|
I'm so mad that the Hobbit films were so poo poo. The Misty Mountains Cold trailer was so promising 
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
The Hobbit movies are not entirely joyless and you can definitely see something to enjoy in them if it all got cut down to one, MAYBE two movies.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Hobbit was written before JRR Tolkien decided that it is imperative to spend at least 100 pages per book on a side-story or history lesson that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the actual story. Why do people who've clearly never read Tolkien decide to have opinions like this?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
The Hobbit should have been 13 movies, one for each dwarf.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
I always thought the first Hobbit movie was pretty good. Certainly it got me keen to see the rest of the trilogy. The third one was dumb fun, at least?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:I saw the Hobbit movies long after history had judged them as atrocious, and I was super surprised at how good the first one was. Certainly it had some dumb poo poo in it (Radagast, Goblin Town), but it honestly was way better than I had been led to believe. They established some interesting themes (home, revenge, and straight from the book, the clash between Bilbo's Baggins and Took sensibilities), and grew the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin, and I honestly was looking forward to seeing where it went from there. the problem with stuff like lotr, or even star wars, is that the OT was genuinely pretty good - if we're talking as objectively as possible, maybe they're something like 8, maybe 8.5/10 good for their genre - but then there are also huge fans who think of them as next level 11/10 movies in their hearts when sequels and prequels come out that are more like mediocre 6.5/10 films - entertaining overall but with several actual problems you can't really ignore - the huge fans feel the full difference between 11 and 6.5 in their hearts and start thinking of these mediocre movies as atrocious 3.5/10 films, the kind of terribad films you never see anywhere except in bins of discount vhs tapes or maybe major bombs like battlefield earth... if you only listen to what fans think you'll be misled a little anyway, i totally believe that you thought hobbit 1 had dumb poo poo in it but was entertaining overall, that's p much what the overall consensus was (on imdb it's like ~7.8/10, rt gives it ~83% user score, ~64% critic score, etc)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
They should have made the first one an unashamed musical. Instead, we got a very ashamed musical. Misty Mountains Cold owns. What Bilbo Baggins Hates owns. Down, Down in Goblin Town...is loving awful, because its the same weird mix of grubby monsters, cartoonish action, and lazy filming as the rest of that mess. More movies should be musicals tbh. Can't be any worse than the actual musicals we get.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I saw the first Hobbit in theaters, and I think it was on par with those YouTube videos where they cut all of a video game's cut-scenes together and call it a movie. Rockstar did this with Red Dead Redemption but bought out early morning informercial time to actually air it on TV
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
The only good Hobbit movie was the cartoon Don't @ me
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Len posted:The only good Hobbit movie was the cartoon was that the one with the "Bilbo, My Lad" song? my parents would rent anything animated to shove in front of me and that was not a great choice
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
The first Hobbit film is alright because it's the only one that was mostly made as a single film. Part two and three and literally just part two plus an hour and a half of reshoots added to pad it out to three films. Which is why there's that endless chase at the end of the second one and why the third one is just pure bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
I’ve never even seen the hobbit films. 99% of you can’t repost this.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:I’ve never even seen the hobbit films. 99% of you can’t repost this. I can. I looked at the books for the trilogy. Then I looked at the booklet for the Hobbit and decided that there was no way that it would stretch to more than one film I felt almost as smug as when I have up on Lost halfway through.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Just watch the Smaug scenes on YouTube. Cumberbatch did a great job with the mo-cap for that big scaly bastard.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
