Hall of Fire Reviews - Post Them Here! [SPOILERS!]

Post by **Sunsilver** » Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:08 pm

WampusCat wrote:I keep hearing it in Elmer Fudd voice: Wascally Wosgobel Wabbits.

Love it!

Post by **yovargas** » Fri May 03, 2013 2:42 am

Soooo I've finally watched AUJ a 2nd time, at home on Blu-ray. Despite my hopes of being contrarian, I regret to report that my 2nd viewing was indeed better than the 1st just like everyone elses.

But I would say marginally so. Maybe I'd upgrade my rating from C- to C+. Or a C.

The best thing was that it didn't feel quite so unendingly long and draggy this time. The pace felt okayish unlike the ultra-sluggish feeling I had the first time around. I also enjoyed the Bag End stuff a fair bit this time whereas the first time I was fairly bored by it. It's not great but it's pleasant. The exact moment the movie starts going downhill is with the Azog flashback which feels awkward and dull. From that point forward the movie gets worse and worse and worse until it hits rock bottom at the entire series' nadir of the rock giants. UUUUGH the rock giants.

After that the movie's enjoyability see-saws wildly from dreck to delightful depending almost entirely on how much Bilbo is on screen at a given time. Mo' Bilbo = mo' better. Now that I think about it, that's probably the best way to review the movie: the parts with Bilbo are mostly quite nice; the parts without Bilbo are mostly not. I was definitely more sold on Martin's lovely performance this time around. He does a very nice job and is the clear highlight of the movie (along with Gollum).

Post by **kzer_za** » Fri May 03, 2013 8:19 pm

I have the DVD coming in the mail this weekend (Netflix, I'm not buying it), so I'll have my fourth viewing soon.

I disagree on the Azog flashback - that was well-done, and the "Oakenshield" was much cooler on screen than I ever envisioned it while reading. If only his character had stopped there.

Fri May 03, 2013 8:28 pm

yov, I'm glad you like it at least somewhat better. Maybe it will continue to go up a little on subsequent viewings.

k_z, I agree about the Oakenshield. But I am puzzled and confused by the fact that Thorin drops the darn thing when the eagle carries him off to the Carrock. Why build the thing up, only to have it disappear? I just don't get that.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Fri May 03, 2013 8:49 pm

Someone on TORN speculated that Beorn would find it and see it as confirmation that Thorin's story was true. Seems reasonable.

Post by **yovargas** » Fri May 03, 2013 8:53 pm

kzer_za wrote:I disagree on the Azog flashback - that was well-done...

It's not the flashback itself - though I actually disliked Azog a whole lot more the 2nd time around than the 1st - but the clumsy and obvious "everyone gather round while I stop the story to drop a big pile of exposition on the audience" execution of it. It's awkward and is the first major bump in the story's pacing, which only gets bumpier as it progresses.

V-dude - doubt there will be subsequent viewings unless the next two wow me. The middle 3rd is just too much of a slog. There's almost nothing between the trolls and the goblin caves that is enjoyable IMO.

Fri May 03, 2013 11:16 pm

Dave, that actually makes a fair degree of sense.

yov, fair enough.

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon May 06, 2013 1:57 pm

Well, I watched the first 40 minutes yesterday. That part of the movie really is near-perfect.

The "near" is because I'm not a fan of the Frodo segment and I don't really like the idea of Bilbo only writing the Red Book right before he leaves, but I'm just nitpicking.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon May 06, 2013 2:17 pm

As I'd said way earlier in this thread, I think the movie would be so much better if we just started at "Good morning" and got the dwarf back story flashback stuff coming from Thorin to Bilbo at The Party. Somebody get me PJ's phone number.....

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon May 06, 2013 2:19 pm

I'll tell you their (Phillipa's) response already. It was all worth it because when Thorin arrives at the party, you get a "hey, it's the guy from the prologue!" moment.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon May 06, 2013 2:22 pm

She's wrong.

