posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
the_dala at 07:14pm on 15/12/2012
the_dala at 07:14pm on 15/12/2012So I saw "The Hobbit" in IMAX 3D today, which means I also saw the 9-minute Trek preview.
Basically, this was me for that entire nine minutes*:
-- OMG EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
--Opening scene totally got to me, so that's two for two on tears within the first five minutes, new Trek. Well played
--This offers no clues on who Cumberbatch is playing, to me anyway, and I'm happy to keep it that way for the moment (translation: don't spoil me)
--It's pretty dark and gray-scaled which is a nice contrast to the next scene. Bright colorful alien planet! Actually looking alien and not like southern California!
--Jim and Bones omg be still my shipper's heart. See Jim run, see Bones bitch, see Jim and Bones be total space husbands in space, on land, and at sea
--Spock/Uhura ship is also still alive and still adorable, yay. Thank you for putting "illogical" in the preview, JJ
--No seriously they're so cute
--Sulu and Uhura being total BAMFs
--HELLO SHINY BLUE SPACE WETSUITS, PLEASE STAY FOREVER
--Scotty's ire at the saltwater and the fish cracked me up
--CHEKOV!
--Everybody's so team-y, they're practically finishing each other's sentences, and it's EXACTLY the vibe I want from this movie
--Gratuitous Use of WoK Reference #2
--Which, let's be real, this is obviously a "Spock does not get eaten by a volcano at this time" moment," but it's extremely exciting nonetheless
*this might be a shitty clip but she totally mentions active volcanoes, so thank you Molly Shannon
And then this was me immediately upon the conclusion:
And THEN I remembered I still had a whole entire Hobbit to watch!
First I should say that I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who prefers the LotR films to the books, because I like characterization best of all and that isn't Tolkien's strong suit. I did, however, like The Hobbit a lot. There is a definite tonal dissonance between the book, which is fairly light and whimsical, and this movie, which is a lot more serious and darker for about 80% of the time
I think this is one of those situations where I'm glad both versions exist? Because one of the aspects I liked is how well it meshes with the previous trilogy of movies (and fleshes out the characters like Jackson did before) and how it expands the focus of the story to Middle-earth as a whole. And that wouldn't have been possible with a more faithful adaptation to the book. But I do totally understand somebody objecting to it on that basis. And the tonal shifts aren't entirely consistent, either. I loved that they made Bilbo less bumbling and gave him a Crowning Moment of Awesome; I don't like that they added potty humor in an apparent attempt to recapture that light-hearted tone of the novel. Snot jokes, really? It works in Harry Potter because they're eleven.
The extra stuff: I'm guessing it's mostly from The Silmarilion and the appendices? Stuff that I don't know, in other words. But I didn't think it seemed out of place or that it dragged the film down, really. And again, I liked the expanded focus beyond Bilbo's POV.
Visuals: just as beautiful as ever, and I'm glad I saw it in this format even if the Trek premiere was my main impetus. I do think the vast cast of CGI creatures was a bit much, though; I really missed the makeup jobs on the orcs and such. However, Gollum looks even more fucking awesome than ever.
Acting: terrific across the board. Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect as Bilbo. He's so much more hobbit-like than Elijah Wood, who is probably my least favorite actor in LotR (yes, even after Orlando smelling the fart and stating the obvious, bless him).
As for the dwarves, let's just take a moment to acknowledge that Richard Armitage and Aidan Turner (I'm not counting Fili because that dude looks too much like Andy Samberg) are far too handsome to be dwarves, and are in fact blatant bait for the Aragorn and Legolas fans. That being said, I love Armitage from "Robin Hood" (where he was often waaaay better than the material) and I loved his performance here. Thorin charging down that tree at the Pale Orc, my god. Speaking of which, I spent that entire scene silent-shrieking "eagles eagles eagles!"
But overall I thought Jackson did a wonderful job of making the dwarves distinctive. Or about half of them, anyway, and more than that isn't really possible since there's a dozen of them. They all sort of blend together in the book for me (except Thorin), and having half of them be background is better than all of them for sure.
Needed moar Lee Pace, but then, don't most things?
And oh, the music. I love Howard Shore's work on these films. The dwarf theme is still stuck in my head.
So overall I really liked it. I think the length might be more noticeable on second viewing, which will probably not be in the theater for me because I still want to see "Rise of the Guardians" and "Lincoln" and omg Les Mis eighty thousand times, and I'm sure I can find the Trek preview through nefarious means. But I'm definitely excited for the next two.
Basically, this was me for that entire nine minutes*:
-- OMG EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
--Opening scene totally got to me, so that's two for two on tears within the first five minutes, new Trek. Well played
--This offers no clues on who Cumberbatch is playing, to me anyway, and I'm happy to keep it that way for the moment (translation: don't spoil me)
--It's pretty dark and gray-scaled which is a nice contrast to the next scene. Bright colorful alien planet! Actually looking alien and not like southern California!
