Movies reviews by yourself

Everyone's that's seen Gravity says it's a great movie and should definately be watched in 3D. It's coming to theatre's here next Friday, so I guess I'll be seeing it right away.

We just counted with a friend that we've seen every single Sandra Bullock film that she has ever made, except the recent one where she plays the host/adoptive mother to that american football player. I just love her, I've even watched and endured films that were not that great because of her...reminds me of someone else.

you know, i wasn't planning on seeing gravity in the cinema, but it just came to me that a friend of mine is a massive sandra bullock fan and she would LOVE it. i'll probably see it when/if it's here in the theaters.

I think 'Gravity's PR teams owes me some money for free advertising, lol.
But it really is a good movie, and this time the 3D effect is not just a fun addition but a part of the movie itself, so go to the cinema to see it!

valkeakuulas wrote:We just counted with a friend that we've seen every single Sandra Bullock film that she has ever made, except the recent one where she plays the host/adoptive mother to that american football player. I just love her, I've even watched and endured films that were not that great because of her...reminds me of someone else.

That movie is called 'The Blind Side' and it's one of the most loving movies I ever saw.

BTW: Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for that movie. So go see that one too!

(Sandra Bullock PR people: you can contact me to get my bank-account number.   )

Gravity is mindblowing - so very, very good. Also totally worth the 3D, which I usually am not fond of.

Last night I watched Girl Most Likely. It's about a girl named Imogene Duncan trying to become a successful playwriter. I thought it was pretty good and funny at some parts.

Have you ever watched Trainspotting? I watched two days ago with some friends, and I really liked it, not only because Ewan McGregor was the lead role, but also because of the plot and acting as well. It makes you to realize how addiction makes you lose the focus in your life, and how you slowly fall into the deep down, and though you could make it, is hard to get away from that life. By first you need to rip off from your life those 'so called' friends you used to have. Besides of that, and I previously said, the acting is good, and each character has its personal storyline and for each of them represented different types of drug addicts, or how actually they 'interact' with drugs.

On a side note: Never before I had heard the scottish accent, and it was kinda hard to understand. For me it sounded like a non-english person speaking.

i watched trainspoting years ago. what i remember from it is that it was mcgregors big break, i think it was for robert carlyle as well (if my memory serves me well), and that it was visually crazy, but given the subject matter, no wonder. but yes, the scottish accents are extremely thick. i'm sure that native english speaker have trouble with it as well as irish.

Before I saw it, I knew Trainspotting was a movie from the 90's about drugs with Ewan as the lead role. But I didn't expect it was older than I thought it was, and it surprised me that I saw a couple of familiar faces like a girl called Kelly McDonald ( Evangelline in Nanny McPhee) and that boy from Elementary. Apparently was the breakout movie for all of them.

Oh irish accent, that's another accent that is hard to understand. For instance, I always needed subtitles for Rory everytime he had a dialogue haha

As I wanted to have mi own opinion, I just seen 'Girl Most Likely', and overall was a tolarable movie, with good moments such as the one the lead role Imogne had with his dad. But I don't know if Kristin Wiig loves this kind of characters, but once again she's playing a woman who lost everything in her life and is not appreciated by those who surrounded her. And once again she has this image of being the "awkward" or "rebel" one friend. And though have some good actors like Annete Bening, Matt Dillon and Natasha Lyone, the story itself had some jumps that makes you feel lost, and aren't well explained.

As regards Darren, for me he was simply himself.

honestly, i don't get the kristen wiig worship. i recently saw bridesmaids and while the movie is quite good , it wasn't an earth-shattering experience and there were a few moments in it that are cringe worthy - especially the one at the first engagement banquet where wiig and the other chick are trying to one up each other in their toast to the future bride and the weeding dress scene with food poisoning. i could have lived happily without ever seeing that again.

