• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012
    Actually, this review echoes my own feelings to the degree that I might have written it (he says - perhaps more eloquently - what I was wittering on about behind the spoiler tags above).

    http://www.boxoffice.com/reviews/2012-1 … ed-journey
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012 edited
    Southall wrote
    My companions had a mixed reaction. Mrs S liked it, my Tolkein-fanatic friend didn't, but her non-Tolkein-fanatic partner did.


    Yeah, it's definitely a film that separates people - critics, audiences and fans alike. You and I are just one out of several examples in that regard.

    It's also interesting that more people are concerned with how it relates to the previous LOTR films and not so much the Tolkien literature anymore (which was the big thing back when those films were released).
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012 edited
    Southall wrote
    [spoiler]... the meeting with Gollum again seems to be there only to make people say "Ooooh, Gollum!" but you could have just shown Frodo finding the ring, cut to Gollum discovering that he's lost it a few minutes later and saved yourself half an hour of almost painfully boring film[/spoiler]


    I take it you never read the books? wink

    There are some of your comments I agree with (it does at times flirt annoyingly with self-parody), some I don't agree but I can see the point, and with some I completely disagree. The comment above falls in that category.

    [spoiler]What I liked about The Hobbit is how it takes a little more time to develop characters than Jackson had the time to do in the original trilogy, and this scene is without doubt the one that benefits the most from this. There are many reasons why the Riddles in the Dark segment is the most important part of The Hobbit, maybe even the whole Rings saga. To name just a few:

    - It's not just about Bilbo getting the ring. It's Bilbo's character changing in that cave. He enters a naive hobbit, but he faces danger and, ultimately, pity, and when returning to the dwarves it's that experience that adds to his decision not leaving the company. That, and of course the possession of the ring.
    - When Bilbo addresses Frodo in the beginning and says "while I may have told you the truth, I haven't told you all of it", he mainly refers to the game of riddles with Gollum. The question "is his final riddle (what have i got in my pocket?) a proper riddle?" is one that gives Bilbo his guilt over the years, and leads Gollum to believe his ring was stolen ("he tricks us") and makes him more menacing in reclaiming his ring.
    - Bilbo NOT killing Gollum is a very important part. Frodo mentions in The Fellowship "I wish Bilbo had killed Gollum when he had the chance", and now you see why Bilbo didn't. And even while knowing the repercussions of his decision, you can't help but agreeing with his choice.
    - The acting of the whole segment, but especially that defining moment, is outstanding. I thought it was very powerful and wordless it's entirely clear what happens there. Gollum's tragedy, Bilbo's (character changing) pity.

    Also, if Peter Jackson had just shown Bilbo finding the ring, Gollum noticing he lost it and be done with it, he'd be repeating the Fellowship of the Ring prologue. wink
    [/spoiler]
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012
    BobdH wrote
    I take it you never read the books? wink

    There are some of your comments I agree with (it does at times flirt annoyingly with self-parody), some I don't agree but I can see the point, and with some I completely disagree. The comment above falls in that category.


    I did read it many, many years ago but don't really remember it any more. I realise now that this scene in particular seems to be most people's favourite in the whole film! As usual - shows what I know.
  1. Southall wrote
    It does sound that way!

    Here are some of the things I thought were wrong with the film (not for the most part spoilers, but I'll put the tag there just in case):

    [spoiler]- It tries to be equal parts slapstick comedy and serious "epic" action/adventure; each of those aspects stops the other one from being entirely successful
    - There's the classic "prequel problem" that the filmmakers assume that because characters are lovable from the films that are already known, people will love them by virtue of them being on the screen in the prequel; that's a particular problem with Gandalf, who spends the film being either comic relief or bringing one deus ex machina moment after another by rescuing the dwarves and Frodo from a completely impossible situation by appearing ten minutes into said situation and banging his staff on the ground to make the bad guys disperse
    - There are far too many scenes there that add nothing - I don't think the Cate Blanchett stuff was in the book, so it's only there as an excuse to get Cate Blanchett in the film and it just doesn't add anything; the whole Radagast business seems entirely extraneous; the meeting with Gollum again seems to be there only to make people say "Ooooh, Gollum!" but you could have just shown Frodo finding the ring, cut to Gollum discovering that he's lost it a few minutes later and saved yourself half an hour of almost painfully boring film
    - The Barry Humphries (Barry Humphries!) character is absurd and appears to have a giant scrotum hanging from his face - he's meant to be this menacing leader of a deadly foe but is just far, far too silly to have the desired dramatic impact
    - Essentially, it isn't really a film - it's the first act of a film - this isn't The Fellowship of the Ring to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this is the first third of The Fellowship of the Ring to The Fellowship of the Ring
    [/spoiler]

    There are certainly some positives though:
    - Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo (really, really excellent)
    - The action is handled with aplomb
    - The thing is for the most part visually stunning (though the 3D seemed entirely extraneous and unnecessary in this case to me, and I'm usually a voice-in-the-wilderness-proponent of 3D)


    [spoiler]The exchange of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum is part of the book and is deemed a classic episode in Tolkien lore.[/spoiler]
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012
    Southall wrote
    I saw this today. Not impressed. The film has so obviously been artificially bloated just to make it stretch into a trilogy. About 100+ minutes could have been cut out with no impact whatsoever on the story. The score is as unimpressive in the film as it is on album - the only memorable musical moments are when the "Misty Mountains" theme appears.