--Jim and Bones omg be still my shipper's heart. See Jim run, see Bones bitch, see Jim and Bones be total space husbands in space, on land, and at sea
--Spock/Uhura ship is also still alive and still adorable, yay. Thank you for putting "illogical" in the preview, JJ
--No seriously they're so cute
--Sulu and Uhura being total BAMFs
--HELLO SHINY BLUE SPACE WETSUITS, PLEASE STAY FOREVER
--Scotty's ire at the saltwater and the fish cracked me up
--CHEKOV!
--Everybody's so team-y, they're practically finishing each other's sentences, and it's EXACTLY the vibe I want from this movie
--Gratuitous Use of WoK Reference #2
--Which, let's be real, this is obviously a "Spock does not get eaten by a volcano at this time" moment," but it's extremely exciting nonetheless
*this might be a shitty clip but she totally mentions active volcanoes, so thank you Molly Shannon
And then this was me immediately upon the conclusion:
And THEN I remembered I still had a whole entire Hobbit to watch!
First I should say that I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who prefers the LotR films to the books, because I like characterization best of all and that isn't Tolkien's strong suit. I did, however, like The Hobbit a lot. There is a definite tonal dissonance between the book, which is fairly light and whimsical, and this movie, which is a lot more serious and darker for about 80% of the time
I think this is one of those situations where I'm glad both versions exist? Because one of the aspects I liked is how well it meshes with the previous trilogy of movies (and fleshes out the characters like Jackson did before) and how it expands the focus of the story to Middle-earth as a whole. And that wouldn't have been possible with a more faithful adaptation to the book. But I do totally understand somebody objecting to it on that basis. And the tonal shifts aren't entirely consistent, either. I loved that they made Bilbo less bumbling and gave him a Crowning Moment of Awesome; I don't like that they added potty humor in an apparent attempt to recapture that light-hearted tone of the novel. Snot jokes, really? It works in Harry Potter because they're eleven.
The extra stuff: I'm guessing it's mostly from The Silmarilion and the appendices? Stuff that I don't know, in other words. But I didn't think it seemed out of place or that it dragged the film down, really. And again, I liked the expanded focus beyond Bilbo's POV.
Visuals: just as beautiful as ever, and I'm glad I saw it in this format even if the Trek premiere was my main impetus. I do think the vast cast of CGI creatures was a bit much, though; I really missed the makeup jobs on the orcs and such. However, Gollum looks even more fucking awesome than ever.
Acting: terrific across the board. Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect as Bilbo. He's so much more hobbit-like than Elijah Wood, who is probably my least favorite actor in LotR (yes, even after Orlando smelling the fart and stating the obvious, bless him).
As for the dwarves, let's just take a moment to acknowledge that Richard Armitage and Aidan Turner (I'm not counting Fili because that dude looks too much like Andy Samberg) are far too handsome to be dwarves, and are in fact blatant bait for the Aragorn and Legolas fans. That being said, I love Armitage from "Robin Hood" (where he was often waaaay better than the material) and I loved his performance here. Thorin charging down that tree at the Pale Orc, my god. Speaking of which, I spent that entire scene silent-shrieking "eagles eagles eagles!"
But overall I thought Jackson did a wonderful job of making the dwarves distinctive. Or about half of them, anyway, and more than that isn't really possible since there's a dozen of them. They all sort of blend together in the book for me (except Thorin), and having half of them be background is better than all of them for sure.
Needed moar Lee Pace, but then, don't most things?
And oh, the music. I love Howard Shore's work on these films. The dwarf theme is still stuck in my head.
So overall I really liked it. I think the length might be more noticeable on second viewing, which will probably not be in the theater for me because I still want to see "Rise of the Guardians" and "Lincoln" and omg Les Mis eighty thousand times, and I'm sure I can find the Trek preview through nefarious means. But I'm definitely excited for the next two.
excited
(no subject)
I consider myself more of a book fan, but I do enjoy the movies (although I am guilty of being one of Those People who will Nitpick Because They Can). For me, I loved all the little call backs to the actual text, like Gandalf talking about the origin of the game of gold. I will always love seeing the original maps being given loving close ups (and I actually saw the original map at the Marquette archives when I was in high school!). And Jackson has always casted well. I still think that stretching this out over three movies is Overkill, but hey...
And yeah, the Sexy Dwarves phenomenon. It kinda screams stunt casting to me. I mean, did they have to look like mini-elves? Dwarves are underground mountain dwellers, and even the females have beards. They could have at least given Kili a damn beard.
(no subject)
Oh, the sexy dwarves. Armitage almost gets away with it, even though I know he's supposed to be much older, just because he has decent gravitas. But Kili's lack of beard was sad - it wasn't even substantial stubble. And I was squinting to see if any of the lady dwarves did have beards, but they all hustled by so fast in that flashback scene that it was hard to tell for sure.
(no subject)
I find it just so bizarre that SEXY DWARVES is a thing now. SEXY DWARVES. And it's not that the other dwarves were hideous troll like creatures, they just looked so marvelously dwarf like! (I <3 Ori and Bofur in particular). But then there is Kili the Sexy Dwarf. The mind, it boggles.
(no subject)