Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[DarthSkywalker]

Well if you didn't it would feel rushed.
Didn't Jackson just say something about that?

He thinks the theatrical cut of Kong is rushed. t:

 

[Sgt. Fury]

lol well if movie company's and theaters would MAKE 9 hour movies we could sit and watch the whole thing then couldn't we? lol

I understand what you're saying I really don't have one fave LotR film. I like them all equally. Tho I do consider each movie a bookmark in a Novel. Keep in mind Lotr was originally ONE book not three.

Only a few directors made movies that long (check out Andy Warhol), but few theaters would show them. I also consider the trilogy one huge movie. The way I remember it, Tolkien submitted it as one huge novel, and the publisher made him separate it into a trilogy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Only a few directors made movies that long (check out Andy Warhol), but few theaters would show them. I also consider the trilogy one huge movie. The way I remember it, Tolkien submitted it as one huge novel, and the publisher made him separate it into a trilogy.

Looks like the publisher knew what they were doing.

 

[Quasimod0]

the cg looks fine. Idk what you guys are saying. I have seen many many movies and the CG work rarely ever takes me out of a film. I dont even think about it. Even when its not as good as stuff like davy jones. Maybe its because I dont have that film critic eye like you guys. lol. I just watch movies and enjoy them

 

[Venomfan]

I think 2D is what this should be seen in. Now Star Wars is a 3D Event and btw I can't wait to finally see 3D A New Hope or the original trilogy.

i dont really understand this. Wasn't the hobbit filmed with 3D cameras like Avatar so that it would have the best 3D, where as star wars was on regular film

 

[Marvolo]

Looks like the publisher knew what they were doing.

The publisher made him separate it because a novel of that size was cost prohibitive at the time . Paper and ink costs at the time were very expensive and the publisher would have needed to charge such a large price for the book that they knew they wouldnt make a sale let alone a profit. They talk about it in the FOTR EE documentary about Tolkien.

 

[redhawk23]

Only a few directors made movies that long (check out Andy Warhol), but few theaters would show them. I also consider the trilogy one huge movie. The way I remember it, Tolkien submitted it as one huge novel, and the publisher made him separate it into a trilogy.

But thats not the way the films were plotted.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The publisher made him separate it because a novel of that size was cost prohibitive at the time . Paper and ink costs at the time were very expensive and the publisher would have needed to charge such a large price for the book that they knew they wouldnt make a sale let alone a profit. They talk about it in the FOTR EE documentary about Tolkien.

It is also on wiki. t:

But thats not the way the films were plotted.

Exactly. I love how this is ignored. Watching the films, each tells its own individual story. FOTR and TTT are so successful because of it. That ROTK falls apart is ignored because some don't want to acknowledge that it is its own film.

 

[Marvolo]

It is also on wiki. t:

Well that too.

 

[Pond]

The publisher made him separate it because a novel of that size was cost prohibitive at the time . Paper and ink costs at the time were very expensive and the publisher would have needed to charge such a large price for the book that they knew they wouldnt make a sale let alone a profit. They talk about it in the FOTR EE documentary about Tolkien.

Its also in his published leters. Tolkien tried to ask printers about the price and he himself saw that the book could only be sold as an expensive collectors item, while he wanted it to be far more widespread, so he divided it into a trilogy, only because of costs; it was always intended to be one book, from a creative standpoint, but one has to adapt to circunstances.

Its an interesting read. Return of the King was one of the titles he switched the least, having much problems with The Two Towers; in the end he preferred The War of The Ring to Return of the King, but the publisher prefered the later, so it stayed that way.

Whatever the motive though, its a trilogy now. I love my ONE VOLUME edition, but its incredibly uncomfortable to read, so i end up reading the sepaate books anyway...

 

[CoolCadaver49]

Exactly. I love how this is ignored. Watching the films, each tells its own individual story. FOTR and TTT are so successful because of it. That ROTK falls apart is ignored because some don't want to acknowledge that it is its own film.

Dude... Why do you hate RotK so very much? If I had to pick a favorite of the trilogy (first, I would try to find a way out, but if I had to), it would probably be RotK. It's just, I don't see your opinion reflected in very many people that I know, yet you state that RotK is easily the weakest like it's a widely known fact.

