Recent movies

Alynna

The Hobbit was... alright.

Mild spoilers from the book ahead.


I read all the appendices, the book of Lost Tales and so forth, so I was familiar with all of the back story that they threw in. Making Azog live, and pursue the company of dwarves was put in solely to give the first movie a narrative arc. The same with the aforementioned 'Bilbo saving Thorin.' It frankly had to be put in, or the first movie would of felt really... odd at the end. Bilbo's arc in the original book didn't start to come into play until they were in Mirkwood, and the sword he found earned the name 'Sting.' So frankly the pacing complaints mainly have to do with the fact that the movie was unable to tell a complete story.

From a writing perspective, that tells me that the first film was too long.

However, I know why they did it.

Frankly, the amount of background things that happen in regards to the necromancer and the white council is quite dense and vast, all happening chronologically while the dwarves are bumbling around in the woods, so if they wanted to include this information, they would need a longer narrative. So they had to condense Bilbo's character arc, so that his development happened in the first movie. The second movie will likely end on Bilbo and the dwarves escaping the elf-king's palace, with most of the action and adventure showing the attack on Dol Guldur. 

To cram both of those developments into a single movie would of been very difficult. Things would either be so condensed that it felt unsatisfying. Alternatively, they could of removed the entire necromancer sub-plot, which may have angered hard-core Tolkien fans. Then again, Bilbo finding the ring should of been enough of a connection to the first trilogy.

As a long-time fan of the Hobbit (the book that introduced me to modern fantasy,) and the Lord of the Rings, as well as the Lord of the Rings movies, I was pleased with their attention to detail. The movie did 'feel' like the Hobbit to me. As a writer though, I can see the problems they had making this into three movies. Frankly I think it would of been a stronger story as two movies, dropping the Necromancer plot, and giving more background detail then the original Hobbit did.

On the other hand, splitting it into two movies has its own problems. Firstly, the Hobbit as a story is very much a three act story. First act, leaving of the Shire, gathering of information, and the escape from the goblins. The second act is the journey through Mirkwood, while the third is the assault on the mountain itself.

How do you split that in half? Especially since most of Bilbo's character development happens in the middle?

The only way I can think of doing it, is having the assault on Dol Guldur be the highlight of the first film, but Bilbo is not involved. So to be a satisfying story, a protagonist would be needed for that. Gandalf is a good start, but by his nature as a mentor figure, he can't go through much character development. You would also be ending with Bilbo and the dwarves lost in the woods, a weak cliffhanger. Both of these, Gandalf as a central protagonist, and Bilbo pretty much shoved to the sideline would leave a sour taste in the mouth of any moviegoer expecting a story about, you know, a Hobbit.

So they went with three movies, based on the three acts of the story. A lot easier to digest, as the only changes they had to do was make individual character arcs for each film. As the second act already has one for Bilbo, and the third act arguably does as well, they just had to throw one in for the first movie.

Hence Azog, the development of Thorin as a secondary protagonist, and the rather cliched 'Bilbo saves Thorin, everyone learns a lesson' plot-line thrown in, and hence the derision it's received from some critics.

The second and third films, standing a -bit- closer to the original story's character arcs, should be better received.

Although leaving Azog alive at the end of the first troubled me...

Tvistor

My friend Mahmoud used to be Bilbo Baggins on Call of Duty, so I'd be Samwise Gamgee.

Tanaar

Saw Les Miserables the other day, loved it. Screw the haters who didn't like the singing. So it didn't sound like Colm Wilkinson on the CD you've listened to a hundred times. It was genuine and emotion-filled, and that's what telling a story is all about. I even liked Russell Crowe. As long as you didn't have preconceptions about what it was 'supposed' to sound like, it was great.

Orklanishkal

@Tanaar I actually thought Russell Crowe did the best job of all of them, not sure what it was about his performance though

Trey

I was just confused as hell through that whole thing. Wolverine and Catwoman start singing to one another, and at this point I'm annoyed because my friend neglected to tell me that this was a Marvel/DC crossover. I'm trying to follow the plot wondering why Capt. Jack Aubrey is a cop instead of a ship captain, and finally I got fed up when people started singing along with everyone like they'd seen it before even if it was a midnight release. If this was a ripoff of some book I'm going to be so mad.

Daslin

Just watched Django Unchained. NOT Tarantino's best work... sigh...

Still good though. Even if there were things that a gun nut would be annoyed about(me)

Kitarel

I know it's not 'new' but I did just see it. Cloud Atlas was good if you sit there and don't do ANYTHING but watch and listen.

Wysteria

Life of Pi. Just see it. I loved the book and the movie was a very well made interpretation.

Katzchen

Kitarel said:

I know it's not 'new' but I did just see it. Cloud Atlas was good if you sit there and don't do ANYTHING but watch and listen.

Okay, now I'm sad. It's not considered 'new' anymore, and we don't even have a release date yet.

Kitarel

I already have it downloaded on my computer. Too bad it's such a large file or I'd just send it your way.

Katzchen

And they wonder why people pirate movies...

Sultani

I had to laugh because Les Miserables may be my wife's (a music teacher and theatre lover) all-time favorite while Anne Hathaway is her most hated actress ever. Watching the look in her eyes transition from delighted to purely disgusted the first time she saw the commercial was pretty good humor. At least we have tickets to the actual musical this May since I doubt we'll be seeing the movie.

Kitarel

Not pirating in Canada.

Tarkanian

Hey guys, who was the actor who shot bin Laden in Zero Dark Thirty?

Eld

Tarkanian said:

Hey guys, who was the actor who shot bin Laden in Zero Dark Thirty?

Englebert Humperdink

Tanaar

You made that name up

Eld

Humperdink Humperdink Humperdink!

Tanaar

I'm not listening! Nobody's hearing nothing!

Jakiro

Cloud Atlas was great. My one criticism for the movie though was that it was a bit messy with the timelines which constantly switched from one point to another. I watched it with my best friend who hadn't read the book beforehand and I often had to keep her up with the story. Glad I read the book before watching. Everything else was great, specially the costumes!

Also recently watched Perks Of Being A Wallflower and had a great time, all the actors were great and the movie stayed true to the novel. I guess it helped that the author of the book (Chbosky) was the director too. Loving on Emma Watson for pushing to get this movie made.

Amunet

Went to go see the Evil Dead re-make with my best friend and my significant other the other night. It wasn't terrible, though I was very disappointed that Bruce Campbell didn't even make a cameo until after the credits. It was violent and a little campy - a good tribute to the original, but true B-movie fans will likely leave the theatre a little disappointed.

Kresslack

Watched the original Evil Dead just now. Going to see the remake tonight.