|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jan 29 2013, 7:48pm
Post #26 of 52
(356 views)
Shortcut
|
right
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Jan 29 2013, 8:35pm
Post #27 of 52
(347 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Come on Isaac get it off your chest.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am certain that the move to go to a three film Hobbit was Peter Jackson's decision. I do not think it was based on a greater gross. It was Pete's unwillingness to leave anything out of the final cut that drove the decision. WB & MGM must have seen dollar signs when PJ suggested it and jumped in head first.
There is no butter and no toast in this. Just one overexcited film maker who wants to tell the whole story as he sees fit.
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.
(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jan 29 2013, 8:37pm)
|
|
|
Roheryn
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2013, 8:46pm
Post #28 of 52
(332 views)
Shortcut
|
I prefer standing in a bowl of chocolate mousse, myself, when I start preaching, though I've heard peach melba works well too.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 29 2013, 8:51pm
Post #29 of 52
(321 views)
Shortcut
|
Rankin/Bass did. Their version is quite inaccurate as well.
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2013, 8:53pm
Post #30 of 52
(321 views)
Shortcut
|
Iīm the first one that hopes it
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
Mixel
The Shire
Jan 29 2013, 8:53pm
Post #31 of 52
(316 views)
Shortcut
|
Nicely summarized.
I wonder what the probability of PJ doing it is.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 29 2013, 8:54pm
Post #32 of 52
(325 views)
Shortcut
|
He won't though. That would be him admitting his movies are inaccurate and not what the people want.
Don't worry, someone out there will cut the films in a way to make them more book accurate, and therefore more superior to Jackson's films.
He may have made the movie he wanted but I would love a cut version of what Tolkien would have preferred if given the choice.
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jan 29 2013, 8:58pm
Post #33 of 52
(320 views)
Shortcut
|
|
hahaha its a more sweet way to preach
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
 
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 29 2013, 9:02pm
Post #34 of 52
(315 views)
Shortcut
|
...it's easy for me to mix them up, since they occupy about the same place in my mind. I never said that version didn't have its flaws, but all of the complaints that I've read are pretty much remedied there:
1. Old Thorin
2. Dwarves look "right"
3. No Necromancer storyline
4. Kid's film
5. ONE FILM!!
People are acting as if, by simply making a film "more like the book", it makes it automatically better. Well, those are more like the book (and the chief problems people seem to complain the most about). That's my point...if you want a movie that you think is more true to the book, then go watch that one, and don't butcher the new one.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 29 2013, 9:12pm
Post #35 of 52
(319 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Old Thorin
He was old. If Tolkien intended him to be young and sexy, he would have wrote it that way.
2. Dwarves look "right"
If by right you mean some sexy dwarves, one with something stuck in his forehead, and Oin, then please no.
3. No Necromancer storyline
Yes, because it breaks up the flow of the story. The story isn't about what Gandalf does, that is a story for another day. A separate movie should be devoted to the side quests.
4. Kid's film
The Hobbit is a kid's book, what do you expect?
5. ONE FILM!!
One film is perfect, provided they get everything in.
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 29 2013, 9:23pm
Post #36 of 52
(312 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not sure how you are disagreeing...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was saying that AUJ is NOT any of those things...and that you can't make it that by simply cutting it up. BUT if they are so important, then watch the previous film.
But it's a moot point...I've never heard of a director editing his or her own theatrical release for a dvd to simply appease the few fans who would like it better that way. People are trying to make a puzzle, even though they don't have the cover and are missing most of the pieces. There's a bigger picture, and we only have 1/3rd of it. Only Jackson at this point knows how everything fits in with the rest.
|
|
|
droidsocket
Lorien
Jan 29 2013, 10:03pm
Post #38 of 52
(292 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You are entitled to your opinion...but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have to strongly disagree to your number 3 and 5.
you said because it "breaks up the flow of the story"
The hobbit has no flow as a book. Its one mini adventure after another. If the goal of the plot is too retake the gold stolen by Smaug then half of the book could be deleted because many adventures have no barring on the overall story. So with that said it makes little difference to me if they add other story elements to the films because there is no flow in the story to begin with. PJ has to build his own flow into the movie story. Weather he achieved that in this is not the point here.
you said "One film is perfect, provided they get everything in"
You actual make my argument for me. One film would be a disaster if they tried to fit anything in. It would be like 4 hours long and would feel so rushed. Or it would be so cut up that half the story would be gone. Either way would not be a positive way of approaching a film adaptation.
(This post was edited by droidsocket on Jan 29 2013, 10:06pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Jan 29 2013, 10:11pm
Post #39 of 52
(271 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What other films had he cut? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
Jan 29 2013, 10:18pm
Post #40 of 52
(279 views)
Shortcut
|
Well said & thank you :-). I really agree, that no matter what WB and MGM's motivation might have been for the three movie deal, that PJ's reasons were to tell the whole story in the best way he could. I very much like so far what he did with the film version of AUJ and I believe that the next two films are going to make this as acclaimed a trilogy as LOTR was.
|
|
|
Kirly
Lorien
Jan 30 2013, 2:06am
Post #41 of 52
(255 views)
Shortcut
|
|
OMG, has there even been a motivation so EVIL as this one?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
BUT, I canīt help thinking that there is a money interest behind the idea of makig three films. seriously? I don't think i can even read past that line. if money were such a bad thing, then why do we work so hard to get it? and once we have some, why do we work hard to get more?
nope, can't read any further. unbelievable.
hey, did you pay money to watch the film? or, maybe money is so filthy and undesirable to you, that you watched a pirated version or snuck into the theatre. //
My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!
pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#
|
|
|
TheCoon
Lorien
Jan 30 2013, 3:57am
Post #42 of 52
(252 views)
Shortcut
|
am going to enjoy all 170 min of dos and all 180 min of TABA every bit as well if nor more so as i enjoyed all 170 min of AUJ
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jan 30 2013, 10:57am
Post #43 of 52
(228 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I actually paid for my ticket four times
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The four times I saw the movie and I invited other people paying their tickets in order to promote the film.
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 30 2013, 1:08pm
Post #44 of 52
(210 views)
Shortcut
|
The hobbit has no flow as a book
What is your definition of flow? It's not like they're at Beorn's, and then instantly are at Mirkwood. They acknowledge how they get there. There is plenty of flow. Most books has mini adventures, it comes from writing about the interesting points and rushing through the dull parts. The book stays with one character the entire
The book is The Hobbit. It follows the story through Bilbo's eyes. There are only a few times the story moves away from him, and it's not for very long. It is not The Necromancer, The Wizards, etc. When you jump around to different stories, that DOES break the flow.
You actual make my argument for me. One film would be a disaster if they tried to fit anything in.
If they just followed the book, one film is possible. It's not a long book. Scenes just wouldn't be dragged out. IMO it would be better than three films, and having to make up characters to create tension.
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 30 2013, 1:26pm
Post #45 of 52
(212 views)
Shortcut
|
All of the chapters in the hobbit are next to each other, that doesn't mean it flows. You could easily move most of the chapters around in a different order, and the story would be unaffected (geography does not count as a link). Every peril they find themselves in is a complete coincidence in the story...bad guys just happened to be hanging around (and eagles just happened to hear the wargs in the frying pan chapter). At least the movie gives reasons as to what is happening, and makes it feel connected (why are trolls there? Oh, something evil must be coming back). Even the scene with the stone giants (which was expanded from the book) serves a purpose - it sets up the conflict between Thorin and Bilbo. It would really get old if the movie glanced over things as quickly as the book, or cut out all of the explanations and made everything a coincidence (and be pretty awful to watch).
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 30 2013, 1:36pm
Post #46 of 52
(210 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree, and I think that's because
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit was originally a story that Tolkien told his children. It's like a serialized story - each episode is a different adventure without a lot of connections. I agree that the movie makes better connections - the wargs and goblins don't just happen to be meeting in the same spot as the company, like what happens in the book. In the movie, the wargs and the goblins are hunting the dwarves.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 30 2013, 2:01pm
Post #47 of 52
(202 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You do realize how much pacing their was?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
All of the chapters in the hobbit are next to each other, that doesn't mean it flows.
No, but connecting all the events of the chapters does. They start at Point A, detail how they get to Point B, crisis at Point B, detail how they get to Point C, etc. The story is one fluid motion.
Every peril they find themselves in is a complete coincidence in the story
What does that have to do with flow?
(and eagles just happened to hear the wargs in the frying pan chapter)
Improbability has nothing to do with flow. Besides, I think the fire at night would be a huge signal flare and makes it quite probable.
bad guys just happened to be hanging around
In the book it is continued fallout from the murder of the Goblin King. It is less probable in the movie that Azog and Co. crossed the mountains and just happened to be waiting at the correct spot.
At least the movie gives reasons as to what is happening, and makes it feel connected
The probability of Eagles seeing fire and flying to it is much less than Gandalf catching a random moth, talking to it, and having it fly at the speed of a moth (10 mph, faster under favorable wind conditions) to Eagles that were so far away they couldn't see the fire.
(why are trolls there? Oh, something evil must be coming back)
Do we need a reason? Creatures leave their preferred habitat to find food all the time, "something evil" just makes it silly. I don't believe anyone in the history of ever has said "The Hobbit wasn't a very good book because I don't know why those trolls were there. I needed more back story on them to enjoy the scene."
Even the scene with the stone giants (which was expanded from the book) serves a purpose - it sets up the conflict between Thorin and Bilbo.
Yes, how dare Bilbo almost fall when half the Company almost died, and others almost fell themselves. It made no sense to consider Bilbo the useless one here given the circumstances. It was a failed setup in every sense of the word.
Speaking of the stone giants, the book does a better job of explaining why they're fighting, the movie leaves you scratching your head. Not that it matters though, but you seem to care about the logic in every scene and how the movie is superior in that regard.
It would really get old if the movie glanced over things as quickly as the book, or cut out all of the explanations and made everything a coincidence (and be pretty awful to watch).
True, I mean The Hobbit isn't a beloved classic that is on a very short list of books that have sold 100 million copies. People surely hate how the book quickly moves to the exciting parts, and how it doesn't try to explain coincidences with silly/faulty logic.
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 30 2013, 2:22pm
Post #48 of 52
(209 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What works for an episodic children's book...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...doesn't really work for a movie. That's the whole point of "flow". Simply running from point a to b to c doesn't constitute 'flow', nor does this book have fluid motion regarding storyline. Coincidences break up the flow of the story, because it suddenly introduces a new element that couldn't have been forseen and isn't connected to anything that's happened previously. Is this a detriment to a children's story? Not necessarily. Children's' books are usually episodic, as it makes it easier to read the story in bits and pieces over time without being confusing. But this movie wasn't made for children, so the story had to be augmented. Whether or not you feel that this movie SHOULD have been made for adults is a different argument, but the story as it was would not have worked for an adult audience, because there are too many plot holes that adults would have found annoying.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 30 2013, 3:16pm
Post #49 of 52
(194 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And how exactly is the movie any different?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Simply running from point a to b to c doesn't constitute 'flow', nor does this book have fluid motion regarding storyline.
They still run from Point A to Point B in the movie. The same coincidences are still there, unless you accept that Gandalf's one-liner explains everything for you. The new characters and scenes just create more coincidences that I already explained. I didn't even touch on the Radagast scenes.
But this movie wasn't made for children, so the story had to be augmented.
It was made for both. The story didn't have to be changed at all...not once have I heard of a popular book that had its movie adaptation slammed for being too faithful. The directors want their version on the screen, and they tell you why it won't work otherwise, and everyone just eats it up. Obviously it would be boring for them to try and shoot a completely faithful conversion, so they mix it up, for better or worse (usually for worse). It's only unpopular books (Forrest Gump) that are improved by vast rewrites.
Whether or not you feel that this movie SHOULD have been made for adults is a different argument, but the story as it was would not have worked for an adult audience
That is your opinion that it wouldn't have worked, just like it is my opinion that it wouldn't. So far the facts are on my side, many critics find that it didn't work, and there are few if any examples out there that trash completely faithful adaptations.
because there are too many plot holes that adults would have found annoying.
http://movieplotholes.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey.html
There are always going to be plot holes, especially in children's fantasy The movie doesn't actually fix plot holes from the book though, it just creates needless back stories that take away from the movie. Not that the trolls or Eagles were ever a plot hole to begin with.
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 30 2013, 3:51pm
Post #50 of 52
(191 views)
Shortcut
|
...when it comes to matters of "opinion". I couldn't care less about what a critic says...their opinions are no more or less valid than my own. What do I care if this critic from this site thinks? People only look at reviews that support their opinion of a movie. But overall, people liked it. I didn't receive the critical acclaim that the previous installments did, but it was far from trashed. And yes, movies have been criticized for being too faithful to the book. The first two Harry Potter films are probably the most famous movies to be criticized as such- and my opinion of those were that they were too episodic and felt unconnected.
I will argue that this movie was NOT made for children...unless you want to give them nightmares. The wraiths, wargs, orcs, trolls, fighting and intricate storyline prohibit it from being a children's movie (it has a PG-13 rating)...indeed, I will read the book to my kids long before they are allowed to watch this movie.
And many, MANY good works of fiction don't have plot holes, even children's books. For my part, I think this movie did fix them; of course, there's still many that have to be explain in the future installments, but I can already see how things are fitting together.
|
|
|
|
|
