| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Hobbit (1977) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 19 2016, 02:42 PM (948 Views) | |
| Darker | Feb 19 2016, 02:42 PM Post #1 |
![]()
The Lord of the Dark
![]()
|
Because one of the best Tolkien adaptations deserves its own thread. PJ ruined this children's book by making it all seem like his LOTR movies, but thankfully Rankin/Bass did a great job adapting the novel long ago. |
Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?! Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power. | |
![]() |
|
| + Emmeth | Feb 19 2016, 05:09 PM Post #2 |
![]()
I ♥ Yoeri
![]()
|
Absolutely and loathfully disagree with this. While not the same standards as the LOTR movies, they are still incredibly enjoyable to watch. A few things, like Tauriel and Legolas, should probably not have been in the films, but I still think the extended editions are miles above anything made in the 70/80s. |
![]() My Twitch Page | |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Feb 19 2016, 05:23 PM Post #3 |
![]()
The Lord of the Dark
![]()
|
What do you disagree on the fact that the PJ movies are quite garbage? Saw your PJ Smaug set, so I expected you'd defend those movies. The fact that it was't faithful at all with the book? The fact that it added nonsense that wasn't in the book? The fact that they ruined Smaug in every way? The fact that they added Sauron even though he wasn't in there to begin with? The fact that it made Bilbo look like a warrior, which is something he was never ment to be? Also "I still think the extended editions are miles above anything made in the 70/80s." Haha, good joke. It's not like George Lucas, Wes Craven, Tobe Hopper, Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg put infinitely more effort on their works compared to Jackson and his blockbusters, which SHOULDN'T be blockbusters. The Hobbit was intended to be a tale made for children, I don't think I need to tell you that. |
Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?! Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power. | |
![]() |
|
| + Pointer | Feb 19 2016, 05:36 PM Post #4 |
![]()
...
![]()
|
The Lord of the Ring is also a PJ movie and thats awesome. Btw Smaug was well animated |
| |
![]() |
|
| + Emmeth | Feb 19 2016, 06:00 PM Post #5 |
![]()
I ♥ Yoeri
![]()
|
I'll agree that some aspects weren't faithful, but to say "at all" is a bit of a stretch. It tells the story of Bilbo and the dwarfs, with a little bit of addition here and there. It's not like it went out of is way to not be faithful.
I don't think it was nonsense in the end. Yes, PJ added a bunch of things that weren't in the books but it wasn't terrible. Legolas was always a loved character from the books and his movies, so it made sense to add him. He's part of the Mirkwood Realm.
That's one opinion. I think they did him justice, even if they changed him slightly. He's not descriptively 100% accurate, but I think he's done very well. Especially Cumberbatch as voice and motion.
Didn't contradict anything, he was known to lurk in the shadows even then so I can see it happening.
Nah, he didn't look like a warrior. He was what he was supposed to be.
I didn't talk about other movies, I meant the adaptions of the books. |
![]() My Twitch Page | |
![]() |
|
| + Pelador | Feb 19 2016, 06:12 PM Post #6 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
![]()
|
If you strip out all the things that weren't shown in the books then Peter Jackson's version is very faithful to the book. This is my personal opinion of course but I happen to think the animation from the 1977 cartoon looks like a***. Edited by Pelador, Feb 19 2016, 06:13 PM.
|
![]() http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Feb 19 2016, 07:13 PM Post #7 |
![]()
The Lord of the Dark
![]()
|
It's Ghibli studios in their prime. This animation is more than acceptable given it's a movie from the 70s. Would have you said the same if you had actually researched who did the animation? I mean seriously, Pelador -.- And yeah, that's very easy to do, but PJ did lousy adaptations, especially the Hobbit movies. I'm not taking out all the flaws he added, of course I'm going to count them in, just for the sake of reminding others how crappy that trilogy is. What's next, PJ will do The Silmarillion? @Emmeth Okay, let's see... How many flaws can I find just from my really bad memory? The orcs being there from the very beginning when they showed up pretty late in the book, and some of them which should be dead. The dwarves being treated like goofballs just for the sake of making the movie more lighthearted (which is not what Tolkien did), that dumb love triangle, the elves taking part of it(which I don't think ever happened, only the humans appeared), making the goblins from that cave look ridiculous(especially their king who was originally really threatening), Smeagol/Gollum(who was one of my least favourite parts in the PJ movies, for reasons that I don't think should be mentioned right now), Sauron appearing as the Necromancer throughout the whole trilogy(even though the Necromancer only appeared ONCE throughout the book), that dumb tiny forgettable wizard who wasn't even in the book, the fact that they turned A SINGLE BOOK into THREE MOVIES. For God's sake. The only thing I liked from it were the spiders. That's the only thing that PJ nailed almost perfectly. The introduction to them was off, but they were just as menacing as they were ment to be. That's all I can recall for now. Now let's move on to Smaug, my favourite character from the book. I'm okay with his voice, he sounds quite threatening, and I dig the british