Quote:
|
I thought some parts of the film could have been done really well, such as the scene with Beorn (which was so charming in the book) and the famous escape from the Elvenking's Halls. For me, those were two scenes that could have made the movie. Overall, though, I found the film hastily-done and just plain tacky. It was as if PJ was trying to capture the epic scale of LotR in a story as short as TH, with the result of crowded action, little substance, and ill-timed laughs from the audience.
The absolute worst was all the focus on Kili and Tauriel. It was positively cringe-worthy, especially with Legolas acting as if he were jealous of the two. I thought I was watching a heavily funded fan-fiction whose script was written by a hormonal fifteen-year-old. "He is tall for a Dwarf", "Do you think she could have loved me?", "Enter Sindarin (or Quenya? Pardon my ignorance) babbling here". *Throws up*. I think Thranduil was kind of cheesy with the slow speech and zoned-out voice, but overall I liked his image. I actually liked *yes, I liked *Legolas (minus his weird thing for Tauriel). I remember him being quite a deadpan snarker in the LotR books ("Then dig a hole in the ground"), so to me he was quite funny. It was delightful seeing that dry sarcasm (I'd have liked more of his wit, though) in the movie. On Tauriel herself. I shouldn't start, else I might never stop. Suffice to say she made me facepalm. Several times. Basically, I went to the cinema expecting little, and even that was not fulfilled. The only point I felt remotely charmed like I did with the book was when Bilbo stuck his head out of the trees, saw the butterflies, and laughed. I know a lot of people liked and even loved the film, but I don't think I need to feel sorry for disliking it. I'm under no obligation to heap praise on PJ. :o |
Thanks to Aganzir review. I was leaning towards not wasting time on Hobbit Ii and III after seeing the awful Hobbit I. PJ continues his devolution.
I actually gave FotR, upon reflection, an A- (despite some silly and unnecessary changes/omissions), TTT a C+, RotK a C-, Hobbit Part I an F. Hobbit actually wasn't awful until up until the trolls, then PJ got sillier and sillier. Instead of a believable book tale of Gandalf turning lights out, slaying the Great Goblin, and being a reguard with Thorin for the escape you had the absurd Goblin sizes, rediculously overblown Goblintown, impossible escapes of Thorin and Co.... No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done. (From Wikipedia): Quote:
|
I finally forced myself to sit through it a few days ago.
I liked Stephen Fry as the master of Laketown. That's about the only positive thing I can think of to say about it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I finally went and saw this with my roommate. I will say I liked it much better than the first movie overall, but that doesn't say much.
Pros: -It was a bit cheesy, but I actually liked the scene between Thorin and Thrainduil. -Beorn for the few minutes he was in the movie -I liked Luke Evans as Bard the Bowman, but he did look a bit like Orlando Bloom's character Will Turner from Pirates of the Caribbean -Stephen Fry is generally fantastic Cons: -Beorn only got a few minutes -Kili/Tauriel what the heck? I feel like it cheapens the friendship Legolas and Gimli have -What did PJ do to Bard's character? -Dol Guldur, enough said -Whatever was going on with the forge at the end. I'm not really sure what Thorin and Co hoped to accomplish -A handful of dwarves are left in Laketown? Since Orlando Bloom is now closer to 40 than to 20 it does make Legolas look like he has the Benjamin Button disease and I thought about that almost the entire movie. So I pretty much came away from the movie believing elves must age backwards. |
I went to see The Dissipation of Smaug this evening. As I have staunchly refused to give Peter Jackson any more of my money, I fortunately went free, as my daughter received a theater gift card from one of her aunts for Christmas.
I will perhaps write a longer critique later, but for now I will only say that the movie was absolutely the most dreadful melange of poorly penned subplots and derivative nonsense that I have ever seen. This in no way is The Hobbit; this, my dears, is fan-fiction gone amok, and Peter Jackson -- with his enormous, pendulously hanging goiter of an ego -- has completely lost his flippin' mind. As opposed to Jackson's previous forays in destroying and reassembling Middle-earth a CGI brick at a time, I didn't even enjoy the cinematography this time around. Everything looked fake and everything was completely over-the-top. |
Quote:
|
As this movie was a Peter Jackson film, with a book he was stretching into three films, I went in with low expectations and therefore was able to enjoy it. The only thing that really irked me was the scene with the spiders.
