Jump to content

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Underwhelming Prequels


Quintus

Recommended Posts

What's there to fuck up? It's not like they're adapting anything particularly good to begin with.

Well that should tell most of us all we need to know about your opinion.

Which, in your opinion, is the most lacklustre entry out of the three most recent franchise prestige damaging movies?

I haven't seen TBOTFA yet, but An Unexpected Journey is easily the worst for me. Never have I been so disappointed by an adaptation.

Every dwarf in the Hobbit out-acts anybody from the Potter teenies.

I suppose this is fair, but it's not much of an accomplishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, HARRY POTTER 1 is bright and shiny and it still sucks (part 2 is considerably better, despite of Columbus at the helm). Movies not being lighted to my liking never has irritated me like some people here obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just really like the Predator species.

They're a bit misunderstood because they're not really bad. Hunting worthy prey is just the driving force of their culture, as far as we've come to understand it in the movies, books, comics and games.

And if a Predator thinks you're too pathetic to kill, you have a very strong chance of survival unless you're facing Wolf from AVPR, whose job is to kill indiscriminately if he thinks there's a risk of disclosure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COS has too many of Roger Pratt's trademark Dutch angles. They're alright when used sparingly. I think GOF had fewer of them.

There is only so much you can expect from a guy named "prat" (misspelled as well!)

;)

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every dwarf in the Hobbit out-acts anybody from the Potter teenies.

As a rule, I'd agree, but considering we're comparing accomplished professionals with young amateurs, they still had their moments. The Weasley twins (starting with Azkaban) and Luna Lovegood gave solid comic turns. Tom Felton was fairly impressive in Half Blood Prince, as were Emma Watson and Rupert Grint in Deathly Hallows: Part 1. Even Radcliffe had a couple good scenes in the last one. Actually I think Watson had a lot of natural charisma in the first film as well. The only one who was never any good was the girl who played Ginny.

In general, I would also agree with pub that the Potter directors never really went out of their way to be the biggest dogs on the block the way Jackson has been doing with his annual pissing contests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creepy voices, blood on walls, talking snakes and hanging dead cats... that's disturbung stuff!

I haven't seen it in forever, but I have fond memories of it, which is more than can be said for the other films. It might be my second favourite of the Potters, first being PoA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I recall back in the day many were displeased with it. Marian for example

Displeased with the film in general, or with the adaptation from the book?

Because the first 2 movies are easily the best, most straightforward adaptations of their books, leaving the least amount of stuff out. Films 3-6 took out huge portions of their books, while films 1 and 2 breeze through them at a lightning pace (especially 2), but don't leave out any large sections or ideas.

Since book 7 got split into 2 movies they basically covered everything, from what I can recall, though I only read that book one time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first doesn't hold up very well. Was watching bits of it on TV the other day, and its effects have not aged well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's true. It has more personality than the dull sequels that popped up near the end of the franchise.

The effects were flawless to my eyes then (yes, yes, I was just a kid, blah blah), but I didn't realize how dated they looked till recently.

Always loved the original Dumbledore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Displeased with the film. It lacked the emotional core of the first one

Hmmm, I dunno, I think both of the first 2 films are pretty similar in the emotional department. They don't try to get too deep into things until the third one, really.

Richard Harris as Dumbledore was a million times better than Gambon. Gambon was miscast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While both of the first 2 films have moments of hokey special effects (especially the bathroom troll in Film 1 and Dobby in Film 2), in general I think the special effects are fine, especially in 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 2 tried too hard to replicate that sort of old-school Hollywood sincerity that the first one pulled off quite naturally. The clapping for Hagrid scene at the end is embarrassing to watch.

As for Gambon...he could have been good. Definitely not an ideal replacement and too cranky and aggressive in 4 and 5, but he occasionally had a certain laid back charm that could have been used more. I felt like he finally "got" the character in the afterlife scene in the last film. They never should have gotten rid of the spectacles, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gambon is a fine actor, no doubt, but just wasn't right for Dumbledore at all. Harris was brilliant at it.

And yes, the ending they concocted for Film 2 was kinda dumb, the whole clapping for Hagrid stuff. It's like someone told Colombus he needed to end the film quicker this time, so they just stopped at that point in the book instead of including the full ending. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.