    Moneys-es.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012 edited
    Captain Future wrote
    [spoiler]The exchange of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum is part of the book and is deemed a classic episode in Tolkien lore.[/spoiler]


    True.
    And like it or not, Gandalf in the book of The Hobbit is often employed as both deus ex machina and comic relief.
    Jackson could of course have elected to have the character severely rewritten, but then that would undoubtedly be leveraged against him. Bit of a rock and a hard place.

    Still to see the film.
    Interesting to see how the reactions seem to run between very posititive and very negative.
    And yeah, it is giving me a strong Phantom Menace vibe.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  2. It´s certainly not flawless, same as the first trilogy, but I´d call that a First World Problem; in the end, it´s a fantastic, heartwarming, exciting fantasy adventure of the kind we rarely get to see. Yes, it takes its time to get the company on the road, but I loved every second of the introductions and expositions. The effects work looks great in 2D, a bit flawed in 3D, and I´ve yet to see HFR, but overall, they look spectacular and are certainly more flawless than those from LOTR, which are beginning to feel their age now. Most people will find at least one or two scenes to be too silly, but Jackson really tries - and succeeds - to set the whole thing up for one epic six-movie ride, and while "The Hobbit" is a children´s book, Tolkien himself went back and rewrote certain sections to get it more in line with LOTR, and once even planned to do the whole thing again in LOTR style, so there you go. The score is sailing along known shores, so to speak, and I´m slightly irritated that the best theme wasn´t even written by Shore. It still gets its job done.

    If you really loved the original trilogy, I´m sure you will at least like most of this movie, and probably come to love the whole thing, too, sooner or later. I´ve heard from lots of people who enjoyed it a lot more at a second viewing (me included), and I guess by the time they are all done, the whole saga will stand as one massive movie epic that certainly ended up much better than most other attempts in resurrecting successful franchises.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012
    Martijn wrote
    And like it or not, Gandalf in the book of The Hobbit is often employed as both deus ex machina and comic relief.


    Indeed. I didn't say it was Jackson's fault. But it is a fault.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012
    As a mature storytelling technique, certs.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012 edited
    Oh, for sure. I didn't mind it so much when I read the book (when I was ten).
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2012
    Second viewing ? With all those other movies waiting to be watched in the line? Where do you people shop extra time? wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2012
    We buy it from Greece. wink
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2012
    Well i wouldn't be surprised if we also sold time as well!!
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2012
    My first viewing will be saturday and while I really want to see the 3D HFR, I'm now thinking of watching the not-HFR first... I want to see both but can't decide which one first.

    Maybe go for the practical motif and see the not-HFR on saturday because it starts at 21:00 while the HFR start at 20:00 dizzy

    But perhaps anyone has some advice. Maybe like: see the regular first so you have eyes for details on a second viewing or something. Thanks, for my own advice.
    wink

    I only discovered two weeks ago it was going to be a trilogy... I had missed that bit of information earlier. I don't understand this decision and I hope it won't be a stretched experience.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2012
    I recommend to see the 3D HFR first, because then your first impression is the ultimate experience. Becomes all the more powerful.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2012 edited
    Not to confuse you, but *I* would recommend the 2D viewing first, so you can concentrate on the film without any distractions that you may or may not like.

    And then when you go for the second viewing, you may already know the film, but the added frames and 3D will still give you a new experience.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJim Ware
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2012 edited
    My personal opinion is that HFR looks appalling and is the opposite of immersive.

    This article sums up my thoughts quite well - http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/ … a-magical/
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2012
    Thank you!

    I've made up my mind. Perhaps I'll go see HFR later, because I'm curious what it's like.
    But I don't want my first viewing to be ruined. We already decided 3D with friends, so 3D it will be.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2012
    Bregje wrote
    Thank you!

    I've made up my mind. Perhaps I'll go see HFR later, because I'm curious what it's like.
    But I don't want my first viewing to be ruined. We already decided 3D with friends, so 3D it will be.


    It definitely won't ruin anything. Quite the contrary, it makes the first impression that much stronger. When I say the 3D HFR release was the most awesome audiovisual film experience I've had since AVATAR, I mean it. It just left me speechless.

    I hope you get to see it in that format eventually, although "regular" 3D should be fine too.
    I am extremely serious.
  3. It just noticed that this thread't title needs to be updated: Peter Jackson: The Hobbit and Sequels"
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJim Ware
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2012
    Thor wrote
    It definitely won't ruin anything. Quite the contrary, it makes the first impression that much stronger. When I say the 3D HFR release was the most awesome audiovisual film experience I've had since AVATAR, I mean it. It just left me speechless.


    I was left speechless by the sheer awfulness of it, but to each their own. HFR looked like cheap television throughout, with a distinctly unnatural artificially 'sped-up' feel.

