Posted on 12/26/2012 3:46:05 AM PST by LinnieBeth
Hardly. I could ask for them to leave out that 'Azog the pale orc' nonsense, for example.
Sauron can actually control the ring, rather than just being affected by it.
By the way, he was not the only one. In the books, Tom Bombadil put the ring on without disappearing.
You still miss my point it takes courage to show mercy to an enemy who may or may not still mean you harm. One whom you might have to watch for over your shoulder later. For many they advocate that its far easier to simply kill them and remove all doubt than live with the chance.
It’s there to explain the reason that Thorin us called ‘Oakenshield’, which the story does not appear in the ‘Hobbit’. I also thought that Tolkien was wrong in sending a party of Dwarves on such a quest virtually unarmed, it is one of the few points I always had trouble with when reading the ‘Hobbit’.
To my mind, that's a condemnation. Jackson totally butchered the character of Galadriel, and even moreso, Faramir.
Way too much of the movie was Jackson's and not near enough Tolkien's. Maybe if I hadn't read the books 20 or more times I wouldn't have noriced.
Why anyone is patronizing Hollywood at this stage whether the film is good, bad, or indifferent is beyond me.
I saw it in IMAX, too. I forgot, initially, that it was HFR, and at the very beginning when Bilbo opens a chest and looks in, it looked like his facial expressions were moving WAY too fast. Not, smoother, not cleaner, just faster. The film looked sped up, and that effect lasted the entire rest of the movie, some scenes more pronounced than others. I like the 3D, but it’s not really critical to the film. I’m seriously considering just straight 2D for the next one unless some major improvements are made.
It’s too long because they need to stretch it into a trilogy.
This film was made in New Zealand, and the entire production company is New Zealanders. That’s the problem of living a life of gross over-generalization, you miss small details.
And really, even if it was, why punish yourself for Hollywood? I spent $7 on a movie today, a good movie I enjoyed a lot. Had I not gone they wouldn’t have missed my $7, but I would have missed out on a movie I’ve been looking forward to.
For example, a recent Indian film mainstreaming lesbianism.
Country-by-country distinctions are of limited use anymore.
I don't enjoy movies and attending one is punishment for me. Do not rent, Redbox, Netflix, etc., either.
I like building things and reading.
I expect to own all the movies, and they will be in 2-D (I don’t expect to ever do 3-D TV), so I figured to watch the 3-D in the theater.
And again you’re into gross generalizations. This is a movie based on a novel with strong Christian themes.
And it’s not either or. One can watch movies AND build things and read. My primary reading time is while watching movies at home. Just finished a book with Duck You Sucker on. Humans are an innately dynamic species.
Seems to me like you’re just trying to find political justification for personal failings. You don’t like movies, fine, that’s you, it’s weird, especially for a reader since movies are just another form of story telling. But whatever, we’re dynamic, somebody dislikes everything. But there’s no reason to pretend that’s some great political stance, it’s just you not liking movies. Good for you, no reason to click on a movie thread ever again, cause nobody really cares that you don’t like them.
Haha yes I will probably watch it 40 times when the DVD comes out - my old LOTR movies are starting to wear out I have watched them so much.
It is different - a lot more action but it still has it’s quiet bits - some humorous bits too. I would watch it again today if someone would pay for me to go!
Mel
Fascinating article. I would’ve bet money that 48 FPS would be more immersive but after hearing his angle I can totally see why that might not be the case. Now I’m sort of curious to see the movie in both formats.
the Dwarves are partly allegorical to the Jewish plight, and the languages of Dwarvish is related to Hebrew.
But like most Tolkien stuff, he mixes up a lot of influences: the dwarves desire for gold and their love of family with the need to revenge their kin and the riddle game is based on Viking lore, not the Jewish plight of the 1920’s or early 1930’s.
And the story was originally told to his kids as a bedtime story and only written down when he mixed up some details on retelling, and his youngest son caught him at the mistake.
Jackson is adding a lot of backstory from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings about the white council and the history of the dwarves.
Good or bad? Who knows.
But I enjoyed the film, as did my granddaughter, although the fight in the goblin tunnels was a bit boring.
That's an excellent summary of his LOTR movies.
So basically the Ring was Sauron's horcrux? God, is there nothing Tolkien didn't steal from Rowlands!?
And at no point did Bilbo attempt to run away from his commitment.
To put it simply, the Ring was Sauron’s horcrux.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.