Page 2 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

eelektrik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 579
Location: Irvine, CA

16 Jan 2013, 4:43 pm

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
PantheraTigris wrote:
I am looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug...


Me too! :D


As for the movie, it was very well-done. I'm glad Peter Jackson chose to direct the prequel trilogy, and not the original choice to direct The Hobbit, Sam Raimi. Peter Jackson kept the movie going at a steady pace and it never lagged.

Sam Raimi would have likely screwed the entire thing up like he did with Spider-Man 3.


Spider-Man 3 is more Sony's fault than Raimi, putting too many demands and bloating Spider-Man 3 with too many characters. He certainly made two excellent Spider-Man films before it, so if they had let him do his thing the movie would not have sucked. Which is a shame, because Sandman was perfectly cast and so underused in favor of a badly cast Venom.

However I don't recall him being in the running to direct The Hobbit. I know Guillermo Del Toro was signed on to direct at one point and co-wrote the screenplay before backing out of directing duties, at which point Peter Jackson agreed to do it. That I would not have minded at all, Del Toro would have done a great job too.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

16 Jan 2013, 4:44 pm

I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Especially Radagast. He's cooky and crazy and awesome.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 71,808
Location: Portland, Oregon

16 Jan 2013, 7:10 pm

eelektrik wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
PantheraTigris wrote:
I am looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug...


Me too! :D


As for the movie, it was very well-done. I'm glad Peter Jackson chose to direct the prequel trilogy, and not the original choice to direct The Hobbit, Sam Raimi. Peter Jackson kept the movie going at a steady pace and it never lagged.

Sam Raimi would have likely screwed the entire thing up like he did with Spider-Man 3.


Spider-Man 3 is more Sony's fault than Raimi, putting too many demands and bloating Spider-Man 3 with too many characters. He certainly made two excellent Spider-Man films before it, so if they had let him do his thing the movie would not have sucked. Which is a shame, because Sandman was perfectly cast and so underused in favor of a badly cast Venom.

However I don't recall him being in the running to direct The Hobbit. I know Guillermo Del Toro was signed on to direct at one point and co-wrote the screenplay before backing out of directing duties, at which point Peter Jackson agreed to do it. That I would not have minded at all, Del Toro would have done a great job too.


I agree about GDT. His early works and Peter Jackson's early works are very similar.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,444
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

16 Jan 2013, 8:37 pm

The CGI, directing, and cinematics were a lot tighter than they were with the LOTR series. The only problem was it felt like they were trying to pack 20 pounds of something in a five-pound bag in certain areas; the bridge-to-bridge thing, hanging on to ledges on the legs of giants, falling 200 to 300 feet and being fine - it started getting a little far-fetched.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

16 Jan 2013, 9:43 pm

One of the most interesting things about The Hobbit (the book) is that Gandalf is a dick. He peer pressures Bilbo into going on a dangerous mission that has nothing to do with him. In fact, it's not even clear why Gandalf himself should care about this dwarven property dispute. You get the impression that Gandalf is some kind of cosmic troll who just turns up and sends people on adventures.

In the movie, there is an attempt to make Gandalf noble instead. This is accomplished in two ways.

First, Gandalf gives extremely vague and unconvincing reasons why it is important to take Bilbo along. Of course, in the end it turns out that Bilbo is very useful, but only because he finds a magic ring. Gandalf could not possibly have known this in advance.

Second, Gandalf reveals that he wants Smaug dead because he is worried that Smaug could ally with Sauron if Sauron rises to power again. So, apparently Bilbo and company really are Saving The World (TM), but in an ridiculously indirect way.



PantheraTigris
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 32

17 Jan 2013, 2:11 am

I never minded Gandalf in the book. Yes, he's not the nicest chap, but he's not bad or anything. He's just a grumpy 'old man'.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

17 Jan 2013, 4:06 am

PantheraTigris wrote:
I never minded Gandalf in the book. Yes, he's not the nicest chap, but he's not bad or anything. He's just a grumpy 'old man'.


