The Hobbit movie
Discussion
I think most people have seen the animated version and as akid I really liked it and wondered why there was never a Hobbit film / animation.
I've recently got the other half into LOTR shes currently reading Fellowship after seeing teh blue ray of all three films AND the extended cuts of all three! (I've told her that we need to watch them again twice with director / writer and cast commentary!)
and she's up for it! result! give it a few months or so though I think...
I did recall clearly sat in the cinema watching fellowship and thinking "this is the book on film".
I've recently got the other half into LOTR shes currently reading Fellowship after seeing teh blue ray of all three films AND the extended cuts of all three! (I've told her that we need to watch them again twice with director / writer and cast commentary!)
and she's up for it! result! give it a few months or so though I think...
I did recall clearly sat in the cinema watching fellowship and thinking "this is the book on film".
TheHeretic said:
Halb said:
Well there is, just make some decent faithful versions.
They never had Tom Bombadil. Peter Jackson did OK by me. The only part of the book I skip ahead. Aragorn in the films I thougth was pretty good his angst about his legacy and bane wasn;t overdone but had to be put across somehow....
the bakshi version had aragorn looking like a potato for a start (Po-tay-toe) and whilst voiced great in such a short space of time for the animated version couldn't possible get the messages across. Gandalf in teh bakshi version comes over as a bumblng halfwit - how can that be right?
Jacksons' version of LOTR was for me the book on film - insofar as he could go to be as faithful as possbible to the original text and make it entertaining for as many ppl as possible.
I'm off to see this tonight - had the misfortune of seeing film 2012 last night - I cannot stand Claudia "I look like an unmade bed" winkleman...although she liked it the other guy didn't.
I thought this first EP. ended with the battle of 5 armies? I feel like I am setting myself up for a dissapointment... Fellowship certainly was not a dissapointment...
I thought this first EP. ended with the battle of 5 armies? I feel like I am setting myself up for a dissapointment... Fellowship certainly was not a dissapointment...
Saw it its full glory last night and whilst I think its about 20 minutes overlong and jackson has used interpretation and no small amount of artistic licence I really enjoyed it.
let me be clear, unlike Fellowship, this is NOT the book on film. Purists might be up in arms, but if you havn't read the book, and my OH hasn't DONT.
It doesn;t have the lyrical beauty of LOTR, but then this film is not about elves, and wizrds and friendship its about dwarves and it all the better for being grittier.
freeman, serkis, armitage, stott, all excellent and fili and kili could well have been in the lost boys!
I like the characterisations, the comedy and the development in bilbo's character.
as for the filming its sumptuous and at times breathtaking...I gasped at one or two places at just how gorgeous the whole thing looked - 48fps for me loses nothing on the big screeen - but sit well back if you can.
one or two SFX looked a bit clumsy and for that reason unneccesary - in particular the goblin dungeon scene looked more like indiana jones than I had ever imagined Tolkiens' world to look like, and again the purists will be complaining.
go see it for what it is, a detailed story full of colour, character and imagination.
8/10 from me (1 mark off for radaghast and the rivendell council) and it's not quite a 9.
let me be clear, unlike Fellowship, this is NOT the book on film. Purists might be up in arms, but if you havn't read the book, and my OH hasn't DONT.
It doesn;t have the lyrical beauty of LOTR, but then this film is not about elves, and wizrds and friendship its about dwarves and it all the better for being grittier.
freeman, serkis, armitage, stott, all excellent and fili and kili could well have been in the lost boys!
I like the characterisations, the comedy and the development in bilbo's character.
as for the filming its sumptuous and at times breathtaking...I gasped at one or two places at just how gorgeous the whole thing looked - 48fps for me loses nothing on the big screeen - but sit well back if you can.
one or two SFX looked a bit clumsy and for that reason unneccesary - in particular the goblin dungeon scene looked more like indiana jones than I had ever imagined Tolkiens' world to look like, and again the purists will be complaining.
go see it for what it is, a detailed story full of colour, character and imagination.
8/10 from me (1 mark off for radaghast and the rivendell council) and it's not quite a 9.
Azog is there to give the chase a sense of peril - substitute black riders from fellowship. otherwise - and whilst the narrative of the book drives plot - on film there is no mcguffin for audiences to attach to apart from bilbo.
Azog is there i think to generate the chase / flee element - otherwise it would just be a bunch of meandering dwarves.
in LOTR there is the immediately driven subplot that the ring is "alive" and has a power to posess and drive greed...the hobbit has none of that, azog gives the initial journey more purpose.
i wasn't a fan of it tbh - azog reminded me of the creature in "300" that fights with leonidas - is it the same actor?
Azog is there i think to generate the chase / flee element - otherwise it would just be a bunch of meandering dwarves.
in LOTR there is the immediately driven subplot that the ring is "alive" and has a power to posess and drive greed...the hobbit has none of that, azog gives the initial journey more purpose.
i wasn't a fan of it tbh - azog reminded me of the creature in "300" that fights with leonidas - is it the same actor?
The point about the eagles not just dropping frodo off at mount doom is a bit moot.
(not an entmoot)
The Nazgul were frequenting the plains of gorgoroth and would attack the eagles, and if eagles were afraid of men shoting arrows at them, then certainly 1000's of orcs on the P of G would put them off too...
(not an entmoot)
The Nazgul were frequenting the plains of gorgoroth and would attack the eagles, and if eagles were afraid of men shoting arrows at them, then certainly 1000's of orcs on the P of G would put them off too...
but then you would be missing out on two important elements of the book, you can't have it both ways.
