And the rest. I forsee the entire second movie and at least half of the third movie being nothing but padding.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • M83J01P97 5 Jun 2013 18:37:30 6,717 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Cosplay much?

    Maybe they should have just stuck with existing characters instead of trying to shoehorn their own in...
  • ecu 5 Jun 2013 18:51:49 77,338 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Didn't realise Link was in The Hobbit.
  • EMarkM 5 Jun 2013 18:53:17 3,458 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    Didn't realise Link was in The Hobbit.
    Heh.
  • morriss 5 Jun 2013 19:12:17 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can't wait for Unfinished Tales that intersperse The Hobbit. Tolkein's story of the Necromancer and the reason behind stopping Smaug etc is what excites me the most.

    Edited by morriss at 18:20:24 11-06-2013
  • morriss 11 Jun 2013 18:21:10 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    New trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq3UmifZaqM
  • disusedgenius 11 Jun 2013 18:34:24 5,625 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Looks to keep pretty much in line with the last one, which is fine by me.

    Although; Orlando Bloom... acting... /facepalm

    Edited by disusedgenius at 18:34:47 11-06-2013
  • Ged42 11 Jun 2013 18:44:06 7,812 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yay Smaug!!

    Barbecue time. :D
  • morriss 11 Jun 2013 18:48:08 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm waiting for the Mirkwood offensive against the Necromancer in pt 3. In fact, I just can't wait.

    /plays more LotrO
  • Feanor 11 Jun 2013 19:19:23 14,185 posts
    Seen 24 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Looks good to me. Although I didn't spot Beorn anywhere...
  • Articulate-Troll 12 Jun 2013 05:26:58 3,101 posts
    Seen 5 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Looks good. Enjoyed the first one, except for the parts with that mental crack smoker Radaghast.
  • Moot_Point 14 Jun 2013 14:48:19 4,626 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    M83J01P97 wrote:
    Cosplay much?

    Maybe they should have just stuck with existing characters instead of trying to shoehorn their own in...
    Agreed, unnecessary shoehorning. But how else could they justify padding out The Hobbit into 3 films?

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • Youthist 14 Jun 2013 15:15:05 10,083 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I loved the first, thought I was going to hate it. This is looking great too.

    "Good chess players think one move ahead. Great chess players think two or three moves ahead."

  • Bremenacht 15 Jun 2013 21:30:30 19,666 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Feanor wrote:
    Looks good to me. Although I didn't spot Beorn anywhere...
    Yeah! Beorn is an an interesting character. There ought to be an awesome CGI scary bear in there somewhere. Maybe market research has shown that people want Legolas clones and spiders.

    Smaug looked good. Cumberbatch voices him, I've just read. Hmmm. Dunno.
  • CharlieStCloud 1 Aug 2013 07:40:02 5,530 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    HOORAY!

    The Hobbit gets extended edition, at long last.



    The press release says:

    Warner Bros. will release an extended edition of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, starting in October, that features 13 minutes of additional footage in the film and nine hours of bonus content.
  • Alastair 1 Aug 2013 08:37:11 16,408 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Extended! wtf! It was long enough as it was.
  • morriss 1 Aug 2013 08:57:37 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Not long enough, imo. Can't wait.
  • Alastair 1 Aug 2013 09:08:41 16,408 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I enjoyed the film when I watched it, but as I digested it afterwards I started to wonder if Jackson isn't spreading the material a bit thin and trying to hard to get a trilogy out of a book that would have made a great two parter.

    I will still see the rest of the trilogy. But I'm a big fan of the book and I now start to see where Otto and others were coming from with their hatred of the LotR films.
  • morriss 1 Aug 2013 09:14:49 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    After having read Unfinished Tales and other background stuff, I think it's grea that he's trying to cram as much Lore and back-story into the films. It's more an homage to the Tolkein universe than a Hobbit adaptation, imo. All the Sauron Dol Guldur stuff gives me goosebumps. Hopefully we'll get to see the Mirkwood Elves do battle with Dol Guldur and push Sauron back to Mordor.

    I could watch hours and hours of it! :)
  • Telepathic.Geometry 2 Aug 2013 00:48:06 11,564 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's way too inflated in my view. Wired's Angry Nerd does a nice job of pointing out how this movie has been artificially stretched to milk the franchise.

    Hobbit 1 (169 mins) from 119 pages of the book. -> 1.52 mins/page.
    LotR (726 mins) from 1137 pages. -> 0.63 mins per page.

    And that is presumably the extended version. The theatrical version is, I am sure, more like 9 hours in total, giving you more like 0.47 mins per page.

    However you slice and dice it, that's pretty fucking thin. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if it were better. I remember saying to a friend of mine at the time that I absolutely loved 60-70% of what I saw, and was bored to tears and turned off by the rest of the unnecessary shite in it.

    In fact, I would say that even splitting that book into three movies might be okay if they had a little restraint with the length of it. Maybe cut it down to two hours, or 2 hours 15 minutes or something... There was just too much pointless shit in it that didn't move the story forward.

    || PSN Barrysama || NNID Barrysama ||

  • morriss 2 Aug 2013 01:03:01 71,286 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It's clearly using The Hobbit as a platform to tell a broader story. One that Tolkein himself told post LotR.

    The more "pointless shit" the better.
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply