[ SECRET POST #2538 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2538 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 079 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

03. http://i43.tinypic.com/20ua8tg.png

[dreemyweird]

I really don't get why people complain that the movies are "silly". Of course they are not as serious as the LoTR ones; the source book has got so many intentionally goofy and funny moments! I was a small child when I read it for the first time, and even then it did not strike me as particularly serious. The whole point was to write an awesomesauce adventure story with a smashing setting and some interesting psychological/moral dynamics, a bit like Kidnapped.

Although I do think that three hours of Radagast haring around would kind of defeat the whole "awesome adventure with a plot" point, it is not the silliness that's the issue here.

[(Anonymous)]

I think, personally, it's a matter of the silliness not being done well, and a really rough combination of "serious" and kiddish that PJ just didn't iron out. He's pushing kid humor in a violent PG13 movie. Not that the atmosphere of the book should've been cut, it just should've been adapted better, imo, and it just didn't work for me. And I like the book well enough. But in the movie series, I get wanting to balance it with the depth of the LOTR movies. Still, I think both Hobbit movies have overall been kinda garbage... with humor not being the worst of their problems.

on another note: ugh, Radagast..

[(Anonymous)]

As a lifelong fan of The Hobbit, I would say that it's because the movie isn't "silly" in the same way the book is "silly." The movie takes a very different approach to humor. (Granted, I didn't bother to watch the whole movie because the parts I did see were so obnoxious.)

The movie's humor reminded me of kids movies like Elf, the new Grinch movie, etc. It's a style of humor that I personally really fucking hate, and I hated it even when I was a kid and it started becoming the norm for kids' films. Lots of gross-out humor (guy covered in birdshit), lol so random crap, etc.

The book's humor is more like kid's films like The Land Before Time, Prince of Egypt, or The Beauty and the Beast (or books like the Narnia series or The Wind in the Willows). Those films/books are undoubtedly silly and funny and kid-friendly, but a lot of the humor is in contrast to the overall serious tone.

[kaijinscendre]

I can't wait until the crowds die down so I can see this!

Secret 3 - The Hobbit (Peter Jackson films)

[transcriptanon]

[Picture is the dwarves from the "The Hobbit" films hiding inside wooden barrels.]

I could happily watch three straight hours of just (1) dwarves fighting orcs while riding in barrels and (2) Radagast haring around. Maybe some cameos from the admittedly badass dragon.

Secret because: I hear all the bitchin' about the movies being too pulpy or whatever, and I want them to be MORE silly?

Bonus secret: I am 100% headcanoning Ori and Bofur as ladies.

[ketita]

I love the silliness too!

A friend of mine was recently complaining about the scene at the beginning of the first one, with the dwarves singing and tossing Bilbo's dishes around and I was like what are you talking about, that scene was awesome.

[elaminator]

That was one of my favorite scenes in the film. It was adorable! (Also catchy.)

[littlestbirds]

I loved that scene!!! Is your friend a fan of the book?

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Of all the humour scene to complain about, "Blunt the Knives" is the one I cannot stand the idea of someone hating! Bilbo the handkerchief? Yeah... maybe a bit puerile, but "Blunt the Knives" is one I love watching every time because it really bring to life the song in the book!

[littlestbirds]

This is all I want from this movie as well, so I wont be seeing it. Wacky misadventures in the mirkwood was my favourite part as a kid and I'm scared to see what Peter Jackson does with it (I hated the first movie).

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't skip it totally, the lighter parts might be my favourite but I liked the movie as a whole. (although if you're not a big fan you could wait til it's available for download instead of shelling out the money for a movie ticket, so you can fast-forward if you want)

[elaminator]

Haven't seen Desolation yet, but I like the 'silliness' in the first Hobbit movie. And idk if it's just me, but the film wasn't full of it either. All in all The Hobbit (book) was pretty kid friendly, so I don't find it terribly surprising that the film is being marketed towards all ages too. And the ending is...well, tragic, so IMO it's a good thing that there are lighter moments as well.

