or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Arts & Crafts › Books, Music, and Media › Hobbitses movies...IT'S HERE! WARNING: SPOILERS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hobbitses movies...IT'S HERE! WARNING: SPOILERS - Page 3

post #41 of 118
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
it has been years and years and waiting and waiting

 

 

Yes it has!  Fellowship of the Rings is ten years old.  Return of the King is eight years old. 

 

Beorn is being played by Mikael Persbrandt:  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0675409/

 

OK, I'm wondering if the character Itaril was a hoax. 

 

 

Edited to add, I noticed that Itaril has disappeared from the cast list. 

 

Introducing...Tauriel!  a character created for the movie.  She's played by Evangeline Lilly, from Lost.  http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Tauriel

 

Biting my tongue. 

 

 


Edited by journeymom - 12/23/11 at 9:29am
post #42 of 118

I am curious is all that is in an attempt to put the movie in context with LOTR?  Gandalf did go ahead of the dwarves to meet with a "couple of friends".  I'm not a purist when it comes to translating books into film, because the medium has different requirements, but I do wish that they would trust to the story more.  

 

I just can't even think about it.... it might not be all that terribly distracting (not exactly a thumbs up!)

post #43 of 118
Thread Starter 

Oh my.  Being honest, I don't like this. 

 

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-dim-reaction-to-high-def-look-of-peter-jacksons-the-hobbit/

 

The high-def technology he's using give the film a 'soap opera look'.  huh.gif  I'm not going to condemn it till I've seen it.  Maybe it'll look better than the description indicates.

post #44 of 118

Is it the technology on your end?  I hate that, too.  It's from "motion smoothing" on the HDTVs.  Something you can turn off on some screens.  Do you think it will look that way in theaters?  

 

You know, maybe I'm a dinosaur with this as with everything else.  That "soap opera" effect might end up being here to stay, like CFL bulbs.  I still am not used to those, either.

post #45 of 118
Thread Starter 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'on your end'?  But I imagine it requires a special projector for the audience to see.  Yes, definitely the audience will see it, that's what all the unhappiness is about. 

 

When we first got our latest, fancy-schmancy TV everything looked like it was in soap opera mode, and I was getting pretty disappointed.  That's a lot of money for what I think is a lousy visual quality, not superior.  Fortunately dh agreed and went hunting around all the options and found where it could be turned off. 

 

But I don't know if that means when the Hobbit is released on dvd the consumer can opt out and turn off the super high def.  I kinda think not, since the effect originates at the recording camera.

 

I think this movie change-over is kind of like the switch from vinyl to cd.  There are plenty of people who still believe vinyl offers the better sound, because while vinyl capture's all of the source's real sound waves, with cds some of the source's sound waves aren't captured in translation from reality to digital. I just spent 5 minutes reading about vinyl versus digital. eyesroll.gif lol.gif

 

At the very least it's good to know this major bit of information about the movie ahead of time. At least it won't be a surprise, and I can focus on enjoying the story.  And that might be Peter Jackson's objective with these pre-screenings. 

post #46 of 118
Thread Starter 

So an update from Peter Jackson on FaceBook:

 

 

Quote:
We made it! Shoot day 266 and the end of principal photography on The Hobbit. Thanks to our fantastic cast and crew for getting us this far, and to all of you for your support! Next stop, the cutting room. Oh, and Comic Con!

Cheers, Peter J

 

orngbiggrin.gif  Progress!
 

post #47 of 118

My inner geek thanks you.  (DH would argue there is nothing "inner" about it.)  

post #48 of 118
Thread Starter 

Mr. Journeymom and his brother are at ComicCon.  Paint me green with envy.  Peter Jackson,Philippa Boyens, Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and Richard Armitage will all be there, and there's going to be a short screening of the movie.  I hope dh can get in to see them and the screening. I imagine that entails lining up outside the screening hall first thing in the morning, until it opens hours later. I'll understand if they'd rather do other stuff.  There ARE other cool people to see there. And what the heck! Apparently comic book authors and illustrators convene there, too. I don't know what that's about.

 

 

Here's another note from Peter Jackson's FaceBook page,

 

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/just-about-to-jump-on-the-plane-to-comic-con/10151078936971558

 

 

Quote:
The subject of high frame rates has serious film industry implications, and it's important that it's judged in the fairest possible context. I'm afraid that a presentation of a short clip reel in a huge convention center is simply not the way to do it. I'm sorry if people attending Comic Con were hoping to see a glimpse of 48 fps, but let me say that in December,  if you choose to see the Hobbit in a great cinema, projecting the higher frame rate, you will be in the best place to make up your own mind.  And you will have the choice - there will be plenty of cinemas screening both versions.

