Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
What ever happened to making the book come to life?

jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 5:41pm

Post #1 of 205 (3808 views)
Shortcut
What ever happened to making the book come to life? Can't Post

In light of the recent Beorn reveal, this question came to mind...

Before I start, I want to say that I'm all for an artist creating their own vision and sticking to it. Things can easily become convoluted if there are to many cooks in the kitchen. However, when it comes to adapting books, isn't a big part of the experience seeing what you imagined while reading come to life? I can understand if a certain description is very vague, or if you have no other choice than to deviate from the material in order to make it work on screen, But it's a whole new story when descriptions and the source material seem to be ignored...

I'm sad to say The Hobbit is not leaping from the book to the screen in the same way LOTR did. There were countless scenes in that trilogy where I felt "wow...that's exactly what I imagined". It's a truly magical feeling. I find that aspect all but lost in PJ's adaptation of The Hobbit.

It's one thing to expand on something, but with a book so beloved as The Hobbit, you would think they would have at least tried to bring Tolkiens world to life respectfully. Beorns design is kind of the tipping point for me. Of course, no one would have wanted a boring "hagrid clone", but is it really too much to expect SOMETHING from these films to resemble the book? Especially something so easy as Beorn, who is described rather well?

At what point exactly has PJ gone too far? When exactly is is blatantly dis-respectful to the book? I would of course argue it already is, but what are some other peoples tipping points?

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


architecthis
Lorien


Aug 13 2013, 6:14pm

Post #2 of 205 (2032 views)
Shortcut
He has already gone too far... [In reply to] Can't Post

Up until the Beorn reveal I will still holding out hope that the first movie was mediocre due to the fact the films had been split into three sections very late in the process. I do feel that portions of AUJ are very well done - I very much enjoyed the scenes in Bag end, some of the prologue and Riddles in the Dark and I often watch the film just to see those moments again.

I am lost. How can he have gotten it so right the first time around and now this?


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 13 2013, 6:16pm

Post #3 of 205 (1873 views)
Shortcut
They have for me [In reply to] Can't Post

for the most part. There were things in all the movies so far that wasn't exactly like I thought it would be when I saw them but I'd say 9/10 times its been about what I wanted to see. It also helps that a lot of times things that I felt from the book came through in the scenes as they were on screen even if it wasn't exacly laid out in the book. I don't think there has been anything that's been disrepsectful to the books at all. Obviously some of you will disagree but I shall not be one of them. If you had too many moments of snot gags, belches, etc then I might join you in that but so far I haven't seen anything that makes me feel that way. As far as Beorn goes I'm waiting and seeing where things go with him. I can't get worked up over one grainy picture. While my imagination was more of what Hagrid looked like I don't mind if he doesn't look like that and to be honest may end up being glad he doesn't. As long as the personality of the character is retained I don't mind at all if the look is a little different than described.



MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 6:21pm

Post #4 of 205 (1902 views)
Shortcut
you guys are so right... [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ has failed...AUJ only made over a billion dollars worldwide and DOS will probably make more...New Line should just fire him now and hire another director who hasn't dedicated years of his life to bring these books to the silver screen and who hasn't won best director for one of these films...Hopefully New Line will get their act together and remake The Hobbit soon...


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!

(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Aug 13 2013, 6:22pm)


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 13 2013, 6:25pm

Post #5 of 205 (1754 views)
Shortcut
A good thing then that i don't have clear pictures in my head when reading [In reply to] Can't Post

And when i do, they fade after a while. Maybe it's because i don't read the book twice a year, or once even. Actually, it's years since i read Hobbit.

How about this: wait till we get pictures where we actually get a good look at Beorn, or better yet, till we get footage of him, before being negative.


jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 6:27pm

Post #6 of 205 (1821 views)
Shortcut
Yep, exactly. [In reply to] Can't Post

Wanna join me in sacrificing him to the Balrog?

Sorry that I don't find the amount of money a film makes indicative of it's quality. Nor do I believe that if someone wins an Oscar it automatically means everything they touch turns to gold...

Seriously..

And I do hope some one re-makes The Hobbit in my life time...you're right on that one. sheesh...

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Aug 13 2013, 6:29pm)


architecthis
Lorien


Aug 13 2013, 6:29pm

Post #7 of 205 (1811 views)
Shortcut
This isnt really helpful [In reply to] Can't Post

This kind of comment doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

I've said this probably a hundred times either online on out loud to people - you cannot base the success of a film on it's Box Office. If that were the case Twilight and other abysmal nonsense would be held in the same regard as some of the greatest films of all time; besides the fact that, once again, that the OP wasn't asking about Box Office.


(This post was edited by Ataahua on Aug 13 2013, 6:34pm)


jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 6:38pm

Post #8 of 205 (1834 views)
Shortcut
Those are all scenes that I loved as well [In reply to] Can't Post

Erebor is a good example of a deviation that works for me. Not what I was expecting, but still great in it's own way.

I can't share that sentiment with a lot of the designs/deviations we've seen so far though.

I also want to re-iterate (as I do fairly often) that I don't feel AUJ is a bad film per say. Nor do I feel Jackson is some type of corporate monster (I know of 1 whiskey fueled post that made it seem like I felt that wayCrazy) .There are things about it I really liked. But other things simply rubbed me the wrong way.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 13 2013, 6:38pm

Post #9 of 205 (1789 views)
Shortcut
Yep. [In reply to] Can't Post



The only thing worse than Hollywood making a Tolkien movie that nobody watches is Hollywood making a Tolkien movie that everybody watches.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



architecthis
Lorien


Aug 13 2013, 6:38pm

Post #10 of 205 (1714 views)
Shortcut
It's more than picturing things [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit has an ethereal, lighthearted quality that PJ seems to be straying more and more from as more details are revealed.

The first movie was bombastic, jocular, overly action oriented and completely unbelievable.

But with regard to image and design - specifically character design - with the dwarves looking as unorthodox as they do, why didn't he just use colored hoods to differentiate them instead of having outlandish "silhouettes"? To me colored hoods, and they didn't have to be brightly colored, are more subtle than starfish hair or dwarves who look like elves.

May be one of the problems with these new films is that they are over-designed.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Aug 13 2013, 6:38pm

Post #11 of 205 (1786 views)
Shortcut
I don't believe he has been disrespectful to the book [In reply to] Can't Post

but I freely acknowledge that his version of the story jars with the book that many fans have in their heads, which is unfortunate but, I believe, inevitable when it comes to a decades-long popular novel.

I'm not thrilled with the design we've seen of Beorn, but I'll wait to see it come to life on the big screen before having a firm opinion of it.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Rostron2
Gondor


Aug 13 2013, 6:39pm

Post #12 of 205 (1709 views)
Shortcut
+1 on this point // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 13 2013, 6:44pm

Post #13 of 205 (1703 views)
Shortcut
Films can succeed on some levels and fail on others [In reply to] Can't Post

Obviously, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey succeeded wildly at the box office. The question here is, did it fail artistically? The answer is subjective, the film worked better for some viewers than for others. I think that much of it worked, but in some ways Peter Jackson is too creative and needs to be reigned in a bit. To me, this was most apparent with the Stone-giants and in the Goblin-town sequences.

From the single image that we've seen, Beorn doesn't bother me. I expect a very large, broad man with dark, shaggy hair and beard, dressed simply. That much is consistent with the calendar image.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 13 2013, 6:49pm

Post #14 of 205 (1712 views)
Shortcut
Something from this film resembles the book [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

It's one thing to expand on something, but with a book so beloved as The Hobbit, you would think they would have at least tried to bring Tolkiens world to life respectfully. Beorns design is kind of the tipping point for me. Of course, no one would have wanted a boring "hagrid clone", but is it really too much to expect SOMETHING from these films to resemble the book? Especially something so easy as Beorn, who is described rather well?

At what point exactly has PJ gone too far? When exactly is is blatantly dis-respectful to the book? I would of course argue it already is, but what are some other peoples tipping points?


Is this your argument? That Peter Jackson and company have not made anything in these films that resemble the book? Nothing at all?

Personally, I think AUJ had many things in it that resembled the book:
1. Gandalf
2. Bilbo
3. Gollum
4. Goblin Town (regardless what you think of the action sequences - visually it matched my vision of the book.)
5. The Eagles' flight.
6. The Trolls
7. Bag End
8. An Unexpected Party
9. Balin
10. 15 birds in 5 fir trees

You know what it didn't get right? The emotional connection between Bilbo and Thorin. The book doesn't provide any glimpse of that until it's too late to really make much of an impact - at Thorin's death. It also gave us distinct personalities for all the dwarves - something the book doesn't do at all.

I'm just happy we have both the book and the films. The book will always be around and will always be a classic. The films won't do anything to change that.

At this point, it doesn't matter what image is released, or what the next trailer looks like, there is a segment of Tolkien fandom that will not accept it and will cry foul. I don't get that mindset, but everyone has a right to their own opinion.


jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 6:59pm

Post #15 of 205 (1695 views)
Shortcut
A lot of those things were already established in the LOTR trilogy... [In reply to] Can't Post

And a lot of them I do agree were done right. But as far as new designs/deviations go...it's a different story for me.

Perhaps I let emotion get in the way of my point a bit, I just feel far too much is being changed for no reason other than to change it.

I would also argue that Bilbos relationship with Thorin isn't fully developed in AUJ, nor are any of the dwarves personalities given enough time to shine. How opinions can differ...

From my perspective, it seems like a lot of fans will just accept anything PJ decides to do simply because it's his vision. It just feels like people are forgetting a little about Tolkiens vision.

That's the nature of the beast though. People who like what they've seen so far notice more of the negative comments. People who don't notice the positive comments. Yin and Yang. Make a da' world go round...

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 7:03pm

Post #16 of 205 (1685 views)
Shortcut
My two cents' worth [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that threads like these are a good thing. In their own way, they help keep the community happy and stress free. It really helps a lot.

If you have a place here, to discuss your dislikes, then you can, as a dissatisfied fan, vent a bit and get other opinions, like-minded or not.
It also provides a place to promotes conversation and dialogue, though some of it could make up some good RR topics *hint, hint*.
Or maybe you're just down, and sad. We all have bad days, and topics like this can be like comfortable pair of sweat pants and socks, on a gloomy day.(I also recommend ice cream and some LotR bloopers!)

As a happy fan, you can just avoid the topic, the title says it all; if it is not for you, you can avoid it. Ignorance IS bliss, ask any young adult buying/maintaining a new house.
You can also avoid arguments,(don't read "respectful debate" here. It has its own place) Unless you're a troll. For the rest of us honest souls, let's face it, how many of you have read a person's post, whose opinion you respect, but with whom you disagree, and after reading their opinion, have ACTUALLY said/done this,"You know he/she is right! I've had an Epiphany! I'm going to change my opinion! I have been so wrong the whole time!" If you can stop laughing at my humorous example, you can see how ridiculous Internet arguments are.

I think someone else had a topic, "my problems with AUJ", it was a place for fans to discuss the perceived shortcomings of the film, without cluttering the other individual topics. One place for critical insight, collected, and nor spread over dozens of topics. I have seen a few news announcements, notably the Beorn photo/Tauriel announcements, become a bit cluttered with back-and-forth --point and counterpoint. Having topics like this can allow the negative and positive reactions to be shared and compared, creating a handy little resource, aiding a fan's critical approach to the films.

When all you want is news, it can be a chore to find it in the midst of all the typed exchanges, and important updates could even be lost!!

So my hat is off to jtarkey. Thank-you for creating such a place!


Owain
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 7:05pm

Post #17 of 205 (1655 views)
Shortcut
Haha! So true. Thanks for that.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 13 2013, 7:05pm

Post #18 of 205 (1690 views)
Shortcut
Nothing happened. The book is coming to life for me.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... and for lots of others too.

Some characters and scenes are exactly as I pictured. Others are completely different, but what's so wrong with engaging with someone else's vision of a place or a person and seeing where that takes you? That was one of the delights of the LotR films for me and I'm pleased to say that it's happening again. I'm really looking forward to seeing the Elvenking's realm - the glimpses we've had of it looked magical. And Mirkwood (spiders excepted) and Laketown.

And I'm sure they are treating the book respectfully. It struck me that one of hte things they stressed - and were careful to stress - in the most recent Empire article - was the centrality of the book, and Tolkien's other writing.

As for Beorn, all we've seen is a fuzzy (in more than one sense) back view. We haven't heard him speak or seen him move, we don't know how they will bring his character to life. I reckon he's going to be a whole lot closer to the spirit of Beorn than people are so far willing to concede.

I don't think we've seen anything blatantly disrespectful to the book. I don't think we're going to, either.


Owain
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 7:06pm

Post #19 of 205 (1662 views)
Shortcut
Mods up.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 13 2013, 7:06pm

Post #20 of 205 (1698 views)
Shortcut
In my opinion, he crossed the line with LOTR. [In reply to] Can't Post

So I didn't really have high expectations for the Hobbit.

I think that's why I'm not as bothered by the changes to AUJ.

I'm enjoying the parts that are awesome (the cast, the performances, the music, the set designs, the costumes), and I'm able just to say "meh" and move on when the the plot or the characterizations fall short.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 7:08pm

Post #21 of 205 (1759 views)
Shortcut
if FOTR had tanked at the box office [In reply to] Can't Post

you would be watching a direct to video release of TTT...if your lucky a direct to video release of ROTK with no possibility of The Hobbit being made, let alone made into a trilogy. So...yes, money matters. There will be no remake of either LOTR's or TH. Winning an oscar doesn't mean everything they touch turns to gold after but winning the first ever best director award for a fantasy film does mean something, and don't forget best picture.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 13 2013, 7:11pm

Post #22 of 205 (1697 views)
Shortcut
A lot of crummy movies succeed at the box office. [In reply to] Can't Post

And that wasn't the point the OP was trying to make.

Monetary success and awards and all that...it doesn't matter.

The movie didn't work for him. He's entitled to think so. And to say so.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Elwen
Lorien


Aug 13 2013, 7:18pm

Post #23 of 205 (1707 views)
Shortcut
I think those last three questions warrant answering... [In reply to] Can't Post

and I wish I could see more people's answers to them.

I will answer them, but let me start by saying that I loved FotR, was disappointed in TT but still enjoyed more than half of it, but by RotK, despite loving some scenes, I was feeling really let down. I did as so many on here encouraged me to: "Trust PJ." And I did, after the first film, but that trust waned somewhere between Faramir letting his men beat Gollum and Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli running from the skull avalanche. By the time AUJ came out, I was a skeptic, but still was very excited.

Once again, there were bits that were amazing. Bag End for example, I loved. I didn't care for PJ's interpretation of Goblintown, but it was a very interesting interpretation, and he's entitled to the artistic license. That said, I thought the stone giants were very silly and laughable, and really the whole ending with the wolves and trees and Azog just made me sad, because the (IMO) perfect image of Gandalf throwing flaming pinecones is completely obliterated by the ensuing overdrawn, made up fight scene.

So at what point had PJ gone too far? Well I think that is different for everyone. For me, it's when characters behave in a way they never would have in the books. Sam agreeing to leave and actually climbing down the steps for example, or Faramir at least starting to take his father "a mighty gift." I actually don't know that we've seen that yet in The Hobbit. Things have galled me (see the Rock'em Sock'em Stone Giants) but I haven't seen anyone behave out of character, except possibly Bilbo in the above mentioned fight scene. I'm not sure Bilbo was quite "there" yet.

It's blatantly disrespectful if it ever goes counter to the spirit of the book. That's a heavy charge to level. Do I think it's been as respectful of the book as so many people affiliated with the production keep saying it is? No, not even close. But it hasn't been blatantly disrespectful yet. Some things, like the beauty of the simple hobbit life, PJ & Co. have hit right on the head. If that wasn't portrayed in the sympathetic way it was, and was instead looked down on, that would be disrespectful.

I don't think I've reached my tipping point yet. I see a tipping point as where I can't take it anymore and I won't watch the movie at all. For example, I can fast forward over the stone giants bit, or the premature hero Bilbo defense of Thorin at the end of AUJ, and enjoy most of the movie. If however, I'm treated to any of the more far-fetched rumors we've heard (read: zombie anything, Mary Sue elves in love with dwarves, etc) that might be a harder sell for me to ever watch the film again, which would make me sad.

 photo Desolation-of-Smaug2_zpsc1584ee1.jpg
Tauriel: So let me get this straight sir, this Elwen girl is back on something called TORn, and rather than just tell her to stop stalking you, you'd like me to show up in a movie I have no business being in as a ploy to distract her, and nevermind the wrath of countless Tolkien fans who will be calling for my destruction?

Legolas: That about sums it up. Besides, some people might like you. Oh, and to be on the safe side, can we pretend to be a couple too?

(This post was edited by Elwen on Aug 13 2013, 7:19pm)


Marionette
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 7:19pm

Post #24 of 205 (1675 views)
Shortcut
It´s turning into a fanfic... [In reply to] Can't Post

Beörn appereance is not as alarming as Kili´s sacrifice because of Tauriel.
This is not a movie adaptation it´s a fanfic.
Well, it´s scary to think how close these two terms are movie adaptations=fanfics
PiratePiratePirate


"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"
Queen



jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 7:20pm

Post #25 of 205 (1669 views)
Shortcut
Sure, winning an Oscar means something... [In reply to] Can't Post

But what exactly is that something?

