|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fardragon
Rohan
Oct 5 2012, 3:15pm
Post #51 of 135
(6211 views)
Shortcut
|
The publisher didn't see a need, and if you don't lean on Tolkien he was far to easily side tracked to finish things (very much like Leonardo Da Vinci).
And it make a lot more commercial sense to make The Hobbit in the style of LoTR, because the many people who enjoyed the movies but not the books would want to know why Middle Earth had been turned into a twee childish fairytale.
For a professional writer, telling one book in the style of another is a standard exercise. You could do The Hobbit in the style of Dracula, or in the style of Lady Chatterly's Lover, or in the style of a Hayes manual, or in the style of Finnigan's Wake or 20000 leagues under the sea, or [squelch]*
*Fardragon stamped on by a giant foot in the style of Monty Python.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Oct 5 2012, 3:50pm
Post #52 of 135
(5301 views)
Shortcut
|
Nitpickery is a slippy slope, you start innocently enough complaining about Bunny Sleds and if you are not careful it can spiral out of control and one day you find yourself growling Khuzdul at folk in the street and dumpster diving for Rings.
|
|
|
Fāfnir
Rohan
Oct 5 2012, 3:55pm
Post #53 of 135
(5206 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What do you mean ? Some people don't do it ? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Oct 5 2012, 4:08pm
Post #54 of 135
(5187 views)
Shortcut
|
whoever made that film was a sadist. It traumatized me as a child, I remember running weeping from the cinema when Bambis mother died in the forest fire, I have never got over that scene no matter how old I get, it scarred me for life.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Rohan
Oct 5 2012, 4:13pm
Post #55 of 135
(5048 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the Spirit of Tolkien....Or not.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that the following concerns that sinister71 had with the trailer are, in fact, legitimate and reflect observations that some fans will actually have after seeing Film One:
sinister71 wrote:
1. middle earth just seems brighter and more colorful and less "real" (very noticeably so IMO)
2..some of the dwarves, new creatures, and bad guys just look very cartoonish (again opinion) compared to the more realistic approach they took last time
...
4. and so far the overall tone from riddles in the dark the overall showing of the dwarves just seems too comical, is this a comedy or an action adventure fantasy film?
Think about it, If JRR Tolkien had written The Hobbit after writing LOTR, wouldn't book fans have had the exact same criticisms about the Professor's story:
----Too bright and cheery
----Too unreal; more of a 'fairy tale'
----The dwarves seemed too comical
----Characters like the trolls and Gollum come off very cartoonish.
Ironically, PJ and the film makers are in a no win situation. Try to be faithful to the spirit of the book and get blasted for "not being enough like LOTR" or present films more like LOTR in tone and plot from the beginning and be blasted for "not being true to the spirit of Tolkien."
My expectation is that the film makers are going to make Film One more like the original children's tale; Film Two will be a transition film with the first part of the film continuing with the same tone through the spiders and then becoming increasingly 'adult fantasy' as the dwarves reach Laketown. Film Three will be in the grand, epic style of the LOTR. In this way, Jackson pays homage to Tolkien and helps bridge the great divide in the tone of the Professor's two great literary creations.
(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Oct 5 2012, 4:18pm)
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Oct 5 2012, 6:50pm
Post #56 of 135
(5123 views)
Shortcut
|
Since you have concerns, what kind of input do you think would help relieve these concerns?
Does it help thinking that the style of the films might change in the course of the trilogy for example? (Considering that also the book The Hobbit starts out in a lighter vein and becomes more historical later on)
Are there some parts of the trailer(s) or other material youīve seen so far that you see as an example of a style or treatment that youīd like to see more of?
Supposing that the first film is a mix of comedy and action adventure. Would that be a problem for you? If yes, could you say something specific about why that would bother you? (Iīm just interested in hearing what you think)
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Oct 5 2012, 8:11pm
Post #57 of 135
(5138 views)
Shortcut
|
the tone, the music and the aesthetics of the first trailer very much, it gives me the goosewobblers every time I watch it, who's to say there wont be more of same in the film as a whole?
If you (nobody in particular) dont like bunny sleds, when they come onto screen, just close your eyes and hum a happy song until it goes, or get a friend to give you a nudge so you can open your eyes, if your friend is a purist you might find yourself falling into a 2 hour slumber cos he hasnt given you the nudge, I am sure Howard Shores music will sound good though. sweet dreams.
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Oct 5 2012, 10:02pm
Post #58 of 135
(6016 views)
Shortcut
|
|
O.K., that poem gave me chills. Thanks Kangi!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Got anymore?
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Oct 5 2012, 10:11pm
Post #59 of 135
(5013 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"growling Khuzdul at folk in the street" :D This is off-topic, but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
how I would love to be able to do that! 
I understand Tolkien didn't develop that language very much--or am I mistaken? Does anyone here know?
Great comment, by the way.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Oct 5 2012, 11:23pm
Post #60 of 135
(5967 views)
Shortcut
|
I do not have any on me rignt now. Writing from Nexus 7 pad.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Oct 6 2012, 12:40am
Post #61 of 135
(4974 views)
Shortcut
|
i thought the first trailer was well done, with tone and content, the dwarven singing gave me chills... Then we got rumors about the necromancer and the horrible idea of Zombies or undead orcs. They obviously didn't research Tolkien's meaning of the Necromancer which in that day and age was referring to Black Magic/Sorcery Not bringing things back from the dead. Then we got trailer number two which in many instances to me anyways seemed very cartoonish in comparison to trailer one. The wargs look awful, more like rodents who are not actually a part of the scene just painted on top of it instead of a part of it. Radagast just looks disgusting IMO was it really necessary to have him portrayed as a hobo covered in bird crap? then there are the implications of Sauron playing a larger role in the films than in the book.(spiders attacking Radagast's home and his comment about a great evil has awakened... I just HATE the idea since it is all made up from a very few sentences of what Tolkien wrote. Honestly I don't think Peter Jackson can write in a style becoming of Tolkien there is no feeling of history nor depth in his modernized dialogue so I feel when he stuck to the blueprint Tolkien gave him he did a rather good job where he stumbled was making it up as he went along with his own material. Plus we get happy peppy Smeagol in a scene that should IMO be tense, dark, and creepy with very little comedy, not a comical scene with brief elements of creepy. Gollum's talking to himself in ROTK was god awful to watch and felt forced instead of something natural.
Lets see why do I find too much comedy bad? well personally I never saw the Hobbit as comedic sure some funny spots here or there but nothing slapstick and OTT. And certainly not laughing every 10 minutes I think the Hobbit would have been perfect in the tone given to us in LOTR just a more straight forward version, like the book. The hobbit was a much more linear tale which really only needed minor tweaking if done in the style of LOTR IMO. There are plenty of serious moments in the book i always felt Riddles in the dark was more serious than comedic. PJ just doesn't know when to dial things back, if he's gonna make things comedic he will push it past the point of funny into overkill like he did with Gimli in LOTR. There was plenty of serious material with Gimli and what we got was a parody of Book Gimli on film. It just concerns me going comedic we will get more of that same scenario with multiple dwarves.
|
|
|
Ring-Bearer
Rivendell
Oct 6 2012, 3:10am
Post #62 of 135
(4845 views)
Shortcut
|
Though the feel of Middle-Earth based in the trailers is not the same, and there may be much left out or things not needed put in, we have waited many years for The Hobbit to be made into a film. My only concern is new characters and others that were not in the book, but based on PJ's earlier work, I'm not too worried about the outcome. He has an authentic respect for Tolkien and his work.
'What are we holding on to, Sam?'
'There's good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for!'
'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!'
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Oct 6 2012, 4:29am
Post #63 of 135
(5185 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm sorry you were traumatized...{{{Big Bosie HUGS, Elanor }}} but if it's any comfort to you, the book it is based on is MUCH darker. Hard to believe that, but it's true. I wish I coulf go into detail, but I'd only give you the creeps. Let's just say that it shows, in stomach-churning detail, what *really* happens when Man enters the Forest. Disney hinted at this in his cartoon, but the book goes much further. What Uncle Walt preferred to keep "offscreen" was depicted there.
Have you read Watership Down? Not seen the movie, but read Richard Adams's novel. Remember Captain Holly telling the story of what happened to the rabbits' origional home warren? That begins to evoke it a liitle.
It's funny...that scene..Bambi' mother's death (and I can tell you haven't seen the film since; she didnt die in the forest fire; she died much earler in the film, shot by hunters--but she dies "off-camera" so to speak, and that adds to the effectiveness.) didn't affect me until i got older. the silence of the aftermath (no music) along with the beauty of the sftly falling snow....Disney might not have been a sadist, but he certainly a genus:)
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Oct 6 2012, 7:55am
Post #64 of 135
(5024 views)
Shortcut
|
Your fears about the amount of comedy (in the first film) is:
When PJ first starts to go into comedic mode, he wonīt be able to restrain himself and the execution and angle to the comedy will be bad.
We will get comedy along the lines we got with Gimli in LoTR, which felt like a parody.
Your fears about other parts of the first film is based partly on the bits youīve seen and partly on rumours.
________________________________________
I agree that Jackson mostly does not seem to have a sense for dry wit or reserve when he uses humor. But I think some of his humor works all the same (Sam in particular and much of what we saw of Pippin). I donīt feel like weīve got much to go on concerning his approach to the dwarves, though. With Bombur I think we might get some of the same humor we got with Sam in the trilogy.
As to the nature of the source material, I actually think thereīs a lot of comedy in the first part of The Hobbit, so it should come as no surprise if thereīs plenty of comedy in film 1, but mixed with action. That does not necessarily mean that the rest of the films will continue in the same vein.
When it comes to the rumors youīve heard, well, it comes down to how much store you set by rumors. How much concern should rumors cause when the same rumors never have been substantiated or confirmed?
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Oct 6 2012, 9:46am
Post #65 of 135
(4865 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh I do enjoy a bit of research.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Could you say more about your own research into "Tolkien's meaning" of the name The Necormancer? It's super to finally have revealed exactly what Tolkien meant by the name but it would be even better to understand how we know this.
LR
PS in passing could you also say when "that day and age" is?
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Oct 6 2012, 12:14pm
Post #66 of 135
(5061 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes I read Watership Down as a kid and that traumatized me too. There was Myxomatosis in England at the time I read the book years ago. I now tend to avoid little fluffy animal stories. 'The Yearling' film made in the 40s with Gregory Peck, made me physically sick.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Rohan
Oct 6 2012, 1:11pm
Post #67 of 135
(4887 views)
Shortcut
|
sinister71 wrote: They obviously didn't research Tolkien's meaning of the Necromancer which in that day and age was referring to Black Magic/Sorcery Not bringing things back from the dead.
Didn't do their research??? That's just wrong, period. Hate to always be a contrarian, sinister71, but the meaning of necromancy has always been associated with various forms of raising the dead, either spiritually or bodily. While there are obviously variations of the Black Magic theme, there is absolutely nothing that Tolkien wrote or said that would restrict or limit the latitude the film makers have in using what Tolkien, himself, has given them.
As we all know, Tolkien never used words lackadaisically. He used the term, Necromancer, for a reason---so if the film has orc zombies, don't complain that it's not canon. Nothing to be found in Tolkien's writings that would preclude it.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Oct 6 2012, 2:34pm
Post #68 of 135
(4845 views)
Shortcut
|
|
well, that seems quite a stretch to me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is there anything in Tolkienīs writings that suggests or supports Sauron raising the spirits of the dead in the manner of zombies or the like? He could imbue creatures like the Nazgûl with terror and direct them through his will. He could create visions to terrorize and ensnare or bewilder others (like when he trapped Gorlim in the chapter about Beren and Lúthien), but thatīs a different thing from actually raising those who are dead bodily.
As far as I can see necromancy is associated with many different things. One is simply being a sorcerer who performs black magic, as it was understood by The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Another is being a fortune teller or someone who tries to gain knowledge by raising or summoning the spirits of the dead. According to wikipedia it could both be interpreted as someone summoning an apparition of the spirits of the dead as well as raising them bodily. There are several other associations and corresponding rituals as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy
But anyway it seems to me much more plausible considering how Sauronīs magic is described both in The Silmarillion and how magic is discussed in LoTR that weīre most probably talking about black magic and about summoning apparitions or phantoms of the dead, not raising people from the dead bodily. Equating necromancy with sorcery and black magic creates a distinction and opposition between Sauron and the wizards (Istari), whose magic is different. In LoTR Galadriel talks with Frodo about the difference between the bewilderments of the Enemy and enchantment, and Faramir talks about the difference in effect between the works of Sauron - including the visions they invoke - and the effect of seeing something which is really there.
But all of this aside, I havenīt heard anything confirming that orcs will be raised from the dead in the films, so itīs not something I worry about.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Rohan
Oct 6 2012, 2:54pm
Post #69 of 135
(4931 views)
Shortcut
|
elostirion74 wrote: Is there anything in Tolkienīs writings that suggests or supports Sauron raising the spirits of the dead in the manner of zombies or the like?
Tolkien made the decision to use the 'The Necromancer' to describe his villainous warlock, not Peter Jackson. Are you and sinister71 going to convince us that the Professor didn't understand the Latin origins of the term?
Let' be honest here, zombies may not suit your personal tastes, but they don't violate Tolkien canon in any way, shape, or form.
