01-15-2013, 06:00 PM | #16 |
Addict
Posts: 304
Karma: 2454436
Join Date: Sep 2008
Device: PRS-505, PRS-650, iPad, Samsung Galaxy SII (JB), Google Nexus 7 (2013)
|
|
01-15-2013, 06:05 PM | #17 |
Harmless idiot
Posts: 3,411
Karma: 2154829
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Zuhause
Device: PB622, Nexus7, Sony PRS 350, Tolino und nur noch wenig toter Baum:(
|
|
01-15-2013, 06:35 PM | #18 |
Captain Penguin
Posts: 2,947
Karma: 2077653593
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Nook Glowlight
|
Well, if 3 books for LoTR make 3 movies, and 1 book for The Hobbit is supposed to stretch to 3 movies, then they certainly have to milk every scene in the book and then some.
|
01-15-2013, 08:16 PM | #19 |
When's Doughnut Day?
Posts: 10,059
Karma: 13675475
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Houston, TX, US
Device: Sony PRS-505, iPad
|
While I appreciate the film, I was more disappointed even than I had expected to be. As many others do, I enjoy the book a lot for what it is and am enamoured with it as a fanciful children's fantasy. The movie certainly wasn't. But just as you can restage a Shakespearean play into a musical about immigrants in New York City and create something beautiful in the process, I accept Jackson's attempt. I sure didn't like the Bilbo character, though. Nor the dwarves.
|
01-15-2013, 08:46 PM | #20 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,990
Karma: 17560944
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Florida, USA
Device: Kindle Voyage, Kindle Fire HD
|
I, too, am a huge Tolkien fan, re-reading The Hobbit and LoTR every year or so since receiving them as gifts when I was a child. I was a bit snarky about it before seeing the movie -- three movies out of such a small book? inflate much? -- but Jackson gave it much more background and depth than I thought possible.
So, make this another vote for Peter Jackson's vision and accomplishment. I loved the movie; and like desertblues, saw it twice (and will see it again as well as own it when available). I re-read the book after seeing the movie, something I do anyway every year or so as I said, and I liked much of what the movie did even more than the book. Jackson's Thorin Oakenshield was far, far more interesting and impressive and sympathetic in the movie. The effects were great, the actors for the most part were marvelous (though I do agree that Christopher Lee was wooden beyond endurance). I could obviously go on…. Maybe the problem was that the original poster saw an "adaption." Clearly, something would be missing in such a thing. |
01-16-2013, 12:24 AM | #21 |
Home Guard
Posts: 4,729
Karma: 86721650
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Alpha Ralpha Boulevard
Device: Kindle Oasis 3G, iPhone 6
|
PJ doesn't have the rights to The Silmarillion, so there will be nothing from there. It will be mostly stuff from the LOTR appendices and stuff they make up. They'll show Gandalf's activity after he left the dwarves at Mirkwood, including the White Council and driving the Necromancer from Mirkwood, which all happened off screen in the book.
|
01-16-2013, 03:06 AM | #22 | |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 71,496
Karma: 306214458
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
Quote:
|
|
01-16-2013, 07:30 AM | #23 |
Harmless idiot
Posts: 3,411
Karma: 2154829
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Zuhause
Device: PB622, Nexus7, Sony PRS 350, Tolino und nur noch wenig toter Baum:(
|
They are and I don't deny it, but they make about one not too long paragraph in the book and about one hour of the film. This mismatch is bothering me
|
01-16-2013, 07:53 AM | #24 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
Different elements are always emphasised in books and films - it's a different medium. Take the crossing of the bridge in Khazad-Dum in LOTR. A paragraph in the book; a major "tour de force" in the first LOTR film. There was really nothing that one could point to in the film and say "Tolkien would have objected to that", IMHO.
|
01-16-2013, 09:03 AM | #25 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 27,547
Karma: 193191846
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
I enjoyed it for the most part, but I did start feeling the need to check the time after a while. Changes/adaptations I get... different medium and all. But mixing the overall whimsical nature of The Hobbit with the darker tone of Jackson's LOTR movies seemed awkward at times. The altering of some characters' nature was puzzling at best (Thorin: somber and brooding), and I didn't understand the dwarves' appearances: some looked like normal stout humans, while others looked like caricatures that walked out of a Hildebrandt Brothers' illustration. Do dwarves grow up into cartoons? Did anyone else think Dwalin looked like a Klingon, BTW?
Radagast was overly silly and the "white council" was excruciating. Christopher Lee's performance was the most wooden I've ever seen. Did anything other than his lips move? Anyway, I'm getting picky, as I was entertained for nearly three hours. But judged as an adaptation, or even on its own merits alone; I didn't think it was amazing at all. Last edited by DiapDealer; 01-16-2013 at 09:21 AM. |
01-16-2013, 09:40 AM | #26 | |
Home Guard
Posts: 4,729
Karma: 86721650
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Alpha Ralpha Boulevard
Device: Kindle Oasis 3G, iPhone 6
|
Quote:
|
|
01-16-2013, 02:29 PM | #27 |
Nameless Being
|
I have never read The Hobbit and I am not that much of a Tolkien fan. The Hobbit just opened at my local theater, but unfortunately not in 3-D. I did enjoy the three LOTR films for what they were and any deviation from the book did not bother me because I found a lot in the books silly and tedious anyway. So would The Hobbit be enjoyable taken as a film alone, and not in 3-D?
|
01-17-2013, 02:20 AM | #28 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
For me, definitely. The 3D was merely a bonus. I enjoyed the film for its own sake.
|
01-17-2013, 11:04 AM | #29 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,990
Karma: 17560944
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Florida, USA
Device: Kindle Voyage, Kindle Fire HD
|
I saw it in both the regular format (not IMAX) and in the 48 FPS HFR 3D. I preferred the regular format, even though I'm usually gung ho for 3D and IMAX and any other techie toys that can be dragged forth. There was something almost video game fake in some of the scenes in the 3D version, enough so that it took me out of the story. I was watching the effects unfold and questioning the gimmick instead of reveling in the beautiful scenery (and BenG's dwarvish eye candy!). Also, the glasses for this one were extremely uncomfortable for me, and rather small (compared to the wonderful ones provided for Avatar).
When the next one comes out, I'll go with the regular format or IMAX, but probably not bother with the 3D. |
01-18-2013, 06:22 AM | #30 | |
Scholar
Posts: 1,008
Karma: 3999312
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Denmark
Device: Kobo Libra H2O + iPad Air 4
|
Quote:
3D was worth it for Avatar, but not for the Hobbit. |
|
Tags |
fail, peter jackson, the hobbit |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Hobbit - movie to be done by Del Toro! | TadW | Lounge | 19 | 02-27-2008 11:18 AM |