I didn't mind him, in fact I found him charming. But he seems more like a "force of nature", as opposed to a character with sensible motivations. It seems like he is driven by things which lowly hobbits and dwarves could not possibly understand, and he's always mysteriously disappearing and reappearing. In the movie, they give him a very explicit and boring motivation (wants Smaug dead in case Smaug allies with Sauron), and it takes away some of the mystery.



Stoek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2012
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 762

18 Jan 2013, 1:14 pm

PantheraTigris wrote:
I never minded Gandalf in the book. Yes, he's not the nicest chap, but he's not bad or anything. He's just a grumpy 'old man'.


Yeah that's really a sign of the times, and how babied kids are today.

A century ago when tolkien was young, gandalf was your standard english grandfather, stern, grumpy and very caring.



Draka
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 116
Location: Deep inside my head and so far away.

03 Mar 2013, 9:59 pm

As a huge fan of both the books and the movies, I was highly anticipating this film. It was good, but not as good as the LotR trilogy. Why? The orcs and wargs both look different (though The Hobbit ones were probably closer to Tolkien's original idea of them). The dwarves look (to me) too comical; though they were portrayed somewhat comically in the book. Radaghast seemed too silly to me, though I like how we actually got to see him. The rock giant part seemed a little too impossible. Also, the dwarves didn't start trusting Bilbo until Mirkwood in the book.

I don't know about the 3 films thing. Yeah, some of the stuff is being pulled from the appendices, but I don't think it's enough for 2 extra films. One, yes; two, maybe not, unless the Necromancer banishing part is awesome. We'll just have to wait and see.

For the record, it was still a really good movie, my favorite in the past two years; I'm still going to buy it when it comes out on DVD. And I can't wait for the next one; Beorn is my favorite character from The Hobbit.



MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

17 Mar 2013, 11:35 pm

mercifullyfree wrote:
My favorite part of the movie was the Misty Mountain song. The dwarves sung a lot in the book and I was a bit disappointed that they didn't sing more after the beginning. Hoping they do in the next movies.
Good movie and good song too :)



whiterat
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 280
Location: Singapore

13 Apr 2013, 9:43 am

EstherJ wrote:
This film has caused a rebound in my LotR special interest.

For good or evil. :)


Same here!



KyleTheGhost
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 70,218
Location: Wisconsin

18 Apr 2013, 8:19 am

whiterat wrote:
EstherJ wrote:
This film has caused a rebound in my LotR special interest.

For good or evil. :)


Same here!


Me, too! I enjoyed this one! I also loved the references to the original trilogy. I can't wait for the other two!


_________________
I am Ashley. My pronouns are she/her.


whiterat
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 280
Location: Singapore

18 Apr 2013, 10:10 am

I am looking forward to seeing Beorn's talking animals on the silver screen!



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

18 Apr 2013, 10:24 am

Declension wrote:
In the movie, they give him a very explicit and boring motivation (wants Smaug dead in case Smaug allies with Sauron), and it takes away some of the mystery.


This is in the books as well, I think either in an appendix from LotR or Silmarillion.



Mindsigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,272
Location: Ailleurs

18 Apr 2013, 1:47 pm

I saw the first one last night. Didn't know it was going to be a multi-film ordeal. :x It should've been subtitled "An Unexpected Ending" or "Most of the Way There and Not Back Yet".


_________________
"Lonely is as lonely does.
Lonely is an eyesore."


kouzoku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 660

18 Apr 2013, 2:36 pm

I was really disappointed in it. Being a huge fan of the LOTR films, I thought I would like this film as well, but it was just okay for me. I disliked the addition of the white orc, which IMO brought down the entire film with is goofiness, the completely bizarre portrayal of Rataghast the Brown (he was one of my fav characters so I have a bias), and as others have mentioned, the "justification" Gandalf uses to recruit Bilbo and go after Smaug. I understand that Jackson is trying to tie them into his original movies, but I feel the story completely lacked the character of the book. Also, some things were completely far fetched, even compared with the LOTR films, such as the stone giants sequence, as mentioned earlier on in the thread.

I will probably like it better when I watch it at home, though.