I would have cut radagast out completely and the connections implied to the witch king and the 9.
the trolls scene is required as it is the first time they have to work togethe rto get out of trouble and rivendell is thier first real safe rest and prep for the next stage of the journey.
I thought the film was really good apart from the goblin scene in the mountain which I though was rushed and too effects driven - it kinda took me out of the film a bit if I'm honest.
I disagree re pacing - too many films these days discard a bit of plot and characterisation for a money shot...let the thing breathe otherwise its not Tolkien.
I would have cut radagast out completely and the connections implied to the witch king and the 9.
the trolls scene is required as it is the first time they have to work togethe rto get out of trouble and rivendell is thier first real safe rest and prep for the next stage of the journey.
I thought the film was really good apart from the goblin scene in the mountain which I though was rushed and too effects driven - it kinda took me out of the film a bit if I'm honest.
I disagree re pacing - too many films these days discard a bit of plot and characterisation for a money shot...let the thing breathe otherwise its not Tolkien.
I agree with some of this - for me, I thought the second film should have ended with the battle of the 5 armies, and a third film - if it needed it, could explore some of the themes of the rising power of mordor, dwindling of the elves etc...but even so it wouldn't have much of a narrative to keep most cinema goers attentive.
plusses
Smaug - excellent voice over
set pieces, barrels and the doorstep and spiders
Beorn - not easy to cast but very good
Bilbo when he was on screen - captivating
cinematography - always beautiful to look at but occasionally too fast editing takes you out of the film.
elven kingdom and the lonely mountain interior beautifully rendered
minuses
love story
legolas and taureil - no need for either, shameless padding and added nothing imho
wargs et al in laketown spurious
Gandalf / necromancer - possibly not required although by no means a disaster to have them in
not enough Bilbo
I guess my point is that as good as it was, and it is a good film, don't get me wrong, a fair amount could have been omitted and we could have had more Bilbo, more dwarves etc - eg the spiders in the book is a whole chapter.
7/10 - a good effort but 45 minutes could have been better utilised.
plusses
Smaug - excellent voice over
set pieces, barrels and the doorstep and spiders
Beorn - not easy to cast but very good
Bilbo when he was on screen - captivating
cinematography - always beautiful to look at but occasionally too fast editing takes you out of the film.
elven kingdom and the lonely mountain interior beautifully rendered
minuses
love story
legolas and taureil - no need for either, shameless padding and added nothing imho
wargs et al in laketown spurious
Gandalf / necromancer - possibly not required although by no means a disaster to have them in
not enough Bilbo
I guess my point is that as good as it was, and it is a good film, don't get me wrong, a fair amount could have been omitted and we could have had more Bilbo, more dwarves etc - eg the spiders in the book is a whole chapter.
7/10 - a good effort but 45 minutes could have been better utilised.
I've seen the trailer for Pt3 and it does whet the appetite and no doubt I will go and see this, who knows PJ may redeem himself with a cinematic tour de force worthy of the LoTR franchise.
I wanted so much to really love the hobbit films as I did immediately with fellowship.. but I just can't. yet.
I wanted so much to really love the hobbit films as I did immediately with fellowship.. but I just can't. yet.
saw it last night in 3-D and really enjoyed it but don't expect any faithfulness to the book - which is dissapointing of course, however as a cinematic experience is was very good....
good bits are the obvious effects although the obvious fast cutting can get a bit epilepsy inducing at times....
Armitage's performance was superb I thought which you don't often find in fantasy films.
clearly they were trying to bridge between the hobbit and LOTR - however the thread around gundabad and Tauriel and Legolas popping by for a visit was wasted and added nothing to the narrative, in fact it was confusing...legolas' mother???? WTF? come on....
The importance of DALE was badly handled and confusing....it didn't feel quite right the division of attack between the city and the mountain - needed to be clearer....
blink and you miss Beorn - in the book he kills the goblin hosts' leaders - maybe that will be explained in the dvd commentary btu was a massive departure and effective meant Thorin hardly fought alongisde the other dwarves of the company - they were almost an afterthought and Tolkien brings out the emotion of the passing of Thorin far far better than the film...
sounds liek I'm being very critical but there were celar flaws in the sequencing and events that felt odd....
as a fantasy epic though it was a great watch and 2 and a half hours flew by...for all its' crtiics though the "love" interest actually provided the only real clear emotional connection between characters (aside from Bard and his family - he was also excellent btw) Jackson should have put the emotion forom Taurial and Fili into the Thorin / Bilbo parting....
a missed opportunity there....
8/10
good bits are the obvious effects although the obvious fast cutting can get a bit epilepsy inducing at times....
Armitage's performance was superb I thought which you don't often find in fantasy films.
clearly they were trying to bridge between the hobbit and LOTR - however the thread around gundabad and Tauriel and Legolas popping by for a visit was wasted and added nothing to the narrative, in fact it was confusing...legolas' mother???? WTF? come on....
The importance of DALE was badly handled and confusing....it didn't feel quite right the division of attack between the city and the mountain - needed to be clearer....
blink and you miss Beorn - in the book he kills the goblin hosts' leaders - maybe that will be explained in the dvd commentary btu was a massive departure and effective meant Thorin hardly fought alongisde the other dwarves of the company - they were almost an afterthought and Tolkien brings out the emotion of the passing of Thorin far far better than the film...
sounds liek I'm being very critical but there were celar flaws in the sequencing and events that felt odd....
as a fantasy epic though it was a great watch and 2 and a half hours flew by...for all its' crtiics though the "love" interest actually provided the only real clear emotional connection between characters (aside from Bard and his family - he was also excellent btw) Jackson should have put the emotion forom Taurial and Fili into the Thorin / Bilbo parting....
a missed opportunity there....
8/10
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff