The Trailer is here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4
I can't wait - especially for Galadriel's action in Dol Guldur.
G.
Nice, looks good!
Saw this a few weeks ago. For some reason it just doesn't get me as excited anymore. :(
Dwarven ram cavalry? :hmm:
It's a change, but I think it works!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2014, 08:14:23 PM
Dwarven ram cavalry? :hmm:
It's a change, but I think it works!
Tainted. :rolleyes:
:P
After the mediocre film that the first was, the cringe inducing second one, I'm just hoping this one doesn't continue the downward spiral that Jackson has been in since seemingly Fellowship. I really wish he'd stuck more to the book and not invented all kinds of inane and stupid shit to pad the films. I could easily have seen half the second Hobbit flick axed and been made into a much better movie for it.
Only Martin excites me these days, and only in the written word.
Well, David Weber is cool too, with the Honorverse and the Safehold series.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 29, 2014, 01:10:15 PM
After the mediocre film that the first was, the cringe inducing second one, I'm just hoping this one doesn't continue the downward spiral that Jackson has been in since seemingly Fellowship. I really wish he'd stuck more to the book and not invented all kinds of inane and stupid shit to pad the films. I could easily have seen half the second Hobbit flick axed and been made into a much better movie for it.
Lots of juicy tidbits are mingled with the inane in those Hobbit flicks. Think of the White Council scene - very nicely played. I don't think neither installments deserve the epithet 'mediocre'.
What do you object to specifically?
G.
I didn't find either to be cringe inducing, but they were tiring. The truth is we could do the whole story in one film and all the rest felt like padding.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 29, 2014, 01:10:15 PM
After the mediocre film that the first was, the cringe inducing second one, I'm just hoping this one doesn't continue the downward spiral that Jackson has been in since seemingly Fellowship. I really wish he'd stuck more to the book and not invented all kinds of inane and stupid shit to pad the films. I could easily have seen half the second Hobbit flick axed and been made into a much better movie for it.
Yes.
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2014, 07:41:11 PM
Lots of juicy tidbits are mingled with the inane in those Hobbit flicks. Think of the White Council scene - very nicely played. I don't think neither installments deserve the epithet 'mediocre'.
What do you object to specifically?
G.
In the second film? The Beorn scene shot by too fast in my opinion. I wasn't a huge fan of Beorn's appearance. The changes to the spider fight. The changes to the Mirkwood scenes. The barrel escape. The wounding of Kili. The possible love interest between Kili and the elf. The splitting of the company. The awful Smaug chase scene. The orc invasion of Laketown. That's off of the top of my head for the second movie. I also am not a big fan of the appearance of a lot of the dwarves. I have enjoyed the White Council scenes and elements that were added from the appendices.
I thought the second was better than the first (no big praise here), but I fully agree it would have been much better to cut out all the stupid shit and make one single, solid film. Three hours - I don't know if they are that long, but they did *feel* so - of noise, stupid jokes and silly padded out action scenes for each movie is really tiresome.
I will still go to this one, my brother is a huge fan and it's one of those fraternal bonding things one's got to do from time to time.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 29, 2014, 09:10:35 PM
In the second film? The Beorn scene shot by too fast in my opinion. I wasn't a huge fan of Beorn's appearance. The changes to the spider fight. The changes to the Mirkwood scenes. The barrel escape. The wounding of Kili. The possible love interest between Kili and the elf. The splitting of the company. The awful Smaug chase scene. The orc invasion of Laketown. That's off of the top of my head for the second movie. I also am not a big fan of the appearance of a lot of the dwarves. I have enjoyed the White Council scenes and elements that were added from the appendices.
I found Beorn to be one of the best portrayed character myself - stylized yet realistic. Gandlaf calls him a skinchanger (can't recall if that was in the book or not) so he had to look different from a normal human. The whole of Mirkwood could have been skipped in my opinion - the only good thing about it - because it was played - was Bilbo's horror when he realized the power the ring begins to have over him. I agree entirely on the Laketown scenes - useless filler; likewise regarding the aborted love interest. But Smaug? How can anyone ever have enough of Cumberbatch' Smaug? Alright the whole sequence didn't make much sense but still.
Finally about dwarves... I hate the fact that Jackson keep using them as comic relief. If you've seen the extended edition of the 2nd movie you'll understand - the diner scene - the fountain bath scene... Now that was cringe worthy! And from what I saw in the trailer I fear we'll have to swallow another Jackson-esque innovation with the dwarven goat cavalry... When everyone knows dwarves are the best heavy infantry in Middle Earth.
Still, overall I find Jackson's efforts to give shape to M-E were more positive than negative. Yet while In understand that the text must be adapted to the screen, I wish he'd have treated the source material with more gravitas.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2014, 06:27:09 AM
Yet while In understand that the text must be adapted to the screen, I wish he'd have treated the source material with more gravitas.
Hell, I think in some instances in the LOTR trilogy, he treated it with too much gravitas.
But I can't say anything about the Hobbit series, haven't watched any of it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2014, 06:51:26 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2014, 06:27:09 AM
Yet while In understand that the text must be adapted to the screen, I wish he'd have treated the source material with more gravitas.
Hell, I think in some instances in the LOTR trilogy, he treated it with too much gravitas.
But I can't say anything about the Hobbit series, haven't watched any of it.