I'm not interested in debating with you, but I'm honestly just curious as to why you seem to despise it so much.

 

[Marvolo]

Dude... Why do you hate RotK so very much? If I had to pick a favorite of the trilogy (first, I would try to find a way out, but if I had to), it would probably be RotK. It's just, I don't see your opinion reflected in very many people that I know, yet you state that RotK is easily the weakest like it's a widely known fact.

I'm not interested in debating with you, but I'm honestly just curious as to why you seem to despise it so much.

ROTK has some pacing problems but beyond that it has very few problems. Among the public, general movie goers, and just people I know it is the go to favorite of the three. Critically among 44 top critics it only has one negative review and out 243 total reviews it only has 14 negative reviews so DarthSkywalker is definitely in a minority of those who dislike the film.

 

[spidey-dude]

i dont really understand this. Wasn't the hobbit filmed with 3D cameras like Avatar so that it would have the best 3D, where as star wars was on regular film

yep it looks aturly fantastic, and I usually find 3D jarring as I tend to occasionally see double image

 

[Destructus86]

I find it interesting that some of the reviewers complain about the length. Personally, I would have been happy with a 4 hour movie and the first hour just exploring the life of a Hobbit and the Dwarves. No lie.

 

[spidey-dude]

I find it interesting that some of the reviewers complain about the length. Personally, I would have been happy with a 4 hour movie and the first hour just exploring the life of a Hobbit and the Dwarves. No lie.

I'm genuinely surprised by the reaction - I would say that it flows at a much better pace than LOTR - there are very few lulls, even though they don't leave the shire for what could be up to 40 mins it flew by, and was actually one of my fav parts

 

[Marvolo]

Its been nearly 10 years since ROTK. Maybe audiences wont be as receptible to the universe and films this time. A lot has changed in the film market.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

But thats not the way the films were plotted.

I had no problem with the films.

Exactly. I love how this is ignored. Watching the films, each tells its own individual story. FOTR and TTT are so successful because of it. That ROTK falls apart is ignored because some don't want to acknowledge that it is its own film.

So you are one of those posters who KNOWS what others are thinking. Well, can you guess what I'm thinking now?

 

[Marvolo]

Ive never viewed any of them as their own film. How and why would anyone view it that way? FOTR and TTT have no conclusion. And each film picks up right where the laat one left off. They are three parts of one large film.

I understand watching one by itself but LOTR is one large film chopped into three parts the same as the book.

 

[jf300]

Exactly.

Each film can stand on their own as brilliant cinema, but they are all 3 definitely part of a bigger whole. Without one, the others would fail.

 

[spidey-dude]

Its been nearly 10 years since ROTK. Maybe audiences wont be as receptible to the universe and films this time. A lot has changed in the film market.

perhaps, I am just surprised, I like Lord of the Rings, but have never been gaga about it as most, yet for me the Hobbit was a charming light hearted epic fantasy adventure which worked perfectly

 

[redhawk23]

I had no problem with the films.


So you are one of those posters who KNOWS what others are thinking. Well, can you guess what I'm thinking now?

Neither do I, I'm just saying unlike the book being one work, the films are three films. The material was pushed and pulled and tweaked so that each film could tell a mostly cohesive arc.

The Two Towers especially tells its own story. Sure Frodo and Sam are on the road ever forward but all the Rohan stuff and all the stuff with Theodin and helm's deep plays as a very good story. Its probably the reason why I've always enjoyed The Two Towers the most.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Dude... Why do you hate RotK so very much? If I had to pick a favorite of the trilogy (first, I would try to find a way out, but if I had to), it would probably be RotK. It's just, I don't see your opinion reflected in very many people that I know, yet you state that RotK is easily the weakest like it's a widely known fact.

I'm not interested in debating with you, but I'm honestly just curious as to why you seem to despise it so much.

It is a long, bloated film, that is also incomplete. I am going to forget the ridiculous, exhausting and repetitive last part of the film. I am just going to talk about the stuff before they get to Mount Doom.