Taken from the 5x05, 'The End of Twerk' thread:

fantastica wrote:and this leads me to think of the fact that most people are not happy w/ movie adaptation of books after they have already read the book. as we are reading the lines in a storybook, we are actively playing a version of the movie in our own heads. we "see" our characters, "hear" their voices, and visualized all the events as they unfold. we as readers all have our own version of the movie and despite the fact that most of us are not film makers and know nothing about movie adaptation, we all think our version of the "head movie" is the best, because that's how we interpret the book. so when the movie finally comes out, we will bitch and whine about how the movie failed our expectations and that and characters aren't what we imagined them to be. or the film maker took too much liberties w/ interpretation and the resulting work is no longer faithful to the book (or rather, OUR own head version of the movie). you see, our imagination can be very powerful, and yet it's also extremely deceptive.   it makes you think that the half dressed man/woman can be more sexier than a fully naked one. whenever our imagination is involved, reality no longer matters.

sorry about being OT, but talking about movie adaptations, i remember Marie was blowing steam over the first installment of The Hobbit when it came out a year ago, because it's no longer a children's story, and it relied on special effects on things we can't realistic portray otherwise (such as dragon and epic battle scenes w/ non-human creatures or architecture that we can never be able to build). well, i have never read the book (ok i only read the first 20 pages or so and hated it), thus i really really enjoy the movie. i do not have any pre-formed bias against the movie. my imagination was left untouched. as a result I watched the movie (including blu ray version) more than 10 times. i watched all the extra materials including the film makers' comments on why they had to make certain changes/decisions. i have huge respect to the film maker and the whole cast and screw. next month when the second installment comes out i will likely watch it multiple times again. peter jackson is definitely going to get my money - a lot of it.

My problem with 'The Hobbit' was not that it didn't live up to my own expectations when I read the book, but that they basicly just took the title of the book and then changed 90% of its story, so they could incorporate some bad guys and fancy battles into it. There is only 1 real battle in the Hobbit (the book), and that one is right at the end.
I hated how they put in so many OTT rollercoaster things, purely for effect and to get the young audience interested, but which had no connection whatsoever to the real story. It's annoying if you've read the book, as the message of the book is quite the opposite: that 'normal', quiet people who are not warriors can be heroes in their own right. The film mostly glorified the fighting, when in the book (esp. at the end) the fights/wars are more seen as an enormous waste of people dying over something as stupid as gold and jewels.
It's like adding a love-story to 'Struck By Lightning': it wasn't in the original story (if we assume we knew the book/story before the movie) and it would be just put in there in an attempt to get more people to the cinema. Which is not bad in itself, but often added 'popular' stuff like this takes away from the original story the way it was intented by the writer.

The casting, scenery, clothing, props, etc. of The Hobbit movie, and also the LotR movies, is excellent, and totally lived up to how I imagined them in my mind when I read the book.

i am still pissed that chris didn't get to play an elf in the Hobbit. now there will likely never be another Tolkien movie made w/in my lifetime.

Seriously, Chris was made to play an elf someday.

i can see where you are from. your view as a hobbit reader is quite common. but the Hobbit movie is not 100% based on the book alone. some of its material are taken from LOTR appendices and some are the film makers' own creation. It's also made to connect to TLOR as a prequel. apparently Tolkien himself wanted to expand the hobbit story. the orginal book was written for his children. later he tried to "fill in the blanks" and expand on the history of middle earth pre-TLOR. He wanted to write an adult version of the Hobbit but never did (or didn't live long enough to do - i dont' know).

now back to the film. the fact that movie is a trilogy means (1) it has to have a lot of content and (2) even if the whole is a very good story as divided by three each may suffer some problems such as pacing. the first installment is all about laying the foundation - introducing characters - lots of them! many viewers got bored, despite the fact that Jackson already cut many Hobbiton scenes (which is restored in EE and in my opinion, should be left in the theatrical version). In addition, movies and books are totally different media. in books characters can be developed by describing one's inner thoughts. in movies despite the best actors using their facial expressions and body language you can never read their minds, so you need to show "actions". books can rarely describe battle scenes thorough enough but movies are the perfect medium for that sort of visuals. also as a movie it will be seen by many non-readers, so it has to be good storytelling on its own. to keep people coming back 2 years in a row will require the movie to be highly entertaining. i doubt the movie would be half as interesting if adopted strictly from the book. The book was thin and as written for children and it doesn't have to be as detailed, and the Dwarfs are hardly developed except for thorin, who is a rather unlikeable character unlike the movie version. i for one couldn't even go past page 20 in my first try. i think i fell asleep on the toilet.  

now about the content that you despise the most - battle scenes! i do agree that the goblin part is too long and the fighting scene is kinda ridiculous (hay it's fantasy after all!) but it's quite fun to watch (reminds me the chasing scene in TLOR moria). about the real "battle" of the book, PJ already said that it will be the biggest battle yet he has ever done - bigger than any in TLOR. so compared w/ that, what you call as "battles" in the first installment is really nothing. as a visual medium there's nothing wrong to spell out any "fight" which barely worth a sentence or two in the book into a full fighting sequence. now about pleasing the young audiences w/ epic battle scenes - you may not know but this is very evident in the behind the scene material of the EE blu ray/dvd discs: Peter Jackson is a little boy trapped in a middle aged man's body. this guy has a vivid imagination and he craves those action sequences. i am not sure that his main goal is to attract young audiences (although the hobbit book is for youngsters and hte movie is PG13) but he definitely makes this and the TLOR movies to satisfy himself first, based on his own vision, and his own interpretation of the book. PJ loves epic battle scenes and this is evident in all his big budget movies (think King Kong!). so like it or not, this is Peter jackson's movie. not everybody likes his movies, but we don't see another film maker's version. right now we have HIS version.

regarding your statement that the hobbit book is all about ordinary people do heroic things - i totally get that from the movie. i think the spirit of the movie is well kept, despite the addition/omission of some little details.

from the point of view of a non book reader, i find the movie very engaging and fun to watch. i love the second half (w/ all the actions) more than teh first part, which was more whimsical and comical. it's not perfect of course, as the tone of the movie changed half way and feels a bit disjointed. but the more i watched the better opinion i had of this movie. i noticed tons of little details that added to my appreciation of the effort by all that's involved.

@brisallie/Romina: since you didn't read the hobbit book, i just want to tell you that Gimli's father Gloin is one of the Dwarves in the movie. The Elvin king shown briefly in the beginning of the movie in the Erebor flashback, Thranduil, is Legolas' father. Fili and Kili (the prettiest young dwarf) are Thorin's nephews. Thorin (the company leader, dwarf king-to-be) has no children so these 2 are his heirs. the movie at least in its first installment didn't explain their relationships so I just want you to know.

p.s. i wrote all these names from my memory so if i misspelled any please forgive me.

fantastica wrote:i can see where you are from. your view as a hobbit reader is quite common. but the Hobbit movie is not 100% based on the book alone. some of its material are taken from LOTR appendices and some are the film makers' own creation. It's also made to connect to TLOR as a prequel. apparently Tolkien himself wanted to expand the hobbit story. the orginal book was written for his children. later he tried to "fill in the blanks" and expand on the history of middle earth pre-TLOR. He wanted to write an adult version of the Hobbit but never did (or didn't live long enough to do - i dont' know).

I know this. I've read the LotR, the appendixes, the Silmarillion, Hurin's book, and even all the other 'lost' stories of Tolkien. And though they certainly took some of that to put into the Hobbit movie, they still invented a crap load more that had nothing to do with Tolkien's vision.

And although the LotR and even the rest of Middle Earth mythology was sprouted from the Hobbit, Tolkien never went back to the Hobbit to expand its story. He never made an adult version of the Hobbit, and there are no indications that he ever planned to either.
The book remained as a stand alone, while the history of Middle Earth that was created afterwards took place long before Bilbo Baggins was born, even before the Shire excisted, and well after Bilbo's adventure was over. The Hobbit was meant to be a children's book and never anything else.It was a book about a single adventure of an oblivious main character, oblivious to the deeper and ages old history of the Elves and Wizards. I do applaud adding some of that history to the movie, to explain things better, but I feel that the things they added were not the most important things, and only picked out because they either had battles in them or familiar characters of the LotR movies, in other words: to milk the success of the LotR trilogy viewers.

In the book there is mentions of several wars being fought that appear in the movie as well. I don't really have much trouble with showing them in flashbacks, as they indeed did. What I have trouble with is changing the original adventure of the Hobbit itself, Bilbo Baggins' journey there and back, by e.g. adding a foe that never was there, and by adding battles that never were there either. I can let that slide once or twice, but not more than half of the time, and that was only the first movie!

now back to the film. the fact that movie is a trilogy means (1) it has to have a lot of content and (2) even if the whole is a very good story as divided by three each may suffer some problems such as pacing. the first installment is all about laying the foundation - introducing characters - lots of them! many viewers got bored, despite the fact that Jackson already cut many Hobbiton scenes (which is restored in EE and in my opinion, should be left in the theatrical version). In addition, movies and books are totally different media. in books characters can be developed by describing one's inner thoughts. in movies despite the best actors using their facial expressions and body language you can never read their minds, so you need to show "actions". books can rarely describe battle scenes thorough enough but movies are the perfect medium for that sort of visuals. also as a movie it will be seen by many non-readers, so it has to be good storytelling on its own. to keep people coming back 2 years in a row will require the movie to be highly entertaining. i doubt the movie would be half as interesting if adopted strictly from the book. The book was thin and as written for children and it doesn't have to be as detailed, and the Dwarfs are hardly developed except for thorin, who is a rather unlikeable character unlike the movie version. i for one couldn't even go past page 20 in my first try. i think i fell asleep on the toilet.  