It means he did a good job with the film he won it for. Nothing more.

I guess I'm just not seeing what your point is. If FOTR tanked at the Box Office I would love it just as much as I do today. And if TTT and ROTK were the same film, but direct to video, I would love them just the same as well.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Pazeer
Rivendell


Aug 13 2013, 7:29pm

Post #26 of 205 (1027 views)
Shortcut
Jeeeeeez [In reply to] Can't Post

What a bunch of negative people in these forums, it´s really sad to see Unsure
To me it seems that we are living in a world filled with only cynical people... How you can possibly judge Beorn, from one tiny, low-res picture, without even seeing Persbrandts performance first is beyond me.
Claiming that the appearance is wrong is also stupid, when I´m fairly sure none of you ever knew what Tolkien had in his mind while writing the book, and though he made a slight description in the book, I don´t see how a small change of hairstyle has "destroyed" the character.
And stop praising the book. I myself love the book and I´ve read it countless times, but it is just a children´s book with nowhere near the detail of the LOTR books...
The movies are fantastic and are doing the book great justice. To say AUJ is bad is just something i can´t comprehend...

Sorry for this message, just had to get it of my chest. I don´t have anything against anyone, I´m just so tired of people complaining about the films, though I´m sure some are also sick of people praising them Smile
PS: This message is not an answer to your original post, but more of an answer to all the negative posts lately...


(This post was edited by Pazeer on Aug 13 2013, 7:37pm)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 7:33pm

Post #27 of 205 (958 views)
Shortcut
Great post, Elwen... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think you've pretty much summed up my position Jackson's M-e so far perfectly, too.

I have no problem generally with film adaptations of books. What bothers me in this instance, for all those that continue to say "you still have the book, no matter how the movies turn out" is that this movie version of The Hobbit is pretty much headed for the same fate as Fleming's film version of "The Wizard of Oz". How many generations have watched that film every year since 1939 and have no idea Baum's book is so different? Years from now countless kids (and not a few adults) will believe that Jackson's expanded The Hobbit" is the real version, unless they can be bothered to read Tolkien's original "children's book."

Should we want this for the Professor's legacy?


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Lightfoot
Rivendell


Aug 13 2013, 7:44pm

Post #28 of 205 (929 views)
Shortcut
Mods up! [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Faithful servant yet master's bane,
Lightfoot's foal, swift Snowmane



shadowdog
Rohan

Aug 13 2013, 7:50pm

Post #29 of 205 (979 views)
Shortcut
I think you need to realize [In reply to] Can't Post

That what you imagined as you read the book is unique to you and you alone. Millions have read this book and each vision is unique. So when you say "seeing what you imagined while reading come to life" you must emphasize the "YOU". Many of us might have formed very different visions and to condemn the movie for not conforming to YOUR imagined vision is a personal not a universal viewpoint.


(This post was edited by shadowdog on Aug 13 2013, 7:58pm)


Escapist
Gondor


Aug 13 2013, 7:51pm

Post #30 of 205 (934 views)
Shortcut
mods up! [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Faenoriel
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 8:04pm

Post #31 of 205 (925 views)
Shortcut
I don't think this amount of deviation would have been necessary. [In reply to] Can't Post

You have to change some things when you make an adaptation, but this time is just feels like PJ changes things for the sake of changing, because he thinks his ideas are better than Tolkien's. It all just reminds me of the TTT extras, where Philippa commented how whenever they re-wrote the script to be closer to the original book, it got better.

Tolkien was a good author, and he knew what he was writing about. Yet this film project doesn't give me the feel that the film makers entirely trust Tolkien.

But every word you say today
Gets twisted 'round some other way
And they'll hurt you if they think you've lied


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 13 2013, 8:07pm

Post #32 of 205 (926 views)
Shortcut
I don't need to replicate the book [In reply to] Can't Post

with a movie, and neither does the movie adaptation need to replicate my visual images that I get from the books. For me, that's not the point because I will never lose my images that have been formed over the years of reading The Hobbit and LOTR.

I like the movies precisely because they are different from what I imagined. It's fun when some of the scenes, or characters, or dialogue, conforms with my expectations, but I find equal joy when a piece of dialogue is spoken by a different character, or in a different situation, or when a character looks different. I might not always agree with the changes, but watching another person's vision of Tolkien come to life is what I enjoy the most. It's not necessary for the movies to validate my imagination because that will always be with me.

Similarly, I love reading blogs or essays about other folks first readings of Tolkien. I enjoy "watching" scenes come to life from a different perspective. They don't have to have the same experience I had.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Aug 13 2013, 8:13pm

Post #33 of 205 (909 views)
Shortcut
I'm really interested [In reply to] Can't Post

to see the AUJ appendices and hear from the writers about the way they approached the script and their reasons for the decisions they made.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


The Grey Elf
Grey Havens


Aug 13 2013, 8:13pm

Post #34 of 205 (898 views)
Shortcut
No, I don't like that prospect at all. [In reply to] Can't Post

However I also don't think you can pin responsibility for that on Peter Jackson or his co-writers. He is accountable only for making an entertaining and profitable series of movies that preserve the spirit of Tolkien's writing if not every particular letter. What follows as far as the cultural fate of the book is not his to secure.

And as to the OP's original question, I think that PJ is flexing his considerable vision and creativity in embellishing the story where it is sketchy. It doesn't always work but I do not believe it is because he doesn't respect Tolkien or the people devoted to his books. Because that's the impression I get from reading repetitive harangues about what he's getting wrong in his adaption. As though his interpretation is a personal affront to those people who truly appreciate JRR Tolkien. A visionary and iconic storyteller, yes, but not perfect either. Just like Peter Jackson.

If you want give a helping hand to the future of The Hobbit as a book to read rather than just a movie to watch, see my signature below.

Welcome more children to Middle Earth. Support The S.H.I.R.E. Project!


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 8:35pm

Post #35 of 205 (879 views)
Shortcut
By this "logic" Transformers must be the pinnacle of cinema then. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Elwen
Lorien


Aug 13 2013, 8:39pm

Post #36 of 205 (878 views)
Shortcut
Thanks, I don't know about legacy... [In reply to] Can't Post

but I will tell you this. I never read the Oz stories, because I was never really all that impressed with the movie, so you make a valid point. Maybe I should give them a try....

Thanks for the heads up. I certainly do think I wouldn't want anyone to judge Tolkien's work based on the films.

 photo Desolation-of-Smaug2_zpsc1584ee1.jpg
Tauriel: So let me get this straight sir, this Elwen girl is back on something called TORn, and rather than just tell her to stop stalking you, you'd like me to show up in a movie I have no business being in as a ploy to distract her, and nevermind the wrath of countless Tolkien fans who will be calling for my destruction?

Legolas: That about sums it up. Besides, some people might like you. Oh, and to be on the safe side, can we pretend to be a couple too?


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 13 2013, 8:39pm

Post #37 of 205 (865 views)
Shortcut
No, Avatar is. ;) // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


frodolives
Lorien

Aug 13 2013, 8:47pm

Post #38 of 205 (875 views)
Shortcut
Beorn looks fine to me, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

... there have been a few parts of the book that are PERFECT that, for some reason, PJ has decided to alter. For instance, Bilbo's answer of 'time' in the book is wonderful, but the movie completely misunderstands why that moment is so perfect and ironic. Similarly, Bilbo's failed attempt to pickpocket a troll is the first sign that Bilbo is truly out of his element, but in the film, he doesn't really even seem nervous. And having him figure out that the trolls need to be delayed is all wrong; he hasn't gained any wisdom and isn't a hero by that point. He is still an innocent hobbit. Gandalf's sublime mimicking of the trolls voices is taken out in favor of "parasites." I'm sure that PJ and his writers will say they did it to give Bilbo a 'moment', but he doesn't need one at that point. He needs to fail before we can appreciate his triumphs... but PJ won't even let him make mistakes to earn his future heroics.

Its like PJ doesn't really understand the source material. The barrels scene already looks like its going to be undermined or misunderstood, and I'm sure the spiders sequence will be altered in some ways as well.

Sure, I agree that Bard needs to be made into a more nuanced character. I agree that a female elf being part of the elf patrol makes sense, as does Legolas appearing. But why o why does the marvelous barrel escape have to have orcs and elven scouts added? Why can't the comic image of 13 barrels rolling down a river, accompanied by groaning and cursing, be enough? Why do the dwarves have to firebomb Smaug? Why can't Bilbo's stealing of one little cup be enough to set the dragon off?

That said, I don't understand why Beorn is getting so much flack. He looks fine to me. A mohawk and tattoos don't change his character. And the picture is pretty damn poor to boot. At least he doesn't have bird poop in his hair...


jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 9:01pm

Post #39 of 205 (858 views)
Shortcut
I think you need to realize.. [In reply to] Can't Post

That of course I realize this.

There is a difference between what I, specifically imagined and what the book describes.

For example, if I say "There was a man with a long nose, short grey hair, and long spindly legs" are you going to imagine an oompa loompa?

There is a line between "exactly" how you imagine something vs. putting a picture together according to context clues.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


malickfan
Gondor


Aug 13 2013, 9:07pm

Post #40 of 205 (844 views)
Shortcut
See that's my Main Problem with The Hobbit films-that they decided to call it the Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

Somewhat ironically from PJ's version The Quest For Erebor seems like a far more suitable title.

I have many issues with AUJ, and PJ's approach to the story in general, but I do appreciate as a flawed but fun film on its own legs...issues aside I can enjoy the film, but I do resent that they called it The Hobbit, when the film by their own admission is Bilbo's story+something else loosely inspired by a few vague notes in the appendices-that's not what I wanted from a film of the hobbit, and artistic license aside I'm not entirely sure whether it was an approriate title for PJ's interpretation-do your own interpreatation of the material by all means, but don't try and act like you finishing the authors work on a rewrite, and don't pretend it's in the spirit of the book.

I'm sure this is turning into an confused rant (not directed at you, and not my intention but all my thoughts have been better phrased by others), but essentially I'm kinda meh on the way they are linking a multi part adult epic with the child's fairytale that is The book of The Hobbit. The whole reason I loved The Hobbit book was because it wasn't connected to LOTR (then again I actually read it after LOTR and Unfinished Tales so I got the retconned backstory first anyway) and I'm not entirely pleased with the film implicating that the book is merely a smaller part of a bigger puzzle (it has also lead me to answering repetitive questions from friends asking where Azog Galadriel and Radgast were in The Hobbit book-when I told them the book was a simple children's fairytale they lost interest in reading it) and has to be ramped up and treated as an extension of LOTR to be enjoyable (having to wait three years to see it end dosen't help either).

For me personally AUJ didn't capture the sprirt of the book, nor recapture the magic of PJ's LOTR trilogy, it tried to do both (badly) and was all the worse for it. I haven't seen the film since January, and though I plan to rewatch it when the extended cut comes out, I don't feel much emotion to the film-I wasn't pleased or dissapointed, but I still can't really work out why, and I don't feel any need to.

Once again a rambling iccoherent post that adds little to this discussion...but them's me thoughts and stuff.

The Talking Purse is Awesome, deal with it.

But he isn't quite as aweome as Cirdan.


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 9:11pm

Post #41 of 205 (865 views)
Shortcut
I was a basher of the movie [In reply to] Can't Post

But honestly, I am reading the book right now and there is a lot of bits of info about Middle Earth that are only mentioned very briefly, for example in Out of the frying pan , a cousin of Bilbo that used to fright him with imitations of wolves cries is mentioned. Or Gollum´s past with his grandmma. The book itself is shorter than if Tolkien would have wasted time in explaining some of those aspects as he did in LOTR.(You can tell there were a lot more events in LOTR story, but both journeys endured more or less the same, and things weren´t quiet inMiddle Earth at that time (Dol Guldur))

Besides if you are pretending to include appendix material the book grows, so at least it would have been 200 pages more or so. I have found many details that I didn´t remember from the book, like Rivendell´s moss when they are trying to find out the way into the valley.And some how that is in the movie. Gandalf being tested by the small clues in the way to follow.
And though the Goblin sequence is not as I imagined it, and I like more the versión I still imagining when I read it, the scene of the fifteen birds in five fir trees, has a lot more tension in the movie, and I think I prefer it.
So of course it could have been an awesome single movie, ´cause when PJ sticks to the book he nails it. And in AUJ there where several moments when this happens. But at last I understand the way they are doing this and I like it. Of course money its important. But at least it allows Peter to show every single turn of the road. And regarding the design, well I like that they still taking risks. I have the feeling of uncomfortableness that Bilbo suffered several times in his journey when all this outlandish and dangerous folk appeared, and for me that is being sticked to the story.IMHO

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!

(This post was edited by entmaiden on Aug 13 2013, 9:43pm)


Skaan
Lorien


Aug 13 2013, 9:19pm

Post #42 of 205 (847 views)
Shortcut
My thoughts [In reply to] Can't Post

I can definately see why some people think the movies didn't make the book come alive, or why they think it's a bad adaptation. However, i think it's important to have both an opinion of how good/bad the adaptations are, but also an opinion about the movies itself (without thinking about the book). For example, i think Azog is a lousy addition to the movies that doesn't match the spirit of the book. BUT, when i look at the movie alone (without paying any attention to the book), i don't see any problems with Azog being in the movie. Even more, i think it makes the story of AUJ more engaging.

Basically what i'm trying to say is, don't let your passion about the book cloud your opinions on wether the actual movies are good or bad. It's perfectly possible that the movies can be both terrible adaptations AND great movies. A bad adaptation doesn't necessarily mean a bad movie. I think people who haven't read the book are the best people to give an unbiased opinion about the movie, because all the criticism/praise they have is directly related to the movie and not how close it matches the book.

I think people who hated AUJ but still hope that DoS and TABA will be closer to the book, should just get rid of that hope and get used to the fact that they won't be the adaptations you were looking for. I accepted this a long time ago and now i can enjoy the movies for what they are, which is PJ's vision of the story.

Also, before people misinterpret what i've said. No, i'm not saying this movie doesn't have any flaws or doesn't deserve any criticism.


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 13 2013, 9:24pm

Post #43 of 205 (816 views)
Shortcut
Wisdom [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think people who hated AUJ but still hope that DoS and TABA will be closer to the book, should just get rid of that hope and get used to the fact that they won't be the adaptations you were looking for.


They, and the EEs, will be More Of The Same.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



cats16
Valinor

Aug 13 2013, 9:34pm

Post #44 of 205 (809 views)
Shortcut
Just a brief thought... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's actually refreshing to see an differing (best word I can think of) opinion of LotR.

After just finishing the books (again) recently, I can comfortably say that there are considerable--sometimes glaring-- changes/alterations made to plot and characterizations (many of which I had forgotten). I think that reading the books for the first time after a few years was a little bit of a surprise in this regard. To me, it feels like I developed a sort of "myth" of what the books contained, which was of course reinforced by the films themselves. I'm not stating whether or not I agree with these differences (that would be a pretty long post, regardless of my opinion Wink). Simply, I do acknowledge their existence. I feel like I would be very false in saying that the adaptation was flawless.

It is very nice to see an opinion such as the one you maintain. In a certain way, I completely agree with you. (I typed an elaborate explanation as to why I agree, but it became very vague and confusing--even to me Cool. I'll limit my rambling, in hopes that the rest of my post articulates some of my point to a degree.)

In no way am I suggesting that I now hate the films for what they've done to Tolkien, his legacy, or anything of that sort (they were and are my favorite films). The films brought me to Tolkien. I feel like they capture Middle-earth beautifully, taking me there for three hours at a time. But I do think I've gained a better understanding of the source material, its contents, and the true differences between it and its adaptations. Hopefully, that "myth" I created has been debunked. I will continue to love and cherish both the books and the films.

Apologies for not exactly replying very specifically to you, RosieLass. Most of it was "in general" stuff, though I hope it didn't come across as distant/not applicable to your post's content and message. Gah, my post's title is now becoming misleading...I'll stop now!TongueSmile


jtarkey
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 9:35pm

Post #45 of 205 (824 views)
Shortcut
My problems stem even more from a film making perspective [In reply to] Can't Post

So it's kind of a double blow for me. I feel The Hobbit, thus far, has fallen short both as a film and as an adaptation.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


LordotRings93
Rohan


Aug 13 2013, 9:37pm

Post #46 of 205 (824 views)
Shortcut
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post

All I can say is I'm thrilled The Hobbit's even getting made. Would we have rather not gotten anything? If a design doesn't match up with what I thought, I just shrug it off and use the one from the film, like I now picture Thorin as RA and so forth. It makes it easier I guess to just form a mental image of something I know than to think "Hmmm he looks like this...". I have no problems at all with AUJ, and the deviations have been some of my favorite bits. Why? Because it's something new and oftentimes very well done. Like the warg chase and the warg attack at the end, two of my favorite scenes. And Beorn's design actually looks really badass to me. I like the approach they took with him to make him look like an "animal" in human form. But, then again we only have one grainy behind-the-back shot of him, so I don't see why some jump to such hasty conclusions that his character is officially ruined and that the movie as a whole is now ruined. I don't know, I guess I'm more of a reasonable guy when it comes to adaptions, since I know the limits of it and that the director most likely has his own mental image of things and how he'd like to see things pan out. I'm glad we're even getting these films in the first place with PJ putting in the same care he did with LOTR. If he didn't care, would he honestly work 6 days a week on these films and dedicate so much of his time to them? Just because a design doesn't match the book description doesn't mean PJ hates The Hobbit and wants to ruin it forever.

