Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - Part 16

[Octoberist]

the super HD crisp is not great. And now he's going for that Vasaline on the lense/Go-Motion look for the third film, and it just doesn't work.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Vaseline lense? never heard of that one, you got any examples?

 

[Boom]

Some of the folks over there know Tolkien inside and out. I still venture over to the "Reading Room" boards from time to time. Insightful stuff, and it's good to be able to flex my brain over the literature.

But as far as these films are concerned? Many of them strike me more as "Peter Jackson LoTR" fans than anything. Hell, maybe just Peter Jackson fans. And they've become so used to the near universal consensus of the LoTR trilogy that I've encountered people who simply have no idea how to handle, much less discuss, anything negative about theses movies in any meaningful way. That are just completely incapable of comprehending the thought or notion that Jackson delivered a lackluster Tolkien film. I stopped posting in the film-related boards once the first film released.

Oh I definitely enjoyed them, saw the first in theaters and it was one of my most enjoyable times in the theater in a long time. I missed the second in theaters but plan to see the third sometime this month or next. I've bought the theatrical and extended editions on day one, and I've read the book! I do understand the complaints and have a few of my own. The LOTR films are definitely better, but Peter Jackson is no George Lucas. I mean that in a positive way. Pete did prequels right, er I mean better at least than Georgie boy did.



Are they Tolkien fans or just a bunch of teen fangirls/fanboys? Not trying to be insulting as I've thought about joining there myself but if its like the tumblr/twitter people I've come across I don't know if its a good idea.



You two are awesome I'd love to listen to that conversation! There are many posters on the Hype I like even when I disagree with them. Wouldn't be fun if we were all the same!

 

[Octoberist]

Excalbur for example has it. Ripley Scott's Legend too.

It creates this blurry look. It worked in the 80's because it was done physically, not digitally like in the third Hobbit.

 

[Doc Ock]

I for one like the prequels, they are not perfect of course but i really enjoy them. I liked some things of this hobbit trilogy (Smaug my very favorite) , but there are many things that went wrong, mostly book changes, that started from the very first LOTR movie. I know that adaptations go through changes but some of them were just horrible and made no sense.

The best movie for me is still FOTR by far, its the least changed and the one that follows the books closer. But when Jackson tries to channel Tolkien and attempts to re write his stuff things go south fast. The super HD crisp look of everything doesn't help either, its not something particular from this movies but with modern film in general. Personally it takes me out of the experience but maybe its just me

I think after The Empire Strikes Back, Fellowship is my favorite film of all time. It's become my favorite movie to have on in the background, as I've seen it so many times by this point. I also dislike the super crisp digital HD, especially when compared to the LOTR trilogy.

the super HD crisp is not great. And now he's going for that Vasaline on the lense/Go-Motion look for the third film, and it just doesn't work.

I think most movies look like that nowadays. I hate it. A fantasy or sci-fi film from the 80s comes off as more visually appealing and even beautiful than anything we are getting now.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Excalbur for example has it. Ripley Scott's Legend too.

It creates this blurry look. It worked in the 80's because it was done physically, not digitally like in the third Hobbit.

Oh yes yes, now i remember. By the way a love Excalibur, its still my favorite live action version of the Arthur legend. But yeah its a strange choice for a movie now a days, and one that is so CG based as well. I still haven't seen it and i will give it a chance but that RT score doesn't look good

 

[Boom]

Fellowship of the Ring deserved the Best Picture Oscar, in my view. Easily the best one in the trilogy and immediately accessible.

 

[Octoberist]

I think after The Empire Strikes Back, Fellowship is my favorite film of all time. It's become my favorite movie to have on in the background, as I've seen it so many times by this point. I also dislike the super crisp digital HD, especially when compared to the LOTR trilogy.



I think most movies look like that nowadays. I hate it. A fantasy or sci-fi film from the 80s comes off as more visually appealing and even beautiful than anything we are getting now.

True.Well it depends. Mad Max Fury Road was shot on digital and it looks beautiful. It's because the director and cinematographer played around with the camera enough, where they know how what kinds lenses to use, what kind of resolution they want, etc.

On the other side of the coin, these cameras are so new that some folks don't know how to use them properly. For example, while I think the "Kingsman: The Secret Service" looks like fun, it's an ugly looking movie.

Or 'Exodus', where it looks so drab and dreary.

