Hobbit 3 Talk

Attrition wrote: Are you missing the "é"? It's correct without it. Very first entry when you type into google:

cli·chéd
klēˈSHād,ˈklēˌSHād/
adjective: clichéd; adjective: cliched
showing a lack of originality; based on frequently repeated phrases or opinions.
"the clichéd storytelling lacks that vital spark"

It's just a joke dude. I've never seen an elf/dwarf romance before. I just don't see how it fits the term.

Mad Dog wrote: The greatest depiction of a dragon on screen is in the movie Dragonslayer. No hollow piece of CGI will ever stand up to Vermithrax.

Well, I am talking about his personality and not his look. But that is a kick ass dragon for sure.

Oh, I just meant that we've seen the Sharks/Jets Capulet/Montague thing a million times and isn't original or interesting. I'm not sure how elf-dwarf porn would work either, but that would be worth seeing.

Attrition wrote: However, it's really hard to enjoy the non-Tolkein additions like the elf/dwarf romance,

I never got this complaint. Did't Tolkien himself write of Gimli's enamouration(sp?) of Galadriel? How is this 'non-Tolkien'?

Besides, it's not like they actually do anything, but I can totally see how the elf is attracted to this out of town stranger and also maybe thinking he could be a ticket out. Seems like she's pretty miserable at home.

Youths!

Mr. White wrote:
I never got this complaint. Did't Tolkien himself write of Gimli's enamouration(sp?) of Galadriel? How is this 'non-Tolkien'?

I meant the romance that was injected into the Hobbit movie in particular. Just too cheesy for me.

Also, it's not as if Gimli wanted to bang Galadriel. They might have been mind-fingering though, what with Galadriel's telepathy.

While I understand most of the criticism's about The Hobbit movies, I don't really think it means much to say Tolkien would not have approved of them. If you've read anything about how he worked and how he considered adaptations and interpretations of his work, it's obvious that NO film interpretation would have pleased him.

i've enjoyed the hobbit and Lotr films alot more once i divorced them from their source material. They don't really deliver the same thing for me. As action family entertainment films i enjoy them.Even aside from the fantasy world they depict there are somethings i don't like. Mostly the dwarf elf romance. Its completely unnecessary and just in there because someone decided a big production film needs a romance. It feels completely contrived and pointless. Other than that I am pretty pumped for the final film. I quite like the vistas of middle earth and some of the casting decisions/performances have been good. Martin Freeman is way more interesting than Elijah Wood ever was.

San Il Defanso wrote: While I understand most of the criticism's about The Hobbit movies, I don't really think it means much to say Tolkien would not have approved of them. If you've read anything about how he worked and how he considered adaptations and interpretations of his work, it's obvious that NO film interpretation would have pleased him.

​My understanding is that Chris Tolkien shares that sentiment and won't allow any more movies based on his father's works.

For all my criticisms of Jackson, I'm still glad the movies were made. The LotR and Hobbit movies are much better than most fantasy movies (with a handful of exceptions) and brought the genre to a broader audience. I'm sure there are thousands of moviegoers who then picked up the books and the commercial success of Jackson's films likely prompted studios to greenlight more fantasy movies. It's hard to measure these effects, but I think Jackson deserves some credit.

Attrition wrote: ... and the commercial success of Jackson's films likely prompted studios to greenlight more fantasy movies.

I thought this would happen too, but it doesn't seem to have panned out. I was hoping to see lots of great fantasy literature adaptations once LOTR paved the way. Instead, we got those lifeless adaptations of a couple of Narnia books, that shitty "Golden Compass" movie (GREAT book, by the way), that Conan movie with Khal Drogo ... anything else I'm missing? Wasn't there an Earthsea movie on SyFy, maybe? I guess there's Harry Potter, but that feels like a completely separate phenomenon.

None of those other film adaptations really took off, and now it feels like the industry has given up on epic fantasy. It's all superheroes now.

Oh, and Game of Thrones, of course! That one seems to be doing pretty well! But again, even the incredible success of GoT hasn't sparked a huge influx of fantasy adaptations on TV. Why is that??

I think it was a positive for genre pictures in general... not just fantasy. But the effects of something like this are long haul effects and may not be obvious until a generation or two down the road. But I didn't mind the first Narnia movie.. however in that case the book is much better.

Fantasy is expensive to make and both LOTR and GoT had sizable communities to support them upon release. Also, GoT got a lot of exposure from it's titty shots and deaths.


eidt... and what about smaller films like Pan's Labyrinth or Let the Right One In? There's plenty of those since 2001.