|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Dec 7, 2013 11:33:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 7, 2013 15:29:23 GMT
Personally, I think The Hobbit is Peter Jackson's Star Wars Episode I-III. it is going to be good, but in my opinion, he made a HUGE mistake using the silmarillion to pad it out to three movies. I would love to see someone do a supercut and whittle it down to a movie faithful to the book.
in fact, I might just start referring to this episode as "attack of the clones"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 8, 2013 9:14:01 GMT
I am waiting for the final episode to get to DVD before I try to watch any of this. Reason being, I read the books before they became "famous" (I think mine is a first edition, merely because that is when it was bought) I read the books, and I have re-read them, and to be honest, I know how it ends.... Watching the second part of a trilogy and getting annoyed that it ends in the wrong place will annoy me.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2013 16:40:29 GMT
I am more annoyed by the fact that they could have done a 2½ hour movie and included all the material in the book.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Dec 9, 2013 23:31:09 GMT
Making 3 movies out of it is a blatant cash grab by Jackson. I would think he would be smarter than to pull such a Lucas stunt. Personally, I think 2 movies would have been pushing it. One would have been plenty. It's not that involved of a story. The first one fell deliberately padded out and long.
Hobbit 1 felt like he was just showing off his effects, but not in a good way. LORT effects were good enough that you had to really watch to pick out the CGI parts, and even the, he did a very good job blending most of it so it did not stand out as CGI. Several scenes of Hobbit felt CGI. The plate throwing in the opening is a prime example. All the plates have perfectly flat trajectories. The were not going nearly fast enough to be believable like that. Simply giving them proper arcs would have made it feel much more natural and not effects.
I have long enjoyed LOTR and love the movies. However, they are getting greedy with The Hobbit. It would have been better for one high quality hobbit movie and then start making movies of the Salmarian or other works to expand the universe letting each stand on their own.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 14, 2013 3:11:33 GMT
Making 3 movies out of it is a blatant cash grab by Jackson. I would think he would be smarter than to pull such a Lucas stunt. Personally, I think 2 movies would have been pushing it. One would have been plenty. It's not that involved of a story. The first one fell deliberately padded out and long. Having just seen the second one, I agree with you. Jackson (et al) added entire subplots that aren't in the book just to pad out the movie, including having Legolas as one of the wood elves and doing a protracted sequence in which the dwarves try to fight Smaug on their own. The minute Orlando Bloom appeared on-camera, I said "Forget this" and quit trying to track how badly the film deviated from the book. Oh, and as a spoiler - Smaug doesn't even attack the town.The film is supposed to be all about how massively powerful and destructive he is, yet he won't go on his full roaring rampage of revenge until the finale. I was looking forward to seeing The Battle of Five Armies as a three-hour epic, but Smaug's going to eat up at least a full hour all on his own.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2013 3:40:32 GMT
now I'm trying to remember if we paid to see Dwarf Wars I: The Dragon Menace in the theatre. now I'm thinking I won't bother with Episode II or Episode III
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2013 3:51:16 GMT
Making 3 movies out of it is a blatant cash grab by Jackson. I would think he would be smarter than to pull such a Lucas stunt. Personally, I think 2 movies would have been pushing it. One would have been plenty. It's not that involved of a story. The first one fell deliberately padded out and long. Hobbit 1 felt like he was just showing off his effects, but not in a good way. LORT effects were good enough that you had to really watch to pick out the CGI parts, and even the, he did a very good job blending most of it so it did not stand out as CGI. Several scenes of Hobbit felt CGI. The plate throwing in the opening is a prime example. All the plates have perfectly flat trajectories. The were not going nearly fast enough to be believable like that. Simply giving them proper arcs would have made it feel much more natural and not effects. I have long enjoyed LOTR and love the movies. However, they are getting greedy with The Hobbit. It would have been better for one high quality hobbit movie and then start making movies of the Salmarian or other works to expand the universe letting each stand on their own. I'm not sure whether it is greed or ego. your plate comment reminds me of a time back in the dark ages when my brother contracted to do modules for a screen saver. he did 2 of 9 modules and subcontracted another to a high school friend. all of the physics in his modules was correct, and they all fit on one 3½" floppy. The customer decided to also hire him to compile the screen saver, and mailed the box of floppies the other modules were on to him. the physics in the other modules was an embarrassment to anyone. he still managed to condense the whole thing to one disc, and it was released just in time to be obsolete due to the release of windows 95.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 14, 2013 15:21:17 GMT
It might be neither, at least on Jacksons part.
It is not a secret that MGM had been asking about the possibility of making a film set between The Hobbit and LOTR. It was decided that rather than try this they'd just expand the Hobbit from two to three films.
From the studios point of view this allowed them to save a lot of money and avoid the risks involved in a big budget film that lacked any significant interest. The total costs of producing the three films to date works out at $500 million, or $167 million per film. Compare this to LOTR which cost $281 million, or $94 million per film or the Avengers which cost $220 million and you can see the problem with an 'unconnected' film. You'd probably be looking at a $180-200 million price tag to film the Hobbits appendix.
From the writers view such a film would lack rather a lot - such as Hobbits, battles and all but a handful of the actors/characters from any of the other films even assuming that all of the actors would be able and willing to return. That would make things rather...dull. Something that seems to be born out by your reactions to this film, which is where a lot of that additional stuff ended up.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2013 18:01:09 GMT
It might be neither, at least on Jacksons part. It is not a secret that MGM had been asking about the possibility of making a film set between The Hobbit and LOTR. It was decided that rather than try this they'd just expand the Hobbit from two to three films. From the studios point of view this allowed them to save a lot of money and avoid the risks involved in a big budget film that lacked any significant interest. The total costs of producing the three films to date works out at $500 million, or $167 million per film. Compare this to LOTR which cost $281 million, or $94 million per film or the Avengers which cost $220 million and you can see the problem with an 'unconnected' film. You'd probably be looking at a $180-200 million price tag to film the Hobbits appendix. From the writers view such a film would lack rather a lot - such as Hobbits, battles and all but a handful of the actors/characters from any of the other films even assuming that all of the actors would be able and willing to return. That would make things rather...dull. Something that seems to be born out by your reactions to this film, which is where a lot of that additional stuff ended up. nevermind the possibility of pi**ing off their viewer base by producung a bloat pic.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 14, 2013 18:20:36 GMT
Yeah - in my review of the film, I actually recommend that Tolkien purists go hunt down the old Rankin-Bass film.
RB completely deleted Beorn from the mix, but it's still far more accurate to the book than the Jackson films are.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2013 18:25:54 GMT
At this point, I think it would be incredibly funny if nobody showed up for the premiere of episode 3: the revenge of the drarves.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Dec 16, 2013 2:11:16 GMT
I watched part of It yesterday. I had to leave after half of the movie due to reasons unrelated to the film. It didn't feel as padded as the first one. The way thing pacing was going, they were leaving the wood-elf village by an hour in. At that rate, they could have Smaug dead and the battle of 5 Armies by the end of the film. At that point, I rally wonder how much it is going to be padded out to turn an hour and half into 4.
Also, the Necromancer just isn't very threatening in this one. Partially, they show too much of him. Part of what made Salron effective in LotR is that you saw very little of him, which kept him mysterious and creepy. Plus knowing that he is a merely underling to Salron also tends to neuter the character.
Effects were better, but still had a few scenes that stood out as obvious CGI.
Hopefully I'll have time to watching it again and finish it this time late this week.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 16, 2013 15:36:45 GMT
*Possible spoiler*
The Necromancer was Sauron, at least in the books. They may be intending to reveal this in the last film, or they might have decided to change this - It would make more sense for him to be a minion of Sauron, if only because it then gives a justifiable reason for Sauruman to have been recruited as a replacement between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the ring.
Personally I'd have no problem with this. The Hobbit, although often marketed and viewed as the 'prequel' to the Lord of the Rings was not written that way. It was originally written as a children's book, and although it ended up being used as the basis for the later story. The truth is that this was done retrospectively - much as the film Lethal Weapon was written and intended to be a stand alone film* but retroactively became the first in a series.
