or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › The Hobbit (film series)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit (film series) - Page 17

post #241 of 320
Turning The Hobbit into a trilogy was a greedy, cynical decision that was bound to result in 3 mediocre (at best) movies.
post #242 of 320
I'll still see it as I am a Tolkien fanboy but I'm not too excited.
post #243 of 320

This Hobbit thing kind of reminds me on the Star Wars prequels, which where a lot worse, but it's the same thing, they wanna live of something great from the past. On their one I don't thing the people would love them that much.

post #244 of 320
Now that this story has broken, I think there is little possibility that the trilogy gets finished. I don't think Part Two will even be screened.
post #245 of 320
What a sick, sick bastard.
post #246 of 320
Honestly I'm surprised that anyone cares at this point. LOTR was bad enough.

Bad Taste coming out in 1080p would be much bigger news to me than yet another movie with Hobbits.
post #247 of 320

Saw it last night.

 

First off the 3D sucks as always, but they screened in 24fps so that was a saving grace. I believe the 48fps will only be seen in a few theatres. Avoid it.

 

It's better than the first movie - more action, less stupid - but still fails to live up to the LotR trilogy and is ultimately unsatisfying.

 

Orlando Bloom still can't act.

 

Evangeline Lilly has a major major role that is unnecessary.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Her flirtation/fascination with Killi was just odd.

 

Radagast shows up to do nothing again.

 

And the action is typical game-like movie making - pointless over-the-top CGI stunts that just leave you with a headache. The barrel escape, which could have been interesting, kept going and going and finally turned into Dinosaur Alley from King Kong - the worst sequence in that movie.

 

One of the biggest issues is the 161 minute length. Every action scene sequence is padded. Smaug, who started out great, grew pretty tiring as he was on for so long.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
About the only thing that was cool was seeing the "birth" of Sauron.

 

Even seeing Gandalf actually use magic couldn't bring much magic to the movie.

 

lefty

post #248 of 320
Jackson, basically, sux. LoTR was great, a genuine accomplishment. King Kong was a travesty, and the Hobbit has more in common with it than with LoTR.
post #249 of 320
Thanks lefty. Always great to get your insight on movies.

Slight threadjack: I haven't kept up this year, what is worth seeing this winter? Last year there was so much stuff, this year it seems like slim pickings.
post #250 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

Jackson, basically, sux. LoTR was great, a genuine accomplishment. King Kong was a travesty, and the Hobbit has more in common with it than with LoTR.

Kong had magic. The scenes of Watts trying to humour him were great and really showed the potential of motion capture with a talented actor. The dinosaur fight was a great action sequence. I believed which is all I can ask.

About halfway through DoS I realized that Jackson was making a kid's movie. Sets, action, acting - all are intended for little kids. I guess that was the point, but to be honest I don't know any kids that didn't like the LotR films. I just wish he could have taken 20 minutes of action and tossed it, then use that time to have a few characters sit down and talk to each other about their hopes and dreams. As it turned out I didn't care about any of them. Freeman is good and provides the little bit of humanity.

Beorn is unnecessary.
Stephen Fry is in the wrong movie.
Galadriel is literally there for five seconds. It's crazy.

When they're all completed it might make for a good linear 6 hour fanboy cut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Thanks lefty. Always great to get your insight on movies.

Slight threadjack: I haven't kept up this year, what is worth seeing this winter? Last year there was so much stuff, this year it seems like slim pickings.

Don't know why as I mostly hate everything.

I was talking with a reviewer last night who said Wolf of Wall Street is a hit.
The scuttebutt is that Saving Mr. Banks is a fantastic movie in no small part due to it's script.
Same with Her.