Bilbo was supposed to save them there, that was his big scene when HE felt that he earned his way into the company, and that was taken from him. That really irritated me, because the whole first movie revolved around getting the dwarves to accept him, so they should have left the scene where he accepted himself. Also, the RAMPANT CGI. There were scenes where NOT A SINGLE THING WAS REAL. (Okay, maybe this was the big turn-off for me.) And really, what they did with Azog and Bolg was terrible. The gold scene was a little ridiculous, but I'm able to excuse that when I picture Benedict Cumberbatch twirling in a motion-capture suit, so... |
Quote:
Quote:
In addition, the movie completely ignored BASIC TOLKIEN: DRAGONS 101. What does one never do with a dragon? Never maintain eye contact! Bilbo stupidly kept taking his ring on and off and revealed himself to the dragon. What a stultifying idiotic turn. Let's not even mention the entire dialogue between Smaug and Bilbo was lost in tobogganing around on mile high piles of coin (which were actually the billions of skulls left over from the City of the Dead scene in Return of the King painted gold), and then a half an hour worth of more insipid chase scenes around Erebor culminating in pouring molten gold (enough to fill the Nile from the Sudan up to the Suez Canal) on a dragon with a furnace for a belly. Dumb. Just plain dumb. What a waste. |
I have a whole bunch of reasons why I hated DOS, but everyone else pretty much summed up my thoughts so I'll just say something else I haven't seen-
While the LOTR movie trilogy wasn't perfect, by far, I felt it captured a more 'real' feel to it. The antagonistic characters felt like they were an actual threat and not just movie magic, and I personally think its because of the practical effects used in the original trilogy vs The Hobbit soon to be Trilogy. The monsters seem so much more.. heavy and actually there. It makes the combat feel harrowing, because its real people interacting with one another instead of painted over actors with Cgi. The Hobbit's choreography may seem more flashy, but to me, its fluffy garbage. Adversaries are dispatched with such ease that the real weight of it is lost, it feels like a hack and slash videogame cutscene. The heroes never look to be in any danger and that kills it for me. Battle should be heavy and gruesome and terrible, not whimsical and fun! And just a minor gripe, if I'm remembering correctly- Do all the other river-guarding elves just straight up die in Bolg's attack during the barrel scene? It seems really crap to me to have these ancient warriors die in like 2 seconds of screentime, and I would have liked to see an interpretation of what soldiers would have done in that situation. Would they have grouped together and tried to form a wall? A wedge? Retreated? I dunno about you others, but ancient battle tactics really tickle my fancy and it upsets me that PJ, a majority of the time, seems to think that amounts to running around solo and swinging wildly. Also, if Tauriel is Captain of the Guard you'd think she'd have a lot more compassion for ElfGuard1 and ElfGuard2 who she maybe has known for a few hundred years and definitely has known longer than Hunk!Dwarf. Captain of the Guard, indeed! Elfguard3 just got his nose bitten off by an orc but our responsible captain is too busy chasing tail and getting the prince into mortal danger to manage her own guard. Also, I started playing a game called "spot the LOTR moment". An example in DOS is when Kili is shot with a "morgul shaft". The same exact effects happen in this scene and the Boromir death scene from FOTR, it actually made me laugh because its so spot on it almost feels like a parody. And my concluding thing- even the design feels radically different and unimpressive compared to LOTR (and again I think that is in part to the lack of practical effects) Could you imagine like, Boromir standing next to The Goblin King from AUJ? Or Aragorn next to just a human character like Alfred from DOS? I can't. Its like LOTR and TH are separated by a thick line of Cartoony-ness and CGI overuse that pervade choreography and art direction and it just ruins it utterly- For me. (Ps. Long time Lurker, first time poster!) |
Welcome to the posting side of the Downs!
|
And now to brighten your day...
|
Thanks!
Quote:
0.34-0.57: So Tauriel fell passionately in love with Kili once he talked about what was down his trousers? :rolleyes: That makes sense, particularly as she didn't then forget her duties and release him. 1.18: 'YOU HAVE BIRD POO!' I wish someone had told Radagast that... 1.44: So Thorin was sensible and asked for a lot of black arrows, just in case? Good for him. |
Quote:
|
A Necessary Balance
If someone else has already posted this link, then I apologize for the redundancy. Still, for something like this to appear on The One Ring fan site does merit notice, I think.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2014...tion-of-smaug/ |
Michael Murry, thanks for posting the link!
I found it well-written, as it puts into words what I've felt. More interesting is the comments, which, I guess, are necessary to balance out all of the anti-PJ feelings here. ;) |
Quote:
Apologies for shilling my own stuff, but my (very long) review, and follow up to the first one, is here if anyone would care to read it (although be warned, there's a touch of light swearing for comedic effect as my blog reviews tend to be a bit more rambunctious than my posts on the Downs): http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.c...-of-smaug.html |
I thought the stereotyping of fans was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, in line with the satirical tone. And the comment section, if anything, has less flaming than I would have expected on TORN.
|
ToRN really is a cult isn't it?
|
Notes on terminology
From Wikipedia, a note on the term, "punter" :
Quote:
Quote:
|
Some dwarves and elves and orcs and a few wizards and a hobbit and ...
Aside from the satirical treatment of Bilbo Baggins as the put-upon punter in his own fake exhibition, I found the following passage from the review pretty much the heart of the matter:
Quote:
The first of these fan-rip-off films ruined things for me last year. I have so far not had much of a desire to experience the same -- or worse -- level of disappointment this year. So I will wait for the DVD rental to appear in a few months. Or perhaps, I will wait another month or so for for the HBO Asia programs on television here in Taiwan. I don't know. Just the thought of another stupid and vainglorious Peter Jackson cameo -- popping up to ruin things at the very beginning -- makes me want to skip the whole thing. |
I still haven't seen either movie, but a particular line in the TORN article seems to say it all.
Quote:
Thanks indeed, Mr. Murry, for the link. |
Quote:
Except no one wears powdered wigs. And no one writes like Molire or Racine. |
Interestingly, the article author made a comment of his own (which can currently be found by loading the first lot of additional comments below the ones showing up immediately beneath the article at present).
Quote:
Then again adopting an 'us and them' philosophy is a deeply ingrained human trait, and I despair of any way of our society as a whole escaping it. Yet it seems so utterly absurd when applied to enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work. What would he think of the desire for us to all walk in step? EDIT: (Addendum) I think even a change of vocabulary would help. Instead of people saying something was "good" or "bad", saying that one "enjoyed" or "didn't enjoy" something would probably be helpful. Everyone knows opinions are subjective, but they still don't like opinions being phrased as objective truth (even though the assumption, generally, is that it's just the opinion of the person making the judgement). |
An interesting comment, Ziggy; thanks for posting it. He does seem to have used a ruse to stimulate debate.
I don't think that discussion boards are immune to some of what he says. I remember at one point being subjected to a barage of complaints from fellow Downers when I dared to suggest that certain aspects of Tolkien's writing style were questionable. No one actually tried to refute my claim (I have later found some good points which do) so much as to descry how I could have the temerity to attack The Professor. There is a wee bit of hagiography involved in Tolkien fandom *ducks* |
Quote:
Besides, it wouldn't make any difference to your real fanboy types, like the TORNites- they have a whole arsenal of "arguments" they can use in place of that one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I suppose having to couch all of your opinions in clarifying language is potentially stifling. Probably what we really need is for people to stop over-identifying with their hobbies so that they don't feel personally threatened when something they like is criticised. My distinction between comments sections and discussion boards is that I feel like boards more let everyone have their say whereas in comments sections someone can blurt out a statement and disappear, then get bumped up to the top due to having the most "likes" or what have you, which makes it seem like there's some kind of "party line" to be towed. I like to think that on the Downs at least, while the majority of people probably have varying degrees of objection to the films, there is room to manoeuvre. From what I've seen trawling through old posts from before my time the majority of exasperation with pro-film arguments is when they are arguments like: "I'd like to see you do better." "Peter Jackson tried really hard and deserves our respect." "They did the best they could." "Tolkien wasn't perfect either." "At least try to see the positives." Which are all pointless and lead discussion nowhere. In terms of actual discussion of the films though I think we're quite open to different opinions though, and lack the worst thing of all, which is probably snarky and thinly-veiled personal attacks on people with different points of view in lieu of discussion, something I think pervades other forums quite a bit. |
Personally I tend to pick up on posts where I think the poster has said something incorrect, and point it out. Not a good trait, perhaps. Yet I honestly feel gratitude when someone has convinced me that I am wrong. Ive learned something, and owe that person.
What many posters dont realize is that often, when an argument is serious, the winner may only emerge months later when the quarrel has been forgotten and the apparent winner may have had more time to think about the matter and then change his or her mind. Also, if I am totally right in my argument, then I may be convincing many others who are not taking part in it openly. Again, as I have mentioned, I dont see a great deal of difference between academia and fandom. Academics also include a large percentage of people who most consider to be nuts. And that includes some that I mostly respect. Often they may, like many non-academics, be perfectly sane in most matters but have particular areas where they are irrational. The critic Harold Bloom some years back created a list of 1,524 books which he believed everyone should read and this list is now often known as Blooms Canon. It contains a lot of books which have Stories or Poems or Plays in their titles so this covers many more works than its numbers show. For example, Shakespeare is represented by one book only: Plays and Poems. For the complete Bloom Canon list see http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/theocraticcanon.html . J. R. R. Tolkien is not included because Harold Bloom hates Tolkien, as did such a significant number of other academics that he didnt feel compelled to include him. He, nevertheless, was pressed into producing a book of Tolkien criticism which most think laughable. See the reviews at http://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-...owViewpoints=1 . Bloom also wrote a fantasy novel, A Flight to Lucifier: A Gnostic Fantasy which was a sequel to David Lindsays A Voyage to Arcturus which Bloom puts in his canon. Fair enough. Tolkien (and C. S. Lewis) also thought highly of A Voyage to Arcturus though they very much disliked the writers philosophy, in which Pain is the sole ultimate truth, and so the ultimate good. But though A Flight to Lucifier: A Gnostic Fantasy got mostly good first reviews, Bloom decided to disown it as garbage and it seems to have also sold poorly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_to_Lucifer . Possibly those reviews were by the kinds of fans you mention who are over-identifying with what they think is their side. For a freewheeling and mostly polite discussion of Bloom and Tolkien see http://sacnoths.blogspot.ca/2011/03/...ien-again.html . But is an academic like Michael D. C. Drout any better? Drout is an English professor who specializes in Old English, loves Tolkien, is co-editor of Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review and is editor of the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. Yet a recent talk which was recommended to me by another Downer I think also to be utter nonsense. Supposedly Drout is attempting to explain why some readers cant enjoy Tolkien. But he doesnt. He shows quite well one feature of Tolkiens writing and says, without any presented evidence, that this is the reason. I dont think it is, though I dont know what is, or if any one thing is. Drout says a few other things about Tolkien and about stories related to Beowulf and gets his facts wrong, more than I showed in my answer to Drout which I posted at http://wormtalk.blogspot.com.au/2013...ture-from.html and at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...6&postcount=52 because the answer box limited the number of words I could use. That no-one here has commented on my post suggests that you may be right, that no-one feels they are allowed to join in to criticize a famous Tolkien scholar like Drout or perhaps they dont want to criticize me. |
Quote:
Regarding Bloom, I'm aware that he's voiced similar objections regarding the Harry Potter books. Now regardless of whether or not one likes Harry Potter, what baffles me is why on earth serious academics waste their time writing and publishing on why books are "good" or "bad" or "should" or "should not" be read. These are pointless subjective criteria which can't be proved. It's the same case with Drout trying to explain why some readers don't "like" Tolkien. Who cares? Or if people do, surely it's a matter for psychology and cultural studies, not English scholars. I feel like academics (myself included) should be exploring new ways of thinking about texts, ways of reading them and so on, a myriad of scholarly activities other than going on about subjective appreciation. But I suppose that's the kind of sensationalism that gets articles written about it (and irritated forum posts like this) and sells books. On my blog I review TV shows, books, films and so on, but in an informal way, because I don't think matters of taste are a really a very scholarly issue. I didn't really enjoy Ulysses when I read it and I find the works of Henry James rather tedious. It doesn't mean I'm going to write a thesis on "why What Maisie Knew" is boring or how "people who like Ulysses are wrong." It'd be absurd. |
Quote:
|
Still, the fact remains that academics often do try to show that a particular work is better or worse objectively than another work. Whether they should do this is another matter. Fans, who are not very academic, often do the same.
