Digital Art Zone

 
   
4 of 4
4
OT:  The Hobbit….WOW!!!
Posted: 17 December 2012 08:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  933
Joined  2005-03-26
Zaarin - 17 December 2012 05:35 PM
LeatherGryphon - 17 December 2012 01:48 PM

“When he said she glowed, it was with the light of the Eldar—the reflection of the Two Trees of Valinor, which she had seen.”

And just where in the movie would the story of the two trees of Valinor have been introduced and defined as the “Eldar”? And how would the glow of two trees been illustrated?  Do we need another scene or three or another movie?

It didn’t have to be mentioned, but it shouldn’t have been freakin’ polarized blue dark glow, leaving half the audience believing Gimli’s tale that she’s an elf witch. How would it have been illustrated? A very bright white light, just like Arwen in the flight to the Fords because it’s from the same cause (re:Arwen should not have been in that scene). Really not that difficult. No extra dialogue or scenes necessary. Besides, prior to the movies LotR was a niche market; they could have assumed an educated audience instead of pandering to the masses. But clearly Jackson likes action even where it adds nothing to the plot. While he’s an infinitely better storyteller than George Lucas, they have that unfortunate trait in common.

For that one scene in FotR, Jackson (inadvertently?  very effectively!) deposed the Noldor queen, who crossed the ice from the West with the sons of Feänor in pursuit of the Silmarils, and in her place set up Jadis the Accursed,  who spoke the Deplorable Word over dying Charn and subjected Narnia to a century or more of Yule-less winter.  This, without any indication that Lotho Jackson ever read Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia!

 Signature 

My dA gallery
For God’s sake!  Gallifrey Stands!

And God still reigns.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2012 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  395
Joined  2005-08-23
Eustace Scrubb - 17 December 2012 08:55 PM
Zaarin - 17 December 2012 05:35 PM
LeatherGryphon - 17 December 2012 01:48 PM

“When he said she glowed, it was with the light of the Eldar—the reflection of the Two Trees of Valinor, which she had seen.”

And just where in the movie would the story of the two trees of Valinor have been introduced and defined as the “Eldar”? And how would the glow of two trees been illustrated?  Do we need another scene or three or another movie?

It didn’t have to be mentioned, but it shouldn’t have been freakin’ polarized blue dark glow, leaving half the audience believing Gimli’s tale that she’s an elf witch. How would it have been illustrated? A very bright white light, just like Arwen in the flight to the Fords because it’s from the same cause (re:Arwen should not have been in that scene). Really not that difficult. No extra dialogue or scenes necessary. Besides, prior to the movies LotR was a niche market; they could have assumed an educated audience instead of pandering to the masses. But clearly Jackson likes action even where it adds nothing to the plot. While he’s an infinitely better storyteller than George Lucas, they have that unfortunate trait in common.

For that one scene in FotR, Jackson (inadvertently?  very effectively!) deposed the Noldor queen, who crossed the ice from the West with the sons of Feänor in pursuit of the Silmarils, and in her place set up Jadis the Accursed,  who spoke the Deplorable Word over dying Charn and subjected Narnia to a century or more of Yule-less winter.  This, without any indication that Lotho Jackson ever read Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia!

That reminds me that I’m very disappointed with Disney’s depiction of Jadis. While I’m not a huge Narnia fan and overall enjoyed Disney’s interpretations, Lewis set up Jadis as a beautiful, charismatic (and dark haired) figure—and she was none of those things in any of the films. Films Jadis was actually a rather dull villain.

In the end, I’m inclined to think Tolkien was right—fantasy is not the best genre for movies. The human imagination is much more vivid than the screen, and the screen will inevitably disappoint.

 Signature 

My RuntimeDNA Store
My Renderosity Gallery
My deviantArt Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2010-09-18

I genuinely hope those who go to see it enjoy it, but I am going to be skipping it.  I quite liked Fellowship of the Ring, but Two Towers and Return of the King, in my opinion, crossed the line from adaptation to annoying fan fiction.  Everything I have seen of The Hobbit looks like the same take, so I will just save myself the pain. grin  I’m curious about the 48 frames per second version though.  Anyone who wants to post their opinions on that, I would love to read them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  213
Joined  2008-06-12
Mr Gneiss Guy - 18 December 2012 09:26 AM

I genuinely hope those who go to see it enjoy it, but I am going to be skipping it.  I quite liked Fellowship of the Ring, but Two Towers and Return of the King, in my opinion, crossed the line from adaptation to annoying fan fiction.  Everything I have seen of The Hobbit looks like the same take, so I will just save myself the pain. grin  I’m curious about the 48 frames per second version though.  Anyone who wants to post their opinions on that, I would love to read them.

