publicist 4,650 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 But still, believe it or not, there are people watching the Hobbit not knowing how Sauron rose to return or even knowing what the Necromancer is.I don't know actually but i would think that Jackson has stitched scenes like the Necromancer in a bit too randomly and conveniently (hey, let's get a little mystery stuff going on in between all those campfires). It would have made for a much better storytelling if we wouldn't be assaulted by ominous premonitions for all kinds of bad stuff, as if the dragon isn't enough - i call it bogus scares.But that's all very academically speaking, because what choice do you have when you try to blow a two-hour story up into nine?
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Just read your Gandalf/tomb theory posts Jason, it was most interesting. I REALLY wish he'd stuck to two movies with this. There's a hasty, even panicked (rushed) feeling to how Jackson is going about knocking it all together as a result - like how big budget tv show makers can feel the heat to have episodes ready for airing on time at the detriment of quality editing - and it really shows.The thing is, it'll be great but really fucking annoying at the same time if Jackson uses the EE's to "fix" the movies. I don't think ANY director should be afforded that luxury, and Jackson doing just that is sending out a bad message that it's now okay to just "patch" your fucking movie later on (after its started making returns). At this point the whole decision to go to three movies is looking a little less about storytelling integrity and more likely driven by humongous payday bonus' after all.One has to wonder why on earth Jackson seems to like working in this way. It was the same with King Kong post production where he made significant changes very late on, redirecting tight resources to deal with his apparent fickleness. The dinosaur CG ended up being shit because of it. And the dude is making the second Tintin film? Look at how economical Spielberg is, look at how brisk and precise he made Secret of the Unicorn. Look at how fucking tight he made it. And now Jackson is taking over...Lee - still baffled about WTF they're going to do to stretch The Hobbit out another five to six hours.I saw it. I enjoyed it quite a bit but it had it's share of stupid scenes (the trolls cooking the dwarves for example...why did they let themselves captured and possibly all killed over Bilbo..)One of the best moments of the film which deviated from the book slightly but held on firmly to its silliness.The score sounded pretty good You don't know KM as much as you might think you do. This score was bound to be appreciated by him. It's strong on the thematic front, reasonably rich in orchestration and we are in the middle of a drought.
Marian Schedenig 11,694 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 My second guess is that it will be a recap of Smaug's life, from when he was a baby till the day he attacked Erebor.It would be a great way to develop that character, and make us feel sorry for him when he dies. He's just a misunderstood creature! So far they've handled Smaug just like I hope they would, so I expect they continue that way. We won't see him until Bilbo sees him. That leaves room for a Smaug prologue if Bilbo meets him near the end of film two and Smaug is still alive at the beginning of film three.
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Smaug has been pitch-perfect so far. Surely his reveal is destined to be this trilogy's finest moment.I cannot wait!
Luke Skywalker 2,383 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 lets hope the disgin live up to the hype. An ugly dragon would be drepressing
Luke Skywalker 2,383 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 BTW about the wizard staffs, I noticed that Gandlf's in Hobbit is like a wooden crafter version of Gandalf the white staff.
jacksparrow900 77 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I think I missed something. I saw Radagast go to Dol Goldur and fight the witch King. I think I missed Gandalf going to Dol Goldur ?
Jay 46,241 Posted December 21, 2012 Author Posted December 21, 2012 Gandalf goes to investigate Dol Guldur in Film 2, while the rest of the company is in Mirkwood.
jacksparrow900 77 Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I knew I wasn't losing my mind. I didn't expect to see the spiders of mirkwood in the first film.
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Hopefully the bashing about pace and bloat is exactly what Jackson needed. SafeUnderHill 1
Muad'Dib 2,059 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I don't know how you guys keep complaining about the length... I just watched it for a second time and the time flew by as the first time. It felt more like an hour and a half than three hours. SafeUnderHill 1
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The length was surprisingly fine, in spite of the saggy structure. It's a really weird contradiction I'm having with this film, one I don't think I've ever had with any I've seen before. Basically, I think Jackson gets a LOT of grace purely because I love the fiction and its characters. SafeUnderHill 1
Ollie 1,375 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I just got back from seeing it and felt it flowed just fine.At no time did the movie feel like it was dragging. Very good film. SafeUnderHill 1
indy4 160 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The beginning felt very long to me. After that it started to pick up.
Rachael Foley 10,162 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I thought it felt sort of like an Indiana Jones "LOTR" film
Red 75 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 There were a few scenes that I thought could have been shorter. A couple of individual shots seemed to drag for me, like the establishing shot of Rivendell that felt to me like it lingered a bit too long. Perhaps this is just splitting hairs, but I do think the movie didn't really need to be as long as it was.
indy4 160 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I thought it felt sort of like an Indiana Jones "LOTR" filmI wish there had been more of that. The indvidiaul, unrelated adventures seemed very old school. I liked it when there was no specific epic quest to be had, no "either we fail or the entire world will be destroyed." The hints at LotR were cool, but I think that was largely because I like history (and that was basically the history of the LotR saga) and because Gandalf's whole "I'm doing this quest because I'm afraid Smaug might join Sauron eventually" was a lame excuse (I don't remember if it was in the book or not, but yeah). So the connections to LotR were cool, but the other attempts to make this otherwise old school adventure and epic quest to decide the fate of the world were not IMO.