The bolded is actually where it all stops:
The Hobbit is not a trilogy like the LotR. It's a simple children's book. Compared to the LotR books it has maybe a 6th of its number of pages. Plus its content is a lot simplier and less complicated than the LotR.
The Hobbit never was meant to be a trilogy, nor does it have enough content to rationalize that it even deserves to be a trilogy when made into a movie.

The only reason they decided to make the Hobbit into a 3 part movie is money, plain and simple. It's a way to milk the LotR movie fans even more, not the real Tolkien fans. Making 3 movies about a book that contains not even half of 1 of the 3 books of the real trilogy: that's ridiculous. I could have accepted a 2 part movie, the first part e.g. ending when Bilbo finds the ring. But 3? No way.
So they had to stretch the story and fill the blanks with filler battles and nonsensical feuds/foes/blood enemies, and of course the gratuitous shots of characters that we loved in the LotR but never even were mentioned in the Hobbit.
It's just watering the wine, really. And not with good, fresh well water, but recycled and stale water.

now about the content that you despise the most - battle scenes! i do agree that the goblin part is too long and the fighting scene is kinda ridiculous (hay it's fantasy after all!) but it's quite fun to watch (reminds me the chasing scene in TLOR moria). about the real "battle" of the book, PJ already said that it will be the biggest battle yet he has ever done - bigger than any in TLOR. so compared w/ that, what you call as "battles" in the first installment is really nothing. as a visual medium there's nothing wrong to spell out any "fight" which barely worth a sentence or two in the book into a full fighting sequence. now about pleasing the young audiences w/ epic battle scenes - you may not know but this is very evident in the behind the scene material of the EE blu ray/dvd discs: Peter Jackson is a little boy trapped in a middle aged man's body. this guy has a vivid imagination and he craves those action sequences. i am not sure that his main goal is to attract young audiences (although the hobbit book is for youngsters and hte movie is PG13) but he definitely makes this and the TLOR movies to satisfy himself first, based on his own vision, and his own interpretation of the book. PJ loves epic battle scenes and this is evident in all his big budget movies (think King Kong!). so like it or not, this is Peter jackson's movie. not everybody likes his movies, but we don't see another film maker's version. right now we have HIS version.

I would never tell anyone not to like the movies. Everyone's taste is different, and especially if you haven't read the books why should you even care that the movies don't follow it?

It's Peter Jackson's toy now and he can indeed do with it what he wants. And Peter Jackson want battles, and special effects, and heroes, and ugly enemies, and big scenes, and more battles. I'm almost glad that there apparently were enough battles in the original LotR books to satisfy him, so he didn't really need to deviate too much from the books for those movies (although he still did).
But as a Tolkien reader first and foremost I do not call this new 'trilogy' even near to a proper movie adaptation of the Hobbit, more like a 'Peter Jackson's midlife crisis and his Peter Pan experience (never wanting to leave Middle Earth Neverland) combined', and some very smart studio and executive producers backing him financially up because they can trap an audience for 6 movies instead of the original (and very sincere) 3.

It's all about the money, not integrity or reverence to Tolkien's legacy, at this point. If they really wanted to make a new trilogy about a Tolkien book they should have chosen the Silmarillion, but they know darn well that 90% of the targeted audience never even heard of that book. Or they could just have come right out and say it's just an excuse to milk the LotR hype for 4-5 years more.
The Hobbit would have made a nice follow-up movie after the LotR trilogy, even a 2-parter if they had been creative, but nothing justifies it being contorted into an epic historic novel like the LotR was.


To put it into perspective: Chris refused big bucks from movie studios to film 'Struck by Lightning', because they wanted to change it. They wanted to add effects that would make the movie more mainstream, more marketable. They wanted to add a love interest, main characters getting laid, maybe soften some sarcastic jokes and/or replace them with silly stupid 'American Pie' teenage movies ones, and it was even said that some of them wanted to replace Chris for the main role by some more cookiecutter shaped actor.
And Chris expressed practically the same sentiments now when people are interested in his TLoS books.