<--

[elephantinegrace]

I just want to see more of this guy. I guess we're both bad/not true fans.

Re: <--

[liberatores]

idec if it makes me not a "true fan" i've read the hobbit book a half dozen times and never cared about any of the dwarves, but the movies made me adore them.

Re: <--

[(Anonymous)]

Welp, there is a crapton of Kili in the movie! Bless his little heart.

[(Anonymous)]

I think I could watch 3 hours of dwarves and Bilbo just playing around, with Gandalf watching them with a smile in his face.

[nightscale]

I like the silly bits too and I don't feel they detract particularly from the movie, the LoTR films had silly bits too though perhaps not as many.

Hobbit 2 also sucked

[(Anonymous)]

I am really disappointed, but not surprised. I adored the LOTR movies, how did Peter Jackson downgrade into such a shitty director in ten years? :-/ Adding appendix stuff had the potential to make The Hobbit into good movie material... but everything is awkward and messy.

That being said, the barrel scene made me lol. one of the few good parts from the movie, imo, next to the flamboyantly evil elf king and Smaug.

Re: Hobbit 2 also sucked

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed on yhe barrel scene. I loved Bombur in that bit. And Legolas stepping on their heads.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand the whole 'silly' and 'childish' thing. Do people not realize that the Hobbit was written as a fairy tale for Tolkien's own children?

[(Anonymous)]

You lost me at wanting to see even more of a guy with birdshit covering his face than we did in the first movie. It's the only time I've ever been physically ill watching a movie.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Maybe a good part of my problems with the book is that I read it as an adult, and after I'd read LotR and the Silm (and incidentally, after I'd seen the LotR movies too). The book felt flat and undetailed compared to LotR, where Tolkien actually found some use for almost all the characters he put in - "The Hobbit" didn't.

I haven't seen DoS yet either, but the first movie gave life to the Dwarves, made them interesting characters that I wanted to have more of, therefore making me get into the fandom.

Do the movies have faults? ...I am not the person to ask that of, because I love them. I've seen what other people say are faults and I have a mix of reaction between "Okay, I see what you mean, but I don't care!" and "WTF are you going on about?! That was a great bit!".

Mostly I find the critical purists really, really fragging tiring.

I am looking forward to watching DoS.

[(Anonymous)]

I suspect part of the problem is that going from LotR into the Hobbit is creating a tonal problem that people are having trouble figuring out how to handle. The books have very different tones from each other. LotR is mostly adventure and pain building towards a cathartic final battle and seguing into a strong but faded era of goodness and light. The Hobbit, by contrast, is 70% wacky misadventures and cranky dwarves that suddenly one-eightys into betrayal and tragedy in the final third. If you're going from Hobbit to LotR, as with the books, this sort of follows, as the sudden dramatic ending of the Hobbit fits with the building danger of the opening of LotR (more or less). In the films, though, we saw LotR before we saw the Hobbit, and I'm not sure that the writers/directors/audience quite knew how to deal with that. Do we dial up the initial wackiness to make a better contrast/make it funnier? Dial it down and try to match tones more consistently with LotR? Which way do we go?

The problem, I think, is that they've simultaneously tried to do BOTH, and it's not working out so well. They tried to tone the darkness up to feed more readily into what the audience is going to expect from the LotR movies, and then tried to inject more overt wackiness into the gaps to pay homage to the actual bookverse Hobbit. It just ... came out more than a little clunky in practice?

It's not the wackiness itself that's the problem, it's that it doesn't really match well with the tone they're building around it? And also, for anyone who does know the book ... well, they know the one-eighty into tragedy and death is still coming, which makes some of the wackiness stand out all the worse by comparison, maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

Being silly is fine - it's when the movie is trying desperately to stretch out the time and you end up with scenes that drag on and on and completely unnecessary BS scenes jammed in every which way that I get kind of ragey.