The only dragon performance I'll accept is Connery in Dragonheart.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Moo the cow posted:I can. The Hobbit doesn't work as a single film without massive changes. The Rankin Bass adaption that people like cuts out Beorn and the Arkenstone. The former is one of the best bits of the book and the latter is the key to the entire climax and resolution of the plot. Even if you spend roughly 10 minutes per chapter you'll end up with a 3 hour film that still skips most of the final battle. Better to do 2 films and let some of the scenes breathe.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Rockstar did this with Red Dead Redemption but bought out early morning informercial time to actually air it on TV Whoa, seriously? I'm no fan of Rockstar but that's kind of fascinating. Got a link or something to anything discussing this?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:S4 and S5 (and the back half of S3) were the best bits of Lost though. The book skips most of the final battle too though.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
If you peer into the darker corners of the net, you can find the Tolkien edit. IIRC it still comes out to around four hours, but they cut everything that wasn't in the book. So no Tauriel, Radagast, fight with Sauron, albino goblin with a grudge, etc. Due to the needs of editing it can seem a little choppy, especially the music. Overall it's what should have been made, and split into two movies.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 02:32
|
|
MrUnderbridge posted:fight with Sauron This is the scene that made me give up on the third Hobbit and say "gently caress this lovely movie." Gandalf, Galadriel, Saruman, and Elrond teaming up to confront Sauron and the Ring Wraiths, all while spouting hack dialogue? It's like something out of a horrible fan-fiction. Speaking of crappy sequels to well-received movies that include original newly-written parts that feel more like fan-fiction than an official adaptation: gently caress the whole Nancy segment of Sin City: A Dame to Kill For. It doesn't even make sense within the timeline of events from the first movie. (Realizing now this isn't the Irritating Movie Moments thread, so I'll cut my rant off there.)
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
It's been forever but wasn't that what Gandalf hosed off to go do during the Hobbit? He disappeared for a bit to go put down a necromancer that was later revealed to be Sauron?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Len posted:It's been forever but wasn't that what Gandalf hosed off to go do during the Hobbit? He disappeared for a bit to go put down a necromancer that was later revealed to be Sauron? I never saw the third Hobbit movie but as a huge goddamn nerd that was my understanding of that part of the book. yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
If you enjoyed Dragonheart when you were kid you did turn out gay though
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Statistically
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:Whoa, seriously? I'm no fan of Rockstar but that's kind of fascinating. Got a link or something to anything discussing this?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Moo the cow posted:I looked at the books for the trilogy. Then I looked at the booklet for the Hobbit and decided that there was no way that it would stretch to more than one film Well, here's the deal. The Hobbit absolutely could have worked as a 2-film thing. The Hobbit was written long before the Lord of the Rings, and although it uses some elements from Tolkein's larger mythology that he was already developing back then, he didn't really consider it "part" of that world until much later when he sat down to write a sequel (that became a trilogy). But Tolkein was a master of retconning, and so the Hobbit quickly became swept up in this great mythology. The Hobbit itself remains a Bilbo-perspective telling of the story, but ancillary information tying his quest in to the larger narrative and world was included in a few places. In the second, I think, chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf tells Frodo about the ring, we get some of that information. A bunch more was included in the appendices at the end of Return of the King. And a wider-perspective telling of the quest for the Lonely Mountain in a wider context, including the stuff with Gandalf and the Necromancer/Sauron (which in the original book is just a convenient excuse for Gandalf to leave Bilbo and the dwarves, that Tolkein didn't even have an explanation for in his head when he wrote the Hobbit), was something that Tolkein attempted to write at least a couple times in his life. One of those attempts was to be a full rewrite of the Hobbit, but ultimately he left it mostly unchanged (except for the bit about Gollum; that's why at the beginning of LotR Gandalf mentions Bilbo having lied about that encounter originally - the "lie" is the original, pre-edit edition of the riddle game, which modern readers don't even see anymore). Another such attempt was published posthumously as "The Quest for Erebor", though I haven't read that (I think it's from Gandalf's perspective). So the version of the Hobbit story as Tolkein envisioned it in a post-published-LotR world was very different from what is now published as The Hobbit. And in the post-LotR-films world, in which Middle Earth is already established with a certain tone and aesthetic, it made a lot of sense to synthesize the ancillary material together with the original Hobbit to produce a set of movies that wasn't just the Hobbit book. You'd be altering the tone of The Hobbit, of course. The original goes from "tra-la-la-lally" silly at the beginning to a semi-serious political intrigue plot at the end; the film