Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[DarthSkywalker]

Good for them, It still doesn't change my opinion as much as you want it to. Every film that i've seen by this guy has been excellent.

And it doesn't change my opinion either.

Though I am curious how you found King Kong or The Lovely Bones excellent. Or have you just not watched them?

 

[Kane52630]

I've seen both and both are excellent for different reasons obviously. It probably had some problems if I want to look too deep into it but what film doesn't?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I've seen both and both are excellent for different reasons obviously. It probably had some problems if I want to look too deep into it but what film doesn't?

Plenty. Scorsese has like 10.

But I do love that. If you are willing to not look past the surface, the films are great. You could say that literally about any film. As long as you look at it a certain way, it is cinematic perfection.

 

[Kane52630]

Eh not exactly what I meant. For me as long as the film is not boring (and no terrible films does not equal to boring films) and made me feel that I waste my money/time it's a good film, now whether how good of a film it is.... is a different story.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It does apply though. Once you make it all subjective that is exactly what happens. I am fine with that, but then you really can't label films good, bad or indifferent.

I think there are large, clear, obvious and objective flaws in Jackson's films since TTT. Of course it is my opinion, but I find it hard to see an argument against them and I am usually flexible in that regard. I am a big SR fan, but I understand plenty of arguments against it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It does apply though. Once you make it all subjective that is exactly what happens. I am fine with that, but then you really can't label films good, bad or indifferent.

I think there are large, clear, obvious and objective flaws in Jackson's films since TTT. Of course it is my opinion, but I find it hard to see an argument against them and I am usually flexible in that regard. I am a big SR fan, but I understand plenty of arguments against it.

Then how is it objective?

Film, like any art form is a subjective one. Why does there have to be facts with movies? That's the fun of them. You don't need to look up a book of movie Gods to see why it is giving a scientific explanation as to why it's objectively good or bad. That's why opinions are so valuable. If there was something that proved something as objectively good then someone else's opinion wouldn't matter. That's terrible. Because every opinion, no matter how different is good, that's what makes art, art.

 

[regwec]

I'm not sure if you can argue that every opinion is 'good'. Not all opinion concerns the emotive and subjective. For instance, a financial analyst's opinion, voiced in 2008, that the world's biggest banks were at no risk from exposure to sub-prime debt, would be a bad opinion because it has been proven erroneous and harmful.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm not sure if you can argue that every opinion is 'good'. Not all opinion concerns the emotive and subjective. For instance, a financial analyst's opinion, voiced in 2008, that the world's biggest banks were at no risk from exposure to sub-prime debt, would be a bad opinion because it has been proven erroneous and harmful.

I don't mean "every" opinion. I'm talking strictly of art. In which art is subjective. There's people who think that it's a danger to think some art is good because it looks like **** to them. Like a splash of different colored paint on a canvas. It may not look like art to them, but someone out there will love it and think it's good art. Well that's subjectivity right there. Arts elicits discussion.

If there was something out there that told me I was wrong about my opinion of an art form then it becomes another type of math or science. It just sucks the fun out of it all. And makes my views on it feel worthless.

Basically, you can't prove that you're right or I'm wrong about my opinion of art. And why does there have to be? That's the beauty of art and in this case, movies.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Then how is it objective?

Film, like any art form is a subjective one. Why does there have to be facts with movies? That's the fun of them. You don't need to look up a book of movie Gods to see why it is giving a scientific explanation as to why it's objectively good or bad. That's why opinions are so valuable. If there was something that proved something as objectively good then someone else's opinion wouldn't matter. That's terrible. Because every opinion, no matter how different is good, that's what makes art, art.

It is my opinion they are objective.

The problem I have with the art argument is that it could apply to anything, and thus becomes a way to excuses clear failings. Anybody can take a blank canvas and call it art, even when done for clearly only monetary gain.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It is my opinion they are objective.

The problem I have with the art argument is that it could apply to anything, and thus becomes a way to excuses clear failings. Anybody can take a blank canvas and call it art, even when done for clearly only monetary gain.

Haha, good one.

But I'm just talking of art. I don't think anyone would think that the art argument is generalized. If I told you that you were wrong that 2 + 2 = 4 or that the sun isn't hot, then I would be proven wrong. You can't be proven wrong with art.

Anyway, this is a stupid discussion that I've had too many times. Moving on.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Haha, good one.

But I'm just talking of art. I don't think anyone would think that the art argument is generalized. If I told you that you were wrong that 2 + 2 = 4 or that the sun isn't hot, then I would be proven wrong. You can't be proven wrong with art.

Anyway, this is a stupid discussion that I've had too many times. Moving on.

Well to be fair, we set up those rules. If we changed 4 to 5, it 2 + 2 = 5 would be correct. If cold was given the definition we apply to hot, then the sun would be cold. Or in fact Oggle would be cold. :ya

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

so i was watching The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings cartoons today. Im waiting to watch the Peter Jackson films in a few weeks with a friend. While watching The Hobbit, I was disappointed that Beorn wasn't in it so I am very eager to see whats in store for Beorn in Peter Jackson's version of the Hobbit. I came to also watching 6 production blogs of the making of The Hobbit. It was great seeing familiar people who were involved with LOTR. Especially Ian McKellan, Elijah Woods and most importantly, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchette. oh and how could I forget Andy Serkis as Gollum and Hugo Weavering as Lord Elrond.

I cannot wait to go back to a familiar world that is Middle-Earth within a few months time.

 

[CGHulk]

Good for them, It still doesn't change my opinion as much as you want it to. Every film that i've seen by this guy has been excellent.

King Kong was filled with silly humor and bad acting, and unnecessary scenes and dialogue that should of been cut which would of made a tighter film. Jack Black was terrible! It was almost as bad as the prequels.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

King Kong was filled with silly humor and bad acting, and unnecessary scenes and dialogue that should of been cut which would of made a tighter film. Jack Black was terrible! It was almost as bad as the prequels.

There was no Qui-Gon Jinn, Darth Maul, or decoy Keira, and thus it is not anywhere as good as TPM.

 

[LecheNinyo]

King Kong (Jackson) > all Star Wars prequels

my only gripe against King Kong was the New York sequence, it's like Jackson didn't want to let go of his monkey. but i did enjoy everything before that.

also FOTR=TTT=ROTK. hard to rank these films. the EE of TTT though provided the biggest improvement over the theatrical version. the EE of ROTK probably the least.

 

[Gianakin_]

King Kong (Jackson) > all Star Wars prequels

Thanks for that joke. I needed it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

King Kong (Jackson) > all Star Wars prequels

my only gripe against King Kong was the New York sequence, it's like Jackson didn't want to let go of his monkey. but i did enjoy everything before that.

also FOTR=TTT=ROTK. hard to rank these films. the EE of TTT though provided the biggest improvement over the theatrical version. the EE of ROTK probably the least.

It is not hard to rank them at all imo. The theatrical version of FOTR is by far the best film, followed by TTT EE. It is interesting that while I find ROTK, I do enjoy the EE far more as it does seem to have the meatier bits added back in, though to be honest it has been a long while since I have seen it.

I actually enjoy the bits with Kong in New York, and the character in general. The only parts on the island I like are those involving Kong, especially his entrance. The humans, outside of his lady friend, are just not worth being around and some are just down right annoying. Still, there is no Duel of Fates, so it can't possibly be better then TPM. I'll give you AOTC and everything that happens after the opening rescue in ROTS.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Should've posted this earlier.
What do you guys think about PJ's decision not to screen the footage in 48 fps and 3-d ?

Personally i think it was a missed oppurtunity
While i can understand that PJ wants the focus more on the performances then on the 48fps , fact is that this movie was shot in that format AND that PJ has from the very beginning been very vocal on this subject on how good it looks compared to 24fps.
In the end when the movie is going to be released , it is going to be shown in 48 fps and the same focus will also be there as well.
There will be people who are going to be aware that they aregoing to watch a 48fps movie and will be very curious to see how the footage looks.


