| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 12/19/2007 : 22:17:49
Thought I'd bring this discussion into its own thread before Mr. Salopian has a chance to object.
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Only yesterday, I PMed Baffy to suggest that the performance of THE GOLDEN COMPASS might hasten hatchet burial between Bob Shaye and Peter Jackson. And look what happened.
I read that this morning.  I'm curious to know the 'nature' of the deal. PJ believed he was owed around $100m.
"Believed" [more to the point, "asserted"?] and "sued" and "you lousy crooks" and such are annoyingly common phrases in La-La. I never "believed" for an instant that the Shaye/Jackson dust-up would prevent Jackson from eventually making THE HOBBIT [true, he apparently won't direct, but he'll still have Kubrick-level control over the project, so I say he's making the films], and at New Line. Worldwide fan sentiment, an unrelenting horde of negative pre-buzz, would make it idiotic to (1) hand the project to anyone else, and (2) take it if you were the schnook it was offered to!
The party line is that Jackson started making nice a year ago, it's just a coincidence that the announcement comes out right now. I don't "believe" that for a nanosecond. Yes, all parties waited around for the results, and New Line would have eventually made a deal no matter what, but TGC was New Line's blink: where do we sign, Pete, ol' pal?
Sam Raimi would reportedly like a whack at the director's chair [remember, we'll shoot both films at once, like RINGS, so once we decide, it's in for a pound]. I think he'd be a fine choice. Any other suggestions? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 05/05/2013 : 01:30:44
I liked, didn't love. Somehow everything seemed flimsier than the original trilogy, with the sole and single exception of Gollum, who looks better than ever. [Andy Serkis even gets his own "And...as Gollum" card.] Had this been on premium cable, we would be jumping up and down at how beautiful it is [c.f., GAME OF THRONES], but it's stacked up against a three-past masterwork which, even with older technology, looks far more substantial.
If del Toro brought anything to the script, then he also has to answer for its (1) languid pace and (2) inappropriate anachronisms [c.f., the Goblin King's curtain line, a couple of Gandalf's throwaways]. Even the majestic "helicopter shots" which so thrilled us in the original films [c.f., the breathtaking fire-signal sequence] now seem stale, overdone.
Yes, it's only the first part of a longer story. Yes, it has its moments [though the escape-from-the-goblins sequence is so physically implausible that it reduces the action to a cartoon: specifically, that Popeye short where Olive Oyl sleepwalks over skyscraper girders]. But when I first watched each film in the LotR trilogy, my initial desire was to see it again. After seeing THE HOBBIT for the first time, my initial desire is to turn back to the good ones. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 01/05/2013 : 23:36:19
I am a little late with this but the updated rebooted CGI this looks great, characters and backgrounds blended seamlessly.
Despite there being a few times when I shifted in my seat and became distracted by the extensions of some scenes, this did not last long as I was soon immersed back into Middle Earth.
Acting was great particularly Freeman and Serkis.
Some nice new aspects of The Shire & Rivendell.
Look forward to the next two parts with ballymaloe relish.
Here is my blog review if you like.
http://wp.me/p1MbTJ-i2
|
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 12/23/2012 : 04:14:56
Boxing Day Opening in Australia. Can't wait (but will have to anyway). |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/21/2012 : 21:48:31
Well, guys, I don't pay nearly the attention you all do to the details - and no doubt to matters such as whether 48 fps provides so much more than the normal 24.
Don't get me wrong - Peter Jackson's Unexpected Journey looks terrific. But whatever else it's an ultra-extended set-up for the more exciting, more mythical, and - dare I say - more magical middle and end of Tolkien's first steps into Middle Earth which are yet to come. Yep, it does feel like padding.
In sheer story-telling terms it feels - hmm, how can I put this - more than slightly predictable. The most intriguing shot comes at the very, tippy-toe end - and no I'm certainly not going to tell you what it is.
What saves this first of Jackson's trio are three names: Jackson himself, Martin Freeman as the eponymous Bilbo Baggins, and the pervading presence of co-screenwriter Guillermo del Toro [who was very nearly inked to direct the film].
Of course we're already familiar with Jackson's directorial vision, backed by some stunning art direction and editing. SFX and battles have never been an issue - and personally I'm not fussed which fight works better than another.
