|
Post by fanuidhol on Dec 10, 2013 10:13:32 GMT -6
Did you buy Helm's Deep? I think that was part of the promotion. Fan
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 10, 2013 10:26:10 GMT -6
How much would Helm's Deep have been? I don't think I did that. However, I was in Helm's Deep with you two last week and nothing popped up saying that I could purchase the region. I don't imagine it would have been in that other $19.99 offer I bought.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Dec 13, 2013 17:20:57 GMT -6
My review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug: It's horrible. A bloated, over-the-top, action-heavy mess that is only loosely inspired by the book it claims to adapt. 75% of it is completely invented fan fiction and its main villain comes across as an ineffectual buffoon for the sake of a ridiculous chase scene (seriously, how did Smaug ever conquer Erebor if a handful of dwarves can run circles around him like a Tom and Jerry cartoon?).
I'm very disappointed in the decision to extend this simple story to three movies. This was not necessary to the translation from book to film. All it serves is Peter Jackson's self-indulgence as a filmmaker and the studio's pocket book. It saddens me that this is getting better reviews than the first movie. And it breaks my heart to say this as a Middle-earth fanatic but I thought the movie sucked.
I will say this: If you have never read the book or aren't attached to it, the movie is entertaining in its own right. As an action adventure, it's diverting. But it's not The Hobbit. If you are expecting anything more than superficial resemblance to the spirit of the source material, prepare to be disappointed.
The only conclusion I come to is that Peter Jackson does not really like The Hobbit. He was probably a LOTR fan first and foremost and has done everything he can to make The Hobbit more like LOTR -- darker, longer, more violent, more epic in scope, etc. In the process, the original story is being overshadowed by invented Hollywood nonsense and all the charming, fairy tale aspects of the book have been drained out of it.
Blurgh.
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Dec 13, 2013 18:19:28 GMT -6
Had hoped to go see it today, but the weather was kinda nasty. After Freddie's review, I might wait to rent the DVD. I am not a big fan of the Hobbit. Never have been. But, any movie that goes sooooo off track of a book it is based on is just very, very sad and why bother. Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 14, 2013 15:48:21 GMT -6
Hmmm -- apparently some liked the movie, but those who made direct comparisons with the book, disliked the film version: Spoiler?Nick de Semlyen of Empire awarded the film five stars out of five and wrote that "Middle-earth's got its mojo back. A huge improvement on the previous instalment, this takes our adventurers into uncharted territory and delivers spectacle by the ton",[39] while Richard Corliss of TIME declared it one of the top ten films of 2013, and wrote "In all, this is a splendid achievement, close to the grandeur of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films." [40] Justin Chang of Variety wrote that "After a bumpy beginning with 'An Unexpected Journey', Peter Jackson's 'Hobbit' trilogy finds its footing in this much more exciting and purposeful second chapter." [41] Todd McCarthy of Hollywood Reporter wrote that "Nearly everything... represents an improvement over the first installment of Peter Jackson's three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved creation." He also praised the High Frame Rate of The Desolation of Smaug as being better than that of An Unexpected Journey.[42] Mark Hughes, who reviewed the film for Forbes, was highly enthusiastic, and felt "The Desolation of Smaug is another grand entry in the Tolkien saga, raising the emotional and physical stakes while revealing more of the sinister forces," before concluding "It’s pleasing to see a filmmaker this in love with storytelling, this committed to creating entire worlds... that’s a rare thing indeed, and for it to turn out so well is even more rare. It’s a sight to behold, and you won’t be sorry you did."[43] Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian scored the film four stars out of five, writing, "It's mysterious and strange, and yet Jackson also effortlessly conjures up that genial quality that distinguishes 'The Hobbit' from the more solemn 'Rings' stories." [44] Total Film also scored the film four stars out of five, but reviewer Matt Maytum noted that, in his opinion, the film suffered "from middle-act wobbles." Despite this, he praised the "rousing action... incredible visuals... and one stupendous dragon", and concluded his review saying "There’s a lot to admire in 'The Desolation of Smaug."[45] Jim Vejvoda, who reviewed the film for IGN, awarded it 8.5 out of 10, and felt "It's a breathlessly told, action-packed crowd-pleaser that restores the luster of the saga for those underwhelmed by its predecessor and leaves you excited for the final chapter in the trilogy.[46]
Conversely, Peter Travers, who reviewed the film for Rolling Stone, gave it two and a half stars out of four. He felt it was "a little less long and a little less boring" than the first installment, and offered praise for the depiction of Smaug, saying "as a digital creation, Smaug is a bloody wonder of slithering fright." He was, however, very critical of the film's padding of a "slender novel", but concluded: "I'd endure another slog through Middle-Earth just to spend more time with Smaug".[47] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph was even less admiring, and awarded it two stars out of five. He too criticised the decision to turn Tolkien's book into three films and felt Jackson "is mostly stalling for time: two or three truly great sequences tangled up in long beards and longer pit-stops." He continued, writing "There is an awful lot of Desolation to wade through before we arrive, weary and panting, on Smaug's rocky porch," and disapproved of the introduction of a love triangle to Tolkien's narrative, adding: "Maybe this really is what a lot of people want to see from a film version of The Hobbit, but let’s at least accept that Tolkien would probably not have been among them."[48] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_The_Desolation_of_Smaug
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Dec 14, 2013 17:53:50 GMT -6
Yes, Andorinha, it's kind of a strange paradox. In terms of storytelling pace and the technical side of things, it's a better movie in some ways than An Unexpected Journey. A lot of critics and audience members who were not impressed with the first movie find this to be an improvement.
