The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

OK, here goes:

This is better than the first one because the best bits are a bit better, but the movie is still pretty disappointing. Every time the movie came to a stop the story came to a stop, the elves were camp at best and crap at worst, and even the expertly rendered dragon I felt, er, dragged on. What's the next one going to be, a three hour fight-the-dragon battle sequence? Maybe it's all a big fake out and the third movie will be 20 minutes long.

I did finally figure out what's bugging me about the FX, sets and make-up that didn't bother me as much with the LOTR films, which I still think were (previously) inexplicably superior in terms of those aspects, and that's that having going more artificial, Jackson seems to be almost inept with the artificial lighting. Everything is just so overwhelmingly bright, even when it's dark, that he might as well be shooting day for night. I found any sort of shading, perspective or depth of field utterly phony, not just because it is, but because the virtual cinematography literally depicted it in the worst possible light, so that every wall and puddle looked fake, and most CGI creations looked horrible against the real stuff, and vice versa. FWIW, I saw it in glorious 2D and a normal frame rate, but it looked as unnatural as a Muppet movie.

Also, did I mention that the elves suck? Barrel sequence was fun, at least. As someone else observed, Jackson's gift seems not be be action but stapstick comedy. Martin Freeman appeared to be modeling his mode and mannerisms after Lou Costello.

Last, can someone more familiar with the books help me out here: this story takes place decades before the Lord of the Rings story, yet at least in the movie, Gandolf and whomever he reports to - Cate Blanchett? - clearly know the bad guy is back. So ... what's going on in the ensuing years before Gandolf gets Frodo to go on his quest? Just hanging around, like someone stuck inside during a blizzard, occasionally peeking out the window and going "yup, still snowing?"

i think it's like a cold war with escalating border incidents and everybody secretly trying to find the one ring iirc

iirc (though this is all from the appendices at the end of Lord of the Rings, been a while since I've read it) Gandalf and the White Council fuck off the Necromancer (Sauron in disguise) from his fortress in Mirkwood - note that Sauron does not intentionally reveal himself, as per the film, but that the White Council successfully drive him out and suss for themselves that this is actually Sauron. Who then disappears for a while only to re-emerge and openly declare himself in Mordor, at which point there's not a fat lot they can do about it.

Gandalf had suspected for ages prior to this that the Necromancer was Sauron but Christopher Lee was having none of it. I think.

I would keep a close eye on any place called Mordor.

eye see what you did there

When Sauron made his appearance, the first thing that came to mind was:

http://media.giphy.com/media/2QUerfsZ9dQBO/giphy.gif

There's a vision.

Just came back from a matinee showing myself. As I suspected I enjoyed it more second time around just because I wasn't feeling my neck snapping keeping track of the changes from the book -- also because I knew when to take a bathroom break (namely, Kili and Tauriel being all goo-goo at each other in the prison). Spent more time just enjoying the design and all. But Thorin's last minute plan to kill Smaug still needs at least a LINE or two of setup.

So ... what's going on in the ensuing years before Gandolf gets Frodo to go on his quest? Just hanging around, like someone stuck inside during a blizzard, occasionally peeking out the window and going "yup, still snowing?"

The thing is, Sauron (as well as Gandalf and the other Wizards) are demigods who are incredibly hard to kill, but they can be defeated in a way that diminishes their power for a looong time. This has happened to Sauron before, and presumably in the third Hobbit movie they will defeat him again in a way that makes them think he won't be able to come back for a while, which is why they're still surprised that he makes such a forceful comeback in LotR, only a few decades later. Without the One Ring it's impossible to fully defeat Sauron (and in the book at least it's implied that Sauron won't totally die even after the Ring is destroyed, but he becomes so insignificant he can't pose any threat ever again), and in the Hobbit they still think the Ring is lost, so all they can do is hope he won't come back for a while. After his biggest defeat, the one seen in the prologue of the first LotR movie, he was powerless for several hundred years (the Necromancer affair was the first time he showed up on the radar after that), so it's kinda understandable Gandalf and other the good guys don't spend all of their time on the lookout for him, but try to enjoy the times of peace.

So do you think they're going to give us that big battle, as teased in the first LotR movie? Because obviously it can't be 3 hours of dragon battle. Well, I mean, I guess it could...

the battle of five armies is going to eat most of the time. Unfortunately.

So do you think they're going to give us that big battle, as teased in the first LotR movie? Because obviously it can't be 3 hours of dragon battle. Well, I mean, I guess it could...

There's gonna be a big battle, but it's not the one in the beginning of the first LotR movie; like I said, that battle happened centuries before the events of The Hobbit. Plus the exact details of the LotR prologue battle are in another book (The Silmarillion), one the movie-makers don't have the rights to (for whatever reason they only have the rights to LotR and The Hobbit), so they can't do a film version of it even if they wanted to.

Should I worry about spoiling the third movie by talking about what happens in the book? SPOILERS AHEAD!!

If you ask me both the dragon and the battle are less interesting than the complicated fallout which happens after the dragon dies and before the battle starts. I'm hoping that they won't rush through that. Some people seem amused that it's some random Lakedude who kills the dragon, but that was smart thinking on Tolkien's part. It's to allow Laketown to make a claim on the treasure, so that the dragon can turn out to be a less significant threat than the competing claims/avarice of the friendly factions.

:(

One of the great things about The Hobbit (book) was that it skipped the endless war-text of LotR, "he knew no more" and then it's all over, was hoping Jackson might do the same

Fat fucking chance of that.

were you really? after everything? the man is an oaf.

legolas seemed like a coked-up asshole in this. what was up with his eyes?

Yeah, he's all puffy.

So movie three is going to be all "Treasure of the Middle Earth Madre?"