accent; weird how all the dudes who have voiced Smaug used accents that were somewhat british-sounding(because with Cumberbatch's take, I could barely tell). -As much as I'd praise his voice, Cumberbatch barely put any emotion into him, compared to Richard Boone. However I know Benedict is a LOTR fan so I won't blame him for this. Motion-capture was probably a really hard thing to do and I admire his performance a bit. -His size. Smaug in the PJ movies was WAAAY too big. Tolkien described him as being 18m long. In the PJ movies he's like three times that much, and that is waaay too humongous. It's not a huge problem, but the difference between Bilbo and Smaug shouldn't be so big. -He was a wyvern. This ticks me off because in the LOTR mythology there's a clear difference between dragons and wyverns. For starters, Smaug isn't one of them. He's the last firedrake on Middle Earth, and for some reason Jackson decided to cut off two of his limbs even though we clearly saw Smaug walking with his arms in the first movie. -His speech. His amazing speech, something Tolkien did and was an awesome villain moment. They didn't do it completely, Jackson decided to stop it in a very awkward part for no good reason, and unlike the 1977 version, Smaug isn't showing off his power as he speaks, he's just standing there wobbling around Bilbo. -The way he ran away. After getting drowned into molten gold, he decides to run away, screaming like a little girl and then saying the quote of "I'm fire, I'm death", something Smaug never said in the book, like, ever. And I'm probably missing a lot more that I could say about how much they destroyed one of my favourite dragon characters of all time. Like his design, it couldn't be more generic. PJ never had creativity when it came to some of the creatures he adapted from Tolkien's books, like the Fellbeast, which looked like one of those big worms from the 2005 King Kong movie. Now let's move on to what you replied...
Jackson made the movie to get more money, because he knew he could make profit out of the Hobbit story. And he failed, not surprising, really.
Slightly, he says... L0L.
Not at all. Look at the 1977 for what Bilbo is ment to be. He's collected, he's calm, he's somewhat cocky but also a really good friend and very smart. The only thing the 1977 movie didn't do as faithfully was make him as smart, and quite dull. PJ Bilbo just whines and goes everywhere looking confused. He's a coward and he took off the ring when he shouldn't have. Because Jackson thought it was a good idea to include Sauron in the trilogy, even though he wasn't there, ever. He may have been lurking around, but his presence was always kept as a secret. It wasn't enough for him to make him seem like a dumb brute in the first LOTR movie's prologue. And somehow Smaug knows about Sauron, WTF? The two never met, they have no connection. It would make sense if Smaug knew or may have heard of Sauron's long dead master, Morgoth, who was "friends" with Smaug's father, Glaurung, the father of all dragons. I can't believe you guys dragged the PJ trilogy into this. Couldn't you have commented on the 70s movie?, for christ's sake... |
Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?! Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power. | |
![]() |
|
| + Emmeth | Feb 19 2016, 07:20 PM Post #8 |
![]()
I ♥ Yoeri
![]()
|
Just accept that some people have a different opinion than you, it shouldn't be that difficult. Oh, but knowing you... |
![]() My Twitch Page | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Feb 19 2016, 08:42 PM Post #9 |
![]()
What will you do when you get old?
![]()
|
The Hobbit animated film was garbage, as well as the Lotr animated films. I haven't seen PJs The Hobbit trilogy because there is absolutely no justification to take a roughly 300 page childrens book and split it up in to 3 feature length movies. It was nothing more than a cash grab, and it worked. The Lord of the Rings books were 6 books and he managed to fit 2 books per movie in those, which was understandable. The movies weren't entirely true to the books but they were good movies. The books will always be the best part of the Lotr universe. |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Feb 19 2016, 09:10 PM Post #10 |
![]()
The Lord of the Dark
![]()
|
The animated LOTR movies were not great, that I agree with, but the Hobbit movie was faithful and pretty good. For a children's book, they did a good adaptation, being partially a musical with songs from the book, and Smaug was spot on. The animation was also really good. @Emmeth This isn't about opinions. I could understand your arguments, if you had any. I mean really you said nothing to convince me they did something truly faithfully besides the spiders, kind of. You gave me zero reasons to understand why you think those movies are alright. |
Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?! Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power. | |
![]() |
|
| + Emmeth | Feb 19 2016, 10:01 PM Post #11 |
![]()
I ♥ Yoeri
![]()
|
I gave you plenty of arguments, you just choose to ignore them because it suits you. "This isn't about opinions." Pff. |
![]() My Twitch Page | |
![]() |
|
| + Sandy Shore | Feb 19 2016, 11:11 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