Tolkien is dead: he can't protest anymore if he doesn't like what they are doing to his stories. And boldly said: they basicly pulled the Hobbit apart, mixed it with bits and pieces of the other Middle Earth stories out of historical context, and glued it together with a lot of helter skelter rollercoaster special effects, like some cheap Greek mythology movie that are made by the dozens right now.

regarding your statement that the hobbit book is all about ordinary people do heroic things - i totally get that from the movie. i think the spirit of the movie is well kept, despite the addition/omission of some little details.

Maybe if you've seen the movie a couple of times, e.g. had bought it on dvd, then yes: I think you can take that away from it.
But most people walking out of the cinema after seeing the movie will only be talking about the cool fighting scenes, the hot dwarfs and other warriors, and the special effects.

from the point of view of a non book reader, i find the movie very engaging and fun to watch. i love the second half (w/ all the actions) more than teh first part, which was more whimsical and comical. it's not perfect of course, as the tone of the movie changed half way and feels a bit disjointed. but the more i watched the better opinion i had of this movie. i noticed tons of little details that added to my appreciation of the effort by all that's involved.

As I said: if people enjoy the movies for what they are, I'm happy for them. I can even enjoy them myself if I stop thinking about it all and just step into the roller coaster ride with some popcorn on the side. Peter Jackson is a gifted director, and even script writer. And everyone involved in making the movies are experts and artists. A lot of love went into these movies, no doubt.

Please don't think I'm dissing the movie(s) because I think they're crap: they're not, and quite enjoyable to millions of people, obviously.
I just personally don't think they are telling the story of the book they are supposedly holding in high regards, even claim to love. They clearly love the money they can make of it a whole helluva lot more.

gosh my chrome browser is doing something weird lately and i just lost a big chunk of what i just wrote...   ok i will try to do it again.  

about the money/trilogy decision - the project initially was slated for 2 movies. but the budget was HUGE and time warner told PJ that it has to be 3 for the studio to make a profit. after all movie studios must make money or else they will go under. didn't MGM kind of went bankrupt? PJ probably spent more time negotiating w/ the studios than making the film itself. But it's unfair to compare it w/ chris' small budget movie. first of all chris wants full control of his film. he does not want to give up control because it's his own work about his own life (sort of) and he wants to own it 100%. since the film can be made for a very small sum (1 million in hollywood terms is very small indeed), he does not need to bow down to the big studios. the Hobbit's budget, not including post production of the 3rd film, already exceeds half a billion. it will likely reach 3/4 of a billion when it's complete. there's no way anybody, without the big financial backup of the giant movie studio like TW, can get it made. (btw, TLOR trilogy's cost is less than 300 million - everything has gone up in price including my grocery bills!) you cannot totally ignore the money aspect. live-action fantasy movies pretty much require a huge budget and lots of special effects - how else can you portray a dragon and out-of-this-world creatures? if it doesn't appeal to a big audience it will never be profitable, hence it will never be made in the first place, because no investor will invest in money-losing projects. that's just cold hard facts.

i also don't think PJ wants to "milk" the success of TLOR. it's apparent that he is huge Tolkien fan and he really put his heart and soul into this project. now you don't have to agree w/ his POV or like his approach, but he didn't skim on anything. If anything he's facing a bigger challenge because the huge success that TLOR achieved and that created a very high bar for him. he and his writer partner explained various deviations from the book in the DVD commentary, and I think they made a lot of sense. now it doesn't mean that these are the best solutions to the problems they had when adapting the story, but they do make sense and i do enjoy the result.

more about movie adaptation - i like the fact that they take the main story of the hobbit book and turn it into an adventure story. this comes from a person who actually does not like the original book (me). if they were to remain completely "faithful" to the book, it would be a simple children's movie full of songs and dances, aka Disney style (w/o a Disney-ish ending though). i wouldn't want to watch this movie, because there are already cartoons made from this book previously. they are fine for kids, but i want more of TLOR type of movies - epic adventures w/ lavish visuals and gripping storylines and state of the art production values. i mean, they are FANTASY (something out of this world) movies and i expect something fantastic to feast my tired eyes on.   i don't mind other film makers making more "pure" versions of the live-action movie based on the Hobbit. but so far nobody else has done it, and probably nobody else will (animations more likely).