After his biggest defeat, the one seen in the prologue of the first LotR movie, he was powerless for several hundred years (the Necromancer affair was the first time he showed up on the radar after that)

FWIW, in both Tolkien and via a statement by Elrond in the first LOTR film, it's established that the distance between said biggest defeat and the present was over three thousand years. Elrond's reference to a 'watchful peace' in the first Hobbit movie refers to a similar phrase in Tolkien where post-Angmar -- over 2000 years later -- Sauron establishes, then retreats from Dol Guldur after an initial incursion by Gandalf, who assumes it's another one of the Nazgul. After some centuries Sauron then returns, Gandalf revisits some time after that, finds Thrain about to die, gets the map and key, and informs the White Council Sauron is there. Everything eventually builds up to an assault on Dol Guldur but Sauron has already made his plans and departs, etc. So basically Jackson's either left a lot out or redone a lot of backstory.

English, please.

Also per Tuomas's question the reason why the rights are only for Hobbit and LOTR is simple -- Saul Zaentz got them in the late sixties from Tolkien directly when those were the only two books to hand, and Christopher Tolkien has refused to let any further rights go. That said I'm not sure what the estate will do after he passes.

English, please.

Dude with staff does a thing against dude with eye.

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

He turns his head away cos that's the direction you can most clearly see the ocean from the kitchen of his new seaside property.

No doubt the number of people that have read (or probably re-read, or re-re-re-read) the books because of these movies vs. the number of people who never would have anyways is probably in JRR's favor. Also every new movie that comes out you get to say "You crooks bastardized this wonderful thing!" thereby enhancing the brand of the books and the movies at the same time.

i'm sure christopher's doing fine, but the tolkien estate doesn't get any money from any of these movies.

they do now. After some lengthy lawsuits

Finally saw this -- I agree with Tuomas upthread about the greys and browns, Laketown was dreary as all getout, got kinda bored with that whole thing tbh.

Smaug was beautiful. Loved the way his belly would glow like a furnace right before he'd breath fire, he moved so gracefully it was a real thrill to watch him.

The thing the Hobbit movies really miss though is the inner monologue of Bilbo...that's what makes the story on paper, it's as much about what happens externally as it is the constant doubt and shifting within Bilbo, even as he's discovering his courage. But I know there's not really a good way to capture that on film, unless you have like constant narration or something bollocks like that. But it does turn the movies into a bit of a different kettle of fish all the same

Or barrel of fish, hee hee :)

oh and I was weirded out by Legolas' eyes too and I did some googling

apparently the contacts that Ornaldo Bloomps had to wear in the 3 movies irritated the hell out of his eyes and he hated wearing them, so for the Hobbit they digitally colored them in post-production. And I guess there's something about how they had to make the blue more vivid so that it would read, and that is what made it look so wacky

they kinda looked like weird dead Polar Express eyes to me, v creepy.

The thing the Hobbit movies really miss though is the inner monologue of Bilbo...that's what makes the story on paper, it's as much about what happens externally as it is the constant doubt and shifting within Bilbo, even as he's discovering his courage. But I know there's not really a good way to capture that on film...

of course there is but it involves not making dwarves in barrels and rube goldberg dragon traps the center of the NONSTOP THRILL RIDE

lol otm

I felt well disposed towards the first one, but the second, while technically a better film probably, made me realise how bollocks the whole endeavor is.

maybe bilbo will be in the next one

i don't remember anything that happened in the first one

they did the dishes

FUCKING POD RACING aka jackson goes full-on lucas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgNNb8bm_b8

Methinks Game of Thrones increasingly makes this look like child's play, because, well ...

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:36 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That title is gonna be a let-down for anyone expecting an actual five-army free-for-all.

this whole trilogy is still the worst, most ridiculous thing in cinema and jackson should've just left it to ratner so no one would've ever gotten any ideas about its usefulness as anything other than a clear cash grab

Still planning on angrily watching the third one at Cinerama, just like the first two, can't really account for it.

it's amazing at how peter jackson is dutifully attempting to recreate the LOTR formula and hitting a lot of the same notes (cheerful hobbit at the center, gandalf, portentous hints of future doom, etc) but it feels stretched so thin and false and there's no richness to the story or the setting, it feels strictly video game. i mean the LOTR films had the feel of a lived-in decaying world, this has zero of that sense despite attempts at recreating it. also i'm getting tired of those shots he uses every five minutes now (only every forty minutes in the LOTR films): a group of bros scampering across a plains or a bridge or a marsh or a rocky outcropping or a mountain while a camera swoops above and past them or in the opposite direction.

anyway the main point is they're just wrong in so many ways but i can't exactly hate them, PJ clearly loves the material. too much, which is why he's making three films instead of one super-long one.

Funny how the progression of the entire LOTR related movies and culture parallel so well with Star Wars.

xpost -- yeah coming in with these Hobbit films with the view that it's only a ridiculous indulgence is the way to go. It didn't fully hit me until I saw the first one, even if I already had bad vibes when they went from two to three films, but after that first viewing, it was clear that's how to treat them.

martin freeman is very good i think. and i think the gollum stuff in the first film was solid.

i forgot the worst thing in the trilogy, though, which is basically creating an even worse character than that orc from the final battle in ROTK and making him the central (non-ethereal smoke) villain of the whole story.

pretty sure he's making three films full of tiresome rube goldberg set pieces and oh boy big battle scenes because $$$

martin freeman is very good i think...

not enough information. was he even in the second one?

The fact that Evangeline Lily is in this is something I find especially irksome, I don't know why.

PJ clearly loves the material. too much, which is why he's making three films instead of one super-long one.

i wish i still had your childlike naivete

I think he clearly loves absurd runtimes as well as $$$$

spoiler alert

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5253/18/original/640.jpg