re: .

quote:

---

eta: maybe it was someone on here

---

My bad must be thinking of someone else.

quote:

---

The thing is we just saw the first 1/3 of the film really.

---

I think knowing this jacks with the pacing more than anything, and is one of the reasons I felt that the movie dragged in a major way.

I felt the first half was just snail slow, and since I knew it was only really act 1, any of the episodes on the journey could have been the "stopping point" as a result I was looking at my watch from about the 1 Hour mark on.

quote:

---

A mere ten years after the events of The Hobbit--in Earth terms, the equivalent of a blink of an eye (as a point of reference, it takes Aragon fifteen years after the events of The Lord of the Rings to even visit his Hobbit friends in the Shire)--Sauron declares himself openly in Mordor. So when The Atlantic opines that Jackson's The Hobbit should have been "slender and simple" like the book, indeed "innocent and intimate," and that any reference to the "necromancer"-cum-Sauron in The Hobbit is merely "Jackson cross-promoting his earlier films," don't listen to it for a moment--and don't be fooled by the legerdemain of that magazine's film critic, who drops esoteric references to the books as though he understands them well and has considered their scope and intersections in writing his review. Likewise, when CNN says that there's "so much less at stake" in The Hobbit, and that the movie should acknowledge this by avoiding any "dark forebodings of impending death and destruction," this too is a betrayal of Tolkien's literary legacy. This is not, as CNN would have it, a mere "caper." Nor is it, at The Washington Post and others absurdly posit, reminiscent--either visually, tonally, or otherwise--to "The Teletubbies." This is dark, mature subject matter involving a cast of characters still unaware enough about what's going on around them that they can still take time to laugh and (admittedly, on occasion) make bad jokes.

---

quote:

---

All of this may seem like hapless nerd-kvetching, but consider: Would a film critic reviewing a Jane Austen adaptation be forgiven for exhibiting little knowledge of (and little willingness to embrace) the film's source material? How about Tolstoy? The reviews of The Hobbit don't just indulge, they indeed rely upon both the critics' and readers' ignorance of Tolkien's tale and what it was actually intended to be by the time of the novelist's death and (more to the point) Jackson's mid-nineties discovery of it as a possible cinematic blockbuster

---

quote:

---

As the years go on, critics will return to the first entry in The Hobbit trilogy with a more favorable tone than they have approached it with thus far, and will be embarrassed for having rated it barely above George Lucas' thoroughly execrable Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (38% on Rotten Tomatoes). Here's hoping that reversal comes sooner rather than later.

---

This seems fitting for the title of this thread. This guy nails it on the head perfect.

quote:

---

I feel bad for you if you were that board.

---

movie/tv board?

quote:

---

movie/tv board?

---

it's getting late

quote:

---

did you write that article.

---

To many big words in it for me to write that.

quote:

---

but then you see his face

---

You feel bad. He's had it for 900 years. He's ruined by it but at the same time it's all he has.