Lover of Medieval Fantasy
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 9:46pm

Post #47 of 205 (786 views)
Shortcut
Agreed on this...my issues with it go beyond those of adaptation as well. // [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I feel The Hobbit, thus far, has fallen short both as a film and as an adaptation.


My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 13 2013, 9:47pm

Post #48 of 205 (786 views)
Shortcut
Ha! My post didn't really say anything specific. [In reply to] Can't Post

So I don't know that you had anything specific to reply to. Laugh

But no, like you, I don't hate the LOTR films. I really like FOTR a lot. The other two really just disappointed me. Deeply.

And really only because of the characterizations (Aragorn, most egregiously, but a number of others for various reasons and in varying degrees).

JRRT's books and his legacy are safe. Nothing any filmmaker can do will ever mar that.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 13 2013, 9:58pm

Post #49 of 205 (789 views)
Shortcut
Gone With The Wind [In reply to] Can't Post

$3,301,400,000 (adjusted)

Nominated for 13 Oscars, won for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Interior Decoration and Best Editing, and received two further honorary awards for its use of equipment and color.

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


(This post was edited by Darkstone on Aug 13 2013, 9:58pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 13 2013, 9:59pm

Post #50 of 205 (824 views)
Shortcut
Don't be sorry... [In reply to] Can't Post

You're not the only one who feels like that - and even if you were, there's still no reason why you shouldn't say so.

But you're not. 'Cos I, for one, agee with you. Smile


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 13 2013, 10:19pm

Post #51 of 205 (1114 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no need to feel sorry for liking it and screaming from the highest point. I know I'm not going to make any apologies to anyone for liking the film and how it represents Middle-earth. I disagree with the OP but I will say that the posts have been at least respectful. Which is nice to see on the Internet.



Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 13 2013, 10:24pm

Post #52 of 205 (1079 views)
Shortcut
The point remains however that very often, box office gross and quality [In reply to] Can't Post

are mutually exclusive - one is not a barometer of the other. There are of course exceptions to the rule ALA "Gone with the Wind". Then again, I don't believe films such as "Casablanca" or "Citizen" Kane top the BO lists (in fact, at screenings of both films I attended in LA a couple years ago some of the audience got bored and walked out before either film ended)!

As an aside, every time I used to go to an old barber, I'd ask "have you gone to any good movies lately"? He'd reply with the title of whatever popular film he'd last gone to...then I'd follow-up with, "how was it"? - and he'd eternally reply "well, it made a lot of money". I could never figure that one out. TongueBlush

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!

(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Aug 13 2013, 10:25pm)


duats
Grey Havens

Aug 13 2013, 10:55pm

Post #53 of 205 (1077 views)
Shortcut
It's a touchy subject to be sure [In reply to] Can't Post

After all, everybody paints their own picture when reading a book. That's one of the great joys of the medium. As simple and succinct as his description may be, your image of Beorn may be very different from mine. Jackson could have gone by the book word-for-word, and I'd still end up watching The Hobbit as he himself envisioned it.

All the same, I do understand and to a certain extent agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Tolkien's work is beautiful amalgamation of influences from various languages and cultures. Those cultures should very much inspire the design process of the films' locations and characters. In that regard, Jackson and his team have been hit and miss, for both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

For instance, they nailed the Rohirrim culture in LotR, which was very appropriately of Norse influence. It may not have been a carbon-copy of what the text described, but it was in the spirit of what inspired Tolkien. On the opposite end of the spectrum, as beautiful of a design as it may have been in its own right, I didn't care much for the film version of Dale. A Mediterranean influence just didn't fit with a Northern aesthetic, nor was their any basis for it in the text.

I don't care for this Beorn, not only because they made some radical choices with an otherwise simple description, but because I'm not getting the Norse/Saxon vibe that I think should be inherent in the look of the character. It may not be a bad design in its own right, but it doesn't scream "Beorn" to me, and making him look like some kind of man/beard hybrid right off the bat kind of misses the point in my eyes.


Retro315
Rivendell

Aug 13 2013, 11:15pm

Post #54 of 205 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re [In reply to] Can't Post

I have some fairly "realized" images in my head when I read something. But the reason I was so drawn to Tolkien's writing style is how ambiguous he left things.

Nothing I ever imagined has the detail and artfulness given it by Weta's concept artists and fabricators. In very few cases has that been to the detriment of the films (honestly the only things that come to mind are the overblown Balrog and Eye of Sauron designs.)

I'm an artist, the reason I loved Tolkien's descriptions are because I could glean as much detail as humanly possible from re-reads, then turn around and put my spin on them as drawings. And my interpretation could then by and large be insanely different from another person's.

In some cases they line up with the films. Gollum, virtually identical from mind-to-film. The Black Riders. Hobbiton, for that matter, much how I pictured it. Specifically in regards to The Hobbit novel, the thing Tolkien captures so well in his writing for me tends to be the local paths he was walking, and how they then transformed into the local paths, woods, fields and creeks from my own neck of the woods.

Mirkwood was always going to look more fantastical and grandiose in scale than in my head, because I always picture it as my own 100 acres of woods. Some things are because when you read the book you forget to account for scale; I never thought of Bilbo and the Company scaled to Beorn's Halls, for instance. You almost have to be staging a scene to come across these realizations, for a painting, an adaptation or just really, really going into crazy analysis.

My Elvenking's Halls are vague impressions. My Forest River runs right through my back yard. My halls of Erebor accounted for the pile of gold and the dragon, but none of the architecture.

The art teams in this movie might not match my vision, but their level of study and interpretation pretty much inspired me to affirm myself as an artist.


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 13 2013, 11:30pm

Post #55 of 205 (1064 views)
Shortcut
Speaking only for myself...no, I'm not sick of hearing people praise the LOTR films. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm happy that there are so many things that people love about them.

Heck, sometimes I even love the same things.

The only thing I get tired of is the backlash whenever someone expresses an opinion that someone else doesn't like. And that goes for both those who harp about too much praise and those who harp about too much criticism. Everyone's opinion is valid, and everyone should feel comfortable expressing that opinion.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 13 2013, 11:51pm

Post #56 of 205 (1036 views)
Shortcut
Adjusted doesn't count. ;) [In reply to] Can't Post

Different times.


kbdiggity
Rivendell

Aug 14 2013, 3:55am

Post #57 of 205 (1012 views)
Shortcut
... [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember this same thread a decade ago when people saw a photograph of Saruman impaled on a spikey wheel.

That was the tipping point. PJ had just gone too far. He had cut out Bombadil, he had created all this extra crap for Arwen, he had brought Elves to Helms Deep, he had created that dumb Warg fight that nearly killed Aragorn, he had made Legolas shield surf... and now he was going to kill Saruman by impaling him??!! It was just too much. PJ had officially ruined the trilogy.



Now a decade later everyone acts like the trilogy is perfect and PJ is screwing up this new trilogy. You guys are too funny.


LordotRings93
Rohan


Aug 14 2013, 4:09am

Post #58 of 205 (990 views)
Shortcut
Exactly! [In reply to] Can't Post

Well said. That's what normally happens, though. Game Of Thrones, for example. People said season 2 deviated far from the books for season 1 and wasn't perfect. Then season 3 comes along and people say season 2 was miles better and more faithful than season 3. It's just people looking to complain. Not saying any of you want to complain, I'm saying people in general when it comes to things like this,

Lover of Medieval Fantasy
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."


swampB
Bree

Aug 14 2013, 4:43am

Post #59 of 205 (1014 views)
Shortcut
The Book really isn't that good... [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry, but PJ's version with Howard's music is a lot more enjoyable to me. Too many of you treat Tolkien as a literary God incapable of boring someone to death... The music alone makes the films a much more enjoyable experience and that's not including all of the artists who worked on the films...


LordotRings93
Rohan


Aug 14 2013, 5:04am

Post #60 of 205 (996 views)
Shortcut
Well that's a little too far :P [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien has his faults, as does every author, but he has created a great tale and adventure with The Hobbit, and I have to agree that the book word for word, scene to scene, would be pretty... odd. The book works as the book, but the book as a direct adaption as a movie just wouldn't work for me. And when adapting the book of course the director will have to add stuff, as a lot of the book is basically long descriptions of things and events without any dialogue whatsoever, only from Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf mainly.

Lover of Medieval Fantasy
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."


Old Toby
Grey Havens


Aug 14 2013, 5:45am

Post #61 of 205 (1003 views)
Shortcut
For me, the book has indeed come to life [In reply to] Can't Post

and in a much different and, in my eyes, grander way than I had imagined while reading and re-reading the book. Is the film as I imagined everything in the book to be? No. There are descriptions of things - places, people, creatures - that Tolkien really brought to my imagination in a way other writers had never done. But my own ideas, my own visualizations, about what those descriptions in the book looked like in my own mind may or may not have been similar, let alone identical, to what PJ and crew have given us. Do I care? No.

There are enough similarities by far for me, and I feel the spirit of the film (or films if you count LOTR) mirrors the spirit of the book (or books). I absolutely love the vision of Middle-earth that PJ and crew have given us, and I'm gladly - or rather, ecstatically - going along for the ride. I realize there are those who feel that too many blatant deviations from the story as Tolkien wrote it crosses a line somewhere, and then the films not only do not become enjoyable, but a source of anger and disdain. I'm not there, and I think no matter what or how anyone depicts their version of Middle-earth and Tolkien's stories, I never will be standing in that place. And that's certainly not because I don't respect Tolkien. He's my favorite author! But I think everyone deserves a vision of their very own whether or not I agree with it.

(BTW I personally think, just from the all-too-brief glimpse we have of Beorn in human form, that his hair is just so...David Bowie. Truth be told, I always imagined him a Hagrid-clone, so I'm really glad they went in another direction. It's just not one I expected. Yes, I think he looks a bit strange...but then, he is a shapeshifter! I think I'll really like him once I see him on the Big Screen.)

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 6:38am

Post #62 of 205 (963 views)
Shortcut
Comments like this are not true or helpful in the least... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To


Now a decade later everyone acts like the trilogy is perfect and PJ is screwing up this new trilogy. You guys are too funny.


Nowhere have I seen this stated. What you will see is posters who are fans of the original trilogy who are always careful to state that they liked/loved the films despite their flaws. They also usually go on to explain in detail how they find the changes/additions in TH are at a different level to those in LotR.

If anything, it is the "ultras" in the positive camp that give the impression that The Hobbit is perfect and anyone who dares find fault is simply nit-picking! Oh, and while we're at it, that sort of statement is usually followed by the caveat that it's because "you hated LotR anyway so you're not going to like TH."

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways! Wink


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Joe20
Lorien


Aug 14 2013, 6:52am

Post #63 of 205 (943 views)
Shortcut
Don't want to get off topic here but... [In reply to] Can't Post

who says season 2 was better than 3?


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 7:06am

Post #64 of 205 (928 views)
Shortcut
did.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Michael Bay win best director or best picture for one of those films...? Your argument is very flawed.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 7:07am

Post #65 of 205 (948 views)
Shortcut
AND... [In reply to] Can't Post

i'm entitled to dispute what he thinks.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


Cul
The Shire


Aug 14 2013, 7:11am

Post #66 of 205 (983 views)
Shortcut
Represent middle earth... [In reply to] Can't Post

With all due respect, if you think these movies are good representations of middle earth you are misguided. All the problems with these movies can be boiled down to three:

-Action over substance (If it looks cool it sells)
-Too much digital (Seems like jackson prefer digital nature to nature itself, little on location shooting)
-How exactly does these movies reflect a cold temperate nordic culture? (The look of the movie)

People seem to forget, including a lot of the fans that Tolkien when writing his books drew upon established cultures that although were dying when he was growing up did at one point exist. That is one reason he wrote them to escape from what was coming. (Our culture)

Instead of reflecting that culture that existed throughout europe once, jackon and co have instead chosen to reflect our current degenerate multicultural society into these movies. These movies are made consciously to appeal to the masses and not to the few who actually grasp what Tolkien's all about. This is why Christopher Tolkien, Tolkien's son refuses to have anything to do with the movies or even watch them. They're an insult to the author and art in general.

In no way do they represent middle earth, I thought personally that since they had Alan Lee onboard that there was hope for these movies. That they'd at least make an entertaining good looking movie for the cinema. (Like lord of the rings) But Jackson didn't even manage to live up to his former movie trilogy. I guess sucking up to the world of warcraft generation has it's disadvantages. It's all about money and making every little "cool" worshipping nut out there pleased. That is why these movies are bad and will never be good, it doesn't matter how much you try to make it tolkien, it's not.

This photo I took this weekend looks better than the hobbit movie ever could.
http://ingevald.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sweden-river-fog-in-trees.jpg

And I didn't even have a budget when I took that picture, why not put Beorn in that image instead. It'd be more believable and less plastic and holywoodish and shiny to appeal to all the nuts out there ewww. The hobbit movies reflect everything that is bad about our culture today, butchered the charm that the hobbit has!


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 7:15am

Post #67 of 205 (955 views)
Shortcut
yes, and welcome to TORN! [In reply to] Can't Post

where people sit around watching the LOTR's and AUJ theatrical editions and in-between their breaks they go on here and then they start rewatching the extended versions...and the process repeats itself...


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!

(This post was edited by entmaiden on Aug 14 2013, 4:02pm)


Cul
The Shire


Aug 14 2013, 7:35am

Post #68 of 205 (922 views)
Shortcut
Doesn't matter [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
That what you imagined as you read the book is unique to you and you alone. Millions have read this book and each vision is unique. So when you say "seeing what you imagined while reading come to life" you must emphasize the "YOU". Many of us might have formed very different visions and to condemn the movie for not conforming to YOUR imagined vision is a personal not a universal viewpoint.

It doesn't really matter what people think, what matters isn't what we think we're reading but what the author thought of when he wrote it. When one is making an adaption of any work one should have the original author's preferences at the back of ones mind at all times. What Jackson and co have tried to do is to appeal to what the average joe or cosplaying manga fan thinks of when he/she is reading a book like the hobbit. Since the author isn't alive, they can't know what he thought exactly, but there are lots of clues!

It is a children's book, but that isn't an excuse.


(This post was edited by Cul on Aug 14 2013, 7:39am)


Roheryn
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2013, 10:33am

Post #69 of 205 (917 views)
Shortcut
Well, I hear Sauron had a go [In reply to] Can't Post

at bringing it to life via necromancy, but since it wasn't alive to begin with, he didn't have much luck. Tongue

Not really sure I can discriminate the finer points of respect versus lack thereof for source material, but I do think PJ & Co have put remarkable effort into doing justice to the book. The Weta Chronicles books are nothing short of impressive, and that level of interest in detail to me seems like a great deal of respect for the source.

No film adaptation is ever going to be perfectly true to the book source, so I don't see why PJ should be held to loftier standards than any other director. If I wanted to see my own vision come to life, I suppose I could have gone out and filmed it myself. Isn't it worthwhile to expand our horizons a bit, have our minds stretched, and occasionally think, "Wow! I never thought of it like that before!" Whether we like that new way of looking at it or not. I think it's rather futile to hold out for a perfectly true adaptation, as it's pretty unlikely to happen. And as I've pointed out before, there's plenty of things in The Hobbit that I'm perfectly glad PJ has changed. Blue beards? Elves singing tra-la-la-lally? If you want descriptions to be followed perfectly, you'd have to have those things, too.

Have you forgotten all the major changes PJ made in the LOTR movies? Aragorn falling over a cliff, anyone? Elves at Helm's Deep? Frodo sending Sam home near Minas Morgul? He's got a track record for changing storylines, and I think by now we ought to have learned to expect this.

And I really don't see the point of getting worked up yet about Beorn's look. What we've seen so far isn't exactly all that informative. I think we're better off waiting til we see a lot more. Why waste time fretting about it? This is supposed to be fun, anticipating the opening of the next film, and if it's not fun, I suspect there's probably better things to be doing over the next four months.


Maciliel
Valinor


Aug 14 2013, 11:38am

Post #70 of 205 (880 views)
Shortcut
hi [In reply to] Can't Post

 
hi cul, mae govannen, and welcome to torn --

just to ask, what exactly do you mean when you say "degenerate multicultural society"?


Quote

[cul]
"Instead of reflecting that culture that existed throughout europe once, jackon and co have instead chosen to reflect our current degenerate multicultural society into these movies. "
[/cul]




cheers --

.


aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."

this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 14 2013, 11:48am

Post #71 of 205 (837 views)
Shortcut
That's your opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

And your welcomed to it. Cool



Noria
Gondor

Aug 14 2013, 12:09pm

Post #72 of 205 (799 views)
Shortcut
Entmaiden, you said it for me. The book did come to life for me, in a good way. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I don't need to replicate the book with a movie, and neither does the movie adaptation need to replicate my visual images that I get from the books. For me, that's not the point because I will never lose my images that have been formed over the years of reading The Hobbit and LOTR.

