Lord of the Rings didn't hit the spot. Should I read The Hobbit?

[JCamilo]

His work out of Lotr? The acclaimed Dead Brains? King Kong? No, outside LoTR Jackson is not really a fine director.

No sense of timing and chronology? The movie has a poor rythim. While traveling by a giantic world, the characters meet each other as if that world is my yard. There is the clumsy sequences of epic battle and sentimentalism with side stories like Aragorn love story.

Acting is not a paramount on Fantasy is such silly claim I will not bother to list fantasy good performer. I will just point that if you have to appeal to genre to justify poor acting, then you just agree the acting is poor.

As the dialogue, did you even finished the book? And sorry, the dialogue is even poorer. The comedy of Gimili legolas is awful.

LoTR main villain in second movie vanishes and his magical item appear out of nowhere. It is a major continuity mistake, not some goofy. (Two claims you already agree, and you just called they are not true. Kaput on you?)

The battles are not "few" and the special effects show is all the time. I never said was poorly made movie for lack of money, but heck, congratulations, the majority of blockbusters are bad movies.

Considering LoTR is one of the most sold books of all time, his survival based on his academic wok and not on his novel is one silly claim. One of those you argue and mean nothing, as you cannot prove or sustain it.

So, let me understand... the acting is not good, editing is not good, your best defense is comparing to blockbusters and dialogues yoou consider bad... And yet the movie is good? So, good is when you suffer to watch?

[davigalindo]

I like the movies, so they are okay to me. I agree though that Jackson could make it shorter. However I really can't read the books. They are boring and filled with confuse names and maps.

I find Jackson's King Kong a fine piece of art and I like even his worst movie, The Lovely Bones, but I hate the lenght of these movies.

[MorpheusSandman]

JCamilo, let's just nip this in the bud since all this is is a "yes it is/no it isn't" affair. I'd wager you don't know enough about the art of filmmaking to even begin to convincingly argue your case since most of your complaints can be made against some of the greatest films of all time. Very few serious bibliophiles or literary critics give a crap about LotR, which is sustained by the love of fantasy fanboys.

[JCamilo]

Me? I write movie critics as part of my job. I am considering if I will accept the invintation for the Hobbit Media season this week here in Brazil. You?

Where is your argument to why the movie is good?


So far you seem to agree the acting is not good (You justify with the lame "Never a Paramout in fantasy" because I am sure people who know about the "art of filmaking" do judge the acting according the genre right?).

The same goes to the dialogue while you agree it is silly in the movie (As you claim, it is more silly on the books, which obviously imply it is silly in the movie. Just less). You just find funny I lambast the movie over it, albeit you do not find funny that you agreed with me after saying my claims, not one of which are true.

Your next argument is showcase of mature movie criticism. I cannot point the continuity mistake (which you acknowledge there is, after again, saying nothing I said is true), and you justify telling me to look imdb goofy mistakes. As if those mistakes are all continuity and the sudden disapearance of a major character equates a character holding a gun with gloves and then without gloves, right? Bright argument.

Then, you try to justify it because many blockbusters are like this. Hey, congratulations, I know that people who know much about movies do consider blockbusters as paramout of quality. Yes, I do base my movie criticism on Transformers.

I wish most of my complains can be made with the best movies of all time, but I am afraid your list of best movies of all time are the new Star Wars movies.

[WyattGwyon]

Not wishing to step into such a polarized debate, but you (JCamilo and Morpheus) are both wrong!:-) That is to say, you are both immoderate in your negative appraisals.

The books: The poetry is execrable, and the prose is mostly pretty lackluster. Tolkien has some annoying tics—everything happens "suddenly," for example. Another potentially major problem is the stylized and cliche descriptive passages (e.g., "beautiful as the stars," etc.). On the other hand, one must remember that LotR is the work of a fictional author (Frodo), a relatively naive chronicler, within the frame of the story, and it is likely that Tolkien employed these stylized descriptions to evoke the spirit and cadence of ancient sagas. In any case, overly particularized and naturalistic descriptions of, say, Galadriel, would have been just wrong stylistically. Nevertheless, intentional or not, I could see where this kind of writing could be unpalatable to many. On the plus side: Some of the dialogue is actually very good, and most of the best dialogue in the movies is quoted word for word from the text. Much of the topographical and geographical description is clear and effective.

