Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Lonely Mountain Band Forum Index -> J.R.R. Tolkien
View previous topic :: View next topic   Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Cennwyn
Cennwyn
Member

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Posts: 892

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Rozalinde wrote:

I haven't felt the same magic from the Hobbit movies. Part of that could be some of Peter Jackson's doing. Some of it could also be because I never felt the same magic from the Hobbit book as I did The Lord of the Rings books. I'm having difficulty parsing the causes for my reactions.


Because the Hobbit is a FAR more obvious cash grab. Nobody thought the Lord of the Rings would do as well as it did. Now, they *expect* these movies to make a million dollars.


_________________
A Minstrel in the Making

Alts include: Tinaith the Elven Huntress, Dereborn the Loremaster of Gondor.
Kiralynn
Kiralynn of Rohan
Officer

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 5812

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Box Office: 'Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug' Wins Weekend With $73.7 Million in Domestic Debut
Forum Image


_________________
Spego
GrooWanderer
Officer

user avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 179

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Cennwyn wrote:
Because the Hobbit is a FAR more obvious cash grab. Nobody thought the Lord of the Rings would do as well as it did. Now, they *expect* these movies to make a million dollars.



I think this hits it on the head. Lord of the Rings was the EXCEPTION in film production. The Hobbit is just a normal film adapted from a book (IE, they need to at least share the same name.... everything else can be changed =)

So I see The Hobbit in a different light. I may still enjoy it (wasn't overly thrilled by the first and haven't seen the second yet) but I look at them as stand alone films and not recreations of the novel.

Kind of like the movie Clear and Present Danger which was "based" off of Tom Clancy's book. I enjoyed that movie and still do in its own right. However, since it is nothing like the book, I can still enjoy the book (because NOTHING is the same =)


_________________
GrooWanderer(Warden) / Arcadio(Minstrel) / Spego(LM) Alt Kins: Nosse Ullume / Merya Noore
Kiralynn
Kiralynn of Rohan
Officer

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 5812

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

WARNING: Minor spoiler section ahead! Click to read...

My problem was with the action that ran like a Saturday morning cartoon. Not only did it ignore the laws of physics, it was silly. Here's a perfect example. Bombur is going down the river through rapids in a barrel that he barely fits in. Somehow, he manages to launch his barrel up out of the river, bounce around like a ping-pong ball crushing orc after orc, bounce to the other shore, crush even more orcs, smash the barrel open, poke out his arms and legs, and start spinning like a top with a bladed weapon in each hand, going through even more orcs like a whirling dervish of death and destruction. A dwarvish blender, if you will. He then pulls in his limbs, leaps back into the river, and continues floating along with his friends like nothing happened. He doesn't fall behind, his now decimated barrel doesn't sink, and he's completely uninjured. He was the envy of most cartoon characters.


So, I could forgive Peter Jackson for adding to and adjusting the story, if only he didn't make the story silly and utterly unbelievable.


_________________
Rozalinde
Member

user avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2013
Posts: 285

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Quote:
Because the Hobbit is a FAR more obvious cash grab. Nobody thought the Lord of the Rings would do as well as it did. Now, they *expect* these movies to make a million dollars.


That is a very good point. I was just having a discussion with my roommate the other day about how movies/shows/books produced under constraints seem to come out better than those that are made with all the time, money, etc. the creator could wish for. The discussion was prompted by a comment made by Joss Whedon in an interview on the Firefly DVD extras:

Quote:
A lot of the pressure of being a show that might be canceled at any moment really helps you. It doesn't help your digestion. It doesn't help your marriage. But what it does help is your storytelling, because you go back and you say what is the most important thing I need to feel, what is the most primal story...


The LOTR movies were under considerable constraints. Most significantly, time and editing constraints (how to tell that much material in only 3 movies). The Hobbit movies are under no such constraints. In fact, the situation seems quite the opposite. The makers had a little too much freedom, I think, and inserted some of the sillier, physics-defying, over-the-top moments because they could, not because they should. Fewer of the scenes/dialgue feel necessary to the core of the story, so the entire adventure ends up feeling more shallow.


_________________
Concerning Hobbits: Rozalinde (Main), Roverna, Gormadas
LMB: Raladis, Ronwenna ("Rona")
Haydnseek
Officer

user avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Posts: 252

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

These movies are obviously adaptations - not recreations - beholden to the marketing concerns of studio executives whose job it is to maximize appeal breadth, and therefore profits, so my expectations were low and for the most part met. The movie should not have been named 'The Hobbit' because apart from the title you almost wouldn't know a hobbit was even involved. It should have been named

'The Wizard, the man from Laketown, the orc from Moria, The elf who doesn't appear until The Fellowship of the Ring, and the female elf who doesn't exist at all but is shoehorned in to provide an obligatory love interest element with a cringe-worthy love triangle twist.'

