|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Dec 6 2014, 11:08pm
Post #51 of 78
(588 views)
Shortcut
|
Again you are discussing the outcome of the question, one way or the other, not whether it would be a matter of discussion and focus for critics and the general audience (including many readers).
Would it be discussed? Perhaps, but not in any negligible way. As I mentioned off-handedly in a previous post, there were complaints that Hobbits were smoking pipeweed in LotR. Did these complaints mount to a hill of beans? No. Did the fact that Hobbits smoked cause teens to flock to the cigarette counter? No more so than when reading the books. Would the enjoyment factor of the movie be lessened in any appreciable way without Tauriel's character? Be honest, it would not. If one were honest, seeing Legolas all blue-eyed and bloated is disconcerting as well. Paraphrasing Samwise, it is "unnatural".
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Dec 6 2014, 11:19pm
Post #52 of 78
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
I found Arwen's moment with the Nazgul perfectly acceptable. For one thing, Arwen was an actual character in Lord of the Rings. For another, the scene with the Nazgul and the river happened in the book. Even though Arwen usurped the role of Glorfindel, I thought that the scene was great. And Arwen is more interesting than Glorfindel.
However, Peter Jackson has strayed so far from the path in making The Hobbit, as to get completely lost with these new non Tolkien plots. And the sad thing is, I believe Jackson has already shot enough footage that when properly edited would have made an amazing Hobbit movie.
There were a lot of people upset that Glorfindel was omitted when the movie was released (and still are, if you look at various posts), but I recall that even more people were upset that Arwen upstaged a very crucial scene for Frodo. In the book, Frodo bravely stood alone on the banks of the Bruinen and defied the Nazgul. In the movie, he was no more than a bawling baby (and people complain that the movie version of Frodo is whiny and not as brave as book Frodo), completely paralyzed, while Arwen somehow manifested a magic she did not possess and called the river down on the Ringwraiths. Even stranger still, her character did a complete 360 thereafter and became meek, weak and teary-eyed, forcing her father Elrond to moan that famously absurd line, "Arwen is dying!"
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 6 2014, 11:19pm
Post #53 of 78
(578 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Super. So we agree it would be discussed.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now we are down to degrees.
Now, I think it would be discussed a great deal more than pipes - very few kids smoke pipes! My logic would be just how unusual an all male cast would be.
Very few films have ever been made with an all male cast, and that number drops to the low single digits in the last few decades. I can't think of a trilogy that has ever done so.
What female-free films there are tend to be set in closed environments (jury rooms, prisons, ships etc.) A film that travels across half a world, encountering various civilisations would be even more extraordinary.
I think, putting these factors together, it would in some ways be unprecedented and so, though of course there is no indisputable evidence that exists, this would have been a subject of considerable discussion amongst critics and the general audience alike.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 6 2014, 11:30pm
Post #54 of 78
(592 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No narrative treason in Tauriel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I feel It's no use asking a movie to copy "the original" when 'the original' is a book and the movie is... a movie. It's not as if someone would play a theater piece changing bits of it, for the theater piece has been written in order to be shown on stage.
When JRR Tolkien wrote his Hobbit, he never thought it could be put on screen, he didn't know there was a LOTR Trilogy to come, and it seems he kept thinking through many years that his Hobbit had to be re-written.
And Tolkien never achieved to re-write his Hobbit. Instead, he chose to sell the rights of both the Hobbit and LOTR to movie-makers. In order for them to be able to make money with this material, and so secure his family's earnings.
What did PJackson do ? He used the licence to actually film 3 movies out of LOTR, then 3 other movies out of The Hobbit. Each one earning... about 1 billion dollars. For me, I'll take treasons of that ilk every day, if I could.
Any joke apart, where is the narrative treason of the 'original' ?
Is it much a treason to have Kili die defending an elf instead of defending his uncle ?
Wasn't he trying to protect his own uncle while trying to save a brilliant elf-fighter which could have help more after she had already saved his own life and the life of other dwarves many times before ?
So, where is the treason of the 'original' ?
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Dec 6 2014, 11:36pm
Post #55 of 78
(570 views)
Shortcut
|
Many war pictures have only incidental female characters. Many critics -- current critics -- consider Lawrence of Arabia as one of the greatest movies of all time, and if I recall only one woman had a speaking part, and that one line. Again, current critics. Saving Private Ryan had only incidental female participation and won five Academy Awards. Considering Bilbo and the Dwarves are on a quest that leads them through the Wilderlands, over the Misty Mountains and to Erebor to meet a dragon, why would a female character play anything but an incidental role? Although you don't know it, you are being revisionist.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 6 2014, 11:47pm
Post #56 of 78
(569 views)
Shortcut
|
... Middle-Earth is a fictional world.
It's not useful to compare it with the real world. For example, the Thin Red Line world, which happen to be WWII in Pacific Islands, where, of course, you can't imagine to find any female warriors on the US side.
This part of Middle-Earth doesn't belong to Human history, that is the only tangible reality
The narrative rights belong to who owns them after having bought them from JRR Tolkien himself
There is no reality here, and 'fan-fiction' there. It's all fiction, and nothing else.
Keep your feet on the ground, and you'll just feel better about those movies.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 6 2014, 11:51pm
Post #57 of 78
(556 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, they are also visiting lots of places where lots of females would be.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Shire, Rivendell, the Halls of the Elvenking, Laketown, as well as the places you mention.
As I say, almost any of the handful of films with no females in the cast have very specific "closed sets" like historical military operations, as in the examples you mention.
Lawrence, as you know was made over 50 years ago and Saving Private Ryan is one of those single digit more recent ones, though even that is 16 years old ( and a small team of WW2 soldiers on a mission behind enemy lines is certainly a "closed set"!)
Neither is a trilogy or runs to 8 hours. We are also, I should have noted, talking about films with an enormous ensemble cast, not the Dirty Dozen.
An all male Hobbit trilogy would, in my view, have been an extreme outlier and would no doubt have been heavily discussed in relation to this.
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Dec 6 2014, 11:56pm)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Dec 7 2014, 12:07am
Post #58 of 78
(558 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Turn off your mind, thinking makes it hurt...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This part of Middle-Earth doesn't belong to Human history, that is the only tangible reality
The narrative rights belong to who owns them after having bought them from JRR Tolkien himself
There is no reality here, and 'fan-fiction' there. It's all fiction, and nothing else.
Taking your premise to the extreme, I suppose you wouldn't mind an all-nude pornographic version. Gives a whole new meaning to "Bag-end", eh?
Keep your feet on the ground, and you'll just feel better about those movies.
I've been told that smothering liver in onions and catsup makes it better. Nope, it's still liver.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Dec 7 2014, 12:09am)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 12:07am
Post #59 of 78
(548 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Unexpected Journey was without girl characters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, you can't tell it is as if PJ and Co would force female characters presence at all costs.
Maybe they should have done.
You won't have to push far : Just imagine some pair of female bearded dwarves belonging to the thirteen...
Surely their memorable presence would have ensure an even bigger gross to the trilogy ;-)
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 7 2014, 12:11am
Post #60 of 78
(547 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Discuss the topic, not personalities please.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Disagreement is fine; insulting someone else because they disagree is not. Time to move on, maybe?
Silverlode
Want a LOTR Anniversary footer of your own? Get one here!
"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 12:18am
Post #61 of 78
(541 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We're talking about PJ's choices about Tauriel...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... We're not talking about some extreme interpretation of my statement, which is a simple report.
Not that some kind of nudity wouldn't have sell, in a heroic fantasy world.
Have you heard about Game of Thrones ?
Had LOTR being filmed by Ridley Scott we should be maybe talking about a nude Galadriel.. remember that.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Dec 7 2014, 12:27am
Post #62 of 78
(542 views)
Shortcut
|
Disagreement is fine; insulting someone else because they disagree is not. Time to move on, maybe?
Who is insulting someone on a personal level? You are replying to my last post, so I assume you are referring to me. Where, pray tell is someone being insulted? I see a difference of opinion. If you would be so kind as to point out what exactly is an insult under the T.O.S., I'd be happy to oblige.
Otherwise, I am getting the feeling reasonable dissent against the movies is being quashed. In which case, I suggest changing the motto "Forged by and for fans of JRR Tolkien" to the more appropriate "Forged by and for fans of PJ Jackson".
But I'll bow out for now.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 7 2014, 12:39am
Post #63 of 78
(541 views)
Shortcut
|
your subject line seems to imply that the other person's brain is hurt by thinking, and then you imply that their argument could be equally applied to pornography. That seems to me to be leaving the topic and nearing personal remark territory. At best, those are the sort of remarks which quickly derail a conversation away from the point, as the other person usually feels compelled to repudiate the insinuation.
I'm merely reminding everyone not to go there. If you feel you can carry on the debate without drifting into a personal tit-for-tat, by all means do so.
Silverlode
Want a LOTR Anniversary footer of your own? Get one here!
"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."
|
|
|
MatthewJer18
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 12:41am
Post #64 of 78
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No dissent is being quashed at all.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
These mods run a very fair, open forum. To suggest otherwise is a little strange.
But suggesting that someone's brain is hurt does not contribute to a reasonable discussion.
(This post was edited by MatthewJer18 on Dec 7 2014, 12:41am)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Dec 7 2014, 12:54am
Post #65 of 78
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
The title "Turn off your mind, thinking makes it hurt..." was in reply to the statement "Keep your feet on the ground, and you'll just feel better about those movies", as in "If I think with my feet rather than my brain, I might actually enjoy the films and not fill my head with all this complaint nonsense." As for the pornographic version of The Hobbit, the other poster seems excited for its release. In 3-D, and directed by Ridley Scott!
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2014, 12:59am
Post #66 of 78
(504 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hmmm. Perhaps it was unintentional
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But as a reader I would interpret only one of those as insulting.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 1:10am
Post #67 of 78
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I didn't fear for my brain or anyone's brain here.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The point is that Tolkien sold his copyrights : that fact is what opened the door to Tauriel.
Then, any book-to-movie adaptation can hurt Tolkien's 'soul' and some his supporters alike. Any bit of adaptation, really. Not only adaptations of the story itself, but also adaptations of the kind of Universes created by Tolkien as a whole.
For instance, Game of Thrones is one kind of movie-to-movie adaptation : It took some of the receipes that made Tolkien/Jackson's LOTR successful, but turned them into loads of graphics... which are no 'over-the-top CGI', but questionable nevertheless.
Of course, nobody can be sure that giving JRR Tolkien's opus into the hands of the former author of 'Bad Taste' was a comprehensive insurence,
but if there is a Peter Jackson's 'treason', it's still waiting to be proven on this movie, in my opinion.
For me, I don't see any treason nor profanity in Tauriel's character.
I would be glad if it helps to show that success can still be found in a Heroic Fantasy movie without the Game of Thrones receipes.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 2:01am
Post #68 of 78
(492 views)
Shortcut
|
asked not to do ?
By the way I don't think my commentaries show anything going where you pretend they go, thus, for me and I suppose for anyone it's self-evident that pornography can't be a fleet flag for any argument.
I suppose you may have been puzzled by the fact I spoke about Ridley Scott ; but he is a very respected artist indeed, and he has managed to be exciting in many ways. The simple fact is, when a LOTR project happened to get into his hands, it has been reported that he imagined a sexual relation between Galadriel and Frodo.
But it was another era, as we all know - I mean, my generation. Those things were perceived very differently then, almost nobody, especially young cineasts as he used to be then, could imagine making movies without explicitation and fornication : that was viewed as 'pure' and 'natural'.
But I'm not sure that "excitement" was the purpose for avant-garde's stuff, the way it surely has become in Game of Thrones era.
My own imagination being far poorer than those of cineasts, I just can't imagine what a much older Ridley Scott would do with The Hobbit today, and of course I hardly imagine he would commit anything 'pornographic' with the Hobbit, even with a 3D-camera temptation.
Surely, as the story pushes so many males around, their group nature could be some kind of 'track', even without any Tauriel around ;-)
But for that kind of stuff, i'm more than already satisfied with what PJ did with the Dwarves whipping each other in Elrond's pool, in AUJ extended edition :-)))
I even think I get the internal joke now.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Dec 7 2014, 2:12am)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 2:44am
Post #69 of 78
(472 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ridley Scott... nope, John Boorman
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Eww... to my confusion, John Boorman, not Ridley Scott, had LOTR scenario into his hands.
Both were born in the 1930's and did some fine heroic fantasy movies (Legend, Willow, Ladyhawke for Scott ; Excalibur for Boorman),
but Frodo in Galadriel's bed was Boorman's idea.
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
Dec 7 2014, 4:17am
Post #70 of 78
(479 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't find the script writing embarrassing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I like it. The Tauriel / Kili storyline in DOS is a highlight for me.
I guess Tolkien would be nowhere near the equal of Jackson as a film maker.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2014, 4:28am
Post #71 of 78
(498 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I know this is geared towards the ladies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...but I'll just add that I think Tauriel could have been a fine addition if she were used sparingly. The love story and the fact that the writers are ramming her (and Legolas) down our throats ruins it for me.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2014, 4:46am
Post #72 of 78
(477 views)
Shortcut
|
Those who have never read the books have no expectations of what the story should be. So they would not have been clamoring for a 150-years-dead Orc chasing Thorin across the north, an Elf/Dwarf romance, or Thorin surfing a river of molten gold in a wheelbarrow and standing on Smaug's snout.
They could have done a script that was much closer to the source material, and the general audience wouldn't have batted an eye.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Dec 7 2014, 4:46am)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Dec 7 2014, 8:19am
Post #73 of 78
(474 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
I was perfectly happy with no females in The Hobbit book. But given the scale of these epics, it would have been unrealistic to have no female characters.
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
Not at all.
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
No. I am offended by the thought that they needed a romance angle to justify their inserted female.
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
A competent member of the Elven guard, doing her job.
FWIW, my granddaughter, age 12, adores these movies. But she (and her female friends) hates Tauriel, because even at their age they can instantly detect that she is a caricature and lacks any authentic plausibility.
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Dec 7 2014, 9:09am
Post #74 of 78
(459 views)
Shortcut
|
And for the record, since some folks here share the personal views of their family,my mother(56),my aunt(52) my sister(20) and her female friends love Tauriel and her relationship with Kili.
"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Dec 7 2014, 9:54am
Post #75 of 78
(455 views)
Shortcut
|
|
All Jackson's elves are a due caricature
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as well as his dwarves and most of his men characters.
He knows how to push some tendencies further and deeper until they reach their limits, which are violent or tragic endings.
isn't it a very classical way of telling tales ?
In their own way, Tolkien's races are also caricatures of human tendencies :
'too perfect' elves, 'too stubborn' dwarves, 'too unperfect' humans
and the hobbits in the middle, unexpectedly decisive while in fact nobody would imagine they could be, due to their size and weekness, which is also a cliché
Then some few heroes emerge, mixing the good balance of proud and humility, so they are crowned in the end
which is ALSO a cliché.
Of course Tauriel is a caricature, excessive in many ways.
The real question is : is she a stunning one ?
Furthermore, I don't think she was a PJ's idea in the beginning.
I don't forget he's not the only scenarist onboard.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Dec 7 2014, 9:56am)
|
|
|
|
|