(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Oct 6 2012, 2:56pm)
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Oct 6 2012, 3:20pm
Post #70 of 135
(4836 views)
Shortcut
|
Iīm not talking about Tolkien not understanding the origins of the term; Iīm talking about how I interpret it and why. I find an interpretation more convincing and plausible when it is corroborated with and supported by examples rather than just saying you can choose whatever aspects of the meaning of a word that you like.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Rohan
Oct 6 2012, 3:39pm
Post #71 of 135
(4931 views)
Shortcut
|
elostirion74 wrote: Iīm talking about how I interpret it and why.
As long as you admit it's just your personal feelings, you can believe and say whatever you want. I just don't like, "it's against canon" complaints when when there is absolutely nothing out there that anyone can point to that supports that view.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Oct 6 2012, 6:56pm
Post #72 of 135
(5040 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I found this, I think its from the letters?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
''Long ago, few faithful remained, while many gave themselves over to the black sorcery of Sauron's temple to Melkor at Armenelos. Thus deceitful Annatar spread a morbid obsession with death throughout Numenor, making the noblest among the races of Men resentful of Iluvatar's gift such that the more they clung to life, the more life slipped away from them. Eventually, through efforts ever more frantic, unnatural, and illicit, they brought down upon themselves a very world-shattering doom, as the tales speak of in the Akallabeth.''
I think Tolkien would have been fully aware of the meaning of the word he was using, so we have to assume he meant the Necromancer to have something to do with the dead.
I always got this necromancy confused with Angmar and the Witch-King. I had these pictures in my mind of undead armies attacking the northern kingdoms.The Nazgul were certainly not living creatures. As Wraiths , one might regard them as dead, or perhaps more accurately undead creatures, ie creatures without life but animated by the dead spirits of the Men that they once were. Sauron was able to use the Nine Rings to bring them to this state and bind their dead (or undead) spirits to his will.
Maybe it had something to do with a combination of the Nazgul's undead status and the Barrow-wights' connexion to that era. I bet he did practice a bit of Necromancy every now and then. The Nazgul have been mentioned, and remember that even the Witch King managed to recruit a bunch of Wights to infest the Barrow Downs. Exactly how is not made clear, elvish fea, victims of Morgul blade stabbings or old fashioned zombies, who knows?
(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Oct 6 2012, 7:03pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Oct 6 2012, 8:05pm
Post #73 of 135
(4728 views)
Shortcut
|
I could be wrong, but I think that is just something that someone wrote at another forum, although it is not inaccurate.
The best example of Sauron performing Necromancy that I can think of is contained in the Lay of Lethian, as John Rateliff points out in The History of the Hobbit.
For instance:
Men called him Thu, and as a god
in after days beneath his rod
bewildered bowed to him, and made
his ghastly temples in the shade.
Not yet by Men enthralled adored,
now was he Morgoth's mightiest lord,
Master of Wolves, whose shivering howl
for ever echoed in the hills, and foul
enchantments and dark sigaldry
did weave and wield. In glamoury
that necromancer held his hosts
of phantoms and of wandering ghosts,
of misbegotten or spell-wronged
monsters that about him thronged,
working his bidding dark and vile:
the werewolves of the Wizard's Isle.
(Canto VII, lines 2064-2079, HME III, 227-8)
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Oct 6 2012, 9:56pm
Post #74 of 135
(4878 views)
Shortcut
|
|
as I said in my post, I found the quotes,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I dont know the source, I just thought they were pertinent to the question in hand.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Oct 7 2012, 12:36am
Post #75 of 135
(4856 views)
Shortcut
|
I was in a hurry when I wrote my earlier post. What I actually wanted to say was: "Iīm talking about how I interpret Tolkienīs use of the word necromancy and why I interpret Tolkienīs use of it in this way".
Itīs true that I dislike the idea of Sauron using zombies. To me it seems that this understanding of necromancy is very foreign to how Tolkien describes Sauronīs use of magic both in The Silmarillion, in LoTR and in his letters. Iīve made some examples to support my point, referring to how Tolkien focuses on Sauron/The Enemy conjuring phantoms, visions of horror and the like. I donīt remember any writing of Tolkien that focused on actually raising people from their grave in the way we think of zombies. Even with The Paths of the Dead, which is the one example where I feel less certain about the nature of the army that follows Aragorn and his company, Tolkien writes about a chill of ghosts, a shadow host and the shades of men.
One could argue, of course, that Tolkien never specifically wrote: "Zombies donīt exist in my universe!" But when he wrote about Sauronīs magic, it seems quite clear to me that he focused on the spiritual aspect of necromancy as well as keeping someone alive in an undead state, in a shadow world, rather than just using his powers to raise people from their graves.
It seems like you imagine it otherwise, or find this aspect of Sauronīs powers much more open to interpretation than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