A bit long-winded, I know, but certainly more accurate. I'll not rehash what others have already said is obviously wrong with the movie but I will offer a couple things I actually liked. These observations may contain spoilers for some and is captioned accordingly. Click to read:

Spoiler (Click To Show):
Smaug himself was absolutely spectacular. I would pay full admission again just to to see the scenes with Smaug. And really, there is nothing else in this movie worth seeing even once. His rendering, voice characterization, and the camera angles from which he is captured within the stunningly realized bowels of Erebor are Oscar-worthy by themselves. Smaug is hands down the best character in the movie for me and it's not even close. In fact he is so good, it seems that Jackson felt compelled to find more time for him on screen than what the admittedly brief encounter between him and Bilbo in the book afforded. So for that reason I can almost...almost...forgive Jackson for devolving the Smaug encounter into an utterly non-canonical, Scooby-do-like chase scene inside Erebor involving all the dwarves plus Bilbo that culminated in the utterly absurd, and apparently harmless dousing of Smaug in molten gold. But none of that was necessary because all the awesomeness of Smaug for me was equally what he said as much as what he did, and by that time he was only running around roaring and spewing fire everywhere. But even with the undoubtedly studio-mandated, lore-wrecking chase scene, Smaug is worth the price of admission alone and should be considered for Best Supporting Dragon come Oscar time.

The other thing I didn't mind and even kind of appreciated was Jackson's attempt at exploring the doings of Gandalf regarding Dol Guldur after he left the dwarves and Bilbo at the eastern eaves of Mirkwood. There was at least an honest, if not thoroughly successful, effort of portraying some sense of what Gandalf was doing in southern Mirkwood at that time, as well as its ramifications for the story to come. I can understand where others will take exception to the vast amount of detail omitted by necessity, but I can at least respect Jackson for filling this time slot of the movie with something that is lore-related and not a purely fabricated element like way too much of the remaining film. If I were going to take the side of omitting this arc entirely, I would do so to argue for more screen time for Bilbo, because - wow - he is almost nowhere to be found in the entire movie...until his brilliant and desperately short face-to-face encounter with the amazing Smaug.
Cennwyn
Cennwyn
Member

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Posts: 892

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Ok.

So I went to Wikipedia and read a detailed plot synopsis.





I know I'm a cynic. And I expected the worst from the first movie, and I was pleasantly surprised. I was, therefore, mildly hopeful about Desolation.

Now, my emotional rolodex is spinning so fast I'm not sure what I feel. Angry? Confused? Amused? Just *&^%ing sad? I don't even know.

Logically I understand that I can go right to my bookshelf and read the Hobbit whenever I like. The original story still exists and there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing, arguably, has been "harmed" by a movie like Desolation of Smaug.

...so why do I honestly feel like crying?

For a DEFINITELY THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS LINK review, this guy covers some interesting points, and this review was the one that made me finally say, "Yeah, I'm not going to see this movie and I'm sick of even thinking about it."


_________________
A Minstrel in the Making

Alts include: Tinaith the Elven Huntress, Dereborn the Loremaster of Gondor.
Apis
Ellinnea
Officer

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 596

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Rozalinde wrote:
Quote:
Because the Hobbit is a FAR more obvious cash grab. Nobody thought the Lord of the Rings would do as well as it did. Now, they *expect* these movies to make a million dollars.


That is a very good point. I was just having a discussion with my roommate the other day about how movies/shows/books produced under constraints seem to come out better than those that are made with all the time, money, etc. the creator could wish for. The discussion was prompted by a comment made by Joss Whedon in an interview on the Firefly DVD extras:

Quote:
A lot of the pressure of being a show that might be canceled at any moment really helps you. It doesn't help your digestion. It doesn't help your marriage. But what it does help is your storytelling, because you go back and you say what is the most important thing I need to feel, what is the most primal story...


The LOTR movies were under considerable constraints. Most significantly, time and editing constraints (how to tell that much material in only 3 movies). The Hobbit movies are under no such constraints. In fact, the situation seems quite the opposite. The makers had a little too much freedom, I think, and inserted some of the sillier, physics-defying, over-the-top moments because they could, not because they should. Fewer of the scenes/dialgue feel necessary to the core of the story, so the entire adventure ends up feeling more shallow.


