ewdioewfcnde
(?)Community Member
- Posted: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:22:03 +0000
Warning: Long.
To be perfectly clear: No I am not trolling and just doing this to be edgy. I grew up with this so I have strong opinions on it.
First off, as many already know, Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct this, but dropped out after it was in preproduction limbo for so long. I was not impressed with this rendition of the hobbit so I really, really wish he did.
I felt like it ended up being the prequel to Peter Jacksons lord of the rings movies rather than the hobbit. Dont get me wrong, I did like his LOTR movies, but the hobbit is a lighter tale and if he didnt have an interest in directing it for what it was, he shouldnt have done it at all.
And just to be clear, he added the pale orc and changed thorins story, although all the dwarves did say bilbo didnt belong, there wasnt an entire subplot devoted to it and they generally trusted gandalfs judgement, and the thing with dwarves not liking the elves was blown out of proportion. While all of this went hand in hand with his rendition of LOTR, it didnt serve the story or mood of this particular tale very well.
Also, If you read the foreword in one of the new editions of The Hobbit. It tells you in all clarity that Orcs and goblins are the same thing, and that is if you couldnt figure it out from the books. Anyone working on a film should have done extensive research so this should have been a well known fact, and should not have been ignored. This book is what the lore should be based on, which brings me to my next point.
The Hobbit is NOT a prequel. This was the first book written in this world. Lord of the Rings came AFTER not before this. The Lore should be completely based around the hobbit so anything mentioned later in Lord of the Rings should not come into play here. I do not believe you can take a book like this, that so many people have grown up on and love to this very day, and make it your own personal toy to make a "prequel."
Lets go a little more into sticking to the source material. This is a 300 page book that was written for all ages. Is it going to be a deep tale laced with intrigue and layers of detail? Probably not, it wasnt intended to be that. This is a charming book, anyone should be able to read and enjoy. It does not under any circumstances need 3 movies. I would agree to 2 reasonably long(2 hours tops) movies.
Now lets go into the actual movie. The Goblins looked ridiculously unnatural, their skin was too shiny, and the movement was awkward thanks to the frame rate. Also, the anatomy wasnt natural enough to be believable. Which would have been fine had it been a cartoon, but when you attempt cg in live action, there needs to be as much work put into design and research as anything else on that part.
The pacing was really awkward. Instead of flowing from one situation to the next, it felt really mechanical. It was like when editing instead of "okay, this action prompts the next one. lets make this scene that transition point" they decided "Okay, that situations done, more walking and pretty scenery, then lets make this scene happen, and then more walking and pretty scenery." Anyone that has ever taken a basic film or theatre class knows better than that so I have no idea why they got away with it.
Finally, it was really disappointing that they lacked a lot of the songs found in the original tale. Dont get me wrong, Over the Misty Mountains Cold and Thats What Bilbo Baggins Hates were absolutely fantastic. But what about the elves song? or 15 bird? or the goblins song? Those make wonderful padding and they certainly had the budget for a composer.
To be perfectly clear: No I am not trolling and just doing this to be edgy. I grew up with this so I have strong opinions on it.
First off, as many already know, Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct this, but dropped out after it was in preproduction limbo for so long. I was not impressed with this rendition of the hobbit so I really, really wish he did.
I felt like it ended up being the prequel to Peter Jacksons lord of the rings movies rather than the hobbit. Dont get me wrong, I did like his LOTR movies, but the hobbit is a lighter tale and if he didnt have an interest in directing it for what it was, he shouldnt have done it at all.
And just to be clear, he added the pale orc and changed thorins story, although all the dwarves did say bilbo didnt belong, there wasnt an entire subplot devoted to it and they generally trusted gandalfs judgement, and the thing with dwarves not liking the elves was blown out of proportion. While all of this went hand in hand with his rendition of LOTR, it didnt serve the story or mood of this particular tale very well.
~~~~
Also, If you read the foreword in one of the new editions of The Hobbit. It tells you in all clarity that Orcs and goblins are the same thing, and that is if you couldnt figure it out from the books. Anyone working on a film should have done extensive research so this should have been a well known fact, and should not have been ignored. This book is what the lore should be based on, which brings me to my next point.
The Hobbit is NOT a prequel. This was the first book written in this world. Lord of the Rings came AFTER not before this. The Lore should be completely based around the hobbit so anything mentioned later in Lord of the Rings should not come into play here. I do not believe you can take a book like this, that so many people have grown up on and love to this very day, and make it your own personal toy to make a "prequel."
Lets go a little more into sticking to the source material. This is a 300 page book that was written for all ages. Is it going to be a deep tale laced with intrigue and layers of detail? Probably not, it wasnt intended to be that. This is a charming book, anyone should be able to read and enjoy. It does not under any circumstances need 3 movies. I would agree to 2 reasonably long(2 hours tops) movies.
~~~~
Now lets go into the actual movie. The Goblins looked ridiculously unnatural, their skin was too shiny, and the movement was awkward thanks to the frame rate. Also, the anatomy wasnt natural enough to be believable. Which would have been fine had it been a cartoon, but when you attempt cg in live action, there needs to be as much work put into design and research as anything else on that part.
The pacing was really awkward. Instead of flowing from one situation to the next, it felt really mechanical. It was like when editing instead of "okay, this action prompts the next one. lets make this scene that transition point" they decided "Okay, that situations done, more walking and pretty scenery, then lets make this scene happen, and then more walking and pretty scenery." Anyone that has ever taken a basic film or theatre class knows better than that so I have no idea why they got away with it.
Finally, it was really disappointing that they lacked a lot of the songs found in the original tale. Dont get me wrong, Over the Misty Mountains Cold and Thats What Bilbo Baggins Hates were absolutely fantastic. But what about the elves song? or 15 bird? or the goblins song? Those make wonderful padding and they certainly had the budget for a composer.