The Hall of Fire DoS Review Thread

[Elentári]

Like I said earlier...I was fine with the movie for a good two-thirds of it: I found myself involved in the storyline much better than with AUJ. It just went downhill with the end of the Laketown sequence, (which was obviously reworked from what PJ originally had planned at the end of principal photography) and the Golden Climax.

It's easy for me to keep finding fault in retrospect, but my overall impression coming out of the cinema was certainly far more positive than negative this time.

[Pearly Di]

The ending was great.

"What have we done?"

Indeed.

I also loved the barrel ride sequence. The children in the audience did too!


Watching PJ's Hobbit is like watching Doctor Who. I have no desire to analyse, at least not to the extent I did with LotR. I just take it at face value (keenly noting everything that IS canon, btw!) and enjoy.

My inner purist was protesting at Tauriel's presence, but Evangeline Lilly's performance won me over. Nicely done. And Tauriel's healing scene was less annoying than Arwen blubbing over Frodo at the Ford, which always felt so fake to me. Kili's wonder felt genuine. I liked that.

I do get a kick out of seeing the hidden power of the Elves.

Oh, and Mirkwood's ruined Elven gate. Just loved it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Always nice to see you express my thoughts, Di.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Great to hear, Di!

I was also pleasantly surprised to see the elven gate. There had been no hint of that in any of the publicity material.

It's hard to describe, but everything felt more tactile in this film.

[Holbytla]

Wet blanket time.

I won't say that I hated the movie, but it is likely that if Rebecca wasn't with me, I would have walked out.

It was tolerable PJ stuff for awhile, but when I saw Bombur fighting with a barrel over him, I had had enough. The spider and Beorn scenes were just all wrong and turned into pointless cgi fluff.

The movie is a loose adaptation of the Hobbit and Unfinished Tales, but in no case did I feel that the movie captured the essence of Tolkien.

As far as movies go, it was mildly entertaining, but the plot is misguided and confused. The whole goblin, Necromancer, Ring arc is way over done and hugely detracts from the simplistic beauty of the Hobbit, that was lightly peppered with references.

The invention was largely lame and contrived for no good end.

I liked just about all of the actors and actress and their performances, excepting that Fool-of-a-Rad.

This is by far the worst Tolkien movie of the bunch.

While I can't reveal my source, I know of someone that took a lock of hair from PJ and had a dna analysis done. He is indeed 94.3% goats poop. Hama was right.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Sorry to hear it, Holby. But I abandoned my hope for the kind of film you wanted when PJ decided he was going to direct.

Maybe my very low levels of love/ respect for PJ's LOTR and AUJ helped me. Or perhaps because it was so consistently PJ's style, I didn't feel hurtled back and forth between pure Tolkien and pure PJ, which always frustrates me (i.e. the first hour of AUJ is heaven for me, while the rest is hell). It was a film with a less schizophrenic identity.

I don't really know why, but this one was a lot easier to swallow.

ETA: The funny thing is, I agree with your conclusion that the plot is confused. For me, it really is a raging mess of a movie, with all sorts of logic thrown out the window. But there is an artistic honesty to that which appealed to me. Almost as if we were seeing one of PJ's actual dreams/ nightmares of Middle earth come to life.

[ArathornJax]

I do accept the fact that you have to separate PJ's Middle Earth from Tolkien's Middle Earth. They are separate and to enjoy them, the reader or viewer has to accept and separate the two. I think if you do that, the movies are enjoyable, I find the books more enjoyable. PJ is a movie maker and entertainer. He takes the books and modifies the story to present a visual interpretation, his, of Tolkien's world. I also think that the franchise he creates plays a role in the decisions that are made in the script and thus make it into the movie. Jackson is a highly intelligent man and knows what he is doing and knows what will sell to his audience and to those funding the film. Overall I liked the DOS as a movie. I've stated some of the issues I have with the film. I will say the thread made me think on whether it is worth the time to analyze the film. Probably not. It's not going to change anything. I will say with this series of movies, I have purchased no additional products in terms of the movie or of Tolkien. That raises the question of what the movie is doing for the estate, are they realizing the same gains that the LOTR brought, and are current fans purchasing as much additional product as they did in LOTR? That's interesting to me. Then again, I have been very active over the last several years as I finished a PhD up.

[Pearly Di]

Always nice to see you express my thoughts, Di.

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it, V-man!

I have to admit I sat with a big smile on my face for a lot of the film. The things I could quibble about ... I just don't feel like quibbling about.

Really liked the opening scene in Bree, by the way.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Always nice to see you express my thoughts, Di.

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it, V-man!

I have to admit I sat with a big smile on my face for a lot of the film. The things I could quibble about ... I just don't feel like quibbling about.

Really liked the opening scene in Bree, by the way.

This. Exactly. The quibbles I would normally have just don't surface this time, because they all seem to fit in this fevered world of PJ's Middle Earth. There were so many ridiculous moments that I was able to just take in stride. I could sense that PJ was being his honest, raw self, and this struck a chord with my inner filmmaker.