I heard a talk recently about this exact point, using George Lucas as the example. This blog post sums up the theory pretty well: The George Lucas Effect and How it Kills Creativity.

I haven't seen the new film yet, so I won't comment on it. But it seems to me that a similar thing might be happening with Peter Jackson. (To a lesser extent, perhaps.) Once you have proved you can be successful, you are given free rein to take the story where you will, with considerably less oversight and fewer constraints. The result may still be financially successful, but it lacks the inspiration and magic that comes from being forced to distill your vision to what is most important. Lacking inside knowledge about how the Hobbit film team is structured, I don't know if this is true for them. But the pattern seems to match.


_________________
Apis, Hobbit Guardian (Landroval)  

A bevy of other characters, as listed at my lotro-wiki page
Nevanna
Member

user avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 193

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

After reading all the posts after mine, it suddenly came to me that there may have been more I disliked about the movie than I wanted to admit. However! Haydnseek's spoiler is SPOT ON my feelings and thoughts. I will go see it again. Probably 4-5 more times in all before it leaves theaters. Smaug is just all that. =D


_________________
I am getting to old to pillage from the night to compensate for the shortage of hours in the day~ JRR Tolkien~Letters  
 
   
MiskatonicLMB
Member

user avatar

Joined: 01 Jul 2012
Posts: 24

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: Mithril’s Review of ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’

This is full of spoilers, but worth a read if you've seen the movie.

I found I agreed with nearly everything Mithril had to say about Desolation of Smaug.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/15/84898-mithrils-review-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/

Some changes were inevitable. When kinmate Jaflo and I saw it, he mentioned how the elves in The Hobbit were a bit silly, so there needed to be some reconciliation there no matter what.
Cennwyn
Cennwyn
Member

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Posts: 892

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: Re: Mithril’s Review of ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

MiskatonicLMB wrote:
The elves in The Hobbit were a bit silly, so there needed to be some reconciliation there no matter what.


Why? Why must everything be so deadly bloody serious?


_________________
A Minstrel in the Making

Alts include: Tinaith the Elven Huntress, Dereborn the Loremaster of Gondor.
Kiralynn
Kiralynn of Rohan
Officer

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 5812

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: Re: Mithril’s Review of ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Cennwyn wrote:
Why? Why must everything be so deadly bloody serious?


I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're wondering why some of us expect the Hobbit movies to be serious...

For the same reason that all classical myths are serious. Stories that matter, that change the way we think and look at the world, always are. "The Hobbit" had a lot to say about issues that we all face and about the human condition. Friendship, courage and loyalty... and how even the smallest of us can help triumph over evil. These are the stories we need to hear, the ones we want our children to hear, and the ones we must pass on to future generations.

Or Peter Jackson can turn it into something from a Saturday morning cartoon, get a quick guffaw and a million bucks, and not worry about such weighty matters. If he wanted to make a movie about silly dwarves, ridiculous goblins, smitten elves and foolish wizards, I wish he had made it in a different fantasy world.


_________________
Cennwyn
Cennwyn
Member

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Posts: 892

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: Re: Mithril’s Review of ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Kiralynn of Rohan wrote:
Cennwyn wrote:
Why? Why must everything be so deadly bloody serious?


I'm not sure what you're asking.



Apologies. I was being snappish, and it was misplaced.

Obviously I have a lot of opinions on this, but I'm going to back off this discussion until I can calm down a bit and present my thoughts in a clear and coherent manner.


_________________
A Minstrel in the Making

Alts include: Tinaith the Elven Huntress, Dereborn the Loremaster of Gondor.
Kiralynn
Kiralynn of Rohan
Officer

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 5812

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Well, the good news is...

* For all the people who love Peter Jackson's style, congratulations, you have "The Hobbit" trilogy! Enjoy!

* For those who are looking for a more serious tone, congratulations, somebody will come along in a few years and remake "The Hobbit" because it's so profitable! Enjoy!

Now you can start looking over today's young actors and wonder which of them is going to be Bilbo or Gandalf in twenty year's time. =D


_________________
Elenathiel
Member

user avatar

Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 10

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug -- Review (NO spoilers)

Amen, Floradine!

I did not "read" (listen to) the original until after I had watched the first movie.

Prior to listening to it, I enjoyed the first movie, but now I am disgusted by what P.J. has done to this beautiful classic and could not even recognize this as The Hobbit.

We just watched the animated version to soothe the hurt we felt after witnessing that betrayal!


_________________
Daughter of the Starry Hosts
Posts from:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Lonely Mountain Band Forum Index -> J.R.R. Tolkien All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum