The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[The Josh]

And they were the biggest critics of LotR when it first came out. Now they've switched to The Hobbit and have kind of forgiven PJ's change of characters and storyline n LotR. Probably the same thing will happen if PJ or someone else gets the rights to any other Middle Earth works. The Hobbit will then get more respect. That's just the way things are.

On message boards I still see people complaining about all the movies as a whole. They're the purists. Nothing would satisfy them, yet they are the first in line to see each one.

That's happening a lot. People tend to gloss over or are more forgiving of issues with LOTR and now pick at The Hobbit. In time some of that will go away.

 

[The Chev]

That's happening a lot. People tend to gloss over or are more forgiving of issues with LOTR and now pick at The Hobbit. In time some of that will go away.

The stupidest criticism I heard about someone not liking LOTR was "The gay hobbits"

Some people just can see to males caring about each other in a platonic way in this day in age.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

My point was that Lightning rarely strikes twice. It really isn't that far-fetched an idea. It's very hard to capture the magic of something that came first.

Oh, I agre with this 100% as I wrote in my post. It's just that even taking into account the "big shoes to fill" effect that the new trilogy had to deal with, there's still a lot of quality difference between the two series, so I don't think it's fair to say "The Hobbit" simply had a harder job than LOTR. The difference in PJ attitude and his sensibilities between now and 10 years ago is huge and noticable. As for the original LOTR criticism, well there's no movie in existence that wouldn't be criticised in some way. But perspective matters and the faults of LOTR were nowhere near the level of complaints that could be laid against the new films (and as I said, I like em more than most). The original LOTR went down in history as cienmatic classic not just becouse it was novel and groundbreaking at the time, but becouse it's simply that well made and evocative story. Plus it was a cinematic experience for all kinds of moviegoers of different tastes and backgrounds. Hobbit in comparison feels like porn for the initiated, playground for the specific type of fans.

 

[The Chev]

Oh, I agre with this 100% as I wrote in my post. It's just that even taking into account the "big shoes to fill" effect that the new trilogy had to deal with, there's still a lot of quality difference between the two series, so I don't think it's fair to say "The Hobbit" simply had a harder job than LOTR. The difference in PJ attitude and his sensibilities between now and 10 years ago is huge and noticable. As for the original LOTR criticism, well there's no movie in existence that wouldn't be criticised in some way. But perspective matters and the faults of LOTR were nowhere near the level of complaints that could be laid against the new films (and as I said, I like em more than most). The original LOTR went down in history as cienmatic classic not just becouse it was novel and groundbreaking at the time, but becouse it's simply that well made and evocative story. Plus it was a cinematic experience for all kinds of moviegoers of different tastes and backgrounds. Hobbit in comparison feels like porn for the initiated, playground for the specific type of fans.

I didn't mean to imply that the Hobbit had a harder job to do from a writing and filmmaking standpoint. While I love LOTR and really enjoyed both hobbit films I'm not a big fan of PJ as a director. Heavenly Creatures was really interesting, but I didn't care for the frighteners or King Kong.

Didn't Jackson try really hard to get Kate Winslet into LOTR?

 

[The Josh]

Oh, I agree with this 100% as I wrote in my post. It's just that even taking into account the "big shoes to fill" effect that the new trilogy had to deal with, there's still a lot of quality difference between the two series, so I don't think it's fair to say "The Hobbit" simply had a harder job than LOTR. The difference in PJ attitude and his sensibilities between now and 10 years ago is huge and noticable. As for the original LOTR criticism, well there's no movie in existence that wouldn't be criticised in some way. But perspective matters and the faults of LOTR were nowhere near the level of complaints that could be laid against the new films (and as I said, I like em more than most). The original LOTR went down in history as cinematic classic not just because it was novel and groundbreaking at the time, but because it's simply that well made and evocative story. Plus it was a cinematic experience for all kinds of moviegoers of different tastes and backgrounds. Hobbit in comparison feels like porn for the initiated, playground for the specific type of fans.

There are some differences and as a whole The Hobbit isn't as good as The Lord of the Rings but the hill it had to climb was a huge one. The Hobbit book isn't as good as The Lord of the Rings book so it had that also to deal with. I'm sorry but you're 100% wrong with the issues The Lord of the Rings films had to deal with. I remember some of them but I know from folks who paid more attention the things said about The Lord of the Rings mirror a lot of what's being said now about The Hobbit. The Hobbit feels like Middle-earth and as a whole for me feels the right amount of difference you get between the books.