There is an obsession with 'clarity' I'll admit, and that's due to the home market.

 

[Marvolo]

ELRIC there's an "L" there


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric_of_Melnibon%C3%A9

The first book The Dreaming city, came out the year I was born. lol

Hmmm that sounds interesting. Ill have to check that out. Id get it sooner rather than later, but Im working my way through LOTR again and Ive still got Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight tomes to read.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

I think after The Empire Strikes Back, Fellowship is my favorite film of all time. It's become my favorite movie to have on in the background, as I've seen it so many times by this point. I also dislike the super crisp digital HD, especially when compared to the LOTR trilogy.



I think most movies look like that nowadays. I hate it. A fantasy or sci-fi film from the 80s comes off as more visually appealing and even beautiful than anything we are getting now.

Agree on both statements, hopefully the new SW trilogy, with more practical based effects, can change the CG landscape a bit. And i really don't need to see every wrinkle and pore in an actors face, films in the last decades didn't need this to show great performances

 

[Octoberist]

Hmmm that sounds interesting. Ill have to check that out. Id get it sooner rather than later, but Im working my way through LOTR again and Ive still got Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight tomes to read.

The thing about Elric is that might hurt its chances is that the lead himself is an amino dude. I can see the studio execs saying "We can't sell that to the public!"

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Fellowship of the Ring deserved the Best Picture Oscar, in my view. Easily the best one in the trilogy and immediately accessible.

A beautiful mind won that year, with one of the masters of dull acting himself Russel Crowe.

I still don't know how that happened but yeah FOTR got robbed, and the oscar for ROTK felt like an award for 3 movies, cause ROTK by itself is not a great movie

 

[Leenie]

Fellowship of the Ring deserved the Best Picture Oscar, in my view. Easily the best one in the trilogy and immediately accessible.

I think that all 3 of them deserved Best Picture Oscars. That's how much I love the LOTR movies.

I do feel that Fellowship was the most atmospheric of the films, though. I also think it had the best third act of all three films.

 

[Boom]

A beautiful mind won that year, with one of the masters of dull acting himself Russel Crowe.

I still don't know how that happened but yeah FOTR got robbed, and the oscar for ROTK felt like an award for 3 movies, cause ROTK by itself is not a great movie

RotK is the weakest by far.

But man, does that scene of Barad-dur's destruction get me every time.

 

[Marvolo]

FOTR is and always will be my favorite LOTR movie and its in my top 10 movies of all time. I ****ing love that movie!

 

[Boom]

I'll go so far as saying that McKellen deserved the Best Supporting Actor award for FoTR.

I'm glad he was at least nominated. A master stroke of acting, and you could just tell that he ****ing loved it.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Yeah that Whole Moria Scene was never equaled in pacing and atmosphere. And the Balrog still looks bad ass to this day. Also we have a Sean Bean death scene , really a movie cant get much better with all those elements

 

[Jaspertian1105]

I'll go so far as saying that McKellen deserved the Best Supporting Actor award for FoTR.

I'm glad he was at least nominated. A master stroke of acting, and you could just tell that he ****ing loved it.

Yep he should have won. I also never liked that ROTK had NO nominations for the actors. I don't love the movie but Sean Astin deserved the nom at least

 

[Quasimod0]

So I just got back from seeing this. And I loved it. My favorite of the Hobbit trilogy. The battles were intense (and sometimes fairly silly). But it was the human (and elf,dwarf, and hobbit) drama that really shone. Every one of Bilbo and Thorin's scenes were top notch. I loved seeing Thorin's descent into madness, and Bilbo trying to bring him out of it.

I have heard a few complaints that the ending was rushed, but I didn't feel like it was at all. Bilbo had a great goodbye scene with the dwarves. And his return to the Shire was bittersweet.
And of course it almost goes without saying that the score was fantastic. There is one particular moment at the end where a certain theme is used perfectly. It gave me chills.

My biggest complaint is that Alfrid should have had MUCH less screen time. I feel like that time could have been much better spent on another character.

Edit: Oh and Legolas was completely crazy. He had some insane action scenes. I ate that stuff up. lol

 

[Leenie]

Ian McKellen deserved the Oscar for Fellowship. In the long run, it was his performance that has become most-remembered. He is perfection as Gandalf, especially in Fellowship.