The movies: I think Jackson et alia were faced with a monumental task and did a creditable job in many respects. The huge cuts in the Fellowship were necessary and many of the other departures from the book help to clarify motivations and details that weren't well developed in the text. Some of the departures, on the other hand, just dumbed down what subtlety there was in the books (e.g., making Faramir a near clone of Boromir in order to justify adding extra battle scenes (Osgiliath)). The technical values, scenery and most of the effects speak for themselves. The screenplay, wisely, preserves much of the excellent dialogue in the books. Some of the gratuitous humor, especially the dwarf-tossing bits, is just really stupid and some of the special effects in battle scenes, especially Legolas's exploits, are asinine.

I would be hard-pressed to decide if the books as books are better or worse than the movies as movies. But I don't think the case is as clear cut as either of you make it out to be.

[JCamilo]

Look, Jackson had a monumental task, Yes. But so? He did it well?

I didnt analyse the movie as necessarily a faithfull adaptation. Albeit, I think it should be, but it is not what makes a movie good or not. So, I didnt mention the cuts. There is no Tom, boohoo. Such is life. But I have seen the "necessary cut" claim as a justification often used. However, this only proofs the lack of competence of Jackson and the script. Take the example of the second Moive. Saruman death scene is not present (a major plot role) and justified : no time for it. However, Gandalf death scene was repeated. Also, the aditional and unecessary romance scenes with Aragorn and Arwen. There is obviously a need to cut, but simple as put, they did badly (Faramir for example, his initial meeting with Frodo in the book is better and much simplier. Would last less time than in the movie, since the awful construction of such character was so bad that made necessary a complete out of place battle between frodo/sam and a nazgul).

The technical vallues and scenaries are awesome. But a reason why the movie is bad is that is the awesome aspect of the movie. They are aging, just like the new movie will make Avatar already look old. Movies based on such technical effects - like Titanic - age. The tech is awesome, Gollum awesome, but truth to be told, those samethings were true for Jar Jar Binks. Not enough.

The books are moving close to be that line where Bram Stoker, Haggard, Dumas, Conad Doyle are. Largely flawed works, but as a whole, memorable enough for either creating characters, an idea or plot that many generations do read. The movies? As blockbusters, with some large scope production that are memorable... funnny enough, for being the Books adaptation. Just a side product. Read the movies. If the books vanish, so will the movies, they just have nothing special to sustain themselves. The books do sustain themselves. I bet this is much enough to bet in 50 years will need another Lord of the Rings. (or less, considering how original they are those days). But based on the same book.

[mona amon]

I bet this is much enough to bet in 50 years will need another Lord of the Rings. (or less, considering how original they are those days). But based on the same book.

Oh, I don't know - what will you get other than a slicker version of these movies, with better technology and a bigger budget? I think they did such an excellent job in bringing out all the beauties of the book that it will be difficult to surpass that.

To the OP - Here's an entertaining article about The Hobbit vs LOTR - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...the-rings.html

[MorpheusSandman]

Me? I write movie critics as part of my job... You?

I used to write film criticism on the side until I realized there wasn't enough money in it to keep me doing it.

Where is your argument to why the movie is good?

Stunning production values and cinematography, probably the best use of green screen character capture ever, and an epic sweep unmatched in the history of film. One probably has to go back to Fritz Lang's silent cinema to get anything on a similar level, and even then it wasn't nearly as sprawling.

So far you seem to agree the acting is not good (You justify with the lame "Never a Paramout in fantasy" because I am sure people who know about the "art of filmaking" do judge the acting according the genre right?).

Acting is judged according to genre. If you're judging the acting in a Kazan film on the same standards as those of a Kurosawa film or a Bresson film then you're being unfairly biased. The acting in Star Wars is atrocious, but that's part of its charm.

The same goes to the dialogue while you agree it is silly in the movie (As you claim, it is more silly on the books, which obviously imply it is silly in the movie. Just less).

I don't think the dialogue is bad for a fantasy film, it's just that fantasy films aren't... well, the

I cannot point the continuity mistake (which you acknowledge there is, after again, saying nothing I said is true), and you justify telling me to look imdb goofy mistakes. As if those mistakes are all continuity and the sudden disapearance of a major character equates a character holding a gun with gloves and then without gloves, right?

I'm honestly not even sure of what mistake you're talking about as it's been a while since I've seen the films, but you strike me as one of those Tolkien fanboys that were ready to pounce on ANY mistakes the films made. Hitchcock called such stuff "refrigerator moments" because they're kind of stuff you wouldn't notice until well after the movie finished (and, say, you got up to go to the fridge for a late night snack), and I think the only way anyone would notice is if they went into the films looking for them.

Then, you try to justify it because many blockbusters are like this.

No, I just said that if LotR isn't a well-made film, then no blockbusters are well-made. Simple as that.

am afraid your list of best movies of all time are the new Star Wars movies.

And you know this based on what, exactly?

The technical vallues and scenaries are awesome. But a reason why the movie is bad is that is the awesome aspect of the movie. They are aging, just like the new movie will make Avatar already look old. Movies based on such technical effects - like Titanic - age. The tech is awesome, Gollum awesome, but truth to be told, those samethings were true for Jar Jar Binks. Not enough.

This is what makes me suspect you know nil about films, despite your job as a critic. I could name at least a dozen films that are remembered because of their "technical values," despite the fact they look dated today. All of Fritz Lang's big-budget silent work, Melies, Intolerance, Greed, Jaws, original Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, The General, Children of Paradise, etc. Yeah, those are all forgotten.

If the books vanish, so will the movies, they just have nothing special to sustain themselves.

The films could sustain themselves as historical film documents. Their influence on mainstream blockbusters has been immense in the last decade; so much so that Kristen Thompson even wrote a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052...F8&me=&seller=

[JCamilo]

How to debate with someone who says :

"I could name at least a dozen films that are remembered because of their "technical values," despite the fact they look dated today. All of Fritz Lang's big-budget silent work, Melies, Intolerance, Greed, Jaws, original Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, The General, Children of Paradise, etc. Yeah, those are all forgotten."

Really? It is the technical vallue that make those films remembered? Except the few montions that are among the first productins ever such Intolerance, those movies are recalled for reasons quite beyond the special effects. You have acting of quality (I know, Vivien Leigh acting is a bit too much for someone who thinks acting is judged according the genre), there is a script to support better themes and better dialogues (yes, because 2001, Blade Runner are just about special effects right), great directing (I am sure someone will survive writing movie critics talking about the Oscar Kubrick won and not the one he should have won, you know, his directing and not special effects of 2001), by the narrative (Star Wars survive because the first movies actually have a decent structure for the narrative, not to mention the appeal of the scenary and characters. You know, the new versions Lucas made, with superior F/X didnt had the same success at all, impact or watever, which should indicate to you even Star Wars go beyond the technical aspect, as famous it is), even music use (Yes, sure, Jaws is remembered because the technical part, right.), or, like Buster Keaton who keps the train alive until today.

Sorry, but that is the reason you have to stop writting about movies. You try to legitimate by calling me a fanboy (but then, You think Newton is Kaput) instead of writing something useful... because really...

"Stunning production values and cinematography, probably the best use of green screen character capture ever, and an epic sweep unmatched in the history of film. One probably has to go back to Fritz Lang's silent cinema to get anything on a similar level, and even then it wasn't nearly as sprawling."

Is ridiculous. Stunning? Yes. But without a good directing, script, etc a stunning movie is just a set of pictures. It is trying to tell a story that would be pretty. And you had to go back to Fritz Lang to get a Stunning movie? Yes, because you didnt mention 2001, Blade Runner and many other stunning movies.

The use of green character? Yes, Gollum saves the movie. But it is not enough and I am sure in Hobbitt you will have already a superior version. And I certainly cannot go back to Fritz Lang to find "the use of green character".

Epic sweep? Oh, sure. Cecil B.Mille is the greatest director because of epic sweep. I wonder what does Fritzlang with that, considering even his Niebilueng movies are not really epic. And of course, the epic scale of movies has never been indicator of great movies. Some like Ben Hur or Ran are (and they use much better than LoTR.) Some like the new Star Movies just fail.

I guess you added Fritz Lang just to add some old filmaker to show case a knowledge but really, go to IMDB and tell me the Epic scale of M.

[WyattGwyon]

I'm honestly not even sure of what mistake you're talking about as it's been a while since I've seen the films, but you strike me as one of those Tolkien fanboys that were ready to pounce on ANY mistakes the films made. Hitchcock called such stuff "refrigerator moments" because they're kind of stuff you wouldn't notice until well after the movie finished (and, say, you got up to go to the fridge for a late night snack), and I think the only way anyone would notice is if they went into the films looking for them.

No, I just said that if LotR isn't a well-made film, then no blockbusters are well-made. Simple as that.

The major flaws in the films are in the category of missed opportunities—missed because they padded each of the movies out with extra battle scenes at the expense of important themes and content. I don't expect or want a faithful adaptation for its own sake, but any major changes should have some justification other than more violence, special effects, and action for their own sake. For example: An important theme in the books, especially in Return of the King, was the decline of civilization in Middle Earth due to excessively valuing military prowess and power over wisdom and learning. The contrast between Faramir (a student of Gandalf, who represents wisdom and learning) and Boromir (the favorite of Denethor, who is the symbol of a degenerate militaristic state), and especially their opposite reactions to the temptation of ultimate power (the ring) brings this home. This is a timeless theme with tremendous relevance to the modern world and, especially, the values currently being enacted by the United States on the world stage. Thus the films sacrifice the soul of the books' content for the sake of mindless and redundant action. There are other important themes sacrificed as well: The battle scene they should have included (rather than the redundant extra ones), was the scouring of the Shire. This was a rallying cry against the torpor of complacency and physical comfort and a call to action by the little people when their values are threatened.

To sum up, Morpheus, I would suggest that, while you make many good points about the enduring value of the films, you, like the films themselves, have missed the enduring themes of the books. This oversight may also have something to do with why you fail to see that the books are destined to endure, at least in part, because of the important themes at their core. Great films are ennobled by such themes—Jackson's LotR did not aspire to greatness, and will be less enduring than the books because of it.

[JCamilo]

Oh, I don't know - what will you get other than a slicker version of these movies, with better technology and a bigger budget? I think they did such an excellent job in bringing out all the beauties of the book that it will be difficult to surpass that.

To the OP - Here's an entertaining article about The Hobbit vs LOTR - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...the-rings.html

The entire strength of the movies is the technical aspect. This means, as soon the technology improves, they will do it better. Plus, really, if they do it again, there is no reason to believe they will use the same script (Jackson didn't had all freedom in the world when he started, adapting LoTR was tricky busines, I am sure he would expand the movies more if he could now, so a new movie could be completely different. For better or worst.

[kev67]

I have to say this new Hobbit film does fill me with much enthusiasm. How can you stretch that book to a trilogy of three-hour films? It could be turned into one two-hour film.

[qimissung]

In addition to making this a trilogy, which is completely unnecessary, Peter Jackson is also releasing one version of "The Hobbit" that was filmed at 48 frames per second. Critics are divided on the success of this. Here are two opposing view points:

This one has a spoiler:


http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/...review-48-fps/

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/06/why_...look_so_weird/


I did not finish LoTR, although I did start it when I was in high school. It moved too slowly for me. Maybe I'll try it again, sometime. My kids and I loved the movies. I'm sure that for me it had nothing to do with Viggo Mortenson as Aaragorn (stops for a moment to breathe) ().

