Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2014-11-12 06:54 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2014-11-12 06:54 pm
[ SECRET POST #2871 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2871 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #410.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:07 am (UTC)(link)/just curious.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:12 am (UTC)(link)Do you like the LOTR movies or not at all?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:04 pm (UTC)(link)Over time, I discover that I continue to really like Fellowship Of the Ring but I could care less about the second and third movies in that trilogy. And yes, a lot of it is PJ's choices.
I'm glad I saw the second Hobbit movie in the theatre just because Smaug is such a cool creature... but I can't get past the fact that, if you have to make up such a lot of extraneous stuff to pad your runtime, MAYBE YOU DON'T NEED TO TURN THE STORY INTO THREE MOVIES.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:14 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:21 am (UTC)(link)I think people were expecting them to be like LotR, but the tone of the source material is so different, the movies had to be at least a bit different as well.
Plus, I can sort of see why you might prefer these. Everyone in LotR was very noble and brave and serious for most of the time and that can get tiring after a few hours. In the Hobbit everyone seems a bit more practical for some reason.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:38 am (UTC)(link)For me, it's because I was bored. It's mostly the second one I don't like. I didn't mind spending a long time in Bag End in the first movie or any of that. But in the second one, my mind actually wandered a few times during the action scenes. The first time I saw it, it felt like it rushed from one scene to the next to the next -- especially the action scenes. There wasn't time in between to make the action scenes exciting when they showed up.
Also, I couldn't suspend my disbelief with the dragon versus dwarf thing at the end. The whole thing with the gold just didn't seem at all plausible, even stretched for the setting and movie logic. And the dragon being led around without killing anything diminished all the menace he had earlier. The ending made it seem more like he was tucking tail and running away like a kid who hadn't got his way.
And the love story (or whatever you want to call it) took too much time. During the second time I saw it, I could pinpoint the moment during the talk between the dwarf and elf in the dungeons where it should've ended but then it just kept going.
The pacing just was wrong for me.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:59 am (UTC)(link)I actually agree with you on the pacing. I wasn't exactly bored during the action scenes, but I felt like the movie was almost nothing but action scenes. They could have put in some character scenes, since we still hardly know some of the dwarves.
I didn't see a problem with the specific actions during the confrontation with the dragon, but I was a bit disappointed that it was once again an action scene. In the book he and Bilbo just talk and when he can't find Bilbo (or the dwarves) he sets out for Lake Town.
Hmmmm...I don't remember being too bothered by that 'love' scene. And they do need that time together if they're to fall in love, so when else? I think that's another pacing/adaptation problem. Some of the things that took days/weeks in the book seemed to only last moments in the movie. Now, the Harry Potter movies aren't masterpieces, but they do mostly manage to convey that weeks/months pass and keep the pace up, so these movies should be able to do that as well. But they didn't even try.
I'm making it sound as if I didn't like it now, but I did. it's just that I did notice its flaws as well. Also, I rewatched LotR not too long ago and some of those action scenes can get pretty boring too after a while. Though of course, that's a re-watch at home, not a first time viewing in the cinema. The latter should be a bit more exciting.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:14 am (UTC)(link)I agree about the weeks/months thing. That was something I noticed too. It seemed like they were in Mirkwood for only a day (we never saw a dark night) so it seemed like they got lost right away, which seemed a little silly. But I have *mostly* come to accept that movie distance/time is different than the books and ignore those issues.
I looked up my review of the movie and in it I said that the scene in the dungeons between the elf and dwarf should've ended when she gave the stone back. I agree that if they are going to do a love story (or whatever), it does need some time to happen. But I felt that what needed to be accomplished in that scene with regards to their connection had been accomplished at that point and everything after that made the scene drag and didn't add anything useful.
In the book, the dragon does attack them on the mountain side. That's what I expected and would've liked to see. I do sort of like that the dwarves have a chance to face off against the dragon. I think from a movie perspective, you'd kind of need that. But I wish the mechanics of it had been more believable to me. And I agree that the conversation between Bilbo and the dragon was far more compelling than the action sequence at the end.
