|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Gondor
Aug 18 2013, 2:45am
Post #201 of 205
(572 views)
Shortcut
|
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
(539 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. 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
(509 views)
Shortcut
|
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
(503 views)
Shortcut
|
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
(504 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 donīt know why you would say "once the LoTR had been written the Hobbit seemed like an early rehearsal of the former", though. Thatīs a big simplification of the story in my opinion.
One of the strong aspects of PJīs 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 Iīm 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 donīt think the risks of "the expanded Hobbit perspective" should be underestimated.
|
|
|
|
|
