|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pazeer
Rivendell
Aug 13 2013, 7:29pm
Post #26 of 205
(1600 views)
Shortcut
|
What a bunch of negative people in these forums, itīs really sad to see 
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 Iīm 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 donīt see how a small change of hairstyle has "destroyed" the character.
And stop praising the book. I myself love the book and Iīve read it countless times, but it is just a childrenīs 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 canīt comprehend...
Sorry for this message, just had to get it of my chest. I donīt have anything against anyone, Iīm just so tired of people complaining about the films, though Iīm sure some are also sick of people praising them 
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
(1531 views)
Shortcut
|
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."
Ŋ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Lightfoot
Rivendell
Aug 13 2013, 7:44pm
Post #28 of 205
(1502 views)
Shortcut
|
Faithful servant yet master's bane,
Lightfoot's foal, swift Snowmane
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Aug 13 2013, 7:50pm
Post #29 of 205
(1552 views)
Shortcut
|
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)
|
|
|
Faenoriel
Tol Eressea
Aug 13 2013, 8:04pm
Post #31 of 205
(1498 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
(1499 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
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 13 2013, 8:13pm
Post #33 of 205
(1482 views)
Shortcut
|
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 Saurons 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
(1471 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
(1452 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
(1451 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.
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
(1438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
frodolives
Lorien
Aug 13 2013, 8:47pm
Post #38 of 205
(1448 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
(1431 views)
Shortcut
|
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
(1417 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
(1438 views)
Shortcut
|
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 Gollumīs 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 werenīt 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 didnīt remember from the book, like Rivendellīs 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, īcause 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
(1420 views)
Shortcut
|
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
(1389 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Half-elven
Aug 13 2013, 9:34pm
Post #44 of 205
(1382 views)
Shortcut
|
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  ). 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  . 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!
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Aug 13 2013, 9:35pm
Post #45 of 205
(1397 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
(1397 views)
Shortcut
|
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
(1359 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agreed on this...my issues with it go beyond those of adaptation as well. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
(1359 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. 
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
(1362 views)
Shortcut
|
$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
(1397 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