12 Years a Slave
Gravity
The Spectacular Now
Inside Llewyn Davis
(which I initially hated, but may be coming around to)
Blue is the Warmest Color
All is Lost


There are others.

lefty
post #251 of 320
The Hobbit movies make me sad. I have been going through the extended editions of Lotr and the commentaries and it is really fantastic. The first hobbit movie was just below meh. Sounds like the next is worse. I think I will skip.
post #252 of 320
I thought Kong was ridiculous, overlong, really over the top stupid action sequences, the dinos above all. I can give props to Watts for that scene, though.

Also, he totally botched the discovery of/by the natives. It's way better done on both earlier versions. As in, way way better. Jackson gives us a 12 hour movie, and he can't stop for 10 minutes to play that out at least half as well as Cooper did in 1933? Come on. When the plodding De Laurentis did better than you, you suck.
post #253 of 320
Agree with lefty about part 2. I enjoyed it a little more than I did part 1, but that's not saying much.
post #254 of 320

If you give props to Watts you have to so the same for Serkis. He was there with her and everything you see Kong doing has him at its core. That comedy sequence is movie-making magic and what made me believe anc care about the character. So much so that I wept when he died.

 

Quote:
 MS: How important was Andy Serkis to your performance?

 

NW: Oh, so important! I couldn't have done it without him.

MS: What was the interaction like?

 

NW: Well he was a character, like playing opposite any other man. He didn't have any words, but he had a huge amount of expression, be it physical or emotional. So I was just reacting to him the whole time. And in as truthful a way as possible.

 

MS: Was he in a monkey suit?

 

NW: He wasn't in a monkey suit with fur all over it. He was in a special suit that helped him move a sort of way. It was more about giving him the structure and posture that a primate has. He had teeth in, because that helped him, and then he also had a microphone and this thing they called the Kong-a-lizer. That did something to change the vibration or the frequency in his own voice. But every thing that you see on the screen, is Andy Serkis. I mean, yes there's been some magical stuff happened in the post production, special effects, but all the emotion all the movement, you know, how you see that ferocious face turn from that to sort of a smile come over him and a light in his eye, that's all Andy. And that's what I was reacting to, so that was – that's why it felt like a normal work space for me.

 


 

Peter Jackson in Time Out:

"I thought it was important to be able to turn up and rehearse the scenes with Ann and Kong, and be able to talk to Kong. To have Kong (Andy Serkis) on set to talk to was a critically important part of the process. For Naomi, it gave her someone to act with.  Actors feed off each other; it's one of the key things of their craft; they use each other to generate performance. Virtually every single shot of Naomi looking at Kong, she's looking at Andy, she’s looking at his face and he's up on a cherry-picker or on a scaffold tower or somewhere. That was one part of the Andy Serkis situation. The other part was that Andy was the actor, the person, who studied gorillas more than anybody. He studied them more than I did. He went to Rwanda and lived up there for a couple of weeks. I did what I could but he did the real thing. If Andy said to me, 'that's not how a gorilla would behave Peter', I would obviously be paying attention." -- Peter Jackson interviewed by Dave Calhoun

 

The native sequence is so ridiculous it almost looks like it was lifted from another movie. Surprised it stayed in as is. I would have thrown Jack Black off the boat and let Adrian Brody die of tuberculosis in a cold water flat on the Lower East Side, but overall it's a very good movie.

 

The thing that kills me about The Hobbit is that the LotR is so good on every level. This movie really looks like it was set on a backlot.

 

lefty


Edited by lefty - 12/13/13 at 9:00am
post #255 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

The Hobbit movies make me sad. I have been going through the extended editions of Lotr and the commentaries and it is really fantastic. The first hobbit movie was just below meh. Sounds like the next is worse. I think I will skip.

It really makes me sad as well - that book was such an important piece of my childhood and to have it bastardized like this, but I feel obligated to watch it.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Lefty, what do you mean by "birth of Sauron"? Are they showing the transformation of the Necromancer into Sauron or are they pulling from The Silmarillion?

Edited by HORNS - 12/13/13 at 8:52am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › The Hobbit (film series)