 

[The Josh]

The stupidest criticism I heard about someone not liking LOTR was "The gay hobbits"

Some people just can see to males caring about each other in a platonic way in this day in age.

Yeah, I hear that one even today. As I said above the amount of stuff said about The Lord of the Rings mirrors so much of what is being said now about The Hobbit. I never expected The Hobbit to match the exact amazingness of The Lord of the Rings simply because the material is the weaker of the two stories.

 

[jye4ever]

LOTR made D&D accessible and bad *** to non nerds, those 3 movies together are miracle workers.

There were even hot chicks going to see that ****.

 

[The Chev]

Yeah, I hear that one even today. As I said above the amount of stuff said about The Lord of the Rings mirrors so much of what is being said now about The Hobbit. I never expected The Hobbit to match the exact amazingness of The Lord of the Rings simply because the material is the weaker of the two stories.

Yeah, LOTR is one of the best books, or set books written in the 20th century. Hard to contend with that story.

 

[Khev]

LOTR made D&D accessible and bad *** to non nerds, those 3 movies together are miracle workers.

There were even hot chicks going to see that ****.

10 years ago a friend and I were at a Denny's chatting about some D&D adventure and we laughed at the fact that we no longer had to whisper the word "orcs."

Yeah we were nerds, but at least people knew why.

 

[The Josh]

Yeah, LOTR is one of the best book, or books written in the 20th century. Hard to contend with that story.

Totally agree! Its one of the reasons I read the books every year. Its that good IMO.

 

[The Chev]

Totally agree! Its one of the reasons I read the books every year. Its that good IMO.

I'm slowly reading Fellowship right now. There's so much detail and information in them. It's also cool to read lines that ended up in the movie, even if it was switched around.

 

[Snadinator]

You almost have to see all three movies first to then see what is, or isn't important.

No. The smaug stuff at the end with the dwarves brought about nothing of use but artificial prolonging. This should have remained 2 films like originally planned.

again some better editing would go a long way. There is a jewel in there... it just needs the dirt cleaned off.

 

[toylion]

This movie really reminded me of Skyrim.

 

[The Josh]

There's so much detail and information in them. It's also cool to read lines that ended up in the movie, even if it was switched around.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

The Lord of the Rings mirror a lot of what's being said now about The Hobbit.

Sure both trilogies get the same type of criticism, but there's a matter of 'scale'. Lotr also had to content with accussations of changes, but back then Jackson had arguably a lot more restraint and sense when it comes to adapting and most of the changes he made (even the drastic ones) had a lot of sense behind them (like the cutting of Bombadil, or the things done to Faramir). But this time, there are so many alterations and padding, that even though I see the reasoning behind some of them, many of it is hard to defend.

The same goes for accusations of "blockbustery" antics and feel. While I've spend a long post defending probably the most excessive scene of the last two movies, I am not blind to the reasons why people might not like it. LOTR had it too but nowhere near this scale. In Lotr such elements were singular moments, while in case of Hobbit, it's more indicative of the overall tone of the films (though I think that actually fits nicely with adventurous spirit of the book).

Basically LOTR had to contend with the same criticism but most of it back then was a lot easier to defend. This time around, If someone is a person who dislikes PJ attitude, then he's got a lot more ammunition to use. Especially now after DOS which I felt was a culmination and a showcase of all things that some people don't like about his vision of Middle Earth. I just hope I am wrong and it's not as bad as I am making it out to be. And that this trilogy as a whole will leave a less "hollywood'y" impression than DOS left on some.

 

[The Chev]

No. The smaug stuff at the end with the dwarves brought about nothing of use but artificial prolonging. This should have remained 2 films like originally planned.

again some better editing would go a long way. There is a jewel in there... it just needs the dirt cleaned off.

How would you have ended it? I'm actually curious what you think.

 

[The Chev]

Sure both trilogies get the same type of criticism, but there's a matter of 'scale'. Lotr also had to content with accussations of changes, but back then Jackson had arguably a lot more restraint and sense when it comes to adapting and most of the changes he made (even the drastic ones) had a lot of sense behind them (like the cutting of Bombadil, or the things done to Faramir). But this time, there are so many alterations and padding, that even though I see the reasoning behind some of them, many of it is hard to defend.