If anything the gravitas works even worse in The Hobbit, imho. Jackson takes a children adventure book - that's what The Hobbit is - and fills it with navel gazing and forced epicness, to make it more like the first LOTR films.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2014, 06:51:26 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2014, 06:27:09 AM
Yet while In understand that the text must be adapted to the screen, I wish he'd have treated the source material with more gravitas.
Hell, I think in some instances in the LOTR trilogy, he treated it with too much gravitas.
That is true, but the silly stuff he added in made the forced gravitas even worse by comparison. The forced gravitas of the Charge of the Rhohirrim, and the subsequent fighting, gets ruined by the invincible ghost-dudes, whose arrival makes it clear that the Rohirrim should have just stayed home; the Orc army would still would have been a pushover had they never arrived and supposedly sacrificed so much.
Let's not even get to the fact that Jackson completely missed the point of what Aragorn was doing in the third book.
QuoteBut I can't say anything about the Hobbit series, haven't watched any of it.
Ditto. I suppose that I will get the movies on Blu Ray once they get cheap enough, but I'm really not all that interested in Jackson's interpretations of the books, other than to note that Jackson has probably prevented any really good adaptations from ever appearing.
Quote from: celedhring on August 30, 2014, 08:34:04 AM
If anything the gravitas works even worse in The Hobbit, imho. Jackson takes a children adventure book - that's what The Hobbit is - and fills it with navel gazing and forced epicness, to make it more like the first LOTR films.
Jackson's idea to make the story more adult isn't a bad one, but he isn't the guy to do it.
Quote from: grumbler on August 30, 2014, 09:20:24 AM
Ditto. I suppose that I will get the movies on Blu Ray once they get cheap enough, but I'm really not all that interested in Jackson's interpretations of the books, other than to note that Jackson has probably prevented any really good adaptations from ever appearing.
Still far better than I ever dreamed possible. I always presumed that a good adaption was not possible. Instead we got a decent one. I can live with that. I am enjoying the Hobbit trilogy well enough.
I thought it was a horrendous idea to make it a trilogy in the first place. Watched bits and pieces of the first one and wasn't impressed. Don't plan on making any effort with the second or third.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2014, 06:33:31 PM
I thought it was a horrendous idea to make it a trilogy in the first place. Watched bits and pieces of the first one and wasn't impressed. Don't plan on making any effort with the second or third.
It is kind of silly. Granted the book was kind of silly so I don't mind that much. The action scenes are LOL-worthy which I find...out of place.
There's probably a good Hobbit flick in there if you took all 3 movies and got rid of the CGI filler.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2014, 07:43:42 PM
I didn't find either to be cringe inducing, but they were tiring. The truth is we could do the whole story in one film and all the rest felt like padding.
Eh... Tolkien really glosses over a lot of things that qould eat up a lot of time on film. I think two films was needed, three was too much however.
Quote from: grumbler on August 30, 2014, 09:20:24 AM
The forced gravitas of the Charge of the Rhohirrim, and the subsequent fighting, gets ruined by the invincible ghost-dudes, whose arrival makes it clear that the Rohirrim should have just stayed home; the Orc army would still would have been a pushover had they never arrived and supposedly sacrificed so much.
But the poetry of the charge was so poetic in its visual poetry. :cry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2014, 08:56:10 PM
But the poetry of the charge was so poetic in its visual poetry. :cry:
The Charge of the Rohirrim was one of the best action sequence filmed IMO - but grumbler is right - the emotional weight of it gets completely diffused with the advent of the Green Goo - killing everything in sight. Well one cannot prevent Jackson from being Jackson I suppose.
Still, and despite all this, there are moments where the film reaches heights the books don't. I've already mentioned the White Council scene, which I know for a fact grumbler *will* appreciate once he gets his head out of his ass about it and actually watches the thing; there's also the scene between Elrond & Bilbo (extended edition) - or the scene where Gandalf goes investigate the High Fells. That one may not be 'kosher' per se but fits the general narrative so well.
In any case, I've already decided that trilogy was more positive than negative.
G.
I just watched the battle for Minis Tirith as a matter of fact, and the thought struck me--when the oliphants start charging, why the hell don't they just retreat?
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2014, 10:09:36 PM
In any case, I've already decided that trilogy was more positive than negative.
Yep. It was better than I thought a movie version could ever be and introduced a whole new generation of fans to the genre and the trilogy.
I liked it when it first game out...but it's hard for me to look at it nowadays as anything other than way over-the-top Hollywood CGI masturbation.
But then my curmudgeonly self would say that about most blockbuster films today and in the last several years. :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2014, 06:23:31 PM
I am enjoying the Hobbit trilogy well enough.
It may just be I have lower expectations now than 10 years ago, but I'm actually enjoying them more than LOTR.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2014, 10:45:55 PM
I just watched the battle for Minis Tirith as a matter of fact, and the thought struck me--when the oliphants start charging, why the hell don't they just retreat?
Or just, you know, use the mobility of cavalry to go around them? Yeah, that scene made a lot more sense in the book when the Easterlings were cavalry, not oliphants. The fight against the oliphants produced a lot of good visual moments, though, so I write that off as a difference between film and books, rather than as pure Jacksonism.
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2014, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2014, 10:45:55 PM
I just watched the battle for Minis Tirith as a matter of fact, and the thought struck me--when the oliphants start charging, why the hell don't they just retreat?
Or just, you know, use the mobility of cavalry to go around them?
There are recordings of horses being scared of elephants in ancient warfare, so that part sorta makes sense. I don't remember if that's shown in the movie though, and I'm not going to check.