__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
And that third is underwhelming, misdirected, and a tad contrived.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Why? Just because a film has problems (that can and should be discussed) doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining. Just look at Dark Knight Rises.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Well, this is where you and I differ. I don't think the film has any significant problems that really needs much discussion. They've changed and shifted a few things around. That's it. I don't have any problems with that, and it certainly didn't keep me from enjoying the experience.
You've already agreed with Rover that the story was "****ed up" and added that the film is "****ed up", "in a nutshell"
If the things you have taken issue with are truly bothersome to the point of annoyance, then why subjugate yourself to it again?
This is the problem with a purely text-based conversation; it can be very hard to impart tone and inflection without flat-out parenthesizing your emotion. And I refuse to use emoticons.
I'm not annoyed by the films. I'm underwhelmed by them. Ironic considering the film tries so hard to be overwhelming(ly epic) winds up being the opposite. Which is the problem--the story isn't epic. They're staying pretty true to the book in many respects, but that may be backfiring against them. They're trying to create epic films out of a non-epic novel, while simultaneously straying little from the novel. It's what I mean when I say it all feels very misguided, or misdirected. They're trying to be BIG! and grand and dark and dynamic... but stay simple and cute and funny and charming at the same time. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too. The Rings trilogy stayed largely consistent, at least within each movie. We're only one movie in to the Hobbit and it feels disjointed and all over the emotional map.
And no, don't misallocate our words... we've said neither that the story nor the film are "f*cked up", we said they (the filmmakers) f*cked up.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Jan 14th, 2013 at 03:22 AM
No, I do think that the film/story is "****ed up," because they've fundamentally altered aspects of the mythology on which the adaptation is based. I'm still going to see the other films, but, at this point, it's mostly just to see how (and/or if) they address such issues.
I can't be bothered reading the last 15 pages of this thread but I did finally see The Hobbit the other night.
Jackson really did have an awkward pacing to this movie, slow & dramatic when it came to close-ups & long dialogues (as expected) then a very jagged or badly edited pace when it came to the action scenes. It really did feel that some scenes were missing.
The action was good but predictable, although I did get a bit weary when one escape or victory simply led straight into another dilemma.
Gandalf's constant disappearances then last minute saves really felt done to death.
I know this is a prequel but once again those dam eagles always coming at the last minute to save the day. I mean once again, it's a journey, a quest...why not use the eagles in the first place TO FLY to the mountain rather than a dangerous long journey on foot..?
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
In the book the eagle lord explained that he didn't want to risk the lives of his flight (or whatever an army of eagles would be called) by crossing over Mirkwood Forest because there were human settlements there with woodsmen who distrusted eagles for eating their livestock and who possessed "bows of yew" that could shoot the eagles out of the sky, especially if they were slowed down by having to carry dwarves and a hobbit. And even if that weren't a problem, Tolkien would be the first to say that eagles aren't a taxi service--they're more like a special forces extraction unit who only work based on calling in favors or if they have a vested interest, for instance they intervened in the Battle of Five Armies because they saw they had a one time chance to wipe out their greatest enemy in one stroke.
The ending of ROTK is harder to figure out, but I suppose Gandalf still had one favor left to call.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Last edited by Omega Vision on Apr 17th, 2013 at 11:43 PM
KMC Community Forums
Jan 13th, 2013 01:17 AM