However, of all Jackson's movies, it is the least similar to anything Tolkien ever wrote. I'm not kidding when I say that 75% of the film felt like the screenwriters' inventions (an acquaintance of mine commented, "So that's how they're turning this into a trilogy. They made the second part up!"). If you approach it from the perspective of a fan, rather than a film critic, it's a complete disaster. It plays fast and loose with the source material in such a way that the padding and filler becomes more obvious. And knowing what is new material calls into question many of the storytelling decisions and makes them seem pandering (romantic sub-plot) or ludicrous (long, drawn-out action sequences).
I will admit that I'm biased. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books and is very important to me. I can't divorce myself from my fandom enough to assess the movie on its own merits. All I know is that whatever I just watched, it wasn't The Hobbit. And I didn't think it was a particularly good movie.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 14, 2013 20:16:14 GMT -6
Desi and her family saw The Desolation of Smaug today (while I was selling soap at a craft show). They stopped in and said it was WAY different than the book.
I want to see Smaug and hear what he sounds like. So I printed out my free ticket and my youngest daughter and her husband and I are going to go to the 3D show. I would like to see Bilbo with the butterflies in the top of the trees and hope I won't be disappointed in that scene.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 14, 2013 23:39:33 GMT -6
Freddy -- Yeah we share many of the same biases, I love the book as the book, and believe the story as written is excellent enough a piece of entertainment that it cannot be improved with wholesale additions and adulterations. The technology seems to be in place for doing a highly realistic (though still "otherworld") presentation -- so why not just do it as written?
Sigh -- will wait a goodly while, I imagine, before seeing it. Stormy, let us know about the 3-D version! LOL sounds gimmicky -- and all the ones I ever saw were back in the 1950s/ 60s and rather poorly done.
The trick, I suppose, would be the art of divorcing one's mental image of the book from the movie, pretending the movie has nothing to do with the book, but with the characters all yelling "Bilbo! You dratted hobbit!" I fear it will be impossible to do that...
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 14, 2013 23:53:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 15, 2013 8:33:59 GMT -6
I don't like the idea of diverging away from the true written word of Tolkien either. I think The Hobbit as a movie could have been done wonderfully with the lighter childlike story telling and in the scary parts it could have gone a bit darker to add that touch of fright that the old scary fairy tales had to them. But I don't care for the change in plot and story at all. Well, for entertainment, and to see Smaug, off I go to see The Desolation of Smaug. Desi says this movie ends with Smaug heading toward LakeTown.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 15, 2013 18:22:33 GMT -6
PJ zipped through Beorn and Mirkwood. Bilbo saw butterflies and how they would get out! Was disappointed in that scene. I thought there would be more 3D affects of an astounding nature and it wasn't that 3Dish. But the view was pretty nice up in those trees.
No elven feasts in the woods, no Bombur falling into the stream and having to be carried. Bilbo did not do the attercop at the spiders because he was caught by them, too. But he did save everyone and they help themselves, too.
Legolas didn't look right. His face was too full and his eyes were strange-looking. I guess that's what 14 years does to an actor even with awesome makeup artists! There was an odd love triangle in the movie that was VERY WEIRD! I didn't like that at all.
The barrel escape was much more exciting with orcs and elves chasing them down the river. I loved Bombur's barrel fighting stunt. That was really funny and very talented of the fat old dwarf.
I didn't like that 4 dwarves stayed back in Lake Town instead of going to the Lonely Mountain.
Gandalf and Radaghast went to Dol Guldor and Gandalf confronts Sauron who was black smoke and then he turns into the eye right infront of Gandalf. That was a stray off the book and I don't believe it is in any of the other material either. But it showed how the orcs were starting to gather and how they hated the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain and wanted revenge on them. So although it was off the track, it did some explaining.
Smaug was very cool. and they did some voice enhancement to make it more gravely. I can't think of the guy's name who is Smaug's voice -- Bennedict Cumberlack or something, he has a pretty deep voice anyway. I was happy with his voice and the dragon himself was very cool.
I was rather surprised with the Dwarf chase inside the Lonely Mountain with Smaug, but Smaug was sooooooo cooooooool and those scenes really gave you an excellent good look at him. In the book, Tolkien has him lying on top of the hoard and if I remember correctly, he doesn't really get up too much (or only after Bilbo rushes back up the tunnel) and then he flies around the mountain and smashes the side of it where the Dwarves and Bilbo entered and then flies off to Lake Town. Well that would not have given us a really good look at Smaug so I really enjoyed the Dwarf chase with Smaug just so I could see Smaug in all of his magnificence and glory.