The same goes for accusations of "blockbustery" antics and feel. While I've spend a long post defending probably the most excessive scene of the last two movies, I am not blind to the reasons why people might not like it. LOTR had it too but nowhere near this scale. In Lotr such elements were singular moments, while in case of Hobbit, it's more indicative of the overall tone of the films (though I think that actually fits nicely with adventurous spirit of the book).

Basically LOTR had to contend with the same criticism but most of it back then was a lot easier to defend. This time around, If someone is a person who dislikes PJ attitude, then he's got a lot more ammunition to use. Especially now after DOS which I felt was a culmination and a showcase of all things that some people don't like about his vision of Middle Earth. I just hope I am wrong and it's not as bad as I am making it out to be. And that this trilogy as a whole will leave a less "hollywood'y" impression than DOS left on some.

Well, I've already made my points why I feel LOTR is guilty for the same things so I'm going to leave it at that.

I wouldn't worry to much about the Impression it will leave. All 6 movies will have it's fans, and detractors. Let's just be glad that the LOTR films exist.

Would have been interesting to see Del Toro's vision, because he was going to make the first part look super fantastical from the extras on the Blu-ray said.

 

[The Josh]

Sure both trilogies get the same type of criticism, but there's a matter of 'scale'. Lotr also had to content with accusations of changes, but back then Jackson had arguably a lot more restraint and sense when it comes to adapting and most of the changes he made (even the drastic ones) had a lot of sense behind them (like the cutting of Bombadil, or the things done to Faramir). But this time, there are so many alterations and padding, that even though I see the reasoning behind some of them, many of it is hard to defend.

They have had the same and its on the same scale of things said. I don't think people were saying that back when the movies came out. At least from what I remember and what others who paid even more attention remember. I know things like Frodo showing the Nazgul the ring at Osgiliath, possible Arwen at Helm's Deep, Elves at Helm's Deep, and Frodo sending Sam away drew HUGE complaints. I also remember tons of hate on Frodo being too young and other things like that. I agree cutting Bombadil was a good thing and Faramir was a with the EE a solid change. I tend to mention why I like them and move on. I don't feel the need to defend them to anyone. I just simply don't care.

The same goes for accusations of "blockbustery" antics and feel. While I've spend a long post defending probably the most excessive scene of the last two movies, I am not blind to the reasons why people might not like it. LOTR had it too but nowhere near this scale. In Lotr such elements were singular moments, while in case of Hobbit, it's more indicative of the overall tone of the films (though I think that actually fits nicely with adventurous spirit of the book).

I understand some of the complaints and have several of mine own. Like I said above I really am to the point I don't go into defending them much anymore. I think it had more than what you're recalling now. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that The Hobbit isn't The Lord of the Rings. People went into this expecting more of the same and don't like they haven't gotten it.

Basically LOTR had to contend with the same criticism but most of it back then was a lot easier to defend. This time around, If someone is a person who dislikes PJ attitude, then he's got a lot more ammunition to use. Especially now after DOS which I felt was a culmination and a showcase of all things that some people don't like about his vision of Middle Earth. I just hope I am wrong and it's not as bad as I am making it out to be. And that this trilogy as a whole will leave a less "hollywood'y" impression than DOS left on some.

I really think you're looking at this through the lenses of today and not of when the movies came out. They caught a lot of flack from people for the many changes Jackson made to the movies, Legolas stunts, etc. Sure there is ammo but I think the people using it as a whole weren't going to like it from the start.

 

[jye4ever]

Holy Dwarf ****, DOS won the Holiday and the weekend as well!

It was actually an impressive win because it fought off a very strong contender, Disney's Frozen.

Only DOS and Gravity have remained in the top spot for 3 consecutive weekends in 2013.

Financially PJ and WB made the right decision to split into 3 movies and just make **** up as they went along.

Poor Weinstein/Miramax, their decision to sell to WB is being touted as one of the dumbest business decisions in Hollywood history.

That's actually what the WB attornies have used for their defense, they told the judge that the Weinsteins were dumb for selling.

 

[The Josh]

That's funny the one movie I've enjoyed more than any other this year and the one I enjoyed the least.