i just realized a very interesting pattern on my part when it comes to book-to-movie adaptations. if I read the book first before seeing the movie, i ALWAYS like the book better. these include the whole HP series and Dan Brown series among others. i think these movies are well-made on their own but they just don't meet my expectations. having preconceived images of the story from initial book reading really ruined any chance for me to fully enjoy the films. i mean, once your brain is "contaminated", it cannot be undone. now the opposite is also true for me - if i watch the movie before reading the book (given that i like the movies enough to bother to read the book later), I almost always prefer the movie version to the book. The only exception is the Song of Fire and Ice (Game of Thrones). I like them equally, maybe because i read the book pretty much the same time as i watch the movies (some chapters first, some chapters later).

Marie: you don't have to like what i like. we are all individuals w/ unique tastes. i am not trying to convert you.    and by the same token i cannot be converted by your opinion either.   the conversation started from my discussion of how one's imagination can affect our perception of related work later on. the adaptation of the hobbit is one example i used, based on my own pattern as written in above paragraph. i was just making a point, and this "point" is not true for everybody either. a lot of the ringers love the movie, but generally, die hard "purists" will never be happy.

p.s. the first time i watched the Hobbit, w/o the help of any background knowledge from teh book and w/o the help of subtitles I was lost half the time. i thought it went too fast. so my impression based on the first viewing was rather luke warm. the second viewing happened after I did some research and figured out who is who. I could understand the movie completely and i really enjoyed it. After about the third watching i watched it another half a dozen times mainly to stare at the majestic Thorin   I remember w/ The Fellowship, I too had to check wikipedia to figure out various characters and the back story. Oh, the Game of Throne is even more confusing if you don't read the book or do some research first. Anybody else here love TGOT? i know Ivana does.

I thought last year's "the Hobbit " was over bloated and lost the nice simple storytelling appeal of the original book.

LOTR was written as an epic story .

The Hobbit was written as a hobbit's simple adventure.

I dunno I'd rather PJ had stated he was going to create a movie trilogy based around the Tolkien mythology , instead of changing "The Hobbit" beyond all recognition.

i saw it not as the hobbit movie but a movie based on the hobbit story but basically a TLOR prequel. perhaps PJ should change its name to something other than The Hobbit.  

about simple story to movies - a lot of fairy tales are very short and simple and occupy a few pages in books. when you make a movie based on those simple stories (say, snow white), you may only have material to make a 15 minute short film, but we see plenty of feature length movie adaptations, from Disney's song-and-dance-and-whimsical-creatures to modern darker variations littered w/ special effects. now we may not like them all (if any), but it doesn't mean film makers shouldn't utilize their creativity and make more complex, lengthy movies out of short, simple stories.

if you have never read the hobbit book, and just judge the movie based on its own merit, you may more likely to appreciate its storytelling. for example, if you didn't know the book was so "simple", you wouldn't think the movie is "bloated".   again that's exactly my point - that your preconception will likely taint the viewing experience of a derivative work, because you have already set in your mind how it's supposed to be. at least that's what happens to me all the time. there's really no right or wrong here.

Without reading the book, or seeing the movie, I do however have seen a quite well done animation film from the The Hobbit. A European, early 80's stuff? Do I remember correctly?

I have however seen the size difference between the LOTR books and the Hobbit book, but I somehow assumed Jackson had combined The Hobbit and Simarillion...no reason for me to actually make that connection but the sheer difference of pages Tolkien has written.

But do go on ladies, as a non-fan of the whole Tolkien world I really do find both of your perspectives interesting read. Because I personally am always conflicted when a book and movie are combined.

^I think making a movie adaptation of a (beloved) book is always tricky, and it seldom satisfies the majority of the (book reading) audience. For instance: I think some of the HP books were adapted very well into their movies, but others were horrible. And the other way around: I only read the 'Bridget Jones' books after having seen the movies, and I really didn't like those books.
Bringing the LotR to the cinema was really, really well done, as those books were deemed impossibe to film. The Hobbit? Not so much.

And yes, there was an animated movie made of the Hobbit, but it was not so good and it ended halfway through, as it (also) was meant to be a 2-parter, but the 2nd movie never was made (due to the first movie being a flop, I assume).