I like the movies precisely because they are different from what I imagined. It's fun when some of the scenes, or characters, or dialogue, conforms with my expectations, but I find equal joy when a piece of dialogue is spoken by a different character, or in a different situation, or when a character looks different. I might not always agree with the changes, but watching another person's vision of Tolkien come to life is what I enjoy the most. It's not necessary for the movies to validate my imagination because that will always be with me.


Old Toby and Roheryn at the bottom of this thread as well. Thank you.

Also, knowing PJ's style from seeing his LotR, I fully expected silly humour, lots of CGI and green screen and over-the-top action sequences in addition to the preponderance of great stuff that makes me love these movies.


(This post was edited by Noria on Aug 14 2013, 12:10pm)


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 14 2013, 12:44pm

Post #73 of 205 (788 views)
Shortcut
There are no camps here [In reply to] Can't Post

It's just fans expressing their opinion, and we welcome all opinions as long as they are civilly stated and keep within our Terms of Service.

Let's not attempt to divide the message board members into groups that have no basis in reality. We are all people here, with our own personalities and opinions.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 14 2013, 12:48pm

Post #74 of 205 (941 views)
Shortcut
Even though the impression was blurred [In reply to] Can't Post

I think Beorn was hot. Cool There, I said it. Smile


Cul
The Shire


Aug 14 2013, 12:56pm

Post #75 of 205 (956 views)
Shortcut
Elaborate [In reply to] Can't Post

That'd be a culture based solely on consumption, we live to buy stuff, it wasn't always so. I think many of us here on the forum to some degree understands where Tolkien is coming from when he wrote his books. At least those of us who are from the northern hemisphere and Europe. Europe has had thriving cultures but it all came to an end at the start of the industrialisation. That is why Tolkien is such a gem, he very much appreicated the northern cultures that existed before mass communication and everything we got today.

Here I made an illustration for you:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1388/cf8k.png

Now look where Tolkien and early Disney took their inspiration from, european folklore and mythology. Where is jackson and co taking their inspiration from, in the lord of the rings movies I think they managed to create some decent movies. I'd say they took inspiration from Tolkien when making those and one could tell they were suppose to be movies based on the lord of the rings. They still missed out on a lot but they were entertaining and decent. But this time around they went directly for POP and for the money, you have no idea how popular twilight and all these teen fantasy flick movies are. It's secure money, they know if they put hot dwarves and stupid humour and cool action sequences into the hobbit that it will sell and it does.

They are sucking up to the Dungeon and Dragons people, the geeks and to pop culture. All the pony lovers and cosplayers out there, I know it's all about money but I can't help but to feel that Jackson and co have given in to what this deranged culture wants and not what it needs. Anyway I hate ranting in anything that isn't my own native language so I'll end it here.


(This post was edited by Altaira on Aug 14 2013, 4:13pm)


Misty Mountain Hop
Rivendell


Aug 14 2013, 1:11pm

Post #76 of 205 (816 views)
Shortcut
A.M.E.N [In reply to] Can't Post

That's exactly how I feel. I was introduced to LOTR through the movies, so I favor them over the books. Not to say that I don't appreciate the books, they're still my favorite to read. But I think, comparisons aside, while it might not follow the books as much as some wish, the movies are still very good, and just another adaptation.


demnation
Rohan

Aug 14 2013, 1:14pm

Post #77 of 205 (825 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

Something about opinions, too each their own yada, yada, yada.

"In the beginning the Universe was created.This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 14 2013, 1:28pm

Post #78 of 205 (813 views)
Shortcut
Thank goodness for the smiley! [In reply to] Can't Post

Or I would have thought you were serious and I hate the sound of baby angel economists crying!Wink

(Still you might want to avoid anyone from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a while. Those slipsticks can really hurt if they get in a good wrist snap!)

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


Arannir
Valinor


Aug 14 2013, 1:31pm

Post #79 of 205 (815 views)
Shortcut
I have to say... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I feel sorry for those not satifsfied with the movies so far. We all waited so long for them, and I can imagine how dissappointing it must feel.

Having said that, I can only answer the question of this thread with "It happened and it is wonderful (for me personally, of course".

I can see and feel Tolkien's spirit in this movie as I felt it with the LotR trilogy, plus I feel it is a very good movie in itself, courageous enough to save the Middle-earth feeling, but tell a very embellished and charming story.



“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 14 2013, 2:19pm

Post #80 of 205 (758 views)
Shortcut
Actually if a film wins 4-5 Oscars the correlation with quality seems pretty strong. [In reply to] Can't Post

And once it tops 10 Oscars it's even moreso.

As for quality correlation with box office gross, it's true that not all who wander are lost, but that's the way to bet.

BTW, Casablanca was a solid box office success, and was nominated for eight Oscars and won three including Best Picture

As for Citizen Kane, despite William Randolph Hearst's banning of all advertising of the movie in his vast newspaper empire, his pressuring of theater chains to not show the film, and his other attempts to destroy the film commercially (and in one case literally), the film was the sixth highest grossing film in the year of its release. (One can only wonder how well it would have done financially without Hearst's sabotage.) The film was nominated for nine Oscars, though due to Hearst's threats and arm-twisting it only won one.

As for people walking out on the two films, I’m not surprised. Many people today simply cannot bear to sit through a black-and-white film. It’s like how some people cannot stand subtitled films, even though, for example, The Seven Samurai and Alexander Nevsky are two of the greatest films ever made. (And both were huge box office successes.)

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


bborchar
Rohan


Aug 14 2013, 2:38pm

Post #81 of 205 (761 views)
Shortcut
Hit the nail on the head... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To


The only thing worse than Hollywood making a Tolkien movie that nobody watches is Hollywood making a Tolkien movie that everybody watches.


This pretty much sums up every fandom.

Trekkers- JJ Abrams sucks! (resurrected a dead series)
Tolkienites- Peter Jackson sucks! (more popular than ever)
Whoviens- Stephen Moffat sucks! (more popular than ever)
(who comes up with these names??) If someone tries to make the story accessible for everyone they cry foul. Most people just don't take movies, books or tv shows so seriously...nor do they judge something before it's come out. Some people already hate Peter Capaldi as the next Doctor...and he hasn't even started filming yet...just like people are already complaining about Beorn when we've seen exactly one blurry, low-res still of him.

There's no point in making the exact same thing that has come before. If it's exactly like the book, it's a wasted effort.


Amy: Then why am I here?
The Doctor: Because! Because I can't see it anymore.
Amy: See what?
The Doctor: I'm 907. After a while... you just can't see it!
Amy: See what?
The Doctor: Everything! I look at a star and it's just a big ball of burning gas and I know how it began and I know how it ends and I was probably there both times. After a while, everything is just stuff! That's the problem. You make all of space and time your backyard and what do you have? A backyard. But you, you can see it. And when you see it, I see it.


(This post was edited by bborchar on Aug 14 2013, 2:40pm)


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 14 2013, 2:53pm

Post #82 of 205 (759 views)
Shortcut
Wasn't the book entirely digital too? [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember it being 100% alpha-numeric.

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 14 2013, 3:06pm

Post #83 of 205 (766 views)
Shortcut
Yep [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I know it's all about money...


As Tolkien said:

"Art or cash"
-Letter #202

And we all know which one he chose.

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 14 2013, 3:43pm

Post #84 of 205 (709 views)
Shortcut
And people are allowed to disagree with you, too. [In reply to] Can't Post

Right?

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Bombadil
Half-elven


Aug 14 2013, 3:43pm

Post #85 of 205 (718 views)
Shortcut
ROTFLMAO! [In reply to] Can't Post

Darky...Dude..

"No comment
from the
Old Forest"

Through Tears of Laughter?

Bomby


joec_34
Rivendell


Aug 14 2013, 3:49pm

Post #86 of 205 (690 views)
Shortcut
Take the Good, Leave the Bad [In reply to] Can't Post

Elwen, I enjoyed reading your post. I had forgotten some of the crazy stuff in the LOTR trilogy and I totally agree on the stone giants and Azog front. I think AUJ is generally very respectful, but takes a lot more creative license than I had expected. It has been a fight for me to keep this kind of thing in mind when I see scenes that disapoint me in AUJ. I think it's totally worth it to fight past that tipping point though. There will always be the little moments that PJ & Co do wonderfully--like some of those Hobbitty bits that you mentioned. I think those are worth fighting through any amount of disappointment that the rest of the movie offers. After all, when we always have the books to re-read when we feel too disappointed with the films. Even if we do have zombie-Azog or Bolg, or little Half-elven-half-dwarven children running around, something about the movie sets or the nuances of Gandalf & Bilbo's interactions will inform my next reading. I also enjoy the satisfaction and appreciation I get from the book when I read about Bilbo & Thorin staying put up in their trees until Eagles arrive. In summary, when I watch the films, I try hard to take the good with me and leave the bad in the theater.

"Happy painting and God bless, my friend." - Bob Ross


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 14 2013, 3:52pm

Post #87 of 205 (696 views)
Shortcut
I lean more towards Textualism rather than Original Intent. [In reply to] Can't Post

Though Directorial Activism can be troubling.

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


MasterOrc
Rivendell


Aug 14 2013, 3:58pm

Post #88 of 205 (672 views)
Shortcut
A post back to reality.... couldn't agree more.. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What a bunch of negative people in these forums, it´s really sad to see Unsure
To me it seems that we are living in a world filled with only cynical people... How you can possibly judge Beorn, from one tiny, low-res picture, without even seeing Persbrandts performance first is beyond me.
Claiming that the appearance is wrong is also stupid, when I´m fairly sure none of you ever knew what Tolkien had in his mind while writing the book, and though he made a slight description in the book, I don´t see how a small change of hairstyle has "destroyed" the character.
And stop praising the book. I myself love the book and I´ve read it countless times, but it is just a children´s book with nowhere near the detail of the LOTR books...
The movies are fantastic and are doing the book great justice. To say AUJ is bad is just something i can´t comprehend...

Sorry for this message, just had to get it of my chest. I don´t have anything against anyone, I´m just so tired of people complaining about the films, though I´m sure some are also sick of people praising them Smile
PS: This message is not an answer to your original post, but more of an answer to all the negative posts lately...



Old Toby
Grey Havens


Aug 14 2013, 5:04pm

Post #89 of 205 (681 views)
Shortcut
LOL! Oh my, you may have started something! [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay. I can see it now: Hair Wars - The Return of the Shapeshifters! Or alternately....The Beorn Supremacy!

Oh, but on the hotness scale, Thorin is still at the top in my book. I know - I'm off topic.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 5:18pm

Post #90 of 205 (676 views)
Shortcut
How were we on the subject of Oscars? [In reply to] Can't Post

You seem to have missed the point here...your original post implied that financial success was a barometer for a film's overall quality (IE PJ did not "fail" as TH made a large amount in theaters). My response was naming a series of films which have done quite well at the BO (with each installment grossing more than the last), yet can certainly not be held up as films with quality matching their box office earnings.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 5:44pm

Post #91 of 205 (640 views)
Shortcut
Notice I was still referring to BO as opposed to awards... [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed that generally, (at least predating the last several years) films that sweep the award seasons tend to be amongst the higher quality of the releases that year.

As for BO often dictating quality of a film - I'd partially agree (many film classics we hold as accomplished today were not success at the time of realase, and vice versa), but again, not so much recently, as IMO a lot of awful films have made an awful lot of money (Avatar and to a lesser extent, Titanic to hold up just two examples).

IMO we live in a rather strange time in our culture where the how good something else has little or no effect on its success. Also, there seem to a large tide of films which almost no one seems to enjoy which make globs of money as well (IE the recent Iron Man 3, which fans railed against after having been sold a different film entirely in the marketing campaign; I suppose the SW prequels probably really kick-started this trend about 14 years ago).


My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2013, 5:51pm

Post #92 of 205 (654 views)
Shortcut
I meant it [In reply to] Can't Post

Comparing the 30s, where there was no TV, videogames, smaller number of releases etc to today is all kinds of wrong. Wizard of Oz would not have made nearly as much today as the adjusted numbers suggest.


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2013, 5:58pm

Post #93 of 205 (636 views)
Shortcut
Strongly disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

At least as far as Titanic and Avatar go. The former is one amazing filmic achievement, the latter is not bad either. Looking forward to Avatar 2, 3 and 4. Wink


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 14 2013, 6:40pm

Post #94 of 205 (620 views)
Shortcut
That's only if you really believe... [In reply to] Can't Post

...that they were giving these awards to ROTK, and not making up for the fact that they didn't have the guts to give it to FOTR, which is the only one of the three, in my opinion, that deserved more than technical awards anyway.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Maciliel
Valinor


Aug 14 2013, 6:44pm

Post #95 of 205 (614 views)
Shortcut
honestly [In reply to] Can't Post

 
i think all the rewards for rotk were cumulative awards for one film that had to be crafted into three. he made all of those films in about one year, an incredible achievement on every level, for him and the entire creative team.

hollywood also likes to reward success, so being big at the box office did not hurt in the slightest.


cheers -

.


aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."

this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo


NottaSackville
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2013, 7:14pm

Post #96 of 205 (606 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

The dwarf runes definitely need unicode.

Happiness: money matters, but less than we think and not in the way that we think. Family is important and so are friends, while envy is toxic -- and so is excessive thinking. Beaches are optional. Trust is not. Neither is gratitude. - The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner as summarized by Lily Fairbairn. And a bit of the Hobbit reading thrown in never hurts. - NottaSackville


cats16
Valinor

Aug 14 2013, 8:25pm

Post #97 of 205 (617 views)
Shortcut
Great post! I'm with you word for word. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Roheryn
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2013, 8:38pm

Post #98 of 205 (619 views)
Shortcut
Oh, well now... [In reply to] Can't Post

*There's* a topic I'm willing to go off on. Heart I'm all for hijacking a thread in the name of Thorin's hotness!


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 8:51pm

Post #99 of 205 (598 views)
Shortcut
Too true [In reply to] Can't Post

I just sit back and enjoy the show, hence my abstention in posting. I'd watch (almost) any movie. just to hang out with some mates and have some nosh!

Anyone else like popcorn? Anyone?


bborchar
Rohan


Aug 14 2013, 8:57pm

Post #100 of 205 (601 views)
Shortcut
I'll take some popcorn :) [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I just sit back and enjoy the show, hence my abstention in posting. I'd watch (almost) any movie. just to hang out with some mates and have some nosh!

Anyone else like popcorn? Anyone?


I won't watch any movie, because I have two small kids that limit the movies I get to watch...so I make sure they are the ones I really want to see :) But I after the movie's over, I talk about it for a day or two...and then that's it. I get back to what I was doing before. Same way with books or tv shows. It's fun while it lasts, and then I move on. I can appreciate that some people really get into something and like to know everything about it...but I've never been that way. "Jack of all trades, good at everything, great at nothing" describes me to a tee. So, for me, the movie's a fun way to pass a couple of hours with my husband when we don't have to worry about the kids...otherwise, it doesn't enter into my thoughts.


Amy: Then why am I here?
The Doctor: Because! Because I can't see it anymore.
Amy: See what?
The Doctor: I'm 907. After a while... you just can't see it!
Amy: See what?
The Doctor: Everything! I look at a star and it's just a big ball of burning gas and I know how it began and I know how it ends and I was probably there both times. After a while, everything is just stuff! That's the problem. You make all of space and time your backyard and what do you have? A backyard. But you, you can see it. And when you see it, I see it.


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2013, 9:09pm

Post #101 of 205 (821 views)
Shortcut
*hands popcorn over* [In reply to] Can't Post

I just meant that if we are getting together to watch one, and the popular vote goes to a movie that I don't care for *cough* Pride and Prejudice(as guys, we were outnumbered)*cough*, I still have some great friends that make the time fun. They're just that awesome!

We will make fun of the movie, have playful banter, and get into ridiculous arguments over hairstyles and other ridiculous topics. For me it's a social time. Unless we are at a hardcore fan convention, I'm the guy that heckles everybody!

I'm just that fun!


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 15 2013, 1:00am

Post #102 of 205 (754 views)
Shortcut
Well said, jtarkey [In reply to] Can't Post

First, I just want to say, that I enjoyed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but not as much as The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The trilogy was true art to me. There were deviations, yet Jackson stuck to the material. The designs, the costumes, all were very well done.
In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the only mistakes they made was making Azog the main villain (he was dead, if they had to have a villain, it should have been Bolg) the bird dung in Radagast's hair, the and the design of the Goblin King. (That scrotum beard was just wrong.) Otherwise, I think they did okay. I've always been curious about Dol Guldor and the White Council, so I was fine with that addition. I thought the actors were well-picked, and most of the characters actually looked the way I pictured, only Kili had yellow hair and a beard, and Thorin's beard was longer, and he had no braids. However, the execution and adaptation could have been better.
I really want to love The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, but a few things have tipped my iceberg: the inclusion of Tauriel, the inclusion of Alfrid (whose supposed to appear later, but I still don't like the idea of him), Legolas having a larger role. (As much as I love Legolas, this is supposed to be Thranduil's time to shine. I'm really looking forward to him.) I have not seen Beorn's picture, so I can't comment on him. From what I've been hearing, I'm really worried about how it will do, and if I will love it. (Like I said, I really want to love it, but I can't help but fear that I won't, after what I've been hearing.)
Thanks for sharing jtarkey. You made a very civilized and well-thought out post.


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 15 2013, 1:12am

Post #103 of 205 (714 views)
Shortcut
Right on Elwen [In reply to] Can't Post

that's how I feel. Although I already described my tipping, whereas you said you haven't tipped yet. But that's how I feel.