The 48fps was… odd.  I’m still not sure what I think of it.  Sometimes it did feel like watching video rather than film, and I think this has more to do with the way lighting works than with actual image clarity.  In one or two interior scenes, I felt extremely conscious that the scene was illuminated by a nice fire-coloured studio light somewhere off camera.  I think that, just as sound engineering had to be re-learned as vinyl disks gave way to digital compact discs (early CDs had a notoriously ‘harsh’ sound), cinematography has to be rediscovered for the higher frame rate.  As it is, I think The Hobbit is a less than successful experiment in the craft.

But then, I still think that 3D films are a passing fad.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  395
Joined  2005-08-23
Mr Gneiss Guy - 18 December 2012 09:26 AM

I genuinely hope those who go to see it enjoy it, but I am going to be skipping it.  I quite liked Fellowship of the Ring, but Two Towers and Return of the King, in my opinion, crossed the line from adaptation to annoying fan fiction.  Everything I have seen of The Hobbit looks like the same take, so I will just save myself the pain. grin  I’m curious about the 48 frames per second version though.  Anyone who wants to post their opinions on that, I would love to read them.

I enjoyed TTT despite its differences from the book, except for Helm’s Deep, where I found the presence of Haldir’s Elven warriors to be definitely crossing deep into fan-fic territory. For the most part, I think Jackson kept quite true to the spirit of The Hobbit, though it is Jackson, so there are plenty of scenes where peril and action occur when they just didn’t need to. raspberry

 Signature 

My RuntimeDNA Store
My Renderosity Gallery
My deviantArt Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  727
Joined  2003-10-09
Ostadan - 18 December 2012 10:19 AM

But then, I still think that 3D films are a passing fad.

3D films have been a passing fad ever since the concept was first thought of.

mac

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  933
Joined  2005-03-26
Zaarin - 18 December 2012 11:39 AM

For the most part, I think Jackson kept quite true to the spirit of The Hobbit, though it is Jackson, so there are plenty of scenes where peril and action occur when they just didn’t need to. raspberry

I went into it with reduced expectations (and a few drinks down the hatch), so it wasn’t dreadfully upsetting.  But I don’t remember any scene from the book that was actually included in the film, which Jackson did not in some measure mess up.  It was mostly his misrepresentation of the characters and their motives and interactions that got me.  It was a prequel, which the book never was, and suffered from the same Sequelitis (or Prequelitis) that most film (and book) follow-ons suffer from.

 Signature 

My dA gallery
For God’s sake!  Gallifrey Stands!

And God still reigns.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  395
Joined  2005-08-23
Eustace Scrubb - 18 December 2012 03:47 PM
Zaarin - 18 December 2012 11:39 AM

For the most part, I think Jackson kept quite true to the spirit of The Hobbit, though it is Jackson, so there are plenty of scenes where peril and action occur when they just didn’t need to. raspberry

I went into it with reduced expectations (and a few drinks down the hatch), so it wasn’t dreadfully upsetting.  But I don’t remember any scene from the book that was actually included in the film, which Jackson did not in some measure mess up.  It was mostly his misrepresentation of the characters and their motives and interactions that got me.  It was a prequel, which the book never was, and suffered from the same Sequelitis (or Prequelitis) that most film (and book) follow-ons suffer from.

For me, I consider the fact that Tolkien didn’t originally intend The Hobbit to be part of his legendarium—it got retrofitted in the LotR appendices—so I don’t mind some of the minor changes that make the tone more cohesive with the tone of LotR. For example, I’m very grateful Jackson didn’t include the singing Elves in Rivendell. I am, however, glad he kept “Blunt the Knives”... raspberry

 Signature 

My RuntimeDNA Store
My Renderosity Gallery
My deviantArt Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2012 10:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2010-09-18
Zaarin - 18 December 2012 09:24 PM
Eustace Scrubb - 18 December 2012 03:47 PM
Zaarin - 18 December 2012 11:39 AM

For the most part, I think Jackson kept quite true to the spirit of The Hobbit, though it is Jackson, so there are plenty of scenes where peril and action occur when they just didn’t need to. raspberry

I went into it with reduced expectations (and a few drinks down the hatch), so it wasn’t dreadfully upsetting.  But I don’t remember any scene from the book that was actually included in the film, which Jackson did not in some measure mess up.  It was mostly his misrepresentation of the characters and their motives and interactions that got me.  It was a prequel, which the book never was, and suffered from the same Sequelitis (or Prequelitis) that most film (and book) follow-ons suffer from.

For me, I consider the fact that Tolkien didn’t originally intend The Hobbit to be part of his legendarium—it got retrofitted in the LotR appendices—so I don’t mind some of the minor changes that make the tone more cohesive with the tone of LotR. For example, I’m very grateful Jackson didn’t include the singing Elves in Rivendell. I am, however, glad he kept “Blunt the Knives”... raspberry

What!?  No, “Tra-la-la-la-lally? rolleyes

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 December 2012 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  395
Joined  2005-08-23

Not from Lord Elrond and his kin, thank you. Legolas can make up for it, if he likes. raspberry

 Signature 

My RuntimeDNA Store
My Renderosity Gallery
My deviantArt Gallery

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4