Rachael Foley 10,162 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 (I don't remember if it was in the book or not, but yeah).It was in the LOTR appendices/Silmarillion.In fact, Tolkein himself attempted to rewrite TH to fit into the "Grand Quest"Though it will be fun (for me) to try and attempt a Fan Edit, with all of the "unnecessary" stuff cut out, to create a more standalone film.
Jilal 681 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 After seeing the film again today (this time in 24fps, but still 3D) I do indeed think it's one of the rabbits that says "Quick, quick!". It doesn't sound like Radagast's voice at all.
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 You're full of shit. Stop trying to build anticipation among those who seem to care what you think and just tell 'em your initial reaction. It's easy. Come back with a proper review later if you want to.The board could really, REALLY do without your hype nonsense on this one, cheers. Just cough it up and be done with it!
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The thing is, it's a bit more complicated than a simple "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" thing with this film. I honestly don't really know how I feel about it right now.Yawn, don't be a drama queen for once in your life. It's a movie, not a pilgrimage to Mecca.
KK 3,313 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Why the complications? You went into the film knowing everything anyone could ever know about it.
Quintus 6,494 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 In that case outta here like a rat up a fuckin' drainpipe
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Well said!Bloodball, you are a greater attention whore then even me!
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 At least I created a separate thread for that! And it has been dealt with...
Jay 46,241 Posted December 23, 2012 Author Posted December 23, 2012 You know what's funny is that after my first 2 viewings in which I was sure it was a rabbit that was saying "Quickly", on my third viewing I decided it was Radagast after all! The first "quickly" comes from off-screen as he's running towards the sled, but once he's on-screen he says it again and its in the same voice. The rabbit is just standing up and stomping his feet, but he's not the one talking.
Luke Skywalker 2,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 it's the rabbit talking? I could swear that in the spanish dubbed version it was not.and it's strange they would put an animal talking while moving its mouth and they dont even put the eagles- mind talking.And the birds dont talk either.
Jay 46,241 Posted December 23, 2012 Author Posted December 23, 2012 You watched it dubbed? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY??!?!?!?
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 You watched it dubbed? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY??!?!?!?Because it is hard to watch the film in English in Spain. very very few cinema's show it like that.
Jay 46,241 Posted December 23, 2012 Author Posted December 23, 2012 Hmmm, well it'd be weird to having talking rabbits but then have the various birds in the film not talk.But why did you watch it dubbed!?!?!Because it is hard to watch the film in English in Spain. very very few cinema's show it like that.But I thought he was back home for the holidays?
BLUMENKOHL 1,110 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 TALKING RABBITS CROSSES THE LINE! You're full of shit. Stop trying to build anticipation among those who seem to care what you think and just tell 'em your initial reaction. It's easy. Come back with a proper review later if you want to.The board could really, REALLY do without your hype nonsense on this one, cheers. Just cough it up and be done with it!Who's the greater fool, the fool who---oh fuck it, this is no time for a cheeky quote. You're the one giving attention to the attention whore.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 But I thought he was back home for the holidays?Then whatever country he is from, they also dub films.Who ever said Bloodball was American, or English.I put money of France!
Luke Skywalker 2,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Radgy is quite far from the sled when we hear "Quick! Quick!" and we only see the rabbits on screen at that moment.really?I think I would have taken notice at the anatomical oddiness of seeing the rabbit talking, and I didnt. I think it is radagast's voice.Maybe it was a nod to star wars and the rabbits heard ragagast voice in a ben kenobi's "Run, luke run!" fashion
Jay 46,241 Posted December 23, 2012 Author Posted December 23, 2012 Well he's obviously European and English is not his first language.That is a shame that it is hard to see films in their original languages in Europe. I have seen a ton of French films, and other foreign films here, always subtitled.
BLUMENKOHL 1,110 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I have to watch subtitles movies twice. Once for the subtitles, once for the acting.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,383 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 So far no animal has talked the Common Speech in PJ's Middle Earth. Even though the Eagles talk in LOTR and The Hobbit.I doubt they would break that with a throwaway line.Smaug will be the first "animal" to talk, and he's just a mythical one.
Jay 46,241 Posted December 23, 2012 Author Posted December 23, 2012 I have to watch subtitles movies twice. Once for the subtitles, once for the acting.I don't have that problem. I read VERY quickly. Just a quick glance down and I got everything, can go back to looking at facesSo far no animal has talked the Common Speech in PJ's Middle Earth. Even though the Eagles talk in LOTR and The Hobbit.I doubt they would break that with a throwaway line.Smaug will be the first "animal" to talk, and he's just a mythical one.I agree
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now