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 15 2013, 1:37am

Post #104 of 205 (712 views)
Shortcut
Art [In reply to] Can't Post

Give me art anyday. I'm an artist, a musician to be precise, and I value it over hoarded cash/gold anyday.


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 3:31am

Post #105 of 205 (672 views)
Shortcut
Yes, i understand your point [In reply to] Can't Post

your point is flawed because yes the Transformers trilogy made lots of money at the box office like LOTR's but unlike LOTR's none of those films won best director or best picture. Your point is that just because a film or films make a bunch of money doesn't mean they are good films, well take best director and best picture and put it in your pipe and smoke it.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!

(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Aug 15 2013, 3:32am)


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 4:15am

Post #106 of 205 (665 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are two very different beasts... [In reply to] Can't Post

We were discussing The Hobbit - I don't understand why Oscar wins for LotR effect the topic at hand (and in fact they illustrate the disparity between the two, if were going by awards/award nominations).

Also, on a side point, just because a film won awards does not necessarily mean that was was appraised as a creative success by any and all who went to it.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Aug 15 2013, 4:20am

Post #107 of 205 (673 views)
Shortcut
Subthread of personal comments deleted [In reply to] Can't Post

Both people involved were at fault. Really, if you find yourself about to post personal comments about someone else, please move on. The correct response if you think someone has made a insulting personal comment to you is NOT to reply in turn. PM and Admin and move on.


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 6:17am

Post #108 of 205 (640 views)
Shortcut
seems that no matter what... [In reply to] Can't Post

no matter how many awards or how financially successful Peter Jackson has been in turning Tolkien's stories into films he can't please some people, yet many will flock to DOS when it comes out. -Peter Jackson and New Line will be laughing all the way to the bank while reading angry rants on how horrible DOS is.

"Also, on a side point, just because a film won awards does not necessarily mean that was was appraised as a creative success by any and all who went to it."

Seriously? yeah...why have the academy awards which awards the actual creative process...


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!

(This post was edited by entmaiden on Aug 15 2013, 3:30pm)


Yngwulff
Gondor


Aug 15 2013, 6:25am

Post #109 of 205 (629 views)
Shortcut
I hope [In reply to] Can't Post

That a plausible reason for having Azog surviving the Battle Annuzulzibar to be the villain in AUJ makes iteself apparent in DOS.

Most of the major parts of the stoey were there so far, it just seemed like a lot of the book was skipped because of the stretch to 3 films.

I am for the White Council/Dol Guldur subplot as well. It should prove quite interesting.

“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”



Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 6:43am

Post #110 of 205 (639 views)
Shortcut
It seems bizarre... [In reply to] Can't Post

that my comment about those that have positive views as opposed to those that view TH less favourably drew reprimand whilst posters who persist in aggressively labelling others with differing views to their own as "Haters" are ignored.

That is surely more devisive...


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


(This post was edited by Eleniel on Aug 15 2013, 6:49am)


Leebert
Registered User

Aug 15 2013, 7:54am

Post #111 of 205 (630 views)
Shortcut
A Newbie [In reply to] Can't Post

I am relatively new to the world of Tolkien and this is in fact my first ever post on TOR forums so hi to everyone!

I first read the books about three years ago and have read them once a year since then. Discovering Tolkien has been a wonderful experience and I have jumped into Middle Earth with passion, reading and watching as much as I possibly can. I'm currently working my way through the complete history of Middle Earth, trying to learn and absorb as much as possible. I suspect it may take me years before I know enough to hold an in depth conversation but I'm loving every minute of the journey. That said, my gateway into this world was Peter Jackson's movies. It was his vision of Middle Earth that was the spring board for everything that followed for me and even though his movies (The Hobbit included) are not a wholly faithful adaptation, I still hold them in high regard. It does not bother me in the slightest that he chose to deviate from the books, for me the spirit of Tolkien is present in every scene and for a book of that scope that is no mean feat! I take my hat off to him for making movies that are clearly made with passion and respect for the source material but that still have enough crossover appeal to justify the huge amounts of money the studio were willing to invest to get these 'unfilmable' films to the screen. It was a mammoth task and I think he pulled it off spectacularly. Obviously with any book to screen adaptation, there are problems. Every reader has his it her owns views on how certain things should be or play out so no matter what choices were made, someone was always going to be disappointed. In the end I chose not to be one of those people. Reading the books after seeing the movies first I was truthfully expecting to be annoyed or confused as to why the filmmakers didn't stick more closely at all. In fact it was the opposite. I enjoyed seeing the differences, the character alterations and the things that were removed entirely. It gave me so much more to think about other than the story I was reading. There were certainly moments where I thought 'Oh I would have loved to have seen that' or 'I wonder why they changed that' but it didn't offend me. It just made me want to look into things more which can only be a good thing.

I know this is probably a bit long winded for a first post but I'm hoping I've made my point. For me personally, TLOTR and TH movies are to be enjoyed along side the books, not in place of them and I will continue to enjoy both of them in the years to come.


(This post was edited by Leebert on Aug 15 2013, 8:01am)


Starling
Half-elven


Aug 15 2013, 8:02am

Post #112 of 205 (611 views)
Shortcut
Welcome, Leebert [In reply to] Can't Post

I am glad to see you have stepped out from behind the curtain of lurkdom. Cool
And I don't think your post is too long, or rambling. It made perfect sense to me. I liked what you said about the movies being there to be enjoyed alongside the books. I am sure you will find plenty of people here who share that view.
I hope you will stick around, explore the different forums here at TORn, and find out what a great place this is to hang out.


Cul
The Shire


Aug 15 2013, 8:15am

Post #113 of 205 (614 views)
Shortcut
What can one do... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's the internet, unpopular opinion isn't successful opinion here. ;)


Leebert
Registered User

Aug 15 2013, 8:18am

Post #114 of 205 (599 views)
Shortcut
Thank you [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I am glad to see you have stepped out from behind the curtain of lurkdom. Cool
And I don't think your post is too long, or rambling. It made perfect sense to me. I liked what you said about the movies being there to be enjoyed alongside the books. I am sure you will find plenty of people here who share that view.
I hope you will stick around, explore the different forums here at TORn, and find out what a great place this is to hang out.



Thank you for the lovely welcome! I'm looking foward to getting stuck in. I love the fact that this seems to be a community were all opinions are welcomed and respected. That's a rarity these days. Long may it continue. Cool


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 15 2013, 8:53am

Post #115 of 205 (594 views)
Shortcut
Aww, heck no! lol [In reply to] Can't Post

Did you see The Great and Incomparable Queen of Dragons, Savvy and Sexy, Daenerys Stormborn, this season? Astapor??/ Season II was a great bore by comparison. See also, Diana Rigg and Tywin Lannister, Tyrion and Tywin. . . This season was astounding. Now.. . Back to our anxieties regarding Dol Guldur.

In Reply To
who says season 2 was better than 3?


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by entmaiden on Aug 15 2013, 3:38pm)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 9:09am

Post #116 of 205 (603 views)
Shortcut
Very little, of course... [In reply to] Can't Post

As in most walks of life, the majority of us here try to get along and ignore the extremists!

Welcome to the Boards, btw. Smile


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 12:12pm

Post #117 of 205 (543 views)
Shortcut
Welcome :-) [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm with ya I feel like the spirit of Tolkien comes through in almost every scene. Thanks for joining and welcome once again. Cool



Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 15 2013, 1:53pm

Post #118 of 205 (553 views)
Shortcut
Arrgh!...baby...angels...crying...must...type...using...ellipses... [In reply to] Can't Post

All those factors and more are indeed adjusted for by economists whenever they need to compare financial data from different years. (Which happens all the time. That's the nature of economics.) Ever see those humongous equations they use? They're almost as bad as those wave functions in quantum mechanics, except of course economists are not crazy enough to factor in the square root of negative one! Woof!

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 15 2013, 1:56pm

Post #119 of 205 (524 views)
Shortcut
Nope. [In reply to] Can't Post

While occasionally an Academy Award is indeed awarded to make up for a previous year’s slight, or even just out of pity, that in no way explains an eleven category sweep.

Besides, if any film got the short end of the Oscar stick in 2002 it was Amélie.

BTW, it’s generally felt by many Academy watchers that the Best Cinematography award to Andrew Lesnie for FOTR was given more to “spread the wealth around” rather than from any especial merit. So from that standpoint the Academy actually awarded FOTR more Oscars than it deserved!

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Aug 15 2013, 2:19pm

Post #120 of 205 (533 views)
Shortcut
Not so fast, Darkstone... [In reply to] Can't Post

Economists model cycles, so they often use Fourier analysis and other nasty things that contain imaginary numbers! Wink


Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




hutch
Rohan


Aug 15 2013, 2:28pm

Post #121 of 205 (528 views)
Shortcut
Oh. The problem is that there ARE too many cooks in the kitchen. [In reply to] Can't Post

I use the monicker 'PJ' not just for Peter Jackson but for the whole decision making team. Some of the these flops of ideas aren't all Peter Jackson's. There's a big difference in the sensibility and decision making (especially in terms of story telling) between pre-LOTR Peter Jackson and post-LOTR. You can look to the decision making about 'King Kong' as an example. Some of what happened there I don't think would've happened if it was the old team.

Save the Texas Prairie Chicken.

(This post was edited by hutch on Aug 15 2013, 2:29pm)


hutch
Rohan


Aug 15 2013, 2:32pm

Post #122 of 205 (519 views)
Shortcut
I've noticed too [In reply to] Can't Post

This almost aggressive need to see the new trilogy as flawless and equal to LOTR and the shouting down and mis-categorizing of any dissenting voices is strange...

Save the Texas Prairie Chicken.


hutch
Rohan


Aug 15 2013, 2:38pm

Post #123 of 205 (536 views)
Shortcut
My tipping points? [In reply to] Can't Post

1. RECYCLED MUSIC! (I feel sorry for Howard Shore)
2. Targeting demographics instead of just letting the story be.
3. A Thorin created for GC covers rather than to fit into this suite of films.
4. Expansion of non-Tolkien characters, but no 'Hunt for Gollum'? Boooo!

All I can say is thank god for Ian McKellen. I'm still glad that the trilogy is happening though. Overall, the phenomenon is quite a positive one. An excuse to bring the fun and people together again.

Save the Texas Prairie Chicken.


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 15 2013, 2:43pm

Post #124 of 205 (528 views)
Shortcut
So they *are* crazy enough! [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the correction!Smile

DwellerInDale ----- 2
Darkstone --------- i

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


hutch
Rohan


Aug 15 2013, 2:46pm

Post #125 of 205 (535 views)
Shortcut
I COMPLETELY disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

People nowadays are just too used to the tried and true character types and relationships of 90-minute modern Hollywood films.

The way Tolkien wrote characters and relationship is MATURE. Go back read older books and look at older films: characters' action don't fit neatly into the modern paradigm that everyone is so used to nowadays. Characters were complex, unique, and not always "likable". They had different perspectives and not always comfortable ones.

I'm so annoyed at this level or rote storytelling nowadays. Just the idea that "Thorin needs to be more sympathetic in order to get audiences to 'connect'" is demographic screenwriting 101. Does not challenge the audience in any way, shape or form to think about differences in characters, motives, or actions....UGH!!!!!

Save the Texas Prairie Chicken.


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 15 2013, 2:58pm

Post #126 of 205 (664 views)
Shortcut
Connecting with characters... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
People nowadays are just too used to the tried and true character types and relationships of 90-minute modern Hollywood films.

The way Tolkien wrote characters and relationship is MATURE. Go back read older books and look at older films: characters' action don't fit neatly into the modern paradigm that everyone is so used to nowadays. Characters were complex, unique, and not always "likable". They had different perspectives and not always comfortable ones.

I'm so annoyed at this level or rote storytelling nowadays. Just the idea that "Thorin needs to be more sympathetic in order to get audiences to 'connect'" is demographic screenwriting 101. Does not challenge the audience in any way, shape or form to think about differences in characters, motives, or actions....UGH!!!!!


I don't need to go back and read older books or look at older films - I do that all the time anyway. If The Hobbit were translated to film the way many people on here seem to desire, I believe the audience wouldn't get to know any of the dwarves in any real way, they would have to adjust to a massive tone shift mid-way through the film, and they would be totally confused and put-off by the climax of the book happening off screen while Bilbo was unconscious. And before I get accused of being a book hater, I'm not. I love The Hobbit, and it works on page, but it would be awful if it were adapted too slavishly.

You have a right to your opinion, but don't denegrate my opinion simply because it doesn't match yours.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 15 2013, 3:28pm

Post #127 of 205 (639 views)
Shortcut
Thank goodness I've had my coffee [In reply to] Can't Post

before I saw that abomination. Wink


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 15 2013, 3:44pm

Post #128 of 205 (669 views)
Shortcut
I saw a post by Doug Adams, I think, a few weeks ago [In reply to] Can't Post

where he talked about the music in the first movie vs music in the next two. Recycling themes was a deliberate decision by Shore because he's introducing the characters "for the first time". I put that in quotes because for us, who saw LOTR first, we think the themes are redundant, but in future years, most people will see The Hobbit first, and then LOTR. So it was necessary to re-use some of the music as if it was being heard for the first time.

Doug said that the next two movies will have substantially different music, so there should not be as much redundancy as we had in AUJ.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 3:46pm

Post #129 of 205 (642 views)
Shortcut
oh come on... They got a few parts right [In reply to] Can't Post

A very few parts, way less than they screwed up IMHO.... I completely agree the book isn't coming to life at all. What we are getting is some butchered version which takes events and characters out of context, and makes things NOT what the Hobbit was about. "The Hobbit" was about Bilbo and HIS journey there and back again, Now if the would have called the movie the "Quest for Erobor" I would feel drastically different about the films so far. Since they are more about Thorin, Gandalf and the White Council fighting the Necromancer, with bits of Bilbo sprinkled throughout.. Now where the films were close enough to the book like Baggend, and Riddles in the Dark, I loved what Jackson and company did. I even liked the change of Thorin arriving late by himself, and the part of the troll scene where the dwarfs come to Bilbo's rescue...Things like the changing of the troll scene, other than the above mentioned part, the rock-em-sock-em stone giants amusement park ride, the needless made up hatred and conflict between Thorin and the elves, The constant OTT falls, and unrealistic stunts, the over use of CGI just make the films so far, not even close to as good as LOTR.

the grainy picture of Beorn is just yet another sad reminder of how bad Peter Jackson is doing with the Hobbit in comparison to LOTR IMO. At least LOTR had that historically realistic feel to it. The characters were, for the most part (minus Legolas's OTT stunts, which were only a few) put into realistic situations, were bruised and battered, and persevered thru them. The Hobbit thus far has had ridiculous looking characters who look cartoonish, and would not fit into the same world Jackson himself created with LOTR, put into situations that could never happen in the same realistic world of the LOTR trilogy.

I know the source material is different and has a different tone then LOTR but the world created by Jackson in the previous trilogy would have worked to make the Hobbit more mature and fit better (IMO) with LOTR. Where when all films are done they should flow together into one seamless piece of work but from what we have gotten with AUJ to me there is no chance of that now. Jackson has altered the rules of physics too greatly from the earlier trilogy mesh well with his new HFR, 3D, world were the rules of physics do not apply, extravaganza that has been the Hobbit so far. Not saying there shouldn't be elements of the more light hearted tone of the book in the film. I definitely think there should be some.

Beorn was described in enough detail by Tolkien that all Jackson had to do was follow instructions to create a great character, the look so far to me matches NONE of them. I mean really does Jackson think people want to see a mullet on the character? Maybe he should have just hired Billy Ray Cyrus back in 1990 and he could have saved a fortune on that horrible wig we see in the picture. I know there are things like creative license, but if your gonna adapt a book you should at least IMO opinion make the characters resemble something from the tale you are telling. So far we have a mullet mountain man with Beorn in human form and "Fluffy" from Harry Potter with him in Bear form. Both look horrible to me so far. So what is the point? If Jackson wanted to create new characters maybe he should have wrote an original screen play instead of claiming to be adapting the Hobbit. I see Jackson's tinkering as more of trying to rewrite the Hobbit instead of adapt it. Horrible Horrible idea. Even Tolkien realized that and abandoned a total rewrite. Also Jackson's claims of using the appendices are less than honest, there are NOT 125 pages relating to the Hobbit (more like 11 or 12 in reality) plus he took what was in them and totally botched what they were. NOTHING in Jackson's AUJ resembles what was in the appendices. Hopefully the films will be ok, since now I have no expectations of them being great films like LOTR (which in truth had some faults as well but nothing in comparison to the Hobbit) or even being good adaptations of the Book that I truly love.

