Hall of Fire Reviews - Post Them Here! [SPOILERS!]

[Stranger Wings]

I could argue that point...but more importantly is that LotR balanced the "silly" stuff with moments of stunning beauty and grace and awe and emotion. AUJ does not manage such heights while still managing many similar lows. IMO!

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that LotR doesn't have those moments, there are many beautiful moments in PJ's LotR that I treasure, but at the same time PJ can really over-do it. Like the Grey Havens. The sequence is covered in a golden syrup of sentimentality. I'm far from hating it, but I get slightly irritated with it.

The restrained emotion of the BBC radio LotR is just as moving, if not more so.

The Thorin/Bilbo hug was a definite high note for me, and it was lovely.

The Hobbit is a lighter story, and the film's tone reflects that. It doesn't have the highs of LotR, sure, but the lows in The Hobbit are no more offensive than any of the lows in LotR. IMO.

IMO, it does have a few highs that are better than anything in LOTR. Mostly in Bag End.

But it has many, many lows, just as the LOTR films did.

I also hate the Grey Havens scene...My goodness. Imagine how wonderful it would have been if they shot on location, by an actual bay, with the sound of seagulls and crashing (or lapping) waves, and the wind in their hair. And imagine if there wasn't a syrupy glow to the place, and that the hobbits didn't slow-motion hug each other for twenty minutes.

Ah, what could have been...

[yovargas]

In other news - this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-m ... ver,29922/

[anthriel]

I still say that the "OMG he's Totally H0tt" dwarves (Thorin, Fili and Kili) juxtaposed against the more cartoonish dwarves was jarring. My hubby, not a huge follower of any of this, was not sure at first that they were all supposed to be dwarves. He asked who that guy was who was leading the dwarves... he thought Thorin was a short human, at first.

I just don't think about it that much, to be honest with you. We have a company of Dwarves who all differ from each other in looks, just as humans do, whilst still preserving a generic sort of Dwarvish* look. *shrugs*

Works for me.

Well, I disagree about the "generic" look. If their "look" is so different that they don't all look like dwarves to the unprepared movie goer, I think the "look" is too wildly designed.

Yes, of course, people don't look all the same, but most of the viewers of the film will be "people", and we are used to this diversity in our own species. We're probably going to recognize people as people.

However, when you are trying to project a different *species* on the big screen, you should at least make them look somewhat alike. The only thing these guys had going for them to make them all look like they were supposed to be the same species was that they were together, and they were all short. My hubby still thought Thorin was human, and that is not good.

I think what kind of irritates me, and that makes *me* think about it, to be honest with you , is that I think that three of those dwarves were made OMG H0tt! to give us girlz some eye candy. While I never much am opposed to eye candy in general, it bugs me, somehow, that that was done to the dwarves. They are so proud.

*shrugs*

Absolutely *doesn't* work for me.

[JewelSong]

that the hobbits didn't slow-motion hug each other for twenty minutes.

There is NO slow-mo in the Grey Havens scene, regardless of what else you think of it.

[Pearly Di]

My dear Anthy! Of course the hot Dwarves are to give us girls eye-candy!

And as someone who is a lifelong Tolkien fan and loves the gravity and sanctity of his work, I say: and the problem with that is ...???!!!

Seriously. Frodo got beautified. So did Aragorn, actually. I have no problem with it.

Yov - that Onion piece just made me giggle out loud on a crowded London commuter train! .

[Stranger Wings]

Er, you could follow the rather funny scenario in the book, where they foolishly pop up to see what's happened to Bilbo, and get nabbed by the trolls.

Then you would probably be complaining that the dwarves were used for nothing more than comic relief.

Rivendell didn't help, with its stupid moon table and glossy Kincaid-esque look

Well, to me, Rivendell looked pretty much as it did in LOTR, so you must have hated that, too. And it wasn't Kincaid, it was Alan Lee, almost exactly.

What's your beef with the moon table? I thought it was beautiful.

more LOTR-lite. A cheap imitation of PJ's earlier films. Blech.

Your dislike of the film seems really out of proportion to - well, to anything. Did you even like LOTR?

How is it out of proportion to anything? It is a personal opinion. It is in proportion to me.

And actually, I would not be complaining about the dwarves being funny, because I actually enjoyed the dwarves immensely this time around. I loved them in Bag End, I liked the "barn owl" bit with Fili and Kili, I loved Balin's dry humor, etc. I found myself thinking, during the endless video game action scenes, and the tangential plot lines, "I want to see more of the dwarves!" I always worried about how PJ would portray them, but overall, I liked their personalities, and they were generally consistent with the book.

On Rivendell, it may have been Alan Lee's design, but it is not his style. The place is bathed in a sugary sweet syrupy lighting that bears little to no resemblance to Lee's more muted watercolor aesthetic. The moon table was on the order of the "midichlorians" in Star Wars. PJ took a simple, beautiful and mysterious concept (holding up the map to the moon) and turned it into some convoluted bit of weird elvish-science, where the letters can only be read on a special light table. It is typical of PJ to take the simple and beautiful, and to complicate it with unnecessary cosmetics.

And FYI, I loved the first 40 minutes or so of the film. For me, after the troll scene, it goes downhill fast.

And lastly, I did not much like the LOTR films, but I do think they occasionally reached sublime heights. Despite the horrible melodrama in those films, there was something that felt far more authentic about them than AUJ does.

I will watch it one more time to make sure.

[JewelSong]

How is it out of proportion to anything? It is a personal opinion. It is in proportion to me.

Okay, then! Hate away!

[Stranger Wings]

that the hobbits didn't slow-motion hug each other for twenty minutes.

There is NO slow-mo in the Grey Havens scene, regardless of what else you think of it.

Based on my understanding from the production team, the scene is indeed slowed down. It is not the extreme slow motion we see in the Chamber of Mazarbul, for example, but it is definitely slowed down a bit for effect.

Whatever the actual technical process used to achieve the effect, it was, IMO, a botched attempt at capturing something that is very easy to capture on film. The beauty of a harbor at that time of day, and the bitter-sweetness of a departure in those conditions.

[Stranger Wings]

How is it out of proportion to anything? It is a personal opinion. It is in proportion to me.

Okay, then! Hate away!

Somehow, I feel better doing it now that I have your permission!

[Elentári]

Huh . I thought Rivendell was even more gorgeous, with even more spectacular waterfalls. . I loved that porticoe where the Council met, right next to the lip of one of the falls.

Rivendell was beautiful, despite the sickly lighting in some casesl - I know what SA means about the Kincaid look, but personally I have always loved Alan Lee's Art-Nouveau inspired design. What spoilt it this time in AUJ was the excessive CGI...you just cannot beat the miniatures to give a shot real depth. My main gripe is that we didn't see enough of it, with further character development for it's guests, which hopefully might be remedied in the EE. The White Council in particular just felt like a load of the discussion was missing...it went nowhere.

[kzer_za]

I think we will probably get more dwarf character development in the EE. It's too bad, though - one of the reasons I gave PJ the benefit of the doubt on the trilogy is because I thought he would take the time to develop the dwarves individually. Instead we get Thorin, Balin, Bofur, a little bit of Fili and Kili, and not much for the others.

I still like the movie (I think Riddles in the Dark is one of the best scenes PJ has ever done), but I've pretty much been telling my friends "It's good and worth seeing, but not great. Some really great parts and acting, but Peter Jackson got majorly carried away."

[Elentári]

I think we will probably get more dwarf character development in the EE. It's too bad, though - one of the reasons I gave PJ the benefit of the doubt on the trilogy is because I thought he would take the time to develop the dwarves individually. Instead we get Thorin, Balin, Bofur, a little bit of Fili and Kili, and not much for the others.

Just like the Lego sets! To collect all the characters you have to buy the whole collection...

[kzer_za]

You mean instead of one EE, we'll have to buy the "Gloin edition", "Bombur edition", "Ori edition", and so on? Gotta catch 'em all!