Kim:
I understand the production team and the studio had to juggle production costs and make certain decisions, but if the budget requiered to make a decent Hobbit movie was too much without having to milk it by making 3 movies, then they could have chosen to do 1, more modest movie instead. The HP movie makers could do it, and they had dragons in several of their movies. And there are other examples of movies with similar problems as the Hobbit, including spectacular special effects, which stayed within a certain budget and still made a profit. It's a matter of making choices.
Plus I bet that most of those extreme high productions costs for the Hobbit went to the creation of the superfluous battles, like the moving ramps and sliding paths/walls in mines etc. Martin Freeman does not demand that high a pay check after all.

As for the Disney comparison: I doubt the original story of te Hobbit would have been suitable for a Snowwhite kind of movie: there's too much darkness in it for that. That's like saying that the 'Watership Down' book would have made an excellent Disney movie because it has bunnies in it. Just because the Hobbit has dwarfs and wizards it is not a simple fairytale.
For instance Thorin is a much moodier and unpleasant character in the books, and frankly so is Bilbo. If anything the movie has 'hero-fied' both of them and made them more sympathetic than they are in the books.
Add all the extra special effects and cheap rollercoaster tricks to that, which are basically an equivalent to Disney's songs in their movies, and the Hobbit indeed wasn't so much 'Disney-fied', but it was 'Thor-fied' or (for the oldies amongst us) 'Indiana Jones-fied'.

But you're right: we'll never be able to convince each other of our vision, and I would never try to take away your pleasure in those movies. But it was a nice discussion nonetheless.  

Buenos wrote:I thought last year's "the Hobbit " was over bloated and lost  the nice simple storytelling appeal of the original book.

LOTR was written as an epic story .

The Hobbit was written as a hobbit's simple adventure.

I dunno I'd rather PJ had stated he was going to create a movie trilogy based around the Tolkien mythology  , instead of changing "The Hobbit" beyond all recognition.

Exactly. Only you said it in much, much lesser and simpler words.
You're the Hobbit to my Lord of the Rings.

fantastica wrote:@brisallie/Romina: since you didn't read the hobbit book, i just want to tell you that Gimli's father Gloin is one of the Dwarves in the movie. The Elvin king shown briefly in the beginning of the movie in the Erebor flashback, Thranduil, is Legolas' father. Fili and Kili (the prettiest young dwarf) are Thorin's nephews. Thorin (the company leader, dwarf king-to-be) has no children so these 2 are his heirs. the movie at least in its first installment didn't explain their relationships so I just want you to know.

p.s. i wrote all these names from my memory so if i misspelled any please forgive me.

Thanks for explaining this. I don't remember if it was mentioned this on the movie, but I remember that when I saw Gloin I said he reminded someone else, and now I see who.

It is said in the appendixes of the LotR that Gimli and Legolas restored the relationship between elves and dwarfs, as their fathers once were enemies (which was touched upon and probably will be touched upon again in the Hobbit movies).

The friendship of Gimli and Legolas was legendary, as theirs was the only registered friendship between an elf and a dwarf. After the LotR they helped Aragorn rebuild Minas Tirith and travelled together for a long time.
When Gimli was old and about to die he was allowed to go to the West to see his beloved Lady Galadriel once again, and Legolas, who was by all means still a young elf, decided to leave his family behind and go with Gimli, which was in a way the elves' equivalent of dying.

I haven't rad LOTR either, so all what I know from this world is based on the movies. And Gimli/Legolas friendship was one of my favorite ones along with Sam/Frodo, which I think is loved by everyone and twisted by others lol. I liked how they started as enemies, and through the time they realized those issues between their people was part of the past, and now they have to together as a big community, and help to each other.

it's one thing to read a thin book w/ unlikeable characters. it's another thing to watch 3 long movies w/ unlikeable main characters. Audiences must invest in the characters enough to enjoy the movie experience. They changed Thorin from one dimensional grouchy, stubborn, greedy mean old man to a more sympathetic, kingly nobleman w/ a big burden on the shoulder. He's a tragic hero, and to me this is a thousand times better than the book version.

i don't see what's the harm of film makers taking the basic characters and plot lines from a popular book and put them in a new art form using his/her own creativity. to me this is also within the realm of "adaptation". the film maker can inject his/her own personalities, world views, artistic and styling preferences and create something totally new. again everybody has different taste and taste is something very visceral. there's really no arguing about it.