It's almost the reverse of CC 2009 when James Cameron showed 23 minutes of Avatar in 3-d.
Yes the focus was also the performances and footage but Cameron basically was showing the audience why he loved 3-d so much and what it can bring to the movie making experience.
In the TTT EE PJ was talking about bringing Gollum to live. And he said something along the lines of "If Gollum wasn't believable to the audience, the whole movie would basically fall apart".
Of course Gollum was a combination of many things but as a whole , the creation of Gollum and the fact that the audience accepted it just how important it is when certain elements can either make or break a movie.
No matter how good the CGI , the performances , music etc. is , if 48 fps basically pulls out a viewer from the movie , you just can't enjoy something anymore.
It's exactly like half assed CGI work.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Eh, for me it's no different than the two parters for the last Harry Potter film. It should be viewed as one film, otherwise it's a incomplete film.

I agree with this sentiment because both Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was written as one epic, and Jackson's screenplay was written as one story.

They both were split into three because it is more economic for the audience.

 

[jacobed]

Fellowship of the Ring is the only Peter Jackson film that I love. Two Towers- Helms deep was amazing but the rest was really boring. ROTK-had some really great scenes but the movie as a whole was just good nothing more and seriously how many times can you end a movie. King Kong got good once they got to the island, problem was it took what felt like 5 hours to get there, suffering through the many unneccessary scenes and awful dialogue/acting isn't worth it. Not counting Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones was just a mess.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I guess I am the only one who likes all 3 movies equally minus a few parts here and there... I mean when I reread the books from time to time, I sometimes wish this particular scene or that particular scene was in the movies...but not every book - scene by scene can be made into the movie and I understand why. Cause the books themselves are incredibly long. lol. It would take more than 3 to 3.5 hours long if they did scene by scene - word for word. But I think what Peter and co did was an effort on their part that they could afford when they were making the movies.

But having said that, as much as I enjoy the movies for what they are, and then going back to re-reading the books, to me if I wanted more, I have the books. To me, they basically fill in the gaps where the movies couldn't but could have in some ways.

Speaking of the Hobbit, any word when there will be a new trailer out? There's like 5 months to go yet and I hope December comes sooner.

btw, I hope we see Beorn in the new trailer. I can't wait!!

 

[Boom]

Speaking of the Hobbit, any word when there will be a new trailer out? There's like 5 months to go yet and I hope December comes sooner.

btw, I hope we see Beorn in the new trailer. I can't wait!!

September, according to Jackson.

 

[Doc Ock]

I love the whole LOTR trilogy. But Fellowship is my favorite out of the three films. But with The Hobbit being in two parts, I hope its not like say Deathly Hallows where the second part is vastly superior to the first part (IMO).

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

September, according to Jackson.

Oh Boom!! I loves you!!

Im gonna be re-reading the hobbit again since I couldn't remember where I left off in it when I started reading it earlier this year. lol but hey, I still got 5 months until the first part of The Hobbit comes out. so that's something. hehe. Thing is, I have to stop reading FOTR for now. lol

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I guess I am the only one who likes all 3 movies equally minus a few parts here and there... I mean when I reread the books from time to time, I sometimes wish this particular scene or that particular scene was in the movies...but not every book - scene by scene can be made into the movie and I understand why. Cause the books themselves are incredibly long. lol. It would take more than 3 to 3.5 hours long if they did scene by scene - word for word. But I think what Peter and co did was an effort on their part that they could afford when they were making the movies.

But having said that, as much as I enjoy the movies for what they are, and then going back to re-reading the books, to me if I wanted more, I have the books. To me, they basically fill in the gaps where the movies couldn't but could have in some ways.



Speaking of the Hobbit, any word when there will be a new trailer out? There's like 5 months to go yet and I hope December comes sooner.

btw, I hope we see Beorn in the new trailer. I can't wait!!

It isn't about what they left out. It is about how terribly structured ROTK is. You could cut 40 mins of it and it wouldn't make a difference to its quality.

The quality of FOTR is how economical it is. Nearly not one frame is wasted.

I love the whole LOTR trilogy. But Fellowship is my favorite out of the three films. But with The Hobbit being in two parts, I hope its not like say Deathly Hallows where the second part is vastly superior to the first part (IMO).

For me it is the other way around. Part 1 was a pretty good film, that had its own story that was mostly well paced. Part 2 is more emotional and has some really nice bits, but it is kind of terrible overall.

Also not sure why they make "Battle films" without the battle. They showed they were willing to show stuff not shown in the books, but they stop short at the good stuff? Blah.