[yovargas]

[Dave_LF]

Interesting point. Since they don't have rights to any more material, I suppose their only option is to retell the same stories from different characters' perspectives! I am particularly looking forward to learning more about the complicated history of Bree bar patron #3, and the shocking story behind the giant pumpkin.

[kzer_za]

Seriously though, I think a lot of dwarf character development was edited out because you can see little bits of personality for the other dwarves that match the descriptions given in writing or by the actors - Nori being a bit greedy and underhanded, Dori being "fussy" and mannerly (at least for a dwarf) and protective, etc. This suggests to me that they actually shot stuff for the characters and their descriptions aren't just background. But there's so little left that I wouldn't have noticed this stuff if I hadn't read about it beforehand.

[Elentári]

You mean instead of one EE, we'll have to buy the "Gloin edition", "Bombur edition", "Ori edition", and so on? Gotta catch 'em all!

Hah! No, I was actually referring to your Trilogy comment: by the end of the three films we will have gotten to know all the characters!

Though I like the way you took it one step further!

[anthriel]

My dear Anthy! Of course the hot Dwarves are to give us girls eye-candy!

And as someone who is a lifelong Tolkien fan and loves the gravity and sanctity of his work, I say: and the problem with that is ...???!!!

Seriously. Frodo got beautified. So did Aragorn, actually. I have no problem with it.

My dear Di, I like eye-candy! Of course!

The problem... ah, this isn't a huge deal for me. Just was expressing my dismay at how the elves had two completely different looks, and how that might be problematic for the average moviegoer. Did you catch the part where my hubby didn't know Thorin was a dwarf? Doesn't that seem problematic, at least slightly, to you?

I'm also not utterly thrilled with the idea that I am being tossed eye candy, when none is required, really. If I want wanton eye candy, I will go watch "Troy". I kinda wanted Tolkien, and it is in there. Under the gorgeous glower is Thorin, and I was looking forward to seeing him.

The fact that you are absolutely not understanding anything I am writing here makes me think that nothing I write will give you a glimpse into "the problem" for me. I'll try one more time, though. Remember, I have said repeatedly that I generally don't mind eye candy. We've got that point covered.

Legolas was purty because Elves are purty. He still looked like an elf, you know? I don't actually think Frodo was eye-candy, that's a first for me , but at least he still looked like a Hobbit. Aragorn looked like a scruffy man, albeit a fairly good looking scruffy man. Frodo, speaking of Aragorn, says a real enemy would "look fairer, and feel fouler". He wasn't supposed to be elf-like purty. He was a man. With unusual height and grey eyes, I think, but still.

Put a couple pairs of pointy ears on Kili and Fili, though, and they would be just fine as purty elves. Which would just KILL any self-respecting dwarf. They are what they are, dwarves, and they are fairly proud of it. No purtification required.

But apparently the filmakers were very wise to do so, since you are so okay with it!! and I'll betcha lots of other people are, too. It's just kind of disappointing to me, sort of we-have-to-dumb-it-down or purty-it-up so's the folks will like it. (Not that I mean that this applies to you, specifically, Dear Di! I know how much you respect Tolkien's work).

I liked it before I knew that Thorin had such a glorious glower.

[Maria]

I think, after reading this thread, that I will avoid watching this movie again for quite a while. I don't want to fall into the trap I did with the LOTR movies where I knew them too well and started resenting every little thing I thought was *wrong*.

As it is now, I'm OK with how this film felt. If I watch it again, I'll start obsessing over the *wrong* bits and ruin my enjoyment of it. I don't want to go there again.

In my life, I try to hold on to the good parts of my life and let the bad parts fade to insignificance. I guess I'm saying I want to do that with this movie, too. There were some eye rolling moments that I'm not going to try to remember.... but there were some really good ones, too.

It will be worth watching it again in 4 or 5 years when I'll have forgotten most of the details. I hope my reaction then will be the same: on the whole... favorable.

[halplm]

Wouldn't it be great if whoever was in charge of making the films managed to avoid all teh *wrong* bits and actually made a film that was JUST The Hobbit?