Everything is the end of everything. Everyone has to do it. Everyone has to either die or almost die. You know when people complain about Snyder's slow-mo? That is how this film plays out. Grab a Hobbit, look to the sky and shed a tear because everyone is experiencing the most poignant moment in the history of mankind, one after the other after the other.

Now this wouldn't be fine under any circumstance imo, but at the very least they could have spread this out with some actual plot work. It also does murder on the characters. Everyone other then Frodo, Gandalf, Gollum and Sam are reduced to caricatures, with Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pip, and Eoywn getting the worst of it.

The battle itself just doesn't work like Helm's Deep does. With Helm's Deep they did a very good job of structuring the battle. You get a sense of progression, what is going on and what it means when each position is lost. Here, there is no focus. If Gandalf had been a general instead of simply a guy running around fighting with his sword, it would of had potential. After all it is set up to be a battle of generalship between the Witch-king and Gandalf, but that is ignored and the cgi creations just sort of go around hitting things.

I think nothing is worse though then what happens to Aragorn. He is almost sidelined, made anything but irrelevant. This is his ascension, but it is as if all of the important Aragorn bits ended up on the cutting room floor or the EE.

Also, so many of the important character moments are left for the EE in favor of the long, drawn out ending.

Then there are just the weird decisions. Legolas surfing, Denethor running a mile on fire just so he could fall a long ways, The Witch-king's promise to break Gandalf being completely ignored (and in the EE being terrible), whatever Aragorn is suppose to be doing with the troll, every Arwen scene.

ROTK has some pacing problems but beyond that it has very few problems. Among the public, general movie goers, and just people I know it is the go to favorite of the three. Critically among 44 top critics it only has one negative review and out 243 total reviews it only has 14 negative reviews so DarthSkywalker is definitely in a minority of those who dislike the film.

I always found those to be "crowning achievement" awards, like the Oscar. Good job for the series type stuff.

A lot of the general public and movie goers would probably tell you RoTS is the best SW films, and that is probably after actually having seen SW and ESB. t:

Ive never viewed any of them as their own film. How and why would anyone view it that way? FOTR and TTT have no conclusion. And each film picks up right where the laat one left off. They are three parts of one large film.

I understand watching one by itself but LOTR is one large film chopped into three parts the same as the book.

Oh come. When the groups all go off in their separate directions with purpose and Aragorn sends his "brother" off, you have the end of a film. When Isengard falls and Helm's Deep saved, you have the end of a film.

There are storylines and agendas that presented and resolved before the end of each film.

 

[HowardStark]

Jackson certainly seems to feel that practical effects are no longer worth the frustration of what he perceives as their limitations. In a recent interview with the LA Times he mentions a focus on not being restricted to "the human triangle" as far as facial features go.



As I've mentioned before, its ironic that Jackson is leaving behind practical effects due to the limitations of facial features and yet the work of the originally intended director of these films, Guillermo del Toro features creatures and characters with all kinds of eye lines and mouths and body parts, and of all different sizes, largely done with practical effects and for mere fractions of the cost of Jackson's films from the past decade.

If you go back to Rings really only Lurz in FOTR and Elephant Man Goblin in ROTK was the only real seemingly best talking Goblins. Some Goblins you could tell had trouble talking and some people complained couldn't understand what they said. Maybe Jackson sees it as an aide in performance craft where Gollum didn't have such make up and prosthetic issues when talking but looked as good as any costume wearing goblin.

 

[HowardStark]

perhaps, I am just surprised, I like Lord of the Rings, but have never been gaga about it as most, yet for me the Hobbit was a charming light hearted epic fantasy adventure which worked perfectly

So you have seen the movie then. How was the 3D and which Dwarf did you like best.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If you go back to Rings really only Lurz in FOTR and Elephant Man Goblin in ROTK was the only real seemingly best talking Goblins. Some Goblins you could tell had trouble talking and some people complained couldn't understand what they said. Maybe Jackson sees it as an aide in performance craft where Gollum didn't have such make up and prosthetic issues when talking but looked as good as any costume wearing goblin.

You do realize that had nothing to do with the prosthetic right? ADR happened.