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: Middle-earth TV Series Discussion:
PJ confirms involvement with the scripts and shared universe with movies

irasel
The Shire


Dec 27 2018, 7:04pm

Post #1 of 84 (1835 views)
Shortcut
PJ confirms involvement with the scripts and shared universe with movies Can't Post

That's from a Peter Jackson interview for a Spanish newspaper promoting Mortal Engines (translation from Spanish is mine):


Quote
Q - Have you been involved in the script of "The Lord of the Rings" series?

A - They called me, but I have no experience in TV medium. I offered my help to develop the scripts, in case they needed it at some point, but I rejected the responsibility of controlling something I had never done before. I have helped them with the script, but a series of those characteristics needs an experienced person. I'm excited about the series and, of course, I have not closed the door to Amazon. I'm grateful that they want to do the series and that they develop it in the same world as the movies.


Here is the link to the whole interview (in Spanish): https://www.abc.es/...ak75NIGO5cohcvSzsI_k


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Dec 27 2018, 9:57pm

Post #2 of 84 (1667 views)
Shortcut
Good lord... [In reply to] Can't Post

Unfortunately anything PJ touches at this point in time turns to mud... Keep him away for the love of God! I called Mortal Engines months ago - He just can't let go of his ridiculous love of cgi and over the top action scenes and they are killing any film he is associated with. Mad


irasel
The Shire


Dec 27 2018, 11:02pm

Post #3 of 84 (1643 views)
Shortcut
I don't think PJ ends up having a big influence [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe more of