about hobbit production cost - although the cost of making 3 is higher than one film it's not 3x1 exactly. in other words with each additional piece the incremental cost gets lower, while the box office potential does not diminish. i don't think making 1 movie would be profitable at all, and given Jackson's storytelling style he would need more than 3 hours to tell the whole story. so it makes financial sense to stretch it into 3. as long as they can come up w/ enough interesting material i don't care if it's 3 or more, because i really don't care about the book origin. BTW if you have ever watched Asian tv shows you will be amazed how they can turn a simple cinderella story into a 100+ episode soap. now that's really something to dread about!   ok back to the topic: the design and production of the character and sets are pretty much the same when you create one movie or more. they spent lot of money just at the conceptual stage and it lasted YEARS prior to filming. In HP pretty much everything was limited to a handful of indoor scenes or specific locations. The kid actors were cheap to hire. Costume and character designs were human based and a faithful to the book so it doesn't take months or even years of brainstorming.  it's true that Martin Freeman did not yet command a huge salary but bringing back Orlando Bloom, who was pretty much nobody a decade ago, costed millions (i am sure it's mostly for his eye-candy power - but what's wrong w/ eye candies if he can be incorporated well?). I Don't know how much Cumberbatch ask for salary wise but since he's the hottest thing in Hollywood since the mid-noon sun i bet his paycheck was hefty too. Also each of the 13 Dwarf actors as well as Bilbo required several doubles (stunt double, scale double, stunt scale double, picture double and even a riding double). All the doubles required the his/her own set of prosthetics, costumes, and intensive physical training to prepare for the role. the size of the cast makes glee cast look small in comparison. and unlike TLOR which uses camera angle tricks to create size differences, Hobbit is shot in 3D so they really can't do that. They have to resort to very sophisticated technologies which made them more costly to produce than TLOR.

more over, many characters in the book are very under-developed and quite 1 dimensional - it's a children's book after all! The book may be thin but there are still a lot of actions going on. Tolkien just didn't go any deeper or explain many things clearly. In the movie form the story as it's written may not be well presented when it's geared toward adults. Finally PJ definitely doesn't want to make a kids' film. He wanted to make a TLOR prequel, in teh same style and tone. and PJ always spend considerable screen time developing his characters, sometimes to the detriment of impatient modern viewers. yes he loves action sequences - there's nothing wrong w/ action sequences. it's an "advanture" after all. Based on the "simple" material in the book, and knowing PJ's style, i believe there's no way he can fit all of them into just one movie (other film maker may be able to, but PJ can't). you may not like this movie, but it's very Jackson from begining to end. He didn't do a sloppy job. He just didn't make the movie some fans of the book imagined for themselves. oh, and the action sequences are not "cheap" at all. it's expensive to make and the CG quality is way better than TLOR (yes i went back to my TLOR DVDs and many action scenes seem very blotchy and CG-ish - technology is simply better now no doubt).

and just a note of reality: HP movies are not cheap to make either. The half blood prince alone cost 250 mil so the Hobbit's cost per film is really quite in line w/ other special-effects-rich blockbuster movies.

about the cartoon - i never watched any cartoon versions of hte hobbit but I have watched a cartoon version of TLOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)). i had a n ex-boyfriend who was a huge ringer and he rented that movie for me back when it as on VHS. it was only the first half of the story and teh follow up was never made, but the cartoon was wonderful and the visual style was very unique. it was because of this cartoon that brought me into the theater to watch the movie trilogy. i never read the book.

p.s. this is kinda fun. i'd rather praising a show i enjoy than bitching about glee. i felt like i was turning into a grouchy old bitch w/ the constant negativity.

fantastica wrote:p.s. this is kinda fun. i'd rather praising a show i enjoy than bitching about glee. i felt like i was turning into a grouchy old bitch w/ the constant negativity.

Who wouldn't prefer that? Is way better than losing energy bitching about a crap series. The thing is, sometimes I find myself feeling so disappointed than Glee isn't as good as the series I love, and once again makes me wonder why I watch Glee.

And as regards books adapted to films, even though lots of fans disliked some details from the book were changed, personally I liked J.K Rowling worked along the screenwriter, and both dicussed how to adapt a book of one hundred pages into the big screen, without losing the core of the storyline. Also I know she tried to work closely to the directors, except one she had some issues, to see her beloved book represented as faithfully as possible on the screen. But also she didn't have problems to add some ideas from directors.

JK rowling negotiated her rights to influence the movie including casting and other stuff. tolkien didn't do that when the sold the adaptation rights to TLOR and Hobbit. His estate holds the right to all other work and they are unlikely to sell them anytime soon.