 

 

Well, that's fair enough. 

post #49 of 118
Thread Starter 
post #50 of 118

"Stinking awesome" but I don't know if I could stretch it....three... years.... again!  Ah!  Peter Jackson you are killing me slowly with impatience.  Excited impatience, the worst kind.

post #51 of 118

Eugh.... I dunno. After King Kong, I'm not convinced longer is better any more, or that Peter Jackson necessarily has the discernment to know when he should stop. I'm still skeevy about the Hobbit being *two* movies (especially given my dislike of his non-Tolkien LOTR additions, such as the Aragorn-being-dragged-off-the-cliff-by-a-Warg subplot in TTT). I don't think three would do the adaptation any favours - and as much as I adore the Appendices, weaving them into a coherent narrative with the Hobbit tale without losing focus? That'd be a heck of a job. And where would you split the book? (Heck, where are they going to split it for a two-parter, even?)

post #52 of 118

I agree, I am a bit skeptical.

 

One of the reasons I love The Hobbit as a book more than LOTR is the tightness of the plot.  It would be irritating to have it deviate too far.  I would be glad to have it be 2 movies, and I would split it sometime around Beorn's house, perhaps ending the first at the entrance to Mirkwood.  A perfectly creepy segue  into the second film.

 

Yes, TTT annoyed me in several places.  DD watches the extended version regularly, and I have come to be at peace with it, mostly or somewhat.  That book doesn't spread out the action quite so evenly as the others.  It gave the movie makers a place to bring Arwen back into the story Lest We Forget Liz, and it gave them a (pllllbbbbt!) dramatic reentrance of Aragorn.  The first annoying plot deviation that would come to my mind is the arrival of the Elvish army to Helm's Deep.  That still really, really bugs me.

 

Hopefully the wrath of the Fans will be louder than the cheers of the 25yo males that everything on the planet is marketed at these days.

post #53 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

Eugh.... I dunno. After King Kong, I'm not convinced longer is better any more, or that Peter Jackson necessarily has the discernment to know when he should stop. I'm still skeevy about the Hobbit being *two* movies (especially given my dislike of his non-Tolkien LOTR additions, such as the Aragorn-being-dragged-off-the-cliff-by-a-Warg subplot in TTT). I don't think three would do the adaptation any favours - and as much as I adore the Appendices, weaving them into a coherent narrative with the Hobbit tale without losing focus? That'd be a heck of a job. And where would you split the book? (Heck, where are they going to split it for a two-parter, even?)

 

I agree completely. As much as I loved Jackson's LOTR movies, there are still too many places where I cringe (the big ones being pretty much the entire Aragorn/Arwen plotline, including Aragorn's near death and dramatic reappearance, and the "WTF is this?" stuff with Faramir and Frodo in Osgiliath...still haven't figured out why the Nazgul didn't grab Frodo right there). I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, but I'm also nervous.

post #54 of 118

Yeah, TTT is by far my least favourite of the films. The first 45 minutes or so are badly edited - so many running shots! There's no sense of drama or urgency in the Three Hunters sequence, just way too many wide-angles cut awkwardly with bad dwarf humour.

 

Then there's the Aragorn-Warg-cliff incident, which really gets my goat. It's not like Tolkien's text is lacking in fake deaths - there's Pippin ("and his thought fled far away and his eyes knew no more", or however it goes), Frodo with Shelob, Gandalf... probably more I'm missing. :p And the dream scene with Liv really irked me... mostly because Liv does. I liked the prophecy scene despite her, simply because it was very Tolkien and very beautifully shot, but I'd still have been happier if she weren't in it. :p

 

What else? One too many Gollum/Smeagol dialogues, diminishing the impact of all of them; that awful political speech Sam made; too much Frodo falling backwards; the butchering of Faramir's character into a shifty-eyed sleazebag; eugh. I could go on. Oh, and Gandalf's return was handled very clunkily. So was Treebeard, although darned if I know how one would translate that to film un-clunkily.

 

Basically, I liked a few things about the movie - Eowyn, Wormtongue, the feeling of tension before Helm's Deep, some of the Helm's Deep battle (and for some reason, the Elves showing up didn't really bug me) and some of the humour. But I really think it's the weak link. Even the music, which I think is some of the best music to be written in the last fifty years or so, period - in this film it comes across in quite an obvious, John-Williams-leit-motif-type way. "Oh, here's Rohan, blare out the Rohan theme" - you know? The whole thing just didn't seem as true to the spirit of Tolkien, and the film had neither the purity of Fellowship nor the emotional catharsis of ROTK. When I saw it for the first time, after a year of extreme anticipation, it left me with a slightly sour taste in my mouth; and made me nervous for the entire next year that ROTK wasn't going to be good. (OK, maybe I took the whole thing a tad seriously... I was writing a diary in Tengwar at one point!)