I also liked more than disliked the film, but you probably can't tell. ;)
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 03:52 am (UTC)(link)To me, it's not that they aren't LOTR, it's that PJ can't decide what he wants them to be. Is it a whimsical fairy tale? Is it the gritty LOTR prequel? Or is the snot-and-fart joke fest? If the dwarves are heroes, why are we dumping a load of dead fish on them and treating it like a massive joke? Why is Legolas performing ballet on their heads? Why the fuck is Thorin surfing on a wheelbarrow and balancing on Smaug's snout?
The editing is terrible - action sequences go on too long, but a lot of character/plot moments are trimmed down to a bare minimum. It's hard to understand why most of the new footage on the DOS EE was left out of the theatrical cut because it makes for a much better film, both in pacing and in storytelling.
The multiple subplots don't really work because they're not well-connected to the main Erebor plot or that interesting on their own. I love Tauriel, I love Kili, but every time we cut from Erebor to one of their scenes it was jarring because it was "oh, these people are also in the movie and oh, they were doing that last time we saw them..." Or when we cut from Thorin's Company facing giant spiders to Gandalf wandering around the NZ wilderness.
Finally, I get frustrated that there was a lot of potential in the expansion of the book and it's been sort of lost. I can see why you'd want to have Thorin and Smaug confronting each other, but I don't see why you'd make it into an overlong, almost emotionless but very ridiculous action sequence. I don't understand why Thorin's relationship with his nephews as been nearly completely ignored in the films. Yes, the book ignored it apart from one or two mentions, but if you're expanding the story, paying attention to that relationship seems like a natural starting point.
HOBBIT LOVE
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:43 am (UTC)(link)Seriously, they are fun, beautiful to look at, full of lovely actors and characters and just all around fabulous. What's not to love?
I am also glad that there are three movies rather then one. People keep bitching that it should have been one movies. I don't get this at all. 3 movies = 3 times as much elves, dwarves and beautifu scenery. I'll take all the middle earth I can get my hands on, kthnx.
Re: HOBBIT LOVE
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 12:58 am (UTC)(link)Re: HOBBIT LOVE
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:03 am (UTC)(link)For me, I've never been bothered by the three movies. I'm just surprised that even with three movies, there's still so much from the books that they haven't done. I don't think I'd be quite so unhappy with them if I didn't feel like some of the new stuff was made at the expense of the book-stuff (and if the new stuff had actually been enjoyable to me). I would welcome new stuff if the stuff from the books I wanted to see was there too.
Re: HOBBIT LOVE
Re: HOBBIT LOVE
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:25 am (UTC)(link)For instance, they added the white stag, Bombur falling into the river, and the greeting with Beorn into the EE.
There's a feast with the Master of Laketown that's implied in the film but never shown. Also, the Feast the Elves had in Mirkwood is missing. I wanted to see more Thranduil, especially the scene where Thorin kept answering that he was starving. I guess what was in the movie was supposed to be that but it wasn't nearly as good. They definitely did cut out the scene where Thranduil meets the other Dwarves.
I understand some of this can't be shown because of movie-medium. However, it's clear they filmed some of this stuff and then cut it for time. That makes me like the new stuff I already didn't like very much even less.
Re: HOBBIT LOVE
I definitely understand feeling resentful that some of this was actually filmed but then cut for time at the expense of non-book stuff that didn't work for you.
no subject
I think the pacing in the second one is off, and I would've been perfectly fine with a more straightforward adaption, but I don't mind all the changes. I actually loved Tauriel (and found Kili/Tauriel cute, though I don't want it taking up a lot of screentime), Legolas' action scenes were awesome and the Sauron plot-line has potential. Galadriel and Elrond showing up is cool too; it's nice to see their familiar faces! As long as the ending stays the same, I'll be fine.
I DO think if PJ had went for a more straightforward adaption The Hobbit could've been two films instead of three, but I'm not massively upset or anything. (I suppose I'm one of the few people who think that The Hobbit would've been worse as one film. The book was good, but it never stood out like LOTR to me because of how quickly it went by and how little you learned about the cast. I liked the mains, but didn't feel connected to them in the same way. Drawing the story out gives PJ a chance to make things more interesting and exciting. If he actually succeeds, well...everyone's going to have a different opinion about that, but I don't think it was a bad decision to make multiple films.)
I love Middle-Earth and am always happy to see more of it.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:28 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:33 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 01:38 am (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-13 04:29 am (UTC)(link)