version would have to be more semi-serious from the beginning (but with some room for light-hearted stuff; it doesn't have to be as grim as the LotR movies). And in a film, where the perspective is less focused on a single character and more omniscient, it would make more sense to weave in what's going on with the Necromancer/Gandalf/White Council, as well as more of the backstory of the Erebor dwarves and the history and politics of the Dale region. Really make the film version of The Hobbit fit in with the film versions of LotR, in the same way that Tolkein attempted to make the Hobbit fit in the post-LotR world. And that would probably take two long movies or three short ones. That's the endeavor that Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens and whatever other writers set out on, and I think the first film shows that there was potential there. Obviously things went off the rails (largely due to the film industry being loving stupid, especially the abrupt eleventh-hour change from 2 to 3 films), but it wasn't a bad idea on paper. Of course, in the book world, Tolkein ultimately didn't end up doing that much to the original Hobbit, because the original Hobbit existed already. It was done, didn't need remaking. But you couldn't make THAT version of a Hobbit movie with Ian McKellan's Gandalf and Hugo Weaving's Elrond in a post-LotR-films environment. It just wouldn't make sense, tonally. If that's what they wanted to do, they shoulda done The Hobbit first. I honestly think the attempt at the more serious expanded Hobbit was a much more reasonable idea. So my point is, the "more than one film" thing comes from much more than the relatively thin novel of The Hobbit, but without the background knowledge that comes from reading the appendices at the end of RotK or whatever, that's and understandable mistake to make. But don't judge the Hobbit movies for being a lame stretching-out of the Hobbit material; they weren't intended to be that, and the weird stretchy-outy-ness of them is due to a completely different stretching-out (one film script being stretched out into two with no time for rewrites). Tl;dr: They sucked for completely OTHER reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
Lindsay Ellis has a good youtube series on the entire mess that was the production of The Hobbit, right down to how it permanently damaged the economy of New Zealand and its relationship with Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Why do people who've clearly never read Tolkien decide to have opinions like this? Because I have read everything Tolkien himself allowed to be released and some of the posthumous releases, and while very creative and talented at generating multiple era and millenia spanning magical world into which put his stories, his verbose presentation style combined with constant rewritings and need to explain things and their connections does not make the books or stories flow that well. The world itself is interesting, but the books in general could use some editorial work. In LOTR there are several parts which do not add anything meaningful to the story the book is telling, but keep going on about lost kingdoms and battles that took place centuries ago, how magical forests are maintained, or who ruled what where -trivia. Short sidetracks here and there are OK, but LOTR gets lost to these wild goose chases sometimes for ages while the actual story grinds to a halt. In fact, most of the book of unfinished tales is made from such cutting floor content and lore history lessons, with a couple of actual tales included if you don't get what I mean and want an example. And this does not even cover the parts of the actual story, which have thematic differences or seem to be simply an added detour filler that serves no higher purpose than make the book longer or try out some idea that didn't span out that well. I personally actually prefer the story flow of the movie trilogy, since it has edited the overall story to follow much more coherent path than the book ever had.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
Granted it's been a long time since I've read LotR but the only completely superfluous story beat that advances nothing that I remember is like, Tom Bombadil but again it's been a while.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:Hobbit lore Woah, I didn't know that The Hobbit was revised that way. Gollum originally willingly bet the Ring and was a good sport about the whole thing?!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Woah, I didn't know that The Hobbit was revised that way. Gollum originally willingly bet the Ring and was a good sport about the whole thing?! Sort of. He didn't know Bilbo had found the ring previously. So when he can't find the ring to give to Bilbo he agrees to lead Bilbo out of the caves. So Bilbo basically swindles Gollum.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