    In my opinion the 24fps 3D version is infinitely preferable.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2012
    Which just proves again that the experience of this obviously varies from one polar opposite to the other. So the only way to find out is to look for oneself.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2012
    OK, I've seen it. There's good stuff and not so good stuff. I have no idea if a spoiler warning is needed for my reply, but just in case: may contain SPOILERS...

    First the pace. Like I said earlier I was very surprised it was going to be a trilogy. After seeing the first part, I'm still a bit surprised because it feels to me like we're halfway. I also saw a movie still of the Desolation of Smaug (2013) where we see Bilbo in a pile gold... that made me wonder what will happen in part three (2014) and how much time they spent at the Lonely Mountain. I'm thinking of going through the book again to find out how the story is divided in three... Or, will we get a one and a half hour ending like the LOTR ending?
    wink

    Anyway, the good thing about the pace is the story gets more depth and background. It's sort of a Lord of the Rings treatment to the Hobbit. While watching I thought it seemed too slow at times but I wondered if it was because I read the book. But after the movie people who haven't read the book said it was far too slow. At one point in the middle I thought it was too slow too (don't remember exactly when), in the beginning it was OK and at the end it got better again.

    Martin Freeman is excellent. Many said so before and I agree. Really happy about that.

    I like how we've seen Smaug already and yet haven't really seen him. Nicely done. I also loved how the beginning with Smaug and the end of the movie makes for a rounded circle. And that end was just too cool. But what can I say, I love dragons.

    The music gets better after seeing the movie.

    I did not like the 'Jabba the Hut' ork king at all... but the part with the orks is a difficult part for film, because those days in the caves where long long days of complete darkness in the book and that wouldn't have worked in a film obviously. They compensated enough for me by creating beautiful shots with lot of depth in the caves/mines. In 3D that was great. Also some of the battle stuff was nicely done.

    Ehm, what else... loved the eagles. It was a wonderful piece of film near the end. The music too. After watching a movie for almost three hours it's not easy to keep impressing people but the eagles did exactly that to me. It was a spine tingling piece of the movie.

    I was prepared for Radagast because of the comments, perhaps that's why it didn't bother me that much, except that silly hedgehog. Also, I have to admit I didn't remember Radagast at all from the book and I re-read the book two years ago, not that long ago. So I don't understand how that happened.

    I noticed how short their stay in Rivendel seemed in such a stretched story. The connection of Bilbo with Rivendel wasn't very strong. In the book Rivendel is really a safe haven and a second home for Bilbo, but now it was like they only had a meal and had Elrond read the map and off they go. There was more emphasis on the wizards and elves than on Bilbo's perspective. The only moment when there's a hint at Bilbo's feeling about Rivendel is when he wants to sneak out of the cave. I must admit that I thought when the dwarf asked where he was going he was going to answer "I'm going home!"

    I didn't like how at a few moments it felt like they used the same tricks from the LOTR again. With so many creative people working on the movie and most of all: with a book that is so different in many ways from the LOTR and has enough to offer, why re-use the same jokes, the same effects, etc. It wasn't neccessary at all. One example of this: Gandalf getting a bit angry in Bilbo's house.

    About the end credits, not really part of the movie but in a way it is of course. Making art of the end credits as is often done lately, made these the simplest I've seen in years: white credits on a black background. I kept my 3D glasses on because I was sure we would get something afterwards, but nothing happened. Even the song that I like very much, sounded flat and simple with the end credits. I always like to sit a bit longer and enjoy the music, but in this case the end of the movie was really the end of the movie. So the first thing I did this morning was listen to the song and the end credits music with my headphones on that sounded much better than in the theatre.

    Well, that's it for now. I'll add more when I think of it.
  4. you'll add more? shocked wink

    I was totally amazed by the final 30 minutes, movie and definitely music wise, I think this totally changed my mind about this film. I already liked it, but that final half our made me love it. And of course knowing it would never be LOTR made me aware I didn't need to expect something that grand.
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2012
    Yeah, the whole sequence from the trees on the cliff untill the end was pure amazement. I also adored the extended scenes in Bilbo's house in the beginning. That was something I longed for in the LOTR films -- to spend more time there; to get a proper feel of the Hobbits' close connection to their homes and homely comforts.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2012
    I agree Thor. The beginning in the Shire never felt too long to me. The feeling of home was there.

    It's exactly what I missed in Rivendel by the way, that same feeling of home. I got it from the book and I also got it from the LOTR movie when Frodo wakes up in Rivendel.

    You two are right about the finale. I loved it too and I didn't want it to end.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 26th 2012
    Thor wrote
    Yeah, the whole sequence from the trees on the cliff untill the end was pure amazement. I also adored the extended scenes in Bilbo's house in the beginning. That was something I longed for in the LOTR films -- to spend more time there; to get a proper feel of the Hobbits' close connection to their homes and homely comforts.


    The ending was spectacular-the song of the end titles was poor.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeDec 26th 2012
    Poor? It contains the best theme of the score. I think it's extremely catchy and memorable.
    Kazoo
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeDec 26th 2012
    Bregt wrote
    Poor? It contains the best theme of the score. I think it's extremely catchy and memorable.


    If D means the Neil Finn song then he couldn't be more wrong IMO.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt