• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Last movie you saw?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Went to see Hobbit, part II last night. Tolkein purists will not like it, but actually the P. Jackson innovations made for an interesting movie. Introducing a Legolas love interest, who falls for a dwarf (elf vs dwarf?) added a nice element, plus having orcs follow the 'barrel-riders' down the slough was interesting. The running battle was too fast for me to follow, but the good guys won in the end.

Part I didn't particularly care for was the battle with Smaug and the dwarfs inside the ruined city. In the original, the dwarfs pretty much cowered, waiting for Bilbo to do his burglar dance. In the movie, they actively attacked Smaug, with molten gold, no less, (which was nowhere to be found in the book), what- a dwarf wasting gold, and no impact on the beast. All in all, though, thought there was more action (and filler) to provide for a third movie. I would expect a humongeous battle between the Orcs and the men/elf/dwarf armies. That would be a filler, as the rest of the book went pretty quickly. Of course, the obligatory march of Bilbo back to the Shire will be trumped up as well. Did not pay extra for 3-d, would like to hear if someone did and result.....
 
Upvote 0
calibuck said:
Went to see Hobbit, part II last night...
Click to expand...
9kxvmu.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Just finished watching Skyfall. Pretty entertaining movie, and now I know why M's voice sounded so familiar, its Judi Dench, who has been narrating my rides on Space Ship Earth the past 3 years. Amazing the things you miss when you don't give a rip about celebrities.
 
Upvote 0
The Hobbit: Appendices & Other Miscellany is complete and utter shite.

Remember when the story was supposed to be about a band of Dwarves and their relucant burgler on an adventure to reclaim treasure from a dragon? More than half the movie has nothing to do with that at all.

Mike McGranahan said it best in his review...
Needless padding is the enemy of competent storytelling.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Muck said:
The Hobbit: Appendices & Other Miscellany is complete and utter [Mark May]e.

Remember when the story was supposed to be about a band of Dwarves and their relucant burgler on an adventure to reclaim treasure from a dragon? More than half the movie has nothing to do with that at all.

Mike McGranahan said it best in his review...
Click to expand...

Everybody loves a good love story between a drawf and an elf. Just think how much more popular the books would have been if there was more sex!
 
Upvote 0
Muck said:
The Hobbit: Appendices & Other Miscellany is complete and utter [Mark May]e.

Remember when the story was supposed to be about a band of Dwarves and their relucant burgler on an adventure to reclaim treasure from a dragon? More than half the movie has nothing to do with that at all.

Mike McGranahan said it best in his review...
Click to expand...

I very much appreciate the inclusion of the concurrent side-story about Sauron's return to strength from the Return's appendices and other expanded writings more recently published. The extra stuff between Fili or Kili (can't remember which at the moment) and the elf, while needless, didn't bother me at all. I know it effected things with the escape from Thranduil, but I don't take offense to it and don't think it harms the movie(s) at all. The Sauron story also provides more context to the main story, and does also clarify the evil side of things for casual movie fans that enjoyed the LOTR trilogy as well as providing some movie representation for those that also knew that stuff happened at the same time in the Hobbit timeline.
 
Upvote 0
scarletmike said:
I very much appreciate the inclusion of the concurrent side-story about Sauron's return to strength from the Return's appendices and other expanded writings more recently published. The extra stuff between Fili or Kili (can't remember which at the moment) and the elf, while needless, didn't bother me at all. I know it effected things with the escape from Thranduil, but I don't take offense to it and don't think it harms the movie(s) at all. The Sauron story also provides more context to the main story, and does also clarify the evil side of things for casual movie fans that enjoyed the LOTR trilogy as well as providing some movie representation for those that also knew that stuff happened at the same time in the Hobbit timeline.
Click to expand...

Thank for you doing an excellent job of illustrating the problem.

The Hobbit is NOT The Lord of the Rings. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the Lord of the Rings.

Just because Professor Tolkien later wrote more stories set in the same milieu doesn't mean that those tales should be interjected into this one at every opportunity. When I'm watching Last of the Mohicans if the entire middle act is about Frederick the Great's defeat at Kunersdorf then I'm going to be equally cheesed off.

Tolkien authenticity be damned, the first two chapters of The Hobbit are just bad storytelling.
 
Upvote 0
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, because Gandalf's absences and the story behind them are perfectly germane to the tale of the Hobbit, because it is one complete mythology. Gandalf encouraging and backing the dwarves' return to Erebor were to get rid of a possible stronghold and ally/weapon for Sauron, not just a feel-good story for the dwarves. It all goes back to the Lord of the Rings, it is one complete story, taking place over many years and places. Nothing in the Tale of the Ring happened in a vacuum, everything was connected to the Ring and its Master. Does it cover more than what was in the physical book? Yes, but that shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. Sure, we could have a single movie or two strictly on what was in the physical Hobbit book (and that would have been great, I'm sure), but when you're dealing with a complete mythology set up the way Tolkien had it, why not take it and complete the story (and yes, it is completing the story, because Gandalf was a part of the story, and that's what he did when he disappeared for stretches in the book). I personally enjoy the completeness of the story and timeline, rather than revisiting this in 3-5 years and having Jackson drag it out any further (I don't think there's enough meat in the side stories from the Appendices to really complete a movie without a majority of it being Jackson interjections and liberties), when there's just enough info and it is pertinent to the story to fit it with the Hobbit. I get why you might not prefer it, but I also don't think you write screen plays, so while you might not like it, I'd hardly call it definitively bad storytelling.
 
Upvote 0
Saw the second Hobbit. Liked it, didn't love it. Seemed to drag a little and have some unnecessary things in it. I have no idea why Evangeline Lilly and Orlando Bloom were even in this movie. I did not read the books. But those characters seemed like a waste of time to me, in a movie that needed to trim some fat.
 
Upvote 0
scarletmike said:
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, because Gandalf's absences and the story behind them are perfectly germane to the tale of the Hobbit, because it is one complete mythology. Gandalf encouraging and backing the dwarves' return to Erebor were to get rid of a possible stronghold and ally/weapon for Sauron, not just a feel-good story for the dwarves. It all goes back to the Lord of the Rings, it is one complete story, taking place over many years and places. Nothing in the Tale of the Ring happened in a vacuum, everything was connected to the Ring and its Master. Does it cover more than what was in the physical book? Yes, but that shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. Sure, we could have a single movie or two strictly on what was in the physical Hobbit book (and that would have been great, I'm sure), but when you're dealing with a complete mythology set up the way Tolkien had it, why not take it and complete the story (and yes, it is completing the story, because Gandalf was a part of the story, and that's what he did when he disappeared for stretches in the book).
Click to expand...

The 'complete mythology' was retconned by Tolkien after he wrote The Hobbit. The Hobbit in and of itself is a simple hero's journey. Jackson's ham handed attempts to create an epic LoTR prequel serve only to create a quagmire without focus. It's still the same as the example I quoted above (of course the interelatedness of the various fronts of the Seven Year's War is probably even more confusing to most).


I get why you might not prefer it, but I also don't think you write screen plays, so while you might not like it, I'd hardly call it definitively bad storytelling.
Click to expand...

I was the kid reading Joseph Campbell when others were reading comic books. I was writing reports about The Hero With A Thousand Faces when I was 12. Oh, I've written of (bad) screenplays...and short stories...and epic poems. Even if I hadn't, writing screeenplays is not a prerequisite to understanding good story structure.

Now are you sure you really want to open that can of worms? I'd hate for you to be confined to commenting on only one or two threads.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Muck said:
The 'complete mythology' was retconned by Tolkien after he wrote The Hobbit. The Hobbit in and of itself is a simple hero's journey. Jackson's ham handed attempts to create an epic LoTR prequel serve only to create a quagmire without focus. It's still the same as the example I quoted above (of course the interelatedness of the various fronts of the Seven Year's War is probably even more confusing to most).




I was the kid reading Joseph Campbell when others were reading comic books. I was writing reports about The Hero With A Thousand Faces when I was 12. Oh, I've written of (bad) screenplays...and short stories...and epic poems. Even if I hadn't, writing screeenplays is not a prerequisite to understanding good story structure.

Now are you sure you really want to open that can of worms? I'd hate for you to be confined to commenting on only one or two threads.
Click to expand...

Sure, Mr. Renaissance Man, whatever you say.

I enjoyed it, lots of others enjoyed it. It is a pretty damn good entertaining movie, and that's pretty much what matters for most folks. Personally, it didn't lack focus for me at all, but I also know the source material pretty well, but others I know who don't also haven't mentioned anything like that. I have a hard time enjoying visiting various parks without popping veins at operational gaffes, I guess this is your equivalent. Whatever floats your boat.

ETA: Also, just this year I finally realized how ridiculously big of a box that leg lamp arrives in. Never thought much about it in the couple hundred other times I've seen A Christmas Story, but dang, that's a massive box for a lamp!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top