I also think that Andy Serkis should have at least been nominated for Two Towers. Incredible performance, CGI or not. Those are his body movements in that movie. He was still physically acting.

 

[Marvolo]

Yeah that Whole Moria Scene was never equaled in pacing and atmosphere. And the Balrog still looks bad ass to this day. Also we have a Sean Bean death scene , really a movie cant get much better with all those elements

The bridge scene is iconic, and is likely to be remembered for a long time.

And I love when they are in the Great Hall and Gandalf extends his light and the camera pulls back and the music swells and the true size of the Hall is revealed. Still gets me every time... I cant help but rewind the movie and watch that scene a few times everytime I watch the movie.

 

[Doc Ock]

Fellowship of the Ring deserved the Best Picture Oscar, in my view. Easily the best one in the trilogy and immediately accessible.

Being a fan sci-fi and fantasy first and foremost, screw the Oscars. They seem to mostly take a path of ignoring these types of films except for special effects and costumes.

Although the whole Transformers asking for their consideration thing is one of the ridiculously humorous things I have seen in a while.

True.Well it depends. Mad Max Fury Road was shot on digital and it looks beautiful. It's because the director and cinematographer played around with the camera enough, where they know how what kinds lenses to use, what kind of resolution they want, etc.

On the other side of the coin, these cameras are so new that some folks don't know how to use them properly. For example, while I think the "Kingsman: The Secret Service" looks like fun, it's an ugly looking movie.

Or 'Exodus', where it looks so drab and dreary.

There is an obsession with 'clarity' I'll admit, and that's due to the home market.

Fury Road does look great, I think alot of films would simply of been so much better if they just looked better.

Agree on both statements, hopefully the new SW trilogy, with more practical based effects, can change the CG landscape a bit. And i really don't need to see every wrinkle and pore in an actors face, films in the last decades didn't need this to show great performances

Practical effects still are superior to me, CG I used to be so excited about but now I prefer it in moderation.

Hmmm that sounds interesting. Ill have to check that out. Id get it sooner rather than later, but Im working my way through LOTR again and Ive still got Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight tomes to read.

I have such a big book backlog it's silly, I've bought more books in the past year than I have in the last five...and I only through one of them. Dumb video games, comics, and life in general is distracting me!

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Ian McKellen deserved the Oscar for Fellowship. In the long run, it was his performance that has become most-remembered. He is perfection as Galdalf, especially in Fellowship.

I also think that Andy Serkis should have at least been nominated for Two Towers. Incredible performance, CGI or not. Those are his body movements in that movie. He was still physically acting.

mm no Serkis shouldn't have been nominated. It was the work of serkis and the people of Weta. Maybe some day in the near future you will be able to say it was all the actors performance, but not with current technology, so he not begin nominated was fair

 

[ares834]

"In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles - yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous."

There's the full quote from the third chapter of Lord of the Rings. Magic rings are most certainly within the lore.

It's perfectly within reason for Gandalf, assured by Saruman of the One Ring's loss out to sea, to surmise that Bilbo's ring was just one of the many lesser Elven-rings. He admits that these rings can be dangerous, but Bilbo didn't begin displaying any genuine causes for concern until many years later, being a hobbit and therefore resilient toward such mechanisms. Gandalf, being confined to the mind and body of an old man, is not infallible. That hardly makes him an idiot. When you've got Sauron basically in hiding, the head of your Order (and an expert in ring lore) telling you not to worry, and Bilbo finding this thing in a random cave, what's the cause for paranoia at that point in time?

Thanks for the quote, I stand corrected.

Also let me clarify my point, I'm not saying Gandalf is an idiot but rather that in this specific case he was idiotic (for lack of a better word). This whole discussion sprang up when someone claimed that Film!Gandalf was an idiot and I merely pointed that Novel!Gandalf isn't much better as by far his biggest goof is in both.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

The bridge scene is iconic, and is likely to be remembered for a long time.

And I love when they are in the Great Hall and Gandalf extends his light and the camera pulls back and the music swells and the true size of the Hall is revealed. Still gets me every time... I cant help but rewind the movie and watch that scene a few times everytime I watch the movie.

Yeah agree, Jackson made the best choices in that film. After that i wont say they were bad movie of course, but they never achieved what FOTR did. I think mostly were bad changes from the books, but maybe there were other elements, like the novelty factor went down the hill