Tolkien seems to try to avoid it, but at least comes close. In the introduction to his translations in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, and Sir Orfeo Tolkien says on page 13: But he was a major poet of his day; ..., this of a poem known only from a single manuscript. He appears to agree with the general opinion that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the best surviving Middle English poem, or at least one of the best. On page 21 Tolkien writes of the poem Pearl: The reality of the bereavement will not save the poetry if it is bad, save to those who are in fact interested, not in poetry, but in documents, whose hunger is for history or biography or even for mere names. In short, a critic who does not care whether a work of literary art is good or bad is very rare, or is looking at the work in some nonliterary way. If it were not so, should not one just as well teach one of Terry Brooks novels or one of E. R. Eddisons books? The situation is that those who loathe Tolkien mostly dislike these others far more. People, whether fans or academics or those who claim to be both do have differences of opinion about what they read. They do disagree in public. They sometimes do this politely, and sometime do this with great anger. And they have always done so as far as I can see. And they sometimes misunderstand the work that they claim to explain. Bloom obviously thinks he understands Tolkien, and Tolkien is not worth bothering about. Drout thinks he understands Tolkien but his talk to me shows someone ignorant both about Tolkien and about Beowulf because he makes gross factual errors. Or maybe I dont understand Drout and am being the fool, but no-one shows me where my understanding that Drout is the fool is wrong. I see no difference between a fan who follows a particular line and an academic who follows some particular line, save, as you point out, literary academia is an area where one cant prove anything, unlike pure mathematics. But I see an academic named Drout who it seems to me doesnt know the basic facts of his own discipline, like discovering a modern physician is completely unaware of penicillin. |
Quote:
How's life and the young ones? I still have not seen DoS yet. It's still showing at one cinema here, so I suppose there's still a chance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I forgot to mention here that I have seen the movie some time in January. But I have nothing to tell really , all the numerous flaws that irritated me, have been discussed here at large. I really did try to suspend my disbelief, but failed miserably! (Whereas I had been able to enjoy at least some parts of "an unexpected party") What is the use of all the visually stunning imagery when the changed plot is just ridiculous?
|
Podcast Episode
Dear everyone...
it has come to my attention that we are in almost-if-not-complete agreement on the reception of this second film. As a fan of the original material, like all of you, it took me days, days to consider referring you to two little things I, my brother, and our cousin are going through with the alleged "hobbit trilogy". I was the most staunchly opposed of the three even years before the first film came out, and very quickly both of my colleagues dropped out from being even faintly hopeful for the next installment... however... we have decided to watch and record commentaries on the films once each of them came out on video (including Extended Editions) for the very first (and last) time. I would love to invite you to watch our highlights commentary video of us three watching "Unexpected Journey", the Extended Edition for the first time ever. if the pain is too much, or the videos get too long, I would also adore it if you would set aside some time to listen to our podcast episode where we discuss (or just rant) about "The Desolation of Smaug" immediately after watching it. - I am aware it is epochally long, but I sure hope it will bring at least a little bit of entertainment. I originally wanted to post this as a new thread, but I felt that would be too pigheaded and interrupting. In any case, since we're completely in the same mindset about these new films, I figure you would find it at least - well - agreeable. I apologize if I interfered for a shot at a shameless plug. Can't wait for next December to record the last one! |
Quote:
I kid. I'll watch your assault this weekend. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.