Had they called the films the "Quest for Erobor" or something other than the hobbit most of the changes story wise I could probably live with, If they weren't pushing them so hard as being prequels to LOTR I could probably accept the style difference. But IMO it seems like they are riding both sides of the fence. Wanting to make these films something of their own while feeding off the popularity of LOTR. If Jackson had done the first option and made these films stand alone films without promising something along the lines of LOTR maybe more fans of those films that do not like the Hobbit so far would be more accepting of Jackson's tinkering. It seems to me that Jackson wants his cake and wants to eat it too but IMO you can't have it both ways. Personaly I think he should have stuck with the style of LOTR, called the films the "Quest for Erobor" or something other than the Hobbit and expanded the story till his hearts content. I would have been totally fine with that.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 3:54pm

Post #130 of 205 (613 views)
Shortcut
Great post Ziggy // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 4:08pm

Post #131 of 205 (611 views)
Shortcut
Great post Cul [In reply to] Can't Post

and welcome to TORn Smile


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 4:23pm

Post #132 of 205 (608 views)
Shortcut
Agree 100% [In reply to] Can't Post

maybe had they kept the same qualities that the LOTR films had and not tried to rewrite the story that was given to us by Tolkien. Jackson proved with LOTR and the Hobbit IMO that his films are their strongest when he sticks to the material that Tolkien wrote... but like I said that's purely opinion Wink


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 15 2013, 5:00pm

Post #133 of 205 (587 views)
Shortcut
Thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

I've felt so misunderstood lately. Unsure


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 15 2013, 5:10pm

Post #134 of 205 (592 views)
Shortcut
Good thoughts, Eleniel [In reply to] Can't Post

I never liked The Wizard of Oz film, and because of that, I never read the book. Another good example of film adaptations that missed the mark of the book are the 1930 Frankenstein and 1931 Dracula films. Both are nothing like the books, (which are way better.) The redeeming factor of the 1931 Dracula film is Bela Lugosi's acting. Even if that wasn't the Dracula of the novel, he still did a good performance. Otherwise, the films made some changes that were rather radical. The monster in Frankenstein was supposed to be sympathetic and he could talk really well. The film made him dumb, and only grunted. And that Igor was an insult. That's one of the things I worry for DoS. Not only is Tauriel a mary sue, but that Alfrid could turn out to be another Igor! Crazy Cease and desist!


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 5:15pm

Post #135 of 205 (573 views)
Shortcut
Again... [In reply to] Can't Post

LotR and TH aren't the same set of films, so labeling them as such is a straw-man; additionally, yes, seriously, no matter how much money a film makes or how many awards it wins - there will be those who didn't enjoy it and/or thought it was a downright creative failure - and their personal opinion is just as valid as yours or mine.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 5:26pm

Post #136 of 205 (606 views)
Shortcut
IMO opinion Peter Jackson has no restraint [In reply to] Can't Post

I really don;t think he can help himself. Which is sad because I find when he stuck to the material Tolkien wrote for him the scenes were SO much better for me. Jackson has proven that he can't leave well enough alone this time around. Every bit of great dialogue Tolkien gave us in the book has been altered in some way or another. whether it being totally changed, words left out, or words added. Prime examples are instead of the opening dialogue ending where is should have with the simple word comfort, Jackson had to put "comfortS of home" Why?, what did that add other than an unnecessary change in dialogue? Then we have the Time answer in the riddle game. Bilbo inadvertently tells Gollum he needs more time, instead we get Gollum telling Bilbo "time's up" to which Bilbo pieces it together. Another needless change in dialogue that to me makes no sense, and the list goes on and on since there is no unaltered Tolkien dialogue in the film. Jackson obviously can't help himself. He feels the need to change things just for the sake of changing them. I'm sure Smaug's encounter with Bilbo in DOS will be no different, along with the added characters not fitting into anything Tolkien would have wrote... I can see making slight adaptions but outright changes esp in good dialogue or good scenes from the book are just completely unnecessary


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Aug 15 2013, 5:27pm)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 5:32pm

Post #137 of 205 (596 views)
Shortcut
I think it may perhaps boil down to what one considers the role of the Director to be... [In reply to] Can't Post

Do we consider the Director to be an artist, where he is creating his own personal vision of something, so re-interpreting someone else's creation is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged?

Or should a Director simply be responsible for bringing someone else's creation to life on screen, to the best of their ability - i.e., serving the author's vision?

With LotR it seemed more as though PJ and the team were, for the most part, serving Tolkien's vision with a great deal of respect, even reverence, for the source material. The famous quote that the closer they stayed to the book the better it worked speaks for itself. This time around Jackson himself has stated that he is making the Hobbit films he wants to see, which indicates that the boundaries have moved somewhat, certainly in terms of ego and artistic license.

It should also be pointed out that Weta and the production team, along with Howard Shore's music, continue to bring Tolkien's vision to life most faithfully and with incredible passion - that is beyond doubt. It is the strength of the script and, ultimately, the direction that is debatable.


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


(This post was edited by Eleniel on Aug 15 2013, 5:35pm)


Elwen
Lorien


Aug 15 2013, 5:44pm

Post #138 of 205 (572 views)
Shortcut
Excellent advice...// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

 photo Desolation-of-Smaug2_zpsc1584ee1.jpg
Tauriel: So let me get this straight sir, this Elwen girl is back on something called TORn, and rather than just tell her to stop stalking you, you'd like me to show up in a movie I have no business being in as a ploy to distract her, and nevermind the wrath of countless Tolkien fans who will be calling for my destruction?

Legolas: That about sums it up. Besides, some people might like you. Oh, and to be on the safe side, can we pretend to be a couple too?


Elwen
Lorien


Aug 15 2013, 5:54pm

Post #139 of 205 (574 views)
Shortcut
On tipping points... [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Sometimes I think they shift. There were times I thought I'd reached my breaking point and was drawn back. (Either that or I said, "That's the last straw," only to be unpleasantly surprised 30 minutes later by an even worse one.)

Truthfully, I've only seen AUJ three times. I just can't bring myself to watch it again yet. However, I'll probably still plunk down my $10 to see DOS, unless this place lights up the day after the release.

 photo Desolation-of-Smaug2_zpsc1584ee1.jpg
Tauriel: So let me get this straight sir, this Elwen girl is back on something called TORn, and rather than just tell her to stop stalking you, you'd like me to show up in a movie I have no business being in as a ploy to distract her, and nevermind the wrath of countless Tolkien fans who will be calling for my destruction?

Legolas: That about sums it up. Besides, some people might like you. Oh, and to be on the safe side, can we pretend to be a couple too?


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 15 2013, 6:13pm

Post #140 of 205 (574 views)
Shortcut
Tauriel isn't anything yet.... [In reply to] Can't Post

...and your anxiety about Alfrid has me baffled.

We know nothing at all about Alfrid except the name of the actor playing him. And that he is the Master of Laketown's man. So can you explain, please - because I'm really confused by this one - what do you find intrinsically wrong with a corrupt civic official having an underling to carry out his orders? So wrong that you would object to the role on principal, knowing nothing at all about the character and how he's to be played. Is it that you think a man in the Master's position would do everything himself? He wouldn't have assistants or servants? Or that you think it's wrong in principal to add minor characters in an adaptation. Did you object to Gamling in the previous films?

What is it that you'd like them to cease and desist from? Far as I can see, they haven't done anything yet.


shadowdog
Rohan

Aug 15 2013, 6:46pm

Post #141 of 205 (541 views)
Shortcut
Well when I find a film unwatchable [In reply to] Can't Post

I walk away from it. I don't go see sequels. I don't understand the, what appears to me, to be the obsessive condemnation of AUJ over and over. And the condemnation of two films that nobody has seen yet based on a couple of pictures. If you hate them.....don't go see them......But PLEASE allow me the right to see and enjoy the films without being condemned as some horrible person who doesn't understand or appreciate Tolkien. I have been reading his books for almost 50 years. I love him and I love the movies.


paperC
Rivendell


Aug 15 2013, 6:51pm

Post #142 of 205 (535 views)
Shortcut
What a gross simplification [In reply to] Can't Post

You can make a lot of money with great art.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 6:56pm

Post #143 of 205 (523 views)
Shortcut
I say option B [In reply to] Can't Post

if its a well written story like the Hobbit, the ONLY thing the director should do is figure out what will and will not work on film, and merely tweak the scenes that need tweaking and tell the story the author told us in the book. Anything else is simply trying to rewrite the story because the director feels he can do better or doesn't have enough vision to make those scenes work IMO which means he truly does not care about the actual story the author told.

Stuff that wasn't in the story like the necromancer subplot IMO would work better if they were left fairly vague, giving us enough on film to fill in some gaps but not tell us everything. Leaving enough mystery to leave the viewer wanting more of the original authors work. We know some details about that subplot and Jackson could have just expanded just enough to make it work without having to make up hours of fanfiction material when 20 minutes of it on film IMO would have been enough

But to me an adaptation should always serve the original authors work, not the directors own. The strongest parts of LOTR and the Hobbit are when Jackson stuck to what Tolkien wrote IMO. I find his made up content weak in comparison to the material straight from the source in both stories so far. Now if the director wants to rewrite the tale like Jackson is obviously doing with the Hobbit I feel he should have named it something else ( say the Quest for Erobor )and let the audience decide if they were good films instead of riding on Tolkien's coattail by using the name "the Hobbit" and insisting that these films are prequels to LOTR, when it fails to match the style, or tone of the original trilogy. When I think adaptation I think of seeing the story moved from one medium to another which with the Hobbit would have worked with some minor tweaking. Not some 50/50 hybrid of made up fanfiction and source material. THAT was a choice Jackson made one which saddens me greatly considering what COULD have been. Because the made up material Jackson wrote simply isn't up to par with what Tolkien wrote, not even close.

I think Weta is doing a great job with the effects (though too many are CGI for my tastes), the score for the most part, and all the production is top notch. Now Jackson's script on the other hand seems poorly written when deviating away from Tolkien's work, his additions make no sense to anyone who knows the details of Tolkien's work. Which IMO seem to cater to the people who are just general film audiences instead of making the films great adaptations of the book and giving that general audience a glimpse into what the source material is about. I'm sorry but a director should not make the film HE wants to see when it comes to adapting a book. Original material sure go for it but not a book that has been around since 1937 and is loved by millions or billions of people around the world changes like that boil down to ego IMO


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 7:16pm

Post #144 of 205 (526 views)
Shortcut
by all means [In reply to] Can't Post

go see them and watch them, love them. it really doesn't matter what other people think about the films to me. For me I can certainly afford 5 bucks to go see the film at the matinee (which Is what i'll do) I might like it I might not but that's my prerogative If I don't like it I wont waste another dime on it .

I have said time and again that I have enjoyed the parts that were the Hobbit in the film. The parts that stuck to the book, without all the made up stuff that really didn't need to be in there IMO. Bt people seem to forget those comments. Azog, Radagast, all the made up stuff I could have lived without. The stuff from the appendices if it had stuck to them would have been killer but what we got was bogus for me... There just wasn't enough of the Hobbit, without the story being manipulated into something it isn't for me. Bit that is personal taste.... I find it enlightening to find out that many people have the same views I do when they watched AUJ and realize I'm not alone in my displeasure with much of the film. Sorry if people don't like the negativity but I personally think it mostly could have been avoided if Jackson had shown the same love and care for the source material that he did with LOTR and not tried to turn the Hobbit into some grand experiment to bring people back to the cinema by catering to the current trend of 3D or pushing the envelope with HFR. Maybe so many people are condemning the films because they really weren't all that good considering they are supposed to be comparable to LOTR. So the reality for myself and many others is the new films fall way short of LOTR in too many ways. I for one have never, ever said I hated the film, parts of it yes but those are the parts that deviate too far away from the Hobbit story as IMO it should have been, something similar to the book.

For those like you who actually genuinely liked it I'm happy for you, I hope your just as excited for the next 2 films. I personally feel they can't get any worse than AUJ so there is no place to go but up from here.Wink


Noria
Gondor

Aug 15 2013, 7:20pm

Post #145 of 205 (508 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure that 's true Eleniel. [In reply to] Can't Post

I can remember Peter Jackson saying years ago (where I can't recall) about the LotR movies, that he can only make movies that he would like to see. That approach is not anything new for him, I believe.

I believe that a director is an artist who should put their own stamp on their work, even if it is an adaptation of a great novel. It seems to me that few directors, especially not one as independent as PJ, would be willing to make any movie that didn't reflect their own personal vision.

The difference between LotR and TH trilogy is that The Hobbit not a huge book and many of its characters and plot points are only sketchily described by Tolkien. I think that even a single movie focusing only on Bilbo's story would still have had a lot of invented dialogue and situations.

Yet the deal was for PJ to make two epic movies (then three), requiring even more additional material. So there is more for people to dislike.

Everybody has their own vision of these books and it's too bad that PJ's adaptation strays so far from those of some unhappy fans, who can't let go. I'm doubly sorry, because I'm pretty sure that DoS and TaBA will be just as disappointing for them.

Like Entmaiden, I enjoy the differences between book and film as much as I enjoy the similarities.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 15 2013, 7:21pm

Post #146 of 205 (514 views)
Shortcut
No one is condemning your choices [In reply to] Can't Post

There was nothing in sinister's post about how other people should think and feel. You have every right to love the films, just as sinister has every right to dislike them. No need to reply to a post if you disagree. Just read, and move on.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Aug 15 2013, 9:45pm

Post #147 of 205 (539 views)
Shortcut
What kind of "life" are we looking for. [In reply to] Can't Post

JRRT was a profoundly melancholy man who lost much in the way of kinship through the first world war and saw much of his beloved England put to the spade.

The great themes of the LOTR are about kinship, loss, sacrifice and a polarised political back drop where war is waged between an en lighted free spirited agricultural society and a harsh unsentimental mechanistic impersonal wicked tyrant who wanted order and industry with such single minded obsessiveness that he would take an utterly chaotic and destructive path to achieve it. There is through out a real sense of danger we are participating in a cliff hanger.

Once the LOTR had been written the Hobbit seemed to my generation like an early rehearsal of the former. If you either rewrite the book or make a serious film about it, you have only one option to show how the key protagonists in the LOTR got where they did, what shaped them. By the time the three movies have been released I have a hunch we will understand better how individuals were shaped (Bilbo, Gandalf, Gollum even Legolas ) and see the beginnings of what was potentially the great catastrophe of the 3rd age Sauron, and Sarumans war against the West.

For me the Hobbit is bringing alive those journeys as well as telling the Tale of the Quest for Erebor and it is in this quest that the real pay off is. Instead of the one dimensional emotionally stunted and undeveloped Dwarves of the book we are getting rounded characterisation which reaches its zenith in Thorin who has seen the loss of home through holocaust the loss of parent and grand parent through unspeakable cruelty and the loss of his inheritance. He is a complex man uncertain and obsessive and uncaring and dismissive in his early attitude towards this bumptious self important Hobbit and realises his own hubris and vanity when Bilbo saves his life.

When I watch a movie a play or read a book I need to care about the character and be concerned about the outcome it begins and ends there. I am fascinated by Bilbo's dual personality and how they manifest themselves, Gandalf's selfless desire to fulfil the enormous burden placed upon him by Manwe and watch how Thorin punches his way to Erebor. Far more of the latter two are on display in these movies than in the book their stories come alive.

I love the paintly CGI, I thought the Warg chase was over fussy and badly executed and the Stone Giants stereo typical imagery but those are side shows in terms of my deep pleasure and enjoyment of the film and the wonderful performance of Martin, Sir Ian and Richard who bring their characters alive and I can not wait for the next instalment and finally seeing Gandalf in the Prancing Pony in 16 weeks time.

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 9:46pm

Post #148 of 205 (469 views)
Shortcut
I'm glad to hear this. [In reply to] Can't Post

Because I wanted to love the AUJ score as much as I love the LOTR scores, but it wa so much of the same stuff that I felt like it basically was the LOTR score. I look forward to the upcoming scores then!

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Maciliel
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 9:48pm

Post #149 of 205 (480 views)
Shortcut
beautifully said [In reply to] Can't Post

 
+beautifully said+, michelle johnston! quite beautifully said.

(and i agree.)


cheers --

.


aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."

this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo


Skaan
Lorien


Aug 15 2013, 9:50pm

Post #150 of 205 (467 views)
Shortcut
Do you think you can find the source of that post? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's not like i don't believe you or anything, i just love reading everything related to the music of these movies and i don't think i've seen that post which you're referring to.


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 10:10pm

Post #151 of 205 (791 views)
Shortcut
You have captured in a nutshell everything I hate about movie Aragorn. [In reply to] Can't Post

He's the King of the freaking Numenoreans, for crying out loud. I don't need to identify with him. I don't need to sympathize with him. He's not supposed to be "human" and approachable. He's supposed to be great and high and remote and powerful. Frankly, Denethor would be a better king than movie Aragorn. Tongue

For some reason, however, I don't have any problem with movie Thorin. Mostly, I guess, because except for being much younger than book Thorin, I really don't see that much difference. He's less stuffy, maybe, and less self-important, but I don't see that as a major change. Even in the book, he doesn't turn into a real jerk until they get into Smaug's hoard.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 15 2013, 10:25pm

Post #152 of 205 (756 views)
Shortcut
I'm sure it was here on the Hobbit board [In reply to] Can't Post

Try searching on music. Since there aren't a lot of posts that talk about the music, it should not be too hard to find it. I'll try to search tonight.


