The Hobbit...

[Frenetic Pony]

Anything that isn't exactly as the book depicts is bloat!

Tolkein "fans" are absolute nutters about the movies, so I'm just going to watch and enjoy them.

Nah, I'm good with any translation. Like I said, I've adapted books, I know what goes on and that you aren't getting an exact translation no matter what you do. I loved the LOTR movies!

But every review pegs it as too slow. Think King Kong or the end of Return of the King. "What am I doing, where am I going? Can't we just get on with it?"

Also, I fail a bit to understand anyone that thinks the LOTR films haven't aged well. Watched the entire extended trilogy with my little sister (her first time seeing it) and I still enjoyed it! (Fifth time watching them?) Maybe, probably, they're just not something YOU enjoy watching several times, and so you miss what it is you actually aren't enjoying and pick on ridiculous things like "the digital grading hasn't aged well..." Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Most people miss why they don't like something, and hone in on the details to find some sort of explanation to satisfy yourself as to why instead of seeing the real reason.

What you're really, probably missing is the suspension of disbelief. As in, you aren't empathizing with the characters anymore. That's the real key to movies and books and etc. Because, in the human brain, if your "empathize with X" brain section is turned on, then your analytical, logical section is turned off. So if you're not empathizing with the characters, you notice all the little niggles and details that no movie gets right, and think that THAT is surely why you're not enjoying this.

Think about Jurassic Park. "Best CG in any movie ever!!!" Right? Of course not! It's 1992 CG and looks it. The key, the magic, was that Spielberg got you to BELIEVE that there were dinosaurs there, that you were actually seeing them. He got you to empathize with the characters seeing these things, and so you see them too. That's the real "movie magic" that goes on. So anytime you notice the "ugh CG" or "wow that's totally faked!" in a movie, it's almost certainly because you aren't engaged with the story and characters, and so have time and brain power to notice those things.

[Argobot]

http://www.theawl.co...r-hobbit-movies

If you have kids and/or once enjoyed the indoor sport of Dungeons & Dragons, then you will probably go seeThe Hobbit next weekend. But what if Magneto and that guy from The Office weren't in the movie, then what? Other people would be in the movie. Other people have been in such hobbit movies. People like Andrew Breitbart's father-in-law.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Nicely put, Mr Pony!

[Ben X]

Sadly, the BFI IMAX at Waterloo isn't getting HFR. It's the only cinema in London getting a 1570 IMAX print, but only in 24fps 3D.

Apparently Odeon Leicester Square and Marble Arch will be getting 48fps, which I'll be trying to see. I'm really interested to see how it looks, even if the picture quality may not be as good as the IMAX.

Also, it feels like people are getting attacked simply for having opinions in this thread, so careful now.

Personally, I love Fellowship but find that Two Towers and Return Of The King do stumble over the mulitple plot threads and give in to broad comedy moments far too often. I liked the ending of RotK and the shield-surfing, though. I also recommend people watch Bad Taste, Brain Dead (aka Dead Alive), Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners. I haven't seen Feebles or Forgotten Silver yet.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Never fear, Ben, Cineworld are doing HFR 3D screenings!

http://www.cineworld.co.uk/news/402/detail

[Ben X]

Really?! Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere!

[ThunderPeel2001]

Really?! Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere!

Check the link I sneakily added. I'm booked in at the O2 on Thursday 13th at 1.10pm.

[Armchair General]

I should say that I like BRKL and am only being jokey when I say I'll murder him for slating the films.

Sent from my iPhone on a plane to Finland.

[gregbrown]

Also, I fail a bit to understand anyone that thinks the LOTR films haven't aged well. Watched the entire extended trilogy with my little sister (her first time seeing it) and I still enjoyed it! (Fifth time watching them?) Maybe, probably, they're just not something YOU enjoy watching several times, and so you miss what it is you actually aren't enjoying and pick on ridiculous things like "the digital grading hasn't aged well..." Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Most people miss why they don't like something, and hone in on the details to find some sort of explanation to satisfy yourself as to why instead of seeing the real reason.

What you're really, probably missing is the suspension of disbelief. As in, you aren't empathizing with the characters anymore. That's the real key to movies and books and etc. Because, in the human brain, if your "empathize with X" brain section is turned on, then your analytical, logical section is turned off. So if you're not empathizing with the characters, you notice all the little niggles and details that no movie gets right, and think that THAT is surely why you're not enjoying this.

Think about Jurassic Park. "Best CG in any movie ever!!!" Right? Of course not! It's 1992 CG and looks it. The key, the magic, was that Spielberg got you to BELIEVE that there were dinosaurs there, that you were actually seeing them. He got you to empathize with the characters seeing these things, and so you see them too. That's the real "movie magic" that goes on. So anytime you notice the "ugh CG" or "wow that's totally faked!" in a movie, it's almost certainly because you aren't engaged with the story and characters, and so have time and brain power to notice those things.

You're right that the two are usually correlated, even though I'm damaged enough that I'll usually notice bad work even when I'm enjoying the heck out of the film.

But I do think you have the causality backwards. Is it really the case that craft has no effect on our emotional involvement with a film, on our suspension of disbelief? I'd argue that's absolutely not the case, and that the more poorly-written a story is, the more it's robbed of emotional impact, for example. Likewise, I don't typically evaluate the craft of filmmaking on some abstract scale, but instead on its effectiveness at the work it's trying to do.

For example, (Soderbergh's) Solaris and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind have similar aims, but get there by very different means that both work organically as a whole. Do I happen to like the cinematography in Solaris more than Eternal Sunshine's, or vice-versa for the writing? Yes, but they both achieve the jobs they set out to do, and I don't think that grafting the best elements of one to the best elements of the other would have worked.

Likewise, we can evaluate elements of Lord of the Rings in the same light: Jackson pushed the DI really far in some cases, and we can evaluate why that happened—to differentiate plot-lines like Soderbergh's Traffic (and more subtly in-camera in Inception), to paper over differences in lighting in (re-)shooting over the course of a year, and simply to push an beautiful & idyllic or stylized view of each environment. I'd argue that it really accomplishes none of those goals, but that's the grounds I'd make my case on, and not some abstract ideal.

I don't mean to indicate that this is the only reason why I didn't enjoy LotR, but it tends to be one that most people can agree on, and it's easier to start with concrete details than by debating the writing or other elements. For example, on the directing side I'd argue that the Council of Elrond highlights how generally poor Jackson's staging is—even compared to the modern degraded standard—with most of the shots simply a character standing by themselves and no idea of how they're all facing each other. This is individually all stuff that would slip by otherwise, but as an aggregation of problems with the film, it does have concrete effects and shouldn't simply be hand-waved away as a perceptual happenstance. And while our noticing is affected by our engagement—and by my subsequent decade of experience seeing other films—it's silly to pretend the relationship doesn't flow the other way even more strongly.

[Ben X]

Trying to book this with my Unlimited Cineworld card, but I need to tie my card to my online account by entering some details from when I first applied for the Unlimited account. Which may be back in 2004 when they were UGC, or it may be a later reopening of my account, I'm not sure. Either way, it tells me that it cannot confirm my details but not which part is incorrect. Genius.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Hmm. Try creating a new account?

[Erkki]

The Hobbit is such a non-book, really.

WTF does that even mean?

[Argobot]

For example, on the directing side I'd argue that the Council of Elrond highlights how generally poor Jackson's staging is—even compared to the modern degraded standard—with most of the shots simply a character standing by themselves and no idea of how they're all facing each other.

Years later and I still remember being really thrown off by that scene for just this reason.

[Frenetic Pony]

You're right that the two are usually correlated, even though I'm damaged enough that I'll usually notice bad work even when I'm enjoying the heck out of the film.

But I do think you have the causality backwards. Is it really the case that craft has no effect on our emotional involvement with a film, on our suspension of disbelief? I'd argue that's absolutely not the case, and that the more poorly-written a story is, the more it's robbed of emotional impact, for example. Likewise, I don't typically evaluate the craft of filmmaking on some abstract scale, but instead on its effectiveness at the work it's trying to do.

For example, (Soderbergh's) Solaris and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind have similar aims, but get there by very different means that both work organically as a whole. Do I happen to like the cinematography in Solaris more than Eternal Sunshine's, or vice-versa for the writing? Yes, but they both achieve the jobs they set out to do, and I don't think that grafting the best elements of one to the best elements of the other would have worked.

Likewise, we can evaluate elements of Lord of the Rings in the same light: Jackson pushed the DI really far in some cases, and we can evaluate why that happened—to differentiate plot-lines like Soderbergh's Traffic (and more subtly in-camera in Inception), to paper over differences in lighting in (re-)shooting over the course of a year, and simply to push an beautiful & idyllic or stylized view of each environment. I'd argue that it really accomplishes none of those goals, but that's the grounds I'd make my case on, and not some abstract ideal.

I don't mean to indicate that this is the only reason why I didn't enjoy LotR, but it tends to be one that most people can agree on, and it's easier to start with concrete details than by debating the writing or other elements. For example, on the directing side I'd argue that the Council of Elrond highlights how generally poor Jackson's staging is—even compared to the modern degraded standard—with most of the shots simply a character standing by themselves and no idea of how they're all facing each other. This is individually all stuff that would slip by otherwise, but as an aggregation of problems with the film, it does have concrete effects and shouldn't simply be hand-waved away as a perceptual happenstance. And while our noticing is affected by our engagement—and by my subsequent decade of experience seeing other films—it's silly to pretend the relationship doesn't flow the other way even more strongly.