sweet geek swag posted:Sort of. He didn't know Bilbo had found the ring previously. So when he can't find the ring to give to Bilbo he agrees to lead Bilbo out of the caves. So Bilbo basically swindles Gollum. From Wikipedia: quote:In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum willingly bets his magic ring on the outcome of the riddle-game, and he and Bilbo part amicably. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Because I have read everything Tolkien himself allowed to be released and some of the posthumous releases, and while very creative and talented at generating multiple era and millenia spanning magical world into which put his stories, his verbose presentation style combined with constant rewritings and need to explain things and their connections does not make the books or stories flow that well. The world itself is interesting, but the books in general could use some editorial work. Would have been quicker to just type "I'm illiterate", surely?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
sweet geek swag posted:Sort of. He didn't know Bilbo had found the ring previously. So when he can't find the ring to give to Bilbo he agrees to lead Bilbo out of the caves. So Bilbo basically swindles Gollum. Yeah, when he lets Bilbo go, he thinks that all he lost was a steak dinner. Not happy about it, but he could manage. It isn't until later that he realizes Bilbo must have stolen his precious.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Granted it's been a long time since I've read LotR but the only completely superfluous story beat that advances nothing that I remember is like, Tom Bombadil but again it's been a while. And, ironically, that's the one part of the books that doesn't really fit with the big elaborate Silmarillion backstory. There's very little explanation for who Tom Bombadil is; it's the exact opposite of what Der Kyhe is complaining about. In fact, I definitely feel like most of the Lord of the Rings is kinda like that; you get mentions of names without any real explanation of who they are or what their significance is. Like, Frodo calls out "O Elbereth Gilthoniel!" and you have no fuckin idea who that is but it's clear from context she's a mythological figure that people call upon in times of need. It's the Middle Earth equivalent of saying "Oh Lord Jesus!" And that's all you need to know. You have to read the Silmarillion (or a wiki, in my case, since I still haven't gotten around to reading the Silmarillion) to get that she's a Vala, which are basically sub-gods under the boss god Eru, and that she created the stars, and elves revere her, etc. Tolkein doesn't go out of his way to explain this poo poo to you, he moves the gently caress on with the scene. Now, if you were to criticize Tolkein for unrolling the events of the plot too slowly, there I think you might have a valid criticism - I bounced off The Two Towers the first time I tried reading it at age 14 or 15, because the opening bits with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas took way longer than they should. But those are still plot-relevant, important scenes! I'm just sayin', the slowness definitely doesn't come from Tolkein going into "a side-story or history lesson that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the actual story." The closest thing I could think of is the poetry/songs, but those last like, a page or two, not the "100 pages" Der Kyhe mentioned. And there's the appendices, obviously, but those aren't meant to be narratives and they're definitely optional reading. Sassassin's being rude as hell about it, but they're right. DontMockMySmock has a new favorite as of 19:05 on May 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Tom Bombadil is a funny one given he's literally from a different genre. Lord of the Rings was specifically designed to feel like an ancient myth, with references to other tales and events that to the reader may be lost to time. It may have succeeded a little too well. Much like how Star Wars is made (originally) to feel like a story in a part of a much larger world where all kinds of things are going on besides what the main characters are up to.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:Now, if you were to criticize Tolkein for unrolling the events of the plot too slowly, there I think you might have a valid criticism - I bounced off The Two Towers the first time I tried reading it at age 14 or 15, because the opening bits with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas took way longer than they should. But those are still plot-relevant, important scenes! I'm just sayin', the slowness definitely doesn't come from Tolkein going into "a side-story or history lesson that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the actual story." The closest thing I could think of is the poetry/songs, but those last like, a page or two, not the "100 pages" Der Kyhe mentioned. And there's the appendices, obviously, but those aren't meant to be narratives and they're definitely optional reading.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
When Fellowship hit theaters, I had a friend who was pissed they didn’t include Tom Bombadil.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Blue Moonlight posted:When Fellowship hit theaters, I had a friend who was pissed they didn’t include Tom Bombadil. WHERE was my guy Tom!? He would have made the whole movie!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
What this three hour long movie needs is for the action to stop dead so we can watch a dancing fairy man speak in rhyme for 40 minutes while adding absolutely nothing to the plot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 11:16
|
|