 

ETA: Forgot to say that while I am looking forward to The Hobbit, I'm skeptical. I didn't like how dark the trailer was, and how overtly it seemed to be tying the film in to LOTR. The start of Fellowship had some delightfully cheery, hobbity, folksy moments, and I hoped for more of those in The Hobbit, not less. I hope he doesn't skew the tone of the story just to make it more LOTR-ish; you know? Or simply because he's Peter Jackson and likes being macabre.

 

Must say, though, I'm deeply impressed that eleven, twelve years after starting filming for LOTR, Elijah Wood can believably play a younger Frodo than depicted in LOTR. He really has a (creepily?) ageless face. Hard to believe he was only 18 when he started filming LOTR! I was never hugely impressed with his performance as Frodo - I was more struck by Aragorn, Boromir and the other hobbits - until I watched all three EEs in a row one time, in the DVD lounge of a cute little theatre. (Quite the marathon!) When viewed in an arc, his performance really is impressive - especially given that they filmed out of sequence and over the course of, what? 18 months plus reshoots? The difference between the Frodo at Bilbo's party and the Frodo who looks up at Sam from the cliff at Mount Doom with that heartbreaking "please just let me die" expression... it really struck me for the first time. Hard role to pull off... kudos to him and all that.

post #55 of 118

I felt kind of the same way about TTT...and I certainly wasn't writing a diary in Tengwar! I was mostly upset at the way he just wrecked Faramir's character. He'd done such a great job with Boromir that Faramir was a real disappointment. The extended version made up for some of that, though.

post #56 of 118

I still like Faramir's movie character.  The calm resoluteness of the book's characters can seem a bit dull onscreen.  And everything "needs" to be brought to the edge.  So, the worry that Faramir would sidetrack their journey and take them to Minas Tirith becomes an actual journey towards Minas Tirith.  There was the suspicion and worry, especially from Sam, that Faramir would be just like so many other men and try to take the Ring, so that part gets played up.  Yeah, the extended version of this one is better.  I haven't seen the theatrical release for years.  It would be interesting, if I'm still around in a few decades for a new version, that someone would try to make a more subtle Tolkien-esque version and finally trust in the story.  

 

I agree about Elijah Wood.  When I first saw FOTR, I almost couldn't quite sink myself into acceptance, but I love his performance, all told.  

post #57 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

ETA: Forgot to say that while I am looking forward to The Hobbit, I'm skeptical. I didn't like how dark the trailer was, and how overtly it seemed to be tying the film in to LOTR. The start of Fellowship had some delightfully cheery, hobbity, folksy moments, and I hoped for more of those in The Hobbit, not less. I hope he doesn't skew the tone of the story just to make it more LOTR-ish; you know? Or simply because he's Peter Jackson and likes being macabre.

 

 

Great points.  Delightfully hobbity is right, and that's why Fellowship was my favorite movie for a while. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

I felt kind of the same way about TTT...and I certainly wasn't writing a diary in Tengwar! I was mostly upset at the way he just wrecked Faramir's character. He'd done such a great job with Boromir that Faramir was a real disappointment. The extended version made up for some of that, though.

 

I remember years ago someone here brought that up in one of the first of many threads about LotR, maybe it was you.  Whomever it was was simply incensed.  orngbiggrin.gif  Anyway, I appreciated the point.  I had read the books a few times since my childhood, before the trilogy came out, and really hadn't picked up on that contrast between Boromir and Faramir, that Boromir tried to take the ring and Faramir didn't even let himself be in the position to be tempted.  What I had remembered about Faramir was that Gandalf said he was an academic when he was a kid. Which contrasts nicely with Boromir, not that Faramir wasn't a worthy military leader. It's a bummer that this little factoid about Faramir wasn't included in the movie and maybe even expanded. 

post #58 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

I still like Faramir's movie character.  The calm resoluteness of the book's characters can seem a bit dull onscreen.  And everything "needs" to be brought to the edge.  So, the worry that Faramir would sidetrack their journey and take them to Minas Tirith becomes an actual journey towards Minas Tirith.  There was the suspicion and worry, especially from Sam, that Faramir would be just like so many other men and try to take the Ring, so that part gets played up.  Yeah, the extended version of this one is better.  I haven't seen the theatrical release for years.  It would be interesting, if I'm still around in a few decades for a new version, that someone would try to make a more subtle Tolkien-esque version and finally trust in the story.

 

Faramir works out okay in the extended edition. When the back story between the two brothers is filled in, and more of Faramir's struggle to win over his father is included, the characters works a bit better. But, Jackson did a great job with the temptation and redemption of Boromir, and I expected better from his handling of Faramir. In the books, Faramir was the one who was able to resist the temptation to just take the ring and win. In the movie (especially the theatrical release), he came across as less noble, and even more willing to take the chance of grabbing the ring, than Boromir. It annoyed me - still does, even after all this time. When I watch the movies, I usually skip over most of the Faramir stuff, and I always skip the scene between Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgiliath. It's...stupid. There's no way the Nasgul wouldn't have had him, right there and then.