More important is that it's clear who's who in the muddle of battle. Even though the fights here are plainly schematic, that turns out to be an advantage.
For the film, as I've mentioned, is a journey. Less rogueish than a picaresque, but nevertheless compelling us forward. In this case for any Hobbit virgins, young Bilbo is pretty well commanded by the Wizard Gandalf to help however he can a passle of hard-done by dwarves who've been deprived of their home by an embodiment of pure evil.
Modest, self-effacing, wouldn't say boo to a goose Bilbo looks about his cozy hobbit nook, his full larder and tempting library, his comforting pipe and sense of contentment - and turns them down flat.
That it doesn't take too much to change his mind is the kick-start of the journey. So we'd darn well better be on his side, rooting for him, and consequently for those dwarves. We want them to have some pals along the way who help pull them out of tiny and ginormous scrapes.
And, we may not know it, but we want Bilbo to do stuff that makes him feel the confidence of others hasn't been misplaced.
Although much screen-time is devoted to the mechanics of the plot, there are some more reflective scenes to guide us on our own journey - the one in which we grow to care about Bilbo. There's one particular scene which kindly gifts that to us - maybe the one most likely to bring a tear to the eye. And, no, I'm not going to tell you what that one is, either.
Freeman's hobbit-boy is inspiring - his performance fills every nook and cranny of Bilbo's dilemmas and self-doubts. Of the ensemble cast I must mention the inimitable Barry Humphries, completely unrecognisable as an obese Goblin; Sylvester McCoy, positively twinkling as the Brown Wizard Radagast [whose slightly bewildered energy reminded me a bit of Disney's Fairy Godmother in the 1950 Cinderella]; and of course, Gollum, as reprieved by Andy Serkis.
He is complex and complete is Andy. But there's something I could never quite put my finger on about his speech patterns. Watching this it occurred to me - Donald Duck!
OK I exaggerate. But do go see The Hobbit - because I have a feeling the second instalment will be spectacular - so, like methodical orderly Bilbo, you'd better be prepared.
|
| Sludge |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 20:56:02
I don't want to dignify it with it's own thread, but thought the knock-off "Age Of Hobbits" would be a magnet for fwiffers. It was barred from U.S. release about 10 days ago, and appears they were already setting up to change the name to "Clash of Empires."
The studio, Asylum Pictures, is no stranger to knock offs. Per The Hollywood Reporter:
quote:
Past films from the company include 2012 Doomsday, Transmorphers: Fall of Man, Battle of Los Angeles and American Warships -- which originally was titled American Battleship until Universal sued to have it changed shortly after that studio's Battleship hit theaters.
They forgot to mention The Terminators.
...and now, back to the real thing. |
| Sean |
Posted - 12/17/2012 : 10:58:50
NO SPOILERS
Plug Tolkein into the Tolkein-movie-generating machine (Jackson et al) and not much could be expected to go wrong... and it didn't. 
Although a lot happens, the story isn't as layered as LOTR, but that's just this particular story. Andy Serkis puts some extra Gollum-ness into Gollum, minor characters are just as endearing as the main ones (Radagast the Brown and his pets) and overall it has a lighter feel than LOTR with plenty of humour although there is no shortage of nasty things out to get everyone.
3D HFR is immersive, it looked fantastic without being jump-out-of-the-screen gimmicky. My guess is HFR is here to stay, and so is 3D. I will most certainly be seeing the next two installments in this format. There were a few times when I was rather glad I wasn't watching it in 24FPS 2D.
My only complaint is that the score felt like filler-material in places.
9/10
|
| Sean |
Posted - 12/13/2012 : 03:03:38
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I just booked my 3D HFR ticket for next Thursday (the day after opening). Can't wait. 
Well, this was going to be tonight. But, their HFR projector crapped out so I cancelled my booking.   |
| Sean |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 20:38:11
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I just booked my 3D HFR ticket for next Thursday (the day after opening). Can't wait.
That's most unlike you - actually going to the cinema instead of watching a DVD. 
Yeah I save the cinema for the ones where visuals are of major importance. In this case 3D HFR is something that can only be seen at the cinema. (Last movie I saw at the cinema was Avatar.)
Also, I'm a ringnut. No way am I waiting for the DVD for this one. 
|
| Chris C |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:24:40
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I just booked my 3D HFR ticket for next Thursday (the day after opening). Can't wait.
That's most unlike you - actually going to the cinema instead of watching a DVD. |
| Sean |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 02:14:11
I just booked my 3D HFR ticket for next Thursday (the day after opening). Can't wait. |
| randall |
Posted - 08/04/2012 : 22:03:17
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I suppose there's some satisfying balance to having two trilogies, but the whole thing smacks of unnecessary money grubbing to me. It's a 300 page book
...and 125 pages of appendices from LOTR... that's a movie in itself.quote:
- don't tell me Jackson couldn't have managed it in two hours. Even two films was pushing it. The LOTR films worked because they are three big books packed with incident - plenty of material to use or drop - three Hobbit films feels like extension for the sake of extension.
PJ has always (since the 3-movies issue was raised) said it's because there was plenty of material available that they couldn't film, e.g., a couple of weeks ago.
Sure there's more money now there's an extra film, that goes without saying. But I always thought LOTR suffered (as excellent as it was) as a result of the material that was cut; the cinematic versions are decidedly inferior to the real thing (the Extended Cut) which is two hours longer. If the Extended Cut was a few hours longer it would be better still. In particular, the cinematic version of The Two Towers felt like an exposition of essential plot action crammed into three hours with little time left for the other material that helps it flow.
As it is, LOTR Extended Cut works out at about 100 pages per hour of movie and that's with a lot of stuff cut. That makes The Hobbit three hours at an absolute minimum with heavy cutting and compromising. Four hours and two movies sounds better, with another two-hour movie from the LOTR appendices.
Agree that the Extended Editions are the *real* LotR movies. But there's plenty of stuff that I was glad to see left out. For example, I didn't miss Tom Bombadil one bit.
As for three Hobbit movies, I plan to wait and see. Jackson is the only filmmaker thus far who has managed to successfully transfer Tolkien to the screen, so he's earned the benefit of the doubt as far as I'm concerned. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 23:35:54
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I suppose there's some satisfying balance to having two trilogies, but the whole thing smacks of unnecessary money grubbing to me. It's a 300 page book
...and 125 pages of appendices from LOTR... that's a movie in itself.quote:
- don't tell me Jackson couldn't have managed it in two hours. Even two films was pushing it. The LOTR films worked because they are three big books packed with incident - plenty of material to use or drop - three Hobbit films feels like extension for the sake of extension.
PJ has always (since the 3-movies issue was raised) said it's because there was plenty of material available that they couldn't film, e.g., a couple of weeks ago.
Sure there's more money now there's an extra film, that goes without saying. But I always thought LOTR suffered (as excellent as it was) as a result of the material that was cut; the cinematic versions are decidedly inferior to the real thing (the Extended Cut) which is two hours longer. If the Extended Cut was a few hours longer it would be better still. In particular, the cinematic version of The Two Towers felt like an exposition of essential plot action crammed into three hours with little time left for the other material that helps it flow.
As it is, LOTR Extended Cut works out at about 100 pages per hour of movie and that's with a lot of stuff cut. That makes The Hobbit three hours at an absolute minimum with heavy cutting and compromising. Four hours and two movies sounds better, with another two-hour movie from the LOTR appendices. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 21:29:18
I suppose there's some satisfying balance to having two trilogies, but the whole thing smacks of unnecessary money grubbing to me. It's a 300 page book - don't tell me Jackson couldn't have managed it in two hours. Even two films was pushing it. The LOTR films worked because they are three big books packed with incident - plenty of material to use or drop - three Hobbit films feels like extension for the sake of extension. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 05:43:11
Well the speculation has proven well-founded; there will be three Rings movies, not two. Peter Jackson confirms it here, and I've pasted it below:-
"An unexpected journey
by Peter Jackson
on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 03:30 �
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved �yes.'
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of �The Hobbit� films, I�d like to announce that two films will become three.
It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."
Cheers,
Peter J" |
| Sludge |
Posted - 06/07/2012 : 18:13:02
Behind The Scenes |
|
|