Magpie
Immortal


Aug 15 2013, 10:50pm

Post #153 of 205 (747 views)
Shortcut
Doug has an account here. Just check his post history. [In reply to] Can't Post

http://newboards.theonering.net/...=Show+user%27s+posts

One can also read his blog.
http://www.musicoflotr.com/

and track his post history on there:
http://disqus.com/dadams1127/


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide

(This post was edited by Magpie on Aug 15 2013, 10:51pm)


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 11:10pm

Post #154 of 205 (753 views)
Shortcut
Aragon [In reply to] Can't Post

Aragon both in the book and movie don't seem to be just another "human". I don't see how you're getting that one to be honest. The difference in the two is in the book he accepts being king from the start and comes to it later in the movie. At all times he comes across as good person but something more special than others around him. In both the book and movie he comes across as humble and like able. I love the character in both forms. If he was like Thorin (book) or Denethor he'd be totally unlikeable. I'm not a fan of pompous self loving jerks.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 15 2013, 11:20pm

Post #155 of 205 (735 views)
Shortcut
I thought book Aragorn was a much better character [In reply to] Can't Post

Not saying I hated film Aragorn, but I never could understand why Jackson felt that the whole reluctant king thing was better than the book. Maybe because it gave him another scene with Arwin and Elrond to reforge the sword and make it seem more heroic. But I hated it, I felt it was another needless change just for the sake of changing things from the original. Just like I hated the treatment of Faramir. The other characters that were altered I could live with because they were minor characters, But Faramir and Aragorn are the 2 I hated their changes. Overall with LOTR I think Jackson pulled off a miracle and made 3 great films but the Hobbit thus far for me has been nothing but a let down filled with totally unnecessary changes, and additions that make no sense what-so-ever to me.


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 11:25pm

Post #156 of 205 (737 views)
Shortcut
Book Aragorn [In reply to] Can't Post

I love that version as well. I just don't have a problem with the movie version. I love the whole reforge bit as well. That little sequence is really fantastic. I'm glad the EE fixed Faramir a bit but I do understand why he was changed, now going to Osgiliath makes less sense to me. The three LOTR films are amazing. I love them. We totally disagree on The Hobbit as I'm sure you're aware.



RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 11:36pm

Post #157 of 205 (729 views)
Shortcut
Not "a human." Just "human." [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe I should have said that he didn't need to be "humanized."

Instead of making him confident in his divine right, as it were, to be King, they made him reluctant and unwilling. And part of the justification I heard for that change is because viewers could relate to him better that way. All I'm saying is that Tolkien never meant people to relate to him. He was meant to be a symbol or a type. He is more special than everyone around him, because of his ancestry, and he knew it and acted on that knowledge. He didn't have to have his purpose foisted on him by his girlfriend's daddy.

(Movie Elrond is another character I'm not too fond of, but that's another [long] story...)

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 15 2013, 11:43pm

Post #158 of 205 (714 views)
Shortcut
It might not have been him to say it. [In reply to] Can't Post

I just can't remember, but I'll try to find the relevant post tonight.


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 15 2013, 11:43pm

Post #159 of 205 (710 views)
Shortcut
Humanized [In reply to] Can't Post

Got ya. I love how he's done both ways so I can't complain myself. I'm just a happy camper I suppose.



Maciliel
Valinor


Aug 16 2013, 12:04am

Post #160 of 205 (712 views)
Shortcut
your issues with (movie) elrond [In reply to] Can't Post

 
... i'm actually curious to hear... if you'd be kind enough to spend time typing out the pixels. : )

cheers : )

.


aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."

this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 16 2013, 1:29am

Post #161 of 205 (699 views)
Shortcut
Here you go - it was on Facebook [In reply to] Can't Post

Peter blogged through an entire day of shooting, and during those posts he talked briefly about the score and re-using LOTR themes.

I'll link to the page below, but here's the relevant paragraphs:


Quote
The score for Film 2 is going to be terrific. Last year, we were a little frustrated because we had to revisit so many of the LotR themes - The Shire, Rivendell, Galadriel, Gollum, and the Ring - we did this because I'm wanting these 3 Hobbit movies to have great unity with the Rings films in design, wardrobe, story and music, so it meant "An Unexpected Journey" had to acknowledge what had gone before.

But this time around, apart from a couple of Ring moments, it's all new: Beorn, Mirkwood, The Woodland Realm, Laketown, Bard and Smaug all give Howard the chance to write brand new themes, and he's knocking it out of the park!


Here's the link to Peter's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ

Look for the posts on July 25, the one titled Music Spotting with Howard Shore.


Bumblingidiot
Rohan

Aug 16 2013, 5:29am

Post #162 of 205 (670 views)
Shortcut
Agreed on money and culture. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that's a big part of the problem. Tolkien was an amateur author - very much of his time, who was not concerned with brands and franchises and marketing - which is the language of modern film-making. He did not try to appeal to a demographic, which meant he was free to give people something they didn't know they wanted. That approach is the opposite of the attempts to modernise and feminise the film.

I also agree about the cultural tone. The Hobbit is part travelogue - the journey Bilbo makes is effectively a trip from one historical place to another - from his typically English pre-industrial village (the type the Georgians or early Victorians would recognise), to the wild lands of Scandinavia or Northern Europe, also simultaneously going back to a time where myths were part of everyday life. The Misty Mountains are misty for a reason - everything's a bit ethereal and strange, the stone giants were seen from a distance - again for a reason - Bilbo is seeing the old tales (which he's almost stopped believing) coming to life.

The tale, although a children's story at first, is quite sparse and cold and very northern in tone. People are grumpy, they don't emote - as Bilbo did in the cave, and at the end of the film. They complain about each other, they grumble, they understate, they don't hug each other - they're not from California.

The Lord of the Rings is a much more southern influenced tale - they go south fairly soon, and much of the additional action reflects central European culture. Also, the relationships are more generically modern, with much more emotion being on show - Frodo, Sam, Faramir, Boromir, Denethor etc.

I think that's one reason that they were more successful with the tone of LOTR films than they have been with The Hobbit - where was Bilbo's grumbling about the discomfort of his journey? What happened to the dwarves bickering about losing him in the mountains? The anger in The Hobbit is mostly small and petty, but the film makers have gone for dramatic emotions - as in Thorin, and Bilbo's heartfelt speeches, because they're making an 'epic'. Problem is The Hobbit isn't an epic - it's a fireside tale.


Noria
Gondor

Aug 16 2013, 11:59am

Post #163 of 205 (526 views)
Shortcut
Yes, beautifully said, Michelle. [In reply to] Can't Post

I too totally agree, though I got a kick out of the Stone Giant sequence which, unlike the Warg chase, only lasts for about a minute.


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Aug 16 2013, 1:02pm

Post #164 of 205 (501 views)
Shortcut
Inconsistency of tone (*book spoilers*) [In reply to] Can't Post

"The anger in The Hobbit is mostly small and petty, but the film makers have gone for dramatic emotions - as in Thorin, and Bilbo's heartfelt speeches, because they're making an 'epic'. Problem is The Hobbit isn't an epic - it's a fireside tale. "

Thorin and Bilbo do make heartfelt speeches in the book, and at a point when the action and events have taken on an epic cast. My personal feeling is that this can be done in a book, and less so on film. I find the speeches of Thorin and Bilbo at Thorin's deathbed and the actions of other characters (Bard, Elvenking) at Thorin's funeral, he was a character with admirable traits to match his flaws, and Bilbo had found him so.

In a book, whether for reasons of "northern character" or others, it is possible to pull this off, as we know only what we are told by the narrator, about the characters' inner feelings and outer actions. In a film, we can still be limited by the scenes the filmmakers choose to adapt, but we must be given more, in the form of actors' performances of the characters they are playing which must be consistent with what one may (retrospectively) deduce they were thinking and feeling.

In light of this difference, I dont; find it inappropriate for an adaptation to make alterations to the original that go beyond this.


Skaan
Lorien


Aug 16 2013, 1:24pm

Post #165 of 205 (485 views)
Shortcut
Ah, looks like i did read that one [In reply to] Can't Post

I figured it would be another post since you thought it was Doug who posted it. Sorry for the trouble!

But either way, thanks for finding the link, i enjoyed reading it again.


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Aug 16 2013, 2:56pm

Post #166 of 205 (469 views)
Shortcut
Sub-thread removed for containing disparaging remarks and insults [In reply to] Can't Post

Apologies to anyone who's post was 'collateral damage.' PM an Admin if you'd like the text of your post so you can re-post it. Smile


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





The Grey Elf
Grey Havens


Aug 16 2013, 3:15pm

Post #167 of 205 (452 views)
Shortcut
Thank you, Prof. Johnson [In reply to] Can't Post

You took the words right from my heart. Smile

Welcome more children to Middle Earth. Support The S.H.I.R.E. Project!


Elessar
Valinor


Aug 16 2013, 3:25pm

Post #168 of 205 (449 views)
Shortcut
Well said :-) [In reply to] Can't Post

 



Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 16 2013, 3:44pm

Post #169 of 205 (441 views)
Shortcut
Nicely put! [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, once it was decided that The Hobbit would be filmed as a prequel to the complex LOTR rather than a simple stand-alone story the entire sensibility of the movies would naturally change.

******************************************
Once Gandalf dreamt he was a moth, a moth flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Gandalf. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakably Gandalf. But he didn't know if he was Gandalf who had dreamt he was a moth, or a moth dreaming he was Gandalf. Between Gandalf and a moth there must be some distinction! But really, there isn't, because he's actually Olórin dreaming he's both Gandalf *and* a moth!
-From Gandalfi: The Moth Dream


(This post was edited by Darkstone on Aug 16 2013, 3:46pm)


hutch
Rohan


Aug 16 2013, 4:32pm

Post #170 of 205 (414 views)
Shortcut
mmmm... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the info, but I'm not really sold on recycling LOTR music during the Thorin vs Azog scene-neither character is so much as mentioned in the other trilogy.

Save the Texas Prairie Chicken.


hutch
Rohan


Aug 16 2013, 4:38pm

Post #171 of 205 (420 views)
Shortcut
Those points [In reply to] Can't Post

have nothing to do with the changes in movie Thorin. Sure there's quite a bit of tweaking to when adapting a book to film but I don't see any cause for a GQ ready Thorin other than marketing reasons.

Save the Texas Prairie Chicken.


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 16 2013, 4:41pm

Post #172 of 205 (409 views)
Shortcut
He just didn't come across as very...Elvish. [In reply to] Can't Post

It's hard to explain. But Elves, especially the high elves who went to Valinor, are supposed to be wise and noble. And Elrond just came across as petty and mean.

To start with, there was his utter disdain for the entire race of Men in general, and Aragorn specifically. Yeah, Isildur messed up, but why does that make the entire race useless? I mean, what was Elendil? Chopped liver?

In the book, Elrond wasn't going to let Aragorn and Arwen get together until Aragorn became king and proved his worthiness. In the movie, he wasn't going to let them get together, full stop. It's kinda no wonder movie Aragorn turned out the way he did, when obviously he lived his whole life hearing how no good he was and how he would never amount to anything.

And then for Elrond to LIE to his own daughter, telling her there was nothing left for her in Middle-earth, to trick her into leaving, when he knew perfectly well that she was going to have a son.

Instead of being a noble lord, he just seemed grouchy and small-minded.

I didn't have issues with Elrond or the Rivendell scenes in AUJ. The feast scene was silly, but I enjoyed seeing Elrond on horseback fighting the Orcs. And the heightened conflict with the Dwarves seemed much more natural than the manufactured antipathy between Elrond and Men in LOTR.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 16 2013, 4:51pm

Post #173 of 205 (405 views)
Shortcut
umm? [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not sure what that has to do with my response. I haven't mentioned Thorin's appearance at all.

But since you brought it up, do people really think "GQ" when they see the movie version of Thorin? I'm not super familiar with GQ, but from what I have observed, the cover models for that magazine don't bear even a passing resemblance to film Thorin.


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Aug 16 2013, 5:21pm

Post #174 of 205 (398 views)
Shortcut
Elrond did not really "lie" to Arwen [In reply to] Can't Post

His "gift of foresight" isn't a view of one certain future, but rather of possible futures, one of which was Arwen's son (and her dying). It works similar to the way Paul Atreides saw the future in Dune. Another possible future was Arwen leaving on the ship. This is why they have the dialogue:


Elrond: I looked into your future and I saw death.
Arwen: But there is also life. You *saw* there was a child, you saw my son!
Elrond: That future is almost gone.
Arwen: But it is not lost.
Elrond: Nothing is certain.
Arwen: Some things are certain. If I leave him now, I will regret it forever.

So he kept the one vision from her in order to try and save her life.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 16 2013, 5:24pm

Post #175 of 205 (392 views)
Shortcut
Hairsplitting. [In reply to] Can't Post

He did not tell her the whole truth. To me, that's the same as lying.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 16 2013, 7:09pm

Post #176 of 205 (583 views)
Shortcut
My opinion... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
do people really think "GQ" when they see the movie version of Thorin?


It's pretty obvious that they intentionally "sexified" a few of the dwarves (notably Thorin and Kili), to the point that they resemble men more than dwarves. I'm sure part of it was the fact that the filmmakers felt they needed a few "eye-candy" main characters, but I also recall reading an interview with either Jackson or Boyens where they stated that they intentionally made Thorin more human-looking so the audience would be more sympathetic towards him. I find this logic kind of silly, because out of all of the dwarves in the film, I find Balin to be the most sympathetic and have the most emotional depth. And Balin is, arguably, the most dwarven-looking of all of the dwarves (just going by the aesthetic already established in film-universe).


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Aug 16 2013, 7:13pm)


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 16 2013, 7:17pm

Post #177 of 205 (571 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough [In reply to] Can't Post

But "GQ"? The dwarves still look rugged. Thorin, and few others, might look younger, and more attractive than Tolkien intended, but so did characters from LOTR - Aragorn for one.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 16 2013, 7:23pm

Post #178 of 205 (563 views)
Shortcut
I see what you mean, however... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
If The Hobbit were translated to film the way many people on here seem to desire, I believe the audience wouldn't get to know any of the dwarves in any real way, they would have to adjust to a massive tone shift mid-way through the film, and they would be totally confused and put-off by the climax of the book happening off screen while Bilbo was unconscious.


...there is a difference between filling in blanks (like fleshing out the dwarves or depicting the attack on Dol Guldur), and outright contradictions (like Azog's survival and the Nazgul tombs). I am ok with additions to the story, just so long as they don't fly in the face of the canon. And we've gotten a whole lot of contradictory revisions so far from Jackson and Co.


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 16 2013, 7:29pm

Post #179 of 205 (550 views)
Shortcut
True [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

Quote
If The Hobbit were translated to film the way many people on here seem to desire, I believe the audience wouldn't get to know any of the dwarves in any real way, they would have to adjust to a massive tone shift mid-way through the film, and they would be totally confused and put-off by the climax of the book happening off screen while Bilbo was unconscious.


...there is a difference between filling in blanks (like fleshing out the dwarves or depicting the attack on Dol Guldur), and outright contradictions (like Azog's survival and the Nazgul tombs). I am ok with additions to the story, just so long as they don't fly in the face of the canon. And we've gotten a whole lot of contradictory revisions so far from Jackson and Co.


I guess that is where I differ with some others on here. I don't care if the films contradict the book - as long as the films make sense, tell a good story, and preserve as much of the spirit of the book as possible. But, if contradictions really bother you, then I can totally understand why you have issues with AUJ. I just don't believe complete consistency with the text to be the most important consideration. It's a consideration, as I would not want to see important events or characters altered too dramatically, but it's not my chief concern.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 16 2013, 7:30pm

Post #180 of 205 (556 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, maybe... [In reply to] Can't Post

But Aragorn at least looked like the race he was supposed to represent. Thorin and Kili (and to a lesser extent Bofur) look like really short men to me. IMO it's extremely noticeable when seeing Thorin depicted next to, say, Gloin, or Dwalin.


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 16 2013, 7:40pm

Post #181 of 205 (574 views)
Shortcut
short men...exactly [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But Aragorn at least looked like the race he was supposed to represent. Thorin and Kili (and to a lesser extent Bofur) look like really short men to me. IMO it's extremely noticeable when seeing Thorin depicted next to, say, Gloin, or Dwalin.


Who says that dwarves have to be anything more than "really short men"? Remember the dwarves at the Council of Elrond in FOTR? Would anyone - and be honest here - want to see 12 dwarves that looked like that for three films? Or would you want to see 12 Gimli clones with varrying hair color? If you say yes, then I don't know what to say. Personally, I am thrilled that PJ and company decided to make the dwarves unique and stand out from each other. I think the filmmakers have done a great job of showing that dwarves are as varied in appearance as humans are. There is no one-size-fits-all look for them, and I love that.

Now, could Kili and Thorin have been made to look a little more classic dwarf? Possibly. I wouldn't have minding seeing Aidan Turner sporting a fuller beard - like he did in the early cast photos when the actors were announced. But, I don't mind the look they settled on, and it certainly doesn't ruin the movie for me. Very few things in any adaptation match up perfectly with my imagination, so getting hung up on a few details just doesn't seem that productive to me.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 16 2013, 7:40pm

Post #182 of 205 (565 views)
Shortcut
I hear ya... [In reply to] Can't Post

I haven't yet found any of Jackson's alterations bad enough to the point that I can't watch the movies (and that goes for LOTR and AUJ), but still, when I see Azog alive stalking Thorin, or Saruman falling off of Orthanc to his death, I can't help myself but get a little annoyed...


