Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
IMO, the filmmaking is superior in The Hobbit. There's a degree of sloppiness evident in FOTR (which I consider the best of the LOTR trilogy; YMMV) -- a not-quite-there-yet, shoot-from-the-hip, low-budget charm that is adorable and wonderful and hobbity, but is not (IMO) on par with such masterful cinematic creations as, for example, the original Star Wars or TESB. TH matches the technical aspects of cinema on display in those films; and in terms of precision, artfulness, beauty of image and heart-pumping pacing and excitement, TH is on par with Cameron's Avatar or Lee's Life of Pi.
Part of this is budget, I think, part of it is the time investment and planning, and part of is the seasoning of the director and the honing of his craft alongside his amazing, talented crew, most of whom also worked with him on LOTR and KONG.
I have no idea what frame rate I saw it at . . . I didn't notice anything odd about the motion. The picture did look unusually crisp, but I attributed that to the 3D. The look of the film did take some getting used to, and at first I didn't like it, but after a while I got used to it and it was fine.
Saw it last night in 2D....ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT!
I'm seeing it in IMax tomorrow.
On a side note, my brother said there'd be a new Star Trek trailer before hand, but it wasn't shown.... =/
Man I pumped for this movie guys. To the hell with the crittics.
http://www.eonline.com/news/371466/...m_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories EDIT here the reasons why this movie is going to be good
Yes, I understand how logical argumentation proceeds. I was not inviting Random Comments to "prove a negative"; I was requesting that he provide a more substantial rebuttal than a mere gainsay of my position, as in "no they didn't" and "not so much". At all events, he responded more fully after this request, and you've done the same with the rest of your post, so I'll proceed with my riposte.
These are good questions, and ones which I've been mulling over in various permutations since yesterday's post. To take them in turn:
 Let's be clear on what my position is. It's this: a. Tolkien never hand-waves any of the 13 dwarves away in The Hobbit. b. Each of them plays some vital part in the story, and their actions are united to their individual personae. c. And, not only are the individuals important, the large number of them is essential to the story, too.
So the position, as you've phrased it, that the dwarves are each "fully fleshed out characters" is not mine. That's someone else's argument. Mine is in the three bolded sentences above. They are individuated and perform actions united to their particular characters; they're not fully rounded with arcs and/or development. If I cannot show any of these points adequately by the end of my essays on the subject, I'll admit it and concede the point. I hope and trust you'll do the same.
 To rephrase your first question specifically: Could Thorin or Balin have carried Bilbo, instead of Dori? The answer is yes! In fact, each of the dwarves take turns carrying Bilbo in that sequence. So my earlier point, that Dori does it out of compassion, is not borne out by the facts. However, the need for multiple dwarves to support the story (my bolded point c., above) is borne out here. Each of the dwarves can only hold him so long, as they're running from the pursuing goblins and are also carrying weapons and gear. So they trade him from one dwarf to the other. Thus while my point b. is here effectively dismissed, point c. is fully supported.
 Yes, agreed. The dwarf who explains their need for a burglar can be any dwarf except for the leader, IE a not-Thorin dwarf. I'll have to return to the question as to whether Dwalin shows this trait again, as I'm not done scrutinizing the book for these essays.
So far, then, the individuated dwarves are Thorin and Balin. Random Comments has allowed this and, by your silence on Balin's uniqueness (IE you've argued against Dori's and Dwalin's uniqueness but not Balin's), I presume you allow it, too.
But it's not a "single joke" that depends on the number of dwarves. So far it's four distinct occasions: 1) At Bag End, when not a "single joke" but the irony of an entire sequence that depends on their large number; 2) In the goblin caves, when the dwarves weighed down by gear and weaponry and fatigued by the continuous chase, have to share the slower Bilbo among them; 3) Outside the caves when Gandalf has to count and enumerate everyone to make sure they're all there, and finds Bilbo missing; and 4) at Beorn's cottage, which is something of a play on the sequence at Bag End, but to the point of danger rather than comical irony (for Beorn may reject them or be incited to violence if they descend on him all at once). And we''re only something like half-way through the book.
More to come.
The 9 minute Into Darkness preview is only attached to Imax screenings.
Saw it in glorious 24fps 2D. It doesn't look as good as LotR (the digital Red look is too crisp and unforgiving on the makeup). And the shutter angle was noticeable only a few times, thankfully. I'm super relieved to say that this heavily corrected version does at least look like a movie, not a 70s BBC play or Doctor Who before it looked good.
Storywise, I loved it. I didn't expect it to be as serious, dark, or epic as LotR and so I was perfectly happy with the fun adventure we got. At the same time, the added foreshadowing with the Necromancer and the White Council made it feel weightier and more connected to LotR, and I really really liked that. I can't wait to see how some of that develops.