Oh I'm not arguing the exposition in Jackson's films couldn't be better at times certainly. For all his wonderful talent at action and fantastical wide shots he sometimes slips into not knowing exactly where he's going with purely dialogue sections with only people to look at.

But what I am saying is that what we're both trying to get at is the classic creators dilemma, of what it is exactly that resonates with people. Surely all such products have concrete portions that are good or bad as valued by individuals and even the vast majority of people might agree on whether those things are "good" or "bad". But if we enjoy something it can be downright terrible in some of its sections and yet we don't mind. We get past it because of what it is we are enjoying, even if we don't know exactly what those things are. We all have our own reasons for enjoying such things, but even knowing what it is that hits it off for ourselves can be difficult. I often have to stop myself if I'm ranting about something I dislike when I catch myself pointing out some flaw I willingly accept elsewhere, as if that flaw was the reason for me disliking it when clearly I can tolerate it.

Which I suppose draws us to what exactly suspends disbelief. I posit it's most often characters. Writing, the directing of such, the acting, their struggles, that drive us to either accept a movie and all its flaws or to not and start noticing them more than we might have. And DI, good or bad, just as CG good or bad (unless it's a CG character of course) probably doesn't have the strongest impact on the characters and our suspension of disbelief, even if it detracts or adds to our enjoyment of a movie otherwise.

[Twig]

Lord of the Rings was great.

I hate the books.

I never watched the extended editions or anything.

I love The Hobbit, book edition.

Kind of excited for the movie, but not like SUPER excited just KIND OF excited.

[brkl]

I only detailed some of the reasons I think the LotR movies are bad adaptations after I was specifically asked to. No one directly commented on a single one, instead I've been mocked and had a cartoon drawn of myself. So this has been excellent.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I think they're bad adaptations too, for a certain definition of "adaptation" at least, so I guess we can be friends.

[miffy495]

I am not a fan at all of the books. I had to work really hard to force myself to finish them. The movies were pleasant enough to watch, but after seeing them each once in the theatres I felt fine about never seeing them again. I can back brkl as "they're nothing special".

[Luftmensch]

brkl, don't get a big head, it wasn't a cartoon of you any more than anyone else. You just happened to make the pedestrian comment, and pedestrian is a damned funny posh word. I haven't watched the films since my family got on the whole extended edition DVD kick so I haven't any concrete points to make except to make fun of you guys for being armchair directors.

[brkl]

I guess nobody walks in South Carolina? I'll keep to two syllables from now on.

[Thrik]

I only detailed some of the reasons I think the LotR movies are bad adaptations after I was specifically asked to. No one directly commented on a single one, instead I've been mocked and had a cartoon drawn of myself. So this has been excellent.

Let's lynch this fuck some more!

[BigJKO]

Poorly paced, too long, overly focused on huge battle scenes and bombast. Gimli. Kung fu fighting wizards. Surfing down stairs on a shield. Some characters lose a lot of what dimensionality they might have had (did I mention Gimli?). There's no sense of mystery to anything. For example, in Fellowship of the Ring it actually takes some time before it's clear that Strider is a Good Guy, but the movie is directed in such a straight way that there's never any question about it. All the towns and such are CGI'd to look pretty, but don't feel like places. There are many side plots that are so poorly integrated they should have been cut from the production at an early stage. Aragorn's romance, for instance.

I agree with almost everything you said brkl, although I can't say it made my enjoyment of the film any lesser. It does make later viewings kind of drag, though.

Couldn't agree less about the CGI towns, though. Compared to all-CG shitfests of today, LOTR holds up amazingly with its make-up, sets and miniatures, IMO.

Also, I'm sure if you haven't read the books, Strider doesn't immediately strike you as a good guy. They could've made him look more menacing, though..

Gimli, while entertaining, is a pretty hollow character compared to the book. A tad better represented in the Extended Versions.

[Thrik]

Yeah they got the balance about right with Aragorn. As a LotR virgin I was definitely expecting him to be a git for quite some time.

[Nappi]

Seeing his face in every movie poster and trailer is a bit of a give-away really.

[Ben X]

Brkl, I defended you after the vicious attacks and you didn't even say thanks

Trying to book this with my Unlimited Cineworld card, but I need to tie my card to my online account by entering some details from when I first applied for the Unlimited account. Which may be back in 2004 when they were UGC, or it may be a later reopening of my account, I'm not sure. Either way, it tells me that it cannot confirm my details but not which part is incorrect. Genius.

Sorted this. Turns out they didn't even have an email address for me, so whatever I put there would have been wrong, and they wanted my current address which is specifically not what they asked for.

But that's all over now, and I'm booked to see it at the same showing as Thunderpeel! (Hope he lets me sit near to him.)