"The Hobbit" on the other hand was completely adorable AND a great and exciting read. Can't go wrong with it. I wish Jackson had been able to restrain himself a bit.

[MorpheusSandman]

Really? It is the technical vallue that make those films remembered?

Perhaps not the only reason in all cases, but take away the technical values and many of these films are extremely average in most other ways. Does anyone really watch GwtW for the extraordinary acting? It's neither Leigh's or Gable's best performance, as both are overwrought--melodrama acting to match the melodrama production. OK, so there's a lot of philosophical and cinematic interest in 2001, but take away its revolutionary depiction of space and future technology, the SFX showcase that is Beyond the Infinite, and you don't have much else; the best acting is done by a robot! Similar with Blade Runner, but it even lacks 2001's philosophical intelligence. Take away the neo-noir/cyberpunk setting and what else of worth is there? Star Wars has a great narrative? It has the same narrative as all "epic journey" stories! Little nobody discovers he has a secret past and a grand, unknown destiny and sets out to fulfill it. The new Star Wars did not have "superior F/X" if we're talking about historical context. Few films were as innovative in their time as the original Star Wars.

that is the reason you have to stop writting about movies.

Says the person that think standards for acting and narrative apply universally; you'd be laughed at by any legitimate film critic. Everything is contextual.

Is ridiculous. Stunning? Yes. But without a good directing, script, etc a stunning movie is just a set of pictures.

The art of film is images in time, so to say that a "set of pictures" can't make for a great film is just ignorance. Kiarostami's Five? Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi? Hell, Malick's Days of Heaven is a masterpiece solely because of the stunning "set of pictures" it has. The preeminence of "story" and "characters" is nothing but an unjustified bias. There are plenty of masterpieces where the story, characters, and acting are slight to non-existent.

And you had to go back to Fritz Lang to get a Stunning movie?

No, I specifically said you'd have to go back to Lang to get a similar "epic sweep." I was specifically thinking of his 5-hour Die Nibelungen. 2001, Blade Runner, et al. are much shorter and don't cover nearly the breadth of setting or narrative.

Cecil B.Mille is the greatest director because of epic sweep.

Who said anything about greatEST? I actually think DeMille is underrated, but that's another subject.

I wonder what does Fritzlang with that, considering even his Niebilueng movies are not really epic.

How do you figure they aren't epic?

And of course, the epic scale of movies has never been indicator of great movies. Some like Ben Hur or Ran are (and they use much better than LoTR.) Some like the new Star Movies just fail.

I didn't say epic scale alone was enough, but combine that with the great cinematography, and what I consider to be fine direction and writing and that most certainly is. First and foremost it's the epic experience of the films that make them memorable. The new Star Wars my strive towards a similar experience, but they certainly didn't achieve it.

I guess you added Fritz Lang just to add some old filmaker to show case a knowledge but really, go to IMDB and tell me the Epic scale of M.

I said Lang's silent films. He scaled down considerably once he got to sound. I love M, so I don't know what your point is.

[MorpheusSandman]

To sum up, Morpheus, I would suggest that, while you make many good points about the enduring value of the films, you, like the films themselves, have missed the enduring themes of the books.

There are no enduring themes in isolation, there are enduring renderings of themes. The LotR books say nothing that hasn't been covered by hundreds, if not thousands, of better writers before Tolkien. Take away the fantasy setting and nobody gives a crap about those themes, and it's the setting and the sweep that the films got right without resorting to pages of labored landscape descriptions. There are simply things that are better suited to novels than to films, and thematic rendering through character and narrative is better suited to literature, while visual conflicts like battles are better suited to film. Again, calculate the battle runtime in LotR and it's probably less in terms of runtime ratio than the battles in The Seven Samurai.