Overall, there were only a few moments I felt were overly kiddy or too humorous for the situation. Mostly I thought it was great fun.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo was, within about 2 minutes of first appearing on screen, already more dear to me than any LotR character.
The only thing that was too long was Frodo's appearance. Felt shoehorned. Ian Holm's narration was great, I just think they were trying a little too hard there.
I'm waiting for Everton and Mar's multi-page writeup for this.
I shalt see this tomorrow at 10:30 am 3d.
Nah, not as funny the second time. Plus, you really don't know how to code, do you?
I actually wasn't trying to be funny the first time either. I do to some extent know how to code, but I am still learning as I go.
Saw it last night and I thought it was excellent. Though the purist in me despises their use of Azog
To everyone, can I just ask a question: What exactly is the motivation for bringing Bilbo. They are trying to recapture the wealth of an entire civilization. Wealth that is currently guarded by one being that they admit will have to be defeated in a military confrontation. How is having a single thief come along going to help with any of that? Isn't that like saying instead of launching the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein should have tried a plan where he hired one thief to "steal" all of Kuwait's oil? Conceptually, how does this even begin to work?
Ambrosius: Thanks. Looking forward to your future entries. And yeah, I agree you've made a good case of Thorin and Belin.
Because Gandalf says it will.
That's about it.
Well, I've seen and it was pretty much as I'd expected: it was a decent movie (if overly long) and a so-so adaptation. I got a feeling they were trying to make it as epic as possible by including a lot of stuff that was only hinted at in the books and in the end it hurt the sense of adventure which was a very strong theme in the book (more so than in LOTR which was much more epic). I also hated all the obvious hollywoodization such as creating conflict where it's not necessary or various cliches (i.e. hanging on the cliffs - it happened maybe 10 times during the movie).
Fair enough. You are, after all, learning yourself. And that's something we all should take the time to do. /zen
I'm still waiting for Everton's Wall Of Text(TM) review myself. We both feel we need to process the film properly first (we're seeing it again tomorrow in 24fps 2D). I'll only say this:
48fps 3D looks glorious. Yes, for the first couple of minutes (YMMV) it looked as if the characters moved too fast, as if the film was sped up slightly, but I quickly got used to it. The picture was wonderfully sharp and smooth - especially in the big sweeping pan shots there was no flickering or blurring which always bothers me whenever I see an ordinary film at a cinema (the effect is not as pronounced on a TV or computer screen). Everything was nice and smooth, and 3D looked completely natural. In fact at several points I thought there was no 3D - it was subdued, and wasn't brought forward in the moments where it wasn't needed and would only distract (like the Riddles in the Dark scene, for instance). And it certainly looked nothing like old BBC TV shows. I also don't understand the complaints of people who claim the make-up, costumes and props looked fake - are you sure you weren't seeing what you wanted to see? Because none of the props or costumes or makeup did feel fake to me - Gandalf, for instance, looked exactly like he did in FOTR. With a scarf added, but that's not a 48fps 3D issue.
As for the story itself, I'll write a proper review later (this needs a rewatch, as a large part of the first viewing was spent on geeking out over certain details and references ). I loved the stuff that was taken directly from the book. I thought all scenes at Bag End were absolutely brilliant and funny and awesome. I only had a couple of complaints, plot wise, to which I'll get later.
Our average rating of the film was 4.25 out of 5, which might go up upon rewatch.
2 screenings done already. Not going to troupe the full review up on my phone, but I thought it was great. Once I got used to the HFR I thought it was fantastic and looked great. Some fast action scenes are a little too fast, but they're few.
There's so many little things that I loved in the film that are tiny details.
And Thranduil's moose. Because he has a MOOSE.
This is the only film I know that made moose riding and bunny sledding look epic.
(This is also the only film I know that seriously attempted moose riding and bunny sledding...)
I LOVED the inclusion of the gulf story, something I never thought I'd see in a Jackson helmed adaptation.
To clarify, when I said this I meant it as a compliment, and specifically I wrote "BBC films such as Count Dracula and Pride & Prejudice", which are two of my favorite movies of all time.
Other than that I concur with your post 100%!
FTFY! And yes, I agree, it was expertly handled. McKellan's wry sense of comic timing made it absolutely work. It got a good laugh at the showing we attended.
Just saw the Hobbit....IT WAS AMAZING!!!!!! Movie of the Year, and the movie kept close to the book but the only difference that there is a subplot as well!!
Official stills gallery from TH's FB page. All I can say is that Cate Blanchett is Galadriel. She is the only actress who could pull off looking so ethereally regal, bar none.