Mon May 06, 2013 2:39 pm

That certainly is no more true than it would be to say that the backstory in FOTR should have been saved for the Council of Elrond rather than presented in the beginning. Both work equally well the way they are.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon May 06, 2013 3:05 pm

Disagree strongly for various reasons. One of which is simply that LOTR is vastly more complex and there's a lot that you need to know to get to the meat of the story - ie. why this ring is really important. You need to know that before we see Bilbo's reactions to the ring and him handing it off to Frodo. Or at least there's a lot of story-telling value to knowing it before hand. You certainly shouldn't go an hour+ without telling your audience why what they're watching matters.

This is very different from The Hobbit where you only need to know precisely what Bilbo finds out when Bilbo finds it out, maybe 15 minutes into the story. In fact, there's a lot of story-telling value of being in the same place as Bilbo in the dinner party in terms of trying to figure out who these people are and why they're there. And really the dwarf's backstory is so simple (had treasure-filled home, had it taken by a dragon, want it back) that a nicely succinct flashback would fit very nicely and tidily at the dinner party. As it is, they kinda have to repeat a shorter version of the prologue (but with nearly all of the same relevant facts) to Bilbo anyway.

Post by **axordil** » Mon May 06, 2013 3:29 pm

As it is, they kinda have to repeat a shorter version of the prologue (but with nearly all of the same relevant facts) to Bilbo anyway.

This is indeed a weakness with the "prologue first" model. I suspect they felt they had to do it (or were pressured into it, either way) precisely because of how well the FOTR prologue worked.

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon May 06, 2013 3:30 pm

It's simpler than the LotR backstory, but still not all that simple. They have to have the Arkenstone, and they worked Thranduil in.

I would have preferred to go straight "in a hole in the ground" to "good morning" after the prologue, though.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon May 06, 2013 3:37 pm

I'll grant Thranduil but the Arkenstone certainly didn't need to be brought in 5 minutes into the story considering it won't be at all relevant again for several more hours.

Ax, that's a more kind explanation than my suspicion which is that it was a creatively lazy "it worked once, let's just do that again" method. (I only say that because a lot of AUJ feels that way to me - uninspired rehashes of LOTR's tricks.)

Post by **Elentári** » Mon May 06, 2013 5:09 pm

yovargas wrote:I'll grant Thranduil but the Arkenstone certainly didn't need to be brought in 5 minutes into the story considering it won't be at all relevant again for several more hours.

Agreed; It would be far more involving for the audience to learn of the significance of the Arkenstone in the same way Bilbo does. Same with Thranduil: he only needed to be introduced 5 minutes in because of their made-up excuse for the enmity between the Elves and Dwarves. I'd have much preferred to first meet the Silvan Elves along with Bilbo, on their home ground.

I guess the point is whether we should be seeing the story told through Bilbo's eyes - as Tolkien wrote it!

Post by **axordil** » Mon May 06, 2013 5:26 pm

Elentári wrote: I guess the point is whether we should be seeing the story told through Bilbo's eyes - as Tolkien wrote it!

Except the story isn't told through Bilbo's eyes at all, but from an omniscient storyteller's version of Bilbo's point of view.

The story as Tolkien wrote it is not suitable for a close adaptation, unless you want a Princess Bride style frame with someone playing Tolkien reading it to someone playing his kids. That's how strong the sense of narrative intrusion is throughout: the narrator is constantly filling in gaps, answering alluded-to rhetorical questions, telling us how Bilbo (and other characters) feel, and commenting from outside the story.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon May 06, 2013 5:39 pm

While I do not think it needs to be told "through Bilbo's eyes", I came away from my 2nd viewing with the strong impression that what's interesting and compelling about The Hobbit is, um, the hobbit. IMO, almost without fail, when the story steps away from our hobbit the story loses steam and impact. The movie would've been far better structured if it kept its focus very close on Bilbo and his physical & emotional journey and minimized or dropped everything that couldn't be directly tied back to that journey. Alas, that was a lost cause the moment we went to 3 films.