We have to remember that whatever else you might think of Tolken and his works. At the end of the day he was far better at the 'big' picture stuff than the smaller things. So he was great at creating the world and the long history of 'good verses evil'. He was less good when it came to smaller things, such as personalities and day to day plot. (I recall one person quipping that in LOTR the plot and characters only existed to break up descriptions of mountain ranges). The Hobbit faired better in this regards than LOTR, probably because its nature as a kids book required that the plot and characters be far more focused than was the case in later works.
Ironically this meant that LOTR was much easier to turn into a film - there is so much going on that even when you start cutting things out left right and centre there is still more than enough to give you a film. With the Hobbit its 'better' structure means there is less going on, so you end up having to add material if you want to attempt to make a couple of films from it. The problem here seems to be the studio - which I suspect were the ones pushing for a trilogy as Jackson intended to just make a two parter. As a two parter the Hobbit would probably work very well, as it would allow you to be more focused overall while adding in elements from the appendixes (and mentioned in LOTR) to connect it to the LOTR films. As a three parter you'd have no option but to pad out the films to the point where it becomes painfully apparent.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 16, 2013 16:55:55 GMT
Thing is, even in the original book there are areas in which Jackson could have drawn padding.
For example, it was explicitly noted that the dwarves very quickly used up all the arrows that they got from Beorn on failed attempts at hunting squirrels. They might have gotten some humor out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2013 16:59:35 GMT
As I recall, LOTR was three books averaging twice as thick as The Hobbit...
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 16, 2013 17:19:29 GMT
As I recall, LOTR was three books averaging twice as thick as The Hobbit... Yes, but if you cut out a lot of the 'fluff' from LOTR - by which I mean elements that didn't further the plot (Tom Bombidel) or long winded explanations as to elements of the worlds history (most of the council meeting in Fellowship of the Ring, most of what is said about Gondor). Then you could easily cut each of LOTR books down to around the same length as the (unedited) Hobbit. It is easy to forget that LOTR meanders quite a lot in an effort to show us the world, rather than tell us the story that is going on. In fact if you look at the books critically you could argue that most of what is written is really about what will happen in the future or happened in the past, rather than what is meant to be happening right now. For the books this works fairly well, and in fact you often don't really care that much about the unfocused nature of the plot in the here-and-now. But in terms of a film it is something of a nightmare - if the films had stayed 100% true to the books then the first two films would barely have got Frodo out of Rivendell. As it is they more or less cut of 2/3rds of the first book so that the film ends in the same place.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2013 18:42:13 GMT
As I recall, LOTR was three books averaging twice as thick as The Hobbit... Yes, but if you cut out a lot of the 'fluff' from LOTR - by which I mean elements that didn't further the plot (Tom Bombidel) or long winded explanations as to elements of the worlds history (most of the council meeting in Fellowship of the Ring, most of what is said about Gondor). Then you could easily cut each of LOTR books down to around the same length as the (unedited) Hobbit. It is easy to forget that LOTR meanders quite a lot in an effort to show us the world, rather than tell us the story that is going on. In fact if you look at the books critically you could argue that most of what is written is really about what will happen in the future or happened in the past, rather than what is meant to be happening right now. For the books this works fairly well, and in fact you often don't really care that much about the unfocused nature of the plot in the here-and-now. But in terms of a film it is something of a nightmare - if the films had stayed 100% true to the books then the first two films would barely have got Frodo out of Rivendell. As it is they more or less cut of 2/3rds of the first book so that the film ends in the same place. the reference was more about trying to get as much screen time out of the hobbit as out of the complete LOTR trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Dec 18, 2013 2:33:09 GMT
Your all lucky that you get to see the film before Christmas. In their infinite wisdom the Producers of the Hobbit have decided to relace the film every where BUT Australia & NZ before Christmas. We must wait until Boxing Day (Dec 26) before we're allowed to queue up & see the film! WHAT A LOAD OF *CENSORED!*
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2013 7:53:38 GMT
Yeah - in my review of the film, I actually recommend that Tolkien purists go hunt down the old Rankin-Bass film. RB completely deleted Beorn from the mix, but it's still far more accurate to the book than the Jackson films are. I thoroughly enjoyed the RB version when I saw it back in the 70s. I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one. I saw the first Hobbit film, but I'm probably skipping this one. It seemed dragged out, and to be honest, I think I'm simply burnt out on Tolkien.
|
|