Other than the things above, I didn't think it strayed that much off the original story. The original story was there although it seemed in the beginning that it zoomed through a lot of it.
SMAUG IS SO COOL!
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Dec 15, 2013 20:14:58 GMT -6
SPOILER WARNING for those who haven't seen it yet....
Maybe I need to see it again. To me, it felt like it rushed through or altered the scenes from the book and spent an inordinate amount of time on Peter Jackson's made-up sub-plots (Orcs chasing the company, Kili/Tauriel romance, political machinations in Lake-town, Legolas and Tauriel in Lake-town, Gandalf versus the Necromancer, the ridiculous cat and mouse sequence with Smaug that made him seem totally useless, etc.). I came away feeling very annoyed and wondering why so little of what I'd just watched actually felt like The Hobbit. It was dark, violent, lacking in fairy tale charm, and jam-packed with new sub-plots that felt like pandering Hollywood BS.
I suppose it's possible that, now that I know what the changes are, I might enjoy the movie more on a second viewing. I can try to put aside my annoyance and just appreciate it as a film. The chances of that seem slim but it's worth a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 16, 2013 7:01:58 GMT -6
YES, SPOILERS FOLLOW!
Yes, it did rush thru and alter most of PJ's scenes, especially in the beginning. There was hardly any Beorn and the Dwarves did not approach him in ones or twos with Gandalf's little story. No animals serving the group either.
Mirkwood was rushed thru and the slow dark progress was completely missing. I had hoped to see the blinking buggy eyes in the dark--nope. The fall in the stream was gone and they didn't need to carry Bombur at all. There was no Elven feast scenes in the forest at all. Bilbo came down from the top of the trees after seeing the way out he was also attacked and hung up by the spiders along with the Dwarves. He was alert enough to use Sting and get free and then start getting the Spiders away while he helped the Dwarves. Then Elves came and finished off the rest of the spiders and hauled the Dwarves away. I didn't really like this altering of the story much either, Freddie. Bilbo put the ring on in time to secretly follow inside.
Thranduil knew who Thorin was and why he was headed back to the mountain. The captivity was very rushed thru too. and the love triangle was dumb dumb dumb! Even Lake Town was rushed thru.
But the meat of the story was there -- altered as you said and enhanced with PJ's Hollywood subplots. I really enjoyed seeing the Smaug scenes with the Dwarves even if it was not true to the book. It gave us a good chance to really see, hear, and feel the old drake. I liked him a lot!
This part of the book, if you think about it, even if JRRT wrote it in a lighter mode, would by darker and scarier anyway. While Mirkwood looked very twisted and confusing, I didn't think it was as dark and scary as JRRT made it out to be and I was a bit disappointed in that! I thought it was too light and bright in there! I wanted to see those blinking buggy eyes in the dark. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Androga Erindalant on Mar 5, 2014 14:58:19 GMT -6
I can be short about the Hobbit movies. I've seen both so far. They are too long and too slow. They don't get near the feel of the book. As a children's book, Peter should have made a light children's movie.
As the long episoded adventure tale which Peter made of it, it's still too slow. With all the extra story, 2 movies still would have been enough. If the pace of the scenes would have been similar to the LotR movies, the movies might have been great. The images are impressive. Some of the extra story is nice. But too much of the additional content isn't. The chase of the orcs is understandable in the first movie, but gets a bit lost in the second I think. And the triangle romance is really weird. Especially if PJ puts so much focus on the distrust between Elves and Dwarves. The scenes with Smaug began great. But it's quite not understandable how those Dwarves got far with such 'lethal' monster around. I'm afraid about the 3rd movie, and I really hope less than an hour of it is about saying goodbyes and to return back to Hobbiton.
I think, if Peter would make a Middle-Earth movie in the epic style he likes, he should have turned to the longer tales of the silmarillion. Beren and Luthien, or the Children of Hurin. (But then of course, I'm not forgetting about the movie rights, and the probably very difficult task to gain them.)
|
|
|
Post by Ardo Whortleberry on Dec 7, 2014 16:30:54 GMT -6
Greetings, All! ...
Just now finally got around to dropping by the site, been gone for so long, and I was curious to see what you folks were saying about the "Hobbit" movies (none of which I have seen yet, only having viewed the promotional commercials - bits of which were sometimes encouraging but at other times discouraging) and the first post I read was Fredegar's review of the second "Hobbit" movie, and I have to admit his editorial pretty much confirmed most of my fears and suspicions about the movies ...
I don't think a complete "slimming down" of the story (or turning into a "children's movie" - although that route might have been preferable to the tangled mess that resulted from going in the opposite direction) was necessary, but neither was it necessary (in my opinion, anyways) to try and turn "Hobbit" into a mirror-image edition of LOTR ...
Somewhere in-between would have been nice - with all the details of the story lovingly delineated, but with extraneous inventions excluded, with the more sophisticated, adult(-ish) attitude and ambience of the LOTR movies left intact, but simply following the original line of the story as much as possible,and without leaving stuff out but putting things in, instead (which also happened at times in the LOTR movies, of course, although the overall sweep and feel of the original story still mostly came through the inventions of the movie-makers in that case) ....
|
|