• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Hobbit lives up to expectations

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
Just one?

Well, to prove age has nothing to do with why I see Blade Runner's faults, I'll go with something older: Alfred Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS from 1946. Absolutely flawless film-making with a script sharp enough to cut diamonds.

But if you're looking for something more modern, I'll go with 2011's TAKE SHELTER. What a masterpiece that is.

Or you can look left at my avatar. ;)

Haven't seen Take Shelter. Let's hope it does better on DVD sales than it did in theaters. Almost five million to make and not quite four in total worldwide box office? Ouch.

As far as any of Hitchcock's films, there are some I like, some I hate and some I'm indifferent to. For me, Notorious falls into the "meh" category. It's all a matter of opinion, right?
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.

The students complained endlessly that the film was "too slow," and called it "the most boring movie ever made."

These students, who born in the mid-90's, were so used to fast paced films and television shows that the deliberate pace of an 80's sci-fi classic was actually painful to watch.

Maybe this is why so many movies seem to neglect story and character in favor of a fast pace and lots of CGI - the filmmakers believe it is what you have to do to hold the attention of a modern audience. Often I'll watch a film and think it would have been decent if they'd done more in the way of story and character development, but as it was on-screen it was a bit to thin for my liking.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Blade Runner? I love that movie so much I bought the Director's Cut.

I really like the Director's Cut as well. I find the idea that Deckard might be a replicant interesting. I never felt like he was in the written story, though the title could be interpreted that way.
 

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
I really like the Director's Cut as well. I find the idea that Deckard might be a replicant interesting. I never felt like he was in the written story, though the title could be interpreted that way.

Excellent point. That's one of my favorite stories by PKD.
 

Sheriff Woody

Troubadour
Haven't seen Take Shelter. Let's hope it does better on DVD sales than it did in theaters. Almost five million to make and not quite four in total worldwide box office? Ouch.

It was only on 3 (three) screens its opening weekend.

It's not a Hollywood film, so it's lucky it got as much theater time as it did.

It's all a matter of opinion, right?

To a point. Opinion is how much you enjoy something, but the work of the artist is not up to anybody other than the artist. They make the stories great (or not great). All we get to do is like it or not.
 

saellys

Inkling
When you see a thread full of people who enjoyed a movie, and you jump in to tell us how wrong we are for liking it, labeling it as "bad storytelling," it comes across as dismissive of our opinions. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively a bad film.

Please point out where I said anything like this. My post is, by definition, my opinion, and every post in this thread includes a subjective opinion. I thought that was why it exists, and didn't expect to be labeled a cynic or dismissive for submitting my own opinion. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my signature?
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Aren't we supposed to be Discussing The Hobbit? Not Blade runner or any other movie.

Yes, topics on this forum tend to grow organically. There is nothing wrong with that. Considering the site admin, who also started this thread, raised the Blade Runner example, I'd say we are on topic. We have moderators who can jump in if things get too far afield.
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
I thought that was why it exists, and didn't expect to be labeled a cynic or dismissive for submitting my own opinion. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my signature?

You can submit your own opinion in a way that is less harsh and more respectful of those already engaged in the conversation. Telling a group of storytellers that something that they admire "is a bloated mess," and "not good storytelling" comes across as dismissive.

Going a step further and asking questions that begin with "So how do you explain the fact that..." comes across as confrontational or argumentative.

I don't know if that was your intention, as it's easy to misinterpret someone's meaning when all that we have to go on is text. Perhaps you are a friendly, helpful person who meant no offense, and this was a misunderstanding?
 

saellys

Inkling
Going a step further and asking questions that begin with "So how do you explain the fact that..." comes across as confrontational or argumentative.

I don't know if that was your intention, as it's easy to misinterpret someone's meaning when all that we have to go on is text. Perhaps you are genuinely a friendly, helpful person, and this was a misunderstanding?

I try to take text at face value for just that reason. I compose posts with the hope that others will, too, because I'm not interested in mitigating my speech when it comes to my own opinions on things like pop culture. I've enjoyed some pretty maligned movies in my time, and when someone said, "This movie sucked because A, B, and C," I didn't take it as a personal affront, because it wasn't.

I'm still very interested in hearing how a twelve hour audiobook can't possibly be adapted to a three hour movie without cutting a lot, but it can be adapted to a nine hour trilogy with no omissions and with content added to the adaptation.
 

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
It was only on 3 (three) screens its opening weekend.

It's not a Hollywood film, so it's lucky it got as much theater time as it did.



To a point. Opinion is how much you enjoy something, but the work of the artist is not up to anybody other than the artist. They make the stories great (or not great). All we get to do is like it or not.

I agree with you on both points here.
 

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
Love it or hate it, The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey has made more Tolkien fans happy than not.
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
I'm still very interested in hearing how a twelve hour audiobook can't possibly be adapted to a three hour movie without cutting a lot, but it can be adapted to a nine hour trilogy with no omissions and with content added to the adaptation.

This comes across as snarky, sarcastic and/or argumentative. Is that what you intend?
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
Only if your statement earlier in this thread that I was referencing was intended to be snarky, sarcastic, and/or argumentative.

Snide comments and argumentative behavior are not welcome at Mythic Scribes.

Please see our forum guidelines:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-announcements/9-forum-guidelines.html

Pay special attention to the guiding principle:

The guiding principle is to treat others with respect and dignity, and to foster a positive, welcoming and family-friendly community.

If you are willing to accept this, you are welcome to return. Otherwise, this is not the right forum for you. Best of luck to you.
 

saellys

Inkling
Perhaps a film like this is not for the cynics out there.

I found myself thinking at several points during the movie that Jackson's writing and directorial style had not aged well. Or at least, the cultural sensibilities of the Oughts were far afield from the cultural sensibilities of... whatever we're calling this decade. The overwhelming success of Game of Thrones as a television series lends some credence to the cynicism angle, but I also felt Jackson was ramping up the gore and severed heads, perhaps in an attempt to satisfy that audience.

I ended up with the impression that he'd set out to make a lighthearted kid's movie (by comparison to Lord of the Rings, anyway), and then he decided to make it epic, and then he decided to make it absurdly gory, too. All I know is that all those majestic, heroic shots that I found so fresh and exciting in LotR made me cringe or chortle in The Hobbit.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
saellys:

Did you feel any of that had to do with the higher framerate and how the film appeared, or would it have made you feel the same even if filmed with the same frames per second as Lord of the Rings?
 

saellys

Inkling
I actually took pains to see a non-HFR projection after reading some early reviews. The CG looked as seamless in the version I saw as it did in Lord of the Rings, and no one got sick in my theater. ;)

Now, that being said, when I first heard Jackson was filming The Hobbit in 3D and saw the first trailer, I thought it would ruin the whole thing. The only 3D film I'd seen at the time was Avengers, and it looked positively awful, which I later found out was due to the fact that it was filmed in 2D and then converted. After a while I came around to the idea that a movie actually filmed in 3D could look pretty sweet; my husband reported that Prometheus was gorgeous, and that was a good sign. Then I remembered Lord of the Rings was filmed for IMAX, which was a pretty big gimmick at the time. So I shelled out to see The Hobbit in 3D and was pleasantly surprised at Jackson's fairly understated use of the technology. He sold me on the format.

Oh, I just realized that not once in this thread did I mention how perfectly splendid Martin Freeman was. I've been waiting for him to play Bilbo ever since I saw The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I'm so glad Jackson gave him a shot.
 

Phietadix

Auror
They seemed to do pretty good on following the book, Alot better than most other movies I've seen that are based on books. There are some changes, but nothing too major.
 
Top