I just watched the scenes of Smaug—since he seems to be the focus point—in the old 1977 animation, and the new Peter Jackson film, and I have to say that the newer version is definitely better. Smaug inexplicably has a Gremlin-like head in the animation, and car head-lights for eyes. His voice is poor, too. While it did include the rather brilliant "I am SMAUG!", and the newer version criminally did not, the delivery is genuinely lacklustre. I don't care for Cumberbatch, but he did this character a good service. You feel that Smaug fancies himself to be quite magnificent; you get a good sense of his vanity, cunning, and intellect. If you were to make a thread about the issues with the newer films, and state that they're all together in bad taste, I doubt you'd find much opposition. But, to claim the old version is actually better, well, good luck with that. I fail to see it. Have you heard Bilbo's voice? Painful. |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Feb 20 2016, 12:48 AM Post #13 |
![]()
The Lord of the Dark
![]()
|
Have you seen what Bilbo does in the newer movies? Anything but what he did in the books. He's a cowardly brat and nothing else, and what's wrong with 70s Bilbo voice? He sounds british, so what? So does the new Smaug and no one complains. What would it be any different when the character is done exactly as he's ment to be? As for Smaug... Really? I seriously hate when people speak of dragons as if they always have to be scaly lizards with horns and wings, they've never had a real true shape, because they're fictional. People can design them as they wish. And look, the Rankin/Bass movie did it, and he looks great and original. They gave him a design fitting of his description, even if he had a very small description, made by himself. The PJ Smaug isn't even a dragon, he's a wyvern. And that's a huge difference from any point of view, especially from Tolkien's point of view, who made it clear how different dragons were from wyverns. What's wrong with the car lights, he uses them to track down Bilbo while invisible, from a fantasy pov, it makes some sense for him to try to do that, aside from smelling and hearing him. The problem with the 70s movie is that it didn't emphasize the fact that Smaug was toying with Bilbo and that he knew where he was all along. But that's not really a problem because they handled the scene perfectly without changing much. Again, what's wrong with the voice? Yeah, Richard Boone might've been +60 years old when he voiced Smaug, but he was ment to make him sound sleepy, since he had just woke up a few minutes ago. This is something from the movie-only, as Smaug had awaken hours ago before Bilbo entered the cave, but it still works in a way. Boone attempted to sound threatening and his delivery with Smaug's epic speech was excellent, I dunno what you're talking about. Cumberbatch was being hammy from the beginning, which certainly doesn't fit the character AT ALL. How the hell did he do service to the character when he didn't do anything the character originall did? Smaug isn't ment to be cocky, when he tells you his wings are a hurricane, he's not kidding or exaggerating. And he wasn't smart either, he got tricked and fooled by those dumb dwarves several times. And yeah, I've got luck on my side. I can express my opinion as much as I want to: The old Hobbit movie is far superior to the unnecessary trilogy Jackson made. Want proof? I already gave it, this whole thread is full of it. From an adaptation point of view(and that's what both are), PJ's Hobbit movies suck as much as the Bayformers movies when it comes to reintroducing the characters, because there is nearly ZERO respect to the source material, and for an adaptation, that's unacceptable. @Emmeth It's not that I'm against your opinion or your tiny arguments(seriously you barely wrote any) which I didn't ignore(otherwise what or who was I replying at?), it's the fact that I don't agree. Why would you like to change my mind? What's the point? |
Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?! Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power. | |
![]() |
|
| + Pelador | Feb 20 2016, 12:51 AM Post #14 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
![]()
|
So you're allowed opinions but we're not? |
![]() http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
![]() |
|
| + Sandy Shore | Feb 20 2016, 01:40 AM Post #15 |
![]()
|
I'm not talking about how accurate the films are; I was criticising the voice actor in the 1977 version, and I absolutely think Martin Freeman does a far better job. Disregarding how accurate the scenes are, they're acted a whole lot better. Also: British, what? When did I ever imply that was a bad thing, and when did I even say they sound British? That Bilbo just sounds like the sort amateur acting you'd get from someone hosting a Dungeons & Dragons game, or something. Generic faux-fantasy tone. Smaug isn't far different. You're trying to tell me off for a double standard that only you imply I'm holding. Hypocritically, funnily enough.
You've been whining about how the Peter Jackson films depart from the source material, but defend the 1977 version for every artistic decision it makes. Blegh. Neither of the Smaugs are appropriate representations. One is a brown hairy cat-thing, with head-lights for eyes; and the other is far too big, and missing two legs. Though, one of them does seem to have a lot more in common with most other depictions of Smaug, and it's not the Gremlin that you're so keen on defending. Also, I never said Smaug exaggerates, only that he fancies himself to be quite magnificent -which he does. He's highly proud and egotistical. Probably what makes him seem to be impressively intelligent, but you're probably right about that one: his intellect isn't anything special. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Television and Films · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:25 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


















4:25 PM Jul 13