[Holbytla]

Take this for what it is worth.....just an observation.

A few weeks ago at 8 on a Saturday night, Rebecca and I went to see Catching Fire. It was opening weekend and we struggled to find seats. By the time we got into the theater, there were maybe ten seats open.
We went to the same theater last night, same time, same kind of opening weekend and there were ten people in the theater.

I'm not sure the Hobbit series is playing to mainstream movie goers the way that LOTR did.

[eborr]

Saw it at a full IMAX today. First thing is the high frame rate 3d really works on the massive. Screen. From the first sequence you really were at an inn. This is the first PJ film I have really enjoyed for almost the whole movie, since the fellowship, I didn't care about the non-cannon stuff, the film worked and as a visual experience it was wonderful. Next I need to see it in 2d the IMAX was too immersive to really get my head around.

[Elentári]

There is also Kili's "it is a dream" which references Aragorn to Arwen.

There were a lot of lines or phrases that felt like they were straight lifted out of LOTR. Personally I find it kind of annoying.

Just seen that summed up succinctly elsewhere: " too much referencing something that technically hasn't happened yet."

Unnecessary foreshadowing for the most part, or simply the scriptwriters thinking they're being clever?

[sauronsfinger]

I do accept the fact that you have to separate PJ's Middle Earth from Tolkien's Middle Earth. They are separate and to enjoy them, the reader or viewer has to accept and separate the two. I think if you do that, the movies are enjoyable, I find the books more enjoyable. PJ is a movie maker and entertainer. He takes the books and modifies the story to present a visual interpretation, his, of Tolkien's world. I also think that the franchise he creates plays a role in the decisions that are made in the script and thus make it into the movie. Jackson is a highly intelligent man and knows what he is doing and knows what will sell to his audience and to those funding the film. Overall I liked the DOS as a movie. I've stated some of the issues I have with the film. I will say the thread made me think on whether it is worth the time to analyze the film. Probably not. It's not going to change anything. I will say with this series of movies, I have purchased no additional products in terms of the movie or of Tolkien. That raises the question of what the movie is doing for the estate, are they realizing the same gains that the LOTR brought, and are current fans purchasing as much additional product as they did in LOTR? That's interesting to me. Then again, I have been very active over the last several years as I finished a PhD up.

The number of ancillary products for these films has been far far less than they were with the LOTR trilogy. And that is evident in almost every different form you can examine from simply toy figures to elaborate collectors statues.

The company who got the toy figure contract - Bridge Direct - is really putting out junk compared to both Toy Biz and the excellent smaller figures from Play Along a decade ago.

[Alatar]

So I just took the kids to the HFR 3D version. They loved it to bits, and I have to say I enjoyed it far more on second viewing. The Golden Statue is still dumb, but I appreciated the confrontation preceding it a lot more. I have to admit I chuckled more than once during the barrel ride, once I was able to relax and enjoy it.

Incidentally, I was doing a bit of shopping beforehand, and thought of picking up the Extended Edition of AUJ for a friend. They were sold out of every single copy and version of The Hobbit; Standard, EE, Bluray, DVD... all of them.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I admit that watching it with children is a whole new experience. I took my young nephew to see AUJ, which was my second viewing, and it was liking watching a different movie.

Strangely, the golden dwarf statue is my favorite part of the ending. It's just so visually bold (and an obvious metaphor for Thorin's outsized ego, gold lust and desire to make his ancestor's proud) that I love it, despite how crazy, illogical and confusing it is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I liked the film a lot on my first viewing. I loved it on my second. Part of it was that I could just relax and enjoy it. Part of it was that the theater was full, with quite a few kids, and that actually enhanced it quite a bit (particularly during the barrel chase, and even more the stunned reaction to the ending). I found it less confusing, and no less visually stunning. And yes, PtB, that golden statue is brilliant (yes, I'm full of superlatives today).

[axordil]

One thing I liked *more* about the golden statue this time: Smaug's reaction to it. Surprise, curiosity, greed, and then surprise again when it gave, in the space of about ten seconds.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, brilliant work by WETA and (I suspect) CumberSmaugon.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another thought. As good as Cumberbatch's vocal work on Smaug is, I think his Sauron might be even more impressive.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I liked the film a lot on my first viewing. I loved it on my second. Part of it was that I could just relax and enjoy it. Part of it was that the theater was full, with quite a few kids, and that actually enhanced it quite a bit (particularly during the barrel chase, and even more the stunned reaction to the ending). I found it less confusing, and no less visually stunning. And yes, PtB, that golden statue is brilliant (yes, I'm full of superlatives today).

A part of me feels like it was pure Tolkien - at least the image.

But even narratively, I could imagine Beren and Lúthien pulling some crazy stunt like that to bring down Morgoth.

I mean, is it much sillier than their transformation into wolf and bat, respectively, Lúthien's mad singing routine, or their generally ludicrous plan to regain the Silmarils?

Mythology (including Tolkien's) is full of big, loony stuff. Why not throw some more of that into the Hobbit?