Critical Reception of The Hobbit: AUJ [Massive SPOILERS!]

Post by **Stranger Wings** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:25 am

yovargas wrote:Standard and mediocre are far cries from "worst script writing of the past decade"!

Of "films that I have seen in the past decade." There's a difference.

Post by **Inanna** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:07 am

From Michael's review:

I was a little surprised at how precisely some of Jackson’s images match The Lord of the Rings On-line computer game: Goblin Town is an almost perfect rip-off (and as both are different from anything in the books, I have to wonder if someone on the production team sneaked a peak), dwarvish architecture is also awfully consistent with the MMO, as are particular features in Rivendell.

So, it wasn't just me. I looked at Rivendell and at Erebor and said "Woah!, I've been there in LOTRO".

ETA: From the comments, the explanation for the similarity:

Anonymous said...
Regarding Lord of the Rings Online, it's made by a company owned by Warner Brothers, as was the Hobbit film. I'm not surprised that there's a certain amount of crossover there.

Post by **JewelSong** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:42 am

Since I don't play computer games and have never seen anything from the LOTR game, it had no effect on me.

Rivendell looked to me very much like the Rivendell in LOTR, which was based on Alan Lee's paintings.

Post by **SirDennis** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:14 am

Elentári wrote:I don't think anyone's posted this review from The Economist yet...

“The Lord of the Rings” trilogy was close to perfect, and it has the Oscars and diehard fans to prove it. In “The Hobbit” Mr Jackson seems to have let his love for the material blind him to the merits of a simpler story. The result is more an instalment of a franchise than a compelling film.

A scathing remark, and not an easy one to defend against I should think. But is it love of the material if the result is an instalment of a franchise?

Post by **Holbytla** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:27 am

SirDennis wrote:
Elentári wrote:I don't think anyone's posted this review from The Economist yet...

“The Lord of the Rings” trilogy was close to perfect, and it has the Oscars and diehard fans to prove it. In “The Hobbit” Mr Jackson seems to have let his love for the material blind him to the merits of a simpler story. The result is more an instalment of a franchise than a compelling film.
A scathing remark, and not an easy one to defend against I should think. But is it love of the material if the result is an instalment of a franchise?

I couldn't disagree more with the initial premise of the article. The original LOTR Trilogy was anything but perfect. I agree with the second portion though.

Post by **Elentári** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:04 pm

The Huffington Post weighs in on the critics versus fans debate...

Dislike Peter Jackson's The Hobbit? Then You Don't Know Tolkien

Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:34 pm

I generally agree with his premise.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:08 pm

So do I!

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:56 pm

Meh. He can spin it any way he wants, but in the end, it comes down to 33% more revenue.

Post by **Elentári** » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:46 pm

Did this get posted before?

http://whatculture.com/film/8-reasons-w ... f-2012.php

Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:14 pm

I'm pretty sure that I saw that before, but I don't know if it was posted here.

Post by **Elentári** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:15 pm

If you have a couple of hours to spare, here's an in-depth, very critical, analysis of An Unexpected Journey, (though it also features plenty from DoS,) covering everything from characters and creative licence to plot and narrative structure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PapM9x ... QyygDldFHC

Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:23 am

That analysis may have been a lot more compelling if the critic didn't use such mediocre (Independence Day) and awful (Mortal Kombat) films as examples of good film-making! He sounds like an amateur who read a few film-making 101 books, and hasn't learned to move beyond that stage of artistic exploration.

That said, some of the criticisms are certainly valid. In particular, the awfulness of the script (and the reasons why it's awful) is laid out quite convincingly.