weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)

All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.

In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.

In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.

 Necroshea wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.

Eh?

Spoiler:

During the intro scene after the dwarves asked him to sign the contract and he storms off, gandalf approached him and asked about what happened to the person he used to be, always wanting to explore and adventure. Over time he just started to get comfortable not having adventure and not doing anything, but Gandalf brought forth the old bilbo who would have done that sort of thing. After having some inner conflict he wakes up and realizes that everyone is gone, and his chance for adventure is fading. He finally makes up his mind that he wants to go on an adventure and does. This makes perfect sense to me.

I'm also not sure what you're expecting Bilbo to do to play a larger role than what he did. Just like the book he was sort of dead weight until after he found the ring. He just sort of tagged along for the journey while everyone else lead on. Whenever he branched off it gave a little screen time to the rest of the party while fully following what happened to him.

 shrike wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)

All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.

In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.

In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.

 Ahtman wrote:
In the books you wouldn't know it either if they didn't have the author explaining it, as it isn't told to us through actions or dialogue in the book. The movie handles sliding the information in quite well without battering the audience over the head with it. I honestly can't tell if you actually saw the movie or not. It is certainly open to criticism, but the ones you are laying at its feet (bad director, bad editior, bad storytelling, not exactly the same as the book so it is bad) don't seem reasonable. The only one that holds up is that it has tonal shifts, and one can read a movie review or two and come up with that as well. It is to awash in venom to feel sincere, and more about provoking responses by being sensational.

weeble1000 wrote:

 shrike wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)

All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.

In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.

In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.

Normally I wouldn't requote such a large bit of text, but your responses need little reply.

Mature children's book? Have you read the thing? And it is not about the book it is about the muddled tone of the film.
I mean it as in, it's hardly in the style of proper children's books like Thomas the Tank engine- it's got wars, fighting and death in it. It's meant for children, but more for parents to read to them.
Bilbo is the main character of the book. There is no other main character. Bilbo is the only character that develops through the story. The Hobbit is a coming-of-age tale wherein Bilbo is the hero. There and back again. Every character in the book is flat and serves as a backdrop for Bilbo's development. And again, it is about the movie. When a movie does not have a clear protagonist there is a problem.
Every character in the book is flat- yes, because it's a children's book. They don't really care how in-depth the characters are.
Plus, I already pointed out, it's not all about Bilbo. He's just one of the gang, Thorin is really the main character, it's just told from Bilbo's point of view, like the lord of the rings. (Aragorn could easily have been the main character)
In LotR, everyone's actions support Frodo. The movie starts with Frodo, Frodo makes his own decisions. He decides to carry the ring to Bree. He decides to carry the ring to Mordor. He decides to utilize Golum, etc. etc. The other characters support a quest that he embarked on. That he accepted responsibility for, knowing the dangers. Aragorn has a storyline, sure, but like Han Solo, Arogorn's story arc supports and drive forward the main character for the most part. And one can actually criticize the Star Wars trilogy for having progressively more complex plot lines.
TBH, frodo spent almost the entire trilogy wanting to be home, and almost all of it after amon hen was decided on the fly. and of course everyone supported Frodo- if he dies, the world ends and all the free peoples of middle earth will be destroyed or enslaved. If Bilbo dies, all the dwarves know is they'll need another burglar.

Necroshea wrote:From reading your opinion of the movie Weeble, it sounds like you don't like the movie because it's too unlike the book.

I mean we could discuss your various points about why it was bad, but we'll never really get anywhere. I didn't experience the same issues you did, nor have I met anyone yet who felt the same. Not to say that I'm calling you out for being wrong, it's just I don't quite feel qualified to argue because I flat out can't see or understand where your problems with the film are originating from.

 shrike wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)

All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.

In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.

In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.

 Albatross wrote:
I loved it. I even got quite emotional in places. Childhood memories, and all that.

 shrike wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I loved it. I even got quite emotional in places. Childhood memories, and all that.

aye, same here- quotes from the book- "in a hole in the ground..."

 VikingChild wrote:
One thing that made me laugh though was when it ended my wife turned to me and was like ''what, is that it?'' she didn't realize it was part 1 of 3 even though i had told her told her previously that was the case, but then she was like ''och but i want to see what happens next'' and thats coming from someone who would rather go see a chick-flick so there you go...

 Albatross wrote:

 shrike wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I loved it. I even got quite emotional in places. Childhood memories, and all that.

aye, same here- quotes from the book- "in a hole in the ground..."

Yes mate! That was the exact part! I was literally choked up, remembering sitting with my sister as my mum read us it by candlelight when we were tiny...

 shrike wrote:
well guys, I'm going to re-watch the hobbit today (in 2D this time), so I'll keep an eye out for what you've said about it

AgeOfEgos wrote:One, was the humor--most times it appeared so intentionally injected into the story--that it reminded me of a joke that needs to be explained or somewhat artificial (After the dinner scene, I was waiting for a fart joke). The dinner aside--as an example, the Goblin King's punchline death just seemed strange and out of place with the music/scene--and it made it hard to take the moment serious. The campfire fight scene echoed this as well.
I have to agree with you there, to some extent- some of the humourous moments were a bit forced, but I thought the trolls were okay, kind of stupid slapstick, three-stooges style. Plus, I felt the fighting there was really well put together and fluid- dwalin rolling to a crouch to avoid a troll, Fili running and jumping off his back to hack at a troll's arm as he held Kili up, little snippets like that really brought it together, and kind of made it it's own style- with the full-on armies, it's mostly wide, aerial shots, and with one-on-several it's normally side-on from medium distance- with the dwarves it was kind of met in the middle, with a bit of both, especially in goblin town.
Second--and I'm unsure what the term is--but several scenes 'appeared' to be scenes. It was almost like you could hear Jackson yelling "Action!" as the camera zoomed in--with everyone sitting/standing in their assigned spots. I think I might have noticed this as the Fellowship always seemed so natural to me. You just happened to have glimpse at something exciting happening--but it didn't feel like someone intentionally set the table for you.
Eh, I didn't really mind that- they make for the more iconic snapshots of the film which stick in your mind- in a circle in Rivendell, Thorin on the tree trunk, the dwarves around the table etc.

Testify wrote:^Please use actual quotes instead of injecting bright blue words into other peoples' quotes.

Does anyone else think the introduction of the pale orc was contrived and unnessesary? Seems pointless to add in an antagonist for no good reason, and someone that we know will fail and die anyway.