 

I agree about Elijah Wood.  When I first saw FOTR, I almost couldn't quite sink myself into acceptance, but I love his performance, all told.  

 

I don't really like Elijah Wood for the part, but I don't really like the part of Frodo in the movies much, anyway. Partly, I think he's just given too much screen time, when there really isn't anything going on. And, partly, he's just too feeble and frail, both in appearance and demeanour.

 

Oh - can I also say I hated the Oliphaunts?? There was nothing in the books to suggest they were anything but a normal sized elephant. Making them big enough to literally squash a horse under one foot was ridiculous. If something that size had really appeared during that battle, the people of Gondor would have long since been dead when Theoden's army appeared. That kind of stuff just annoys the crap out of me. That battle was more than dramatic enough. It really didn't need that kind of over the top Hollywood style idiocy.

 

I am looking forward to The Hobbit, but I'm worried, too. (Of course, there are also too many spiders in that one for me - I can't make myself watch any of the scenes with Shelob in LOTR, and I think I'm going to have trouble with that this time, too.)

post #59 of 118
Quote:
That battle was more than dramatic enough. It really didn't need that kind of over the top Hollywood style idiocy.

Legolas' shield-surfing and Oliphaunt-riding antics come to mind... very un-the spirit of Tolkien. :p

 

And it's not that I'm a diehard purist - I recognise that some things have to be elided, changed, dramatised etc for the screen, and I'm fine with the omission of Bombadil and the "darkening" of Bree and various other changes. It's just that I think the films work best as films when they're closest to Tolkien in spirit. Most of my favourite moments were very, very Tolkieny, either using his own words or just capturing the essence of his themes. Gandalf's dialogue with Pippin in Minas Tirith about death (the "white shores" line... makes me blubber every time)... Sam's reaction to seeing Elves for the first time (in the FOTR:EE, I think it was)... Gandalf appearing over the horizon at dawn during the battle of Helm's Deep... Frodo's monologue back in the Shire ("How do you pick up the threads of an old life?")... Pippin singing, small and alone, in the hall at Gondor... all those moments "got" it. And compared to them, cheesy rousing speeches and glow-in-the-dark ghosts and elf acrobatics just seem so much crasser.

 

I get the reasoning behind changing Faramir's character, and the EE does redeem him to a certain extent... but I still don't like him. Partly it's the casting - he has shifty eyes. :p And I didn't like his hair. But even when he renounced the Ring he still came across as weak and a bit snivelly - and in the book, while it's clear Denethor thought that, we readers weren't meant to! But I didn't really see much hidden nobility in him in the films, he was just a bit limp and annoying. And his hastily-tacked-on "love scenes" with Eowyn were downright creepy. He looked like he was stalking her.

 

Hmm, I really need to watch these movies again. It's been a few years - I wonder how my perspective's changed. And I bet DD would love to see the Shire scenes. I live quite near where they were filmed, and now every time we go for a drive in the country, I can't look at the hills and rocks and not think "hobbits". LOTR really did make me appreciate New Zealand's landscape!

 

ETA: Just in case anyone's interested, I've visited a number of the filming locations - Weathertop, the Path of the Dead (which I'd always thought was mostly CGI, but it really is that creepy in real life!), the bit where the hobbits hide from the Ringwraith in FOTR, Hobbiton, part of Lothlorien (not hugely recognisable; wrong time of year), the Pelennor Fields, Mount Doom (just as ugly IRL, bits of it anyway), bits of the Anduin... and Weta Workshops, which was awesome.

post #60 of 118

I guess I didn't mind the changes to Faramir's character any more than I minded the changes to Aragorn character.  I don't remember that his temptation was invented, just that he had already resolved the issue in his mind by the time he encountered Frodo and Sam.  And I can't verify if my memory is faulty or not because my books are packed.  

 

Yeah, some things were kind of goofy in the films.  But my girls love all the comic relief Gimli provides and even Legolas' scaling the Oliphaunt.  Much like my new appreciation of Garfield, I've come to appreciate those moments which I found a bit annoying at first.  The Legolas-Mumakil scene and his comment to Gimli about providing him a box were favorite moments, in their opinion.

 

Anyway, back to the Hobbit.  I finally can say this to someone who actually might care:  I love the revisualization of Thorin Oakenshield!  I always see him being the greybeard.  I was surprised and then thrilled that they went away from the standard image we have of the character.  I hope seeing him in the film won't be disappointing.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Books, Music, and Media
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Arts & Crafts › Books, Music, and Media › Hobbitses movies...IT'S HERE! WARNING: SPOILERS