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 16 2013, 7:43pm

Post #183 of 205 (567 views)
Shortcut
It doesn't ruin the movie for me... [In reply to] Can't Post

And I really am not THAT hung up on it, but I still find it extremely noticeable, and it does take me out of the film a little bit. It has nothing to do with being "productive" or anything like that, it's just my opinion. To each their own, I guess...


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Aug 16 2013, 7:44pm)


mcmojo
Bree

Aug 16 2013, 7:47pm

Post #184 of 205 (553 views)
Shortcut
productive...probably not the best word [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But I still find it extremely noticeable, and it does take me out of the film a little bit. It has nothing to do with being "productive" or anything like that, it's just my opinion. To each their own, I guess...


Productive is not the best word, but it's what came to mind as I was typing that response. My point is, while plenty of details of these films don't match my imaginings, being bothered by them doesn't seem to be useful to me as I watch the films. I want to watch these films as independent creations - not as if I am holding a checklist, making sure that PJ is sticking to the books faithfully. Does that make sense? Watching a film that is based on a beloved book is a difficult thing to do - it's very easy to judge the film as something that it is not.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 16 2013, 7:55pm

Post #185 of 205 (552 views)
Shortcut
Yes, it makes sense... [In reply to] Can't Post

I wish I wasn't bothered by the changes, so I sort of envy those of you who can look past it better than I can. With that said, I'm nowhere near as purist about the films as a few people I know (and probably some on this board). I DO like Jackson's films, but I'm not going to lie - I'd LOVE to see more faithful adaptations of TH and LOTR in the future, preferably in an HBO-style setting a la Game of Thrones. I don't think the story can truly be done justice with films.


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Aug 16 2013, 7:58pm)


mcmojo
Bree


Aug 16 2013, 7:57pm

Post #186 of 205 (545 views)
Shortcut
That's my dream as well [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I wish I wasn't bothered by the changes, so I sort of envy those of you who can look past it better than I can. With that said, I'm nowhere near as purist about the films as a few people I know (and probably some on this board). I DO like Jackson's films, but I'm not going to lie - I'd LOVE to see an HBO-style adaptation of TH and LOTR a la Game of Thrones.


Give it some time, and then see someone like HBO do an epic series based on the books - and because it is a TV series, it could include The Old Forrest, Bombadil, etc... I might have to pay for HBO if that ever happened.


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 16 2013, 8:20pm

Post #187 of 205 (539 views)
Shortcut
I'm still waiting for the interactive, real-time, holographic adaptation. [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool
But really, as a semi-purist, I do have to say that part of the reason why I complain is that I just like talking about the films with people, and the most interesting discussions are when people don't necessarily agree. I have occasionally changed my mind about something when I hear someone else's thoughts and get a perspective that I hadn't thought of before.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 16 2013, 11:30pm

Post #188 of 205 (506 views)
Shortcut
My anxiety about the new characters [In reply to] Can't Post

I will explain.
It's fine for a master to have some servants that do the dirty work for them. However, I don't want Alfrid to be just another mindless Igor-esque henchman, that we've seen in just about every story. There are so many Igors out there already, and with all the changes being done, it wouldn't surprise me if Alfrid ends up the Igor stereotype of serving the Master. And Tauriel, from what I've seen of her, is another boring trope that's been done already, particularly in videogames. But with Azog basically another videogame character, it shouldn't surprise me.
I thought Gamling was in the novel as well.


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 16 2013, 11:35pm

Post #189 of 205 (494 views)
Shortcut
As much as I liked movie Aragorn [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree, we're not supposed to identify with Aragorn, he's high and powerful like you said, and I'm find with that. I always found the hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin identifiable.


(This post was edited by Ziggy Stardust on Aug 16 2013, 11:36pm)


Macfeast
Rohan


Aug 17 2013, 12:23am

Post #190 of 205 (477 views)
Shortcut
Agreed, that line of thought just seems strange and contrived to me. [In reply to] Can't Post

In my mind, one of this team's strengths is writing likeable characters, be they hobbit, dwarf, or walking tree who lost friends he had known since they were nuts and acorns, and over the course of these four films (LOTR+AUJ), I have yet to find myself apathetic towards (and certainly nowhere close to disliking) a character intended to be sympathetic and likeable. It seems highly uncharacteristic to me that this team would suddenly be incapable of making a character sympathetic and likeable, and that they'd need to make such drastic visual adjustments to pull it off; Even when coming from the writers themselves, I find such a suggestion to be selling the writing staff much too short, and contrary to what they clearly are capable of.


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Aug 17 2013, 12:26am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 17 2013, 1:04am

Post #191 of 205 (462 views)
Shortcut
Exactly. My focal objection. [In reply to] Can't Post

I never had a problem with fill in addenda, so long as it made sense and seemed to appropriately flow with the rest of the story. However, directly defying the events spelled out in the history. . . especially events of enormous significance. . . that is a problem, and should probably result in the paddling promised by old Jasper on The Simpsons.

In Reply To

Quote
If The Hobbit were translated to film the way many people on here seem to desire, I believe the audience wouldn't get to know any of the dwarves in any real way, they would have to adjust to a massive tone shift mid-way through the film, and they would be totally confused and put-off by the climax of the book happening off screen while Bilbo was unconscious.


...there is a difference between filling in blanks (like fleshing out the dwarves or depicting the attack on Dol Guldur), and outright contradictions (like Azog's survival and the Nazgul tombs). I am ok with additions to the story, just so long as they don't fly in the face of the canon. And we've gotten a whole lot of contradictory revisions so far from Jackson and Co.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 17 2013, 1:10am

Post #192 of 205 (457 views)
Shortcut
I kind of agree [In reply to] Can't Post

And kind of don't. Elrond says, "If Aragorn survives this war, you will still be parted. If Sauron is defeated and Aragorn made king, and all that you hope for comes true, you will still face the bitterness of mortality."

Emphasis is mine of course, but I think Elrond is encompassing everything that ever happens to Arwen. He doesn't deny that she could have a child, but that's not the point he's trying to make. He's simply saying that even if the best of the best happens and she has a wonderful life, ultimately mortality will creep upon Aragorn, and the two of them will be separated. I think he's just urging her to make that separation now and go to live eternally with him in Valinor.

"...not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall.
As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.
For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men,
it is bitter to receive." -Arwen Undómiel




(This post was edited by Ardamírë on Aug 17 2013, 1:12am)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 17 2013, 7:57am

Post #193 of 205 (422 views)
Shortcut
Exactly... [In reply to] Can't Post

Elrond looked into her future and saw DEATH....never mind how many children she might have with Aragorn, or how long he would live, she would ultimately die, and be separated forever from all whom she loved. Elrond's actions might seem selfish to us humans since we have no alternative and accept death as inevitable. We can't wish to live for ever with our children, but the Elves normally do and it is pretty inconceivable to them to want to give that up.

Plus, of course, he's already had the heartache of his twin making that choice and is desperately hoping his children will not desert him...


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


(This post was edited by Eleniel on Aug 17 2013, 7:59am)


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 17 2013, 9:24am

Post #194 of 205 (415 views)
Shortcut
OK, well.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Start with Gamling. There is a Gamling in the books - he's one of Rohan's military commanders, an older man who plays an important part in the battle at Helm's Deep. They used the name in the film for a different character - one who is always beside Theoden (just as Alfrid is likely to be beside the Master). There's a good reason for that. In a novel the writer can tell the reader what a character is thinking at a key point in the story. That can't be done very easily in a screen adaptation. It's much easier and more natural to have an extra character there to enable the lead character to voice those thoughts. That 'somebody' is essentially a foil - he or she shouldn't have much personality, for fear of distracting attention from the lead character.

So Gamling. He's there to let Theoden say what he's feeling. There's that key scene where he's helping Theoden put on his armour, and because he is there Theoden is able to voice his doubts about his own leadership and then launch into 'Where is the horse and the rider' - which is one of my favourite scenes in the whole film trilogy. I think they pulled it off brilliantly. In 'Return of the King' they tried giving Theoden's thoughts as a voice over, and I don't think that worked nearly as well. But forget what I think. Did Gamling work for you? Because if he did, there's every chance that Alfrid might be the same sort of non-character - a foil to show the audience what the Master is really like - and you might find him just as acceptable. Unless you've already made up your mind not to.

The comparison with video games that so many people make strikes me as quite funny. I don't play video games - except the Myst series, and that's a long time ago. But from the little I've seen of more recent ones - trailers and such, or when my nephew plays them - it strikes me that their designers fall over themselves to imitate films, so obviously there will be similarities. It seems strange to blame the film maker for that. But there's also a very big difference. With a game you're in the driving seat. You're making decisions, clicking buttons, constantly on edge - the player shapes the story. Films, like plays and even books are a much older form of entertainment. They require the audience the surrender the driving seat and let the story happen - to engage with a story that will go the way it will in spite of you, and that's a very different experience.


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Aug 17 2013, 9:59am

Post #195 of 205 (435 views)
Shortcut
Agree with Dormouse [In reply to] Can't Post

Viewing Tauriel as just a purposeless addition or something out of a video game is no longer tenable after the release of the DOS trailer. She has a small but pivotal role to play in the overall story. Thranduil, and thus by extension Legolas, is for isolationism-- he never does anything about Dol Guldur, and he doesn't get involved in the sacking of Erebor. In the trailer he says it: "such is the nature of evil." In other words, you can't fight it. Tauriel, as the younger "less wise, more dangerous" elf, sees the evil of the orcs and decides that the elves should get involved-- hence her dialogue with Legolas, and her line, "it IS our fight." This will be the catalyst for Thranduil joining the BOFA and perhaps Legolas going out into the larger world. Many people were indeed skeptical about Tauriel in the beginning, but 95% of the comments made in the reaction to the trailer thread were favorable, including many by previous skeptics.

BTW Dormouse I'd been having the same thought about this "video game" criticism that's been popping up. It's a strange full circle. Today's video games are based on past role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, which in turn were based on..Tolkien. Wink

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Aug 17 2013, 5:39pm

Post #196 of 205 (387 views)
Shortcut
I have to admit... [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not really bothered much by Legolas OR Tauriel. I know some see Legolas' presence as "fan-service", but IMO he has a legitimate reason for being in the films (he is the son of the Elven-king of Mirkwood, and would likely be considered highly-esteemed in that particular realm). As for Tauriel, well, the Elf captain in the book was a male, but I don't see changing this minor character to a female and fleshing it out a bit as problematic - just as long as they don't over-do it (we won't know that until the film is released). So I don't view the inclusion of either character in the same way I view Azog's inclusion, which I view as an example of PJ taking too much creative liberty.


glor
Rohan

Aug 17 2013, 5:51pm

Post #197 of 205 (370 views)
Shortcut
Video Games [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
strikes me that their designers fall over themselves to imitate films



Yes and an awful lot of fantasy games developed in the English speaking nations have saught to imitate the visual style of LOTR. PJ's middle-earth doesn't look like a video game, video games look like PJ's middle-earth.

Not just that, many modern video games have better scripts, plots, visuals and creativity than the big tentpole blockbusters Hollywood churns out, give me Elder Scrolls over Marvel's The Avengers anyday.



Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 17 2013, 7:36pm

Post #198 of 205 (348 views)
Shortcut
100% agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

That's exactly how I see that scene. I think this scene and their scenes in ROTK really are just an expansion of that simple line in the book about their extreme sorrow at being parted forever. I love that that was shown in this way and not just glossed over. It's a pretty big deal for both of them.

"...not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall.
As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.
For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men,
it is bitter to receive." -Arwen Undómiel




Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 17 2013, 8:02pm

Post #199 of 205 (363 views)
Shortcut
I don't mind Legolas [In reply to] Can't Post

so much, I think his role should merely be a cameo but it is what it is. I'm sure there was some studio pressure to put in familiar faces from LOTR. That and Legolas would have been alive during that time so it would be possible he would play some role. I just personally think it doesn't need to be a large role. Tauriel, on the other hand, I just don't like the idea of some made up character that did nothing in the book to be such a big part of the films. People who know the book shouldn't have to get used to a character, be it a male character or female character. If that's the case maybe they should have stuck to the actual story instead of trying to invent new subplots that really don't matter to Bilbo's adventure.

We'll just have to wait and see personally I think the character of Tauriel is generic D&D done in bad taste from everything I have seen so far, but every one has their own opinions Wink


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 18 2013, 2:34am

Post #200 of 205 (319 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, I still disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

You and Dormouse like Tauriel, I don't, and I still don't see why she should be added, and given center stage. This isn't her movie, and Thranduil is a way more important character than her, he needs to be in the spotlight. That's my opinion. Despite the 95% liking her, I still see a lot of Tauriel hate. I can't change your mind, you can't change mine. We're all obviously on different sides of the spectrum, and that's obviously how it will continue for time immemorial.
Maybe videogame might not be a good word to use, but to me, she is still a mary-sue. And I don't dislike her because she's a female. Just read my other comments, I don't like Alfrid either, and I won't be surprised if he ends up another Igor trope. Again, my opinion I am just stating.


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Aug 18 2013, 2:45am

Post #201 of 205 (334 views)
Shortcut
Gamling [In reply to] Can't Post

At least Gamling was in the novel, they just expanded his role. And if I recall in the novel, he helped Theoden out quite a bit.
It's clear you and I don't agree on the inclusions of these new characters, and it looks like it won't change. Also for the record, I don't play videogames either. I used to, but then I started playing musical instruments, which is much healthier. So, the reference to videogames, I had some familiarity with.
Plays and books were written before the audience even knew what it was going to be about. In this case, we know what the The Hobbit is supposed to be about (since we've read it) the adaptation, though out of my control, is not entirely following the original artists vision, which was written before anyone even knew what was going to happen.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2013, 11:34pm

Post #202 of 205 (301 views)
Shortcut
I don't mind her addition (except in so much as it still smarts that Glorfindel gets no attention, but lesser thans and made ups do), HOWEVER [In reply to] Can't Post

The prominence she is being given is a HUGE problem. Does anyone remember Arwen or even Galadriel featuring so prominently on the cover of one of the movie tie in books? Yeah, I don't either, and I am fairly sure it didn't happen, and they were MUCH more legitimate and (hopefully) important characters.

In Reply To
You and Dormouse like Tauriel, I don't, and I still don't see why she should be added, and given center stage. This isn't her movie, and Thranduil is a way more important character than her, he needs to be in the spotlight. That's my opinion. Despite the 95% liking her, I still see a lot of Tauriel hate. I can't change your mind, you can't change mine. We're all obviously on different sides of the spectrum, and that's obviously how it will continue for time immemorial.
Maybe videogame might not be a good word to use, but to me, she is still a mary-sue. And I don't dislike her because she's a female. Just read my other comments, I don't like Alfrid either, and I won't be surprised if he ends up another Igor trope. Again, my opinion I am just stating.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Aug 18 2013, 11:36pm)


dreamflower
Lorien

Aug 19 2013, 12:50pm

Post #203 of 205 (271 views)
Shortcut
Of course it's a fanfic... [In reply to] Can't Post

Peter Jackson is a fan. This is his somewhat AU interpretation of The Hobbit. Like most fan fiction, there are parts of it I enjoy, and parts where I think the creator "went wrong". But as many point out, whatever happens in fanfic, we still have the originals to remind us and keep us happy.

So far, I think that if one went through and excised the "extraneous" material, one would have a fairly straightforward telling of the first part of the book; yes, Bilbo's character arc is quite accelerated--but that's not surprising, considering the media in which this particular fanfic is made. But every chapter has been included, and nothing was cut out completely--while still leaving room for his "fanfic" elements. Personally I found a lot of the extras to be a little too OTT for my taste, but overall, if it had showed up in prose form on a fanfic archive, I'd have given the author a decent review.

I can't say that TH the movies will live up to LotR the movies. But I thought of them as fanfic, too.

BTW, I do NOT think of "fanfic" as a derogatory term. But I won't go into that here.


dreamflower
Lorien

Aug 19 2013, 12:56pm

Post #204 of 205 (265 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

We can discuss until we are blue in the face the minutiae of the books that we love; but only story-internal glimpses such as those provided by the movies or by fanfic can give us a glimpse into what someone else experiences when they enjoy the books. Sometimes we may disagree with aspects of their vision, but we can respect that it's their vision, and once in a while it can enhance our own vision.


elostirion74
Rohan

Aug 19 2013, 5:38pm

Post #205 of 205 (266 views)
Shortcut
beautifully put, but there are considerable risks involved in this kind of approach [In reply to] Can't Post

As always you state your arguments very clearly and succinctly.

I don´t know why you would say "once the LoTR had been written the Hobbit seemed like an early rehearsal of the former", though. That´s a big simplification of the story in my opinion.

One of the strong aspects of PJ´s adaptation in AUJ IMO is his ability to make a combination of the tone and key aspects and events of the book while adding some of the larger perspective you find in the appendices of LoTR. None of the weak parts of AUJ had anything to do with the interpretation of the story, and as such they never actually grate me.

There are very real risks, though, that by trying to shape and pursue lots of different characters and broadening the perspective even more than in AUJ, you could end up by losing the focus of the story or resorting to amounts of exposition that hamper the flow of the story instead of enhancing it. Personally I´m still quite confident that I will enjoy the two next films as much or more than I did with AUJ and confident that PJ & co will be able to retain the right kind of balance, but I don´t think the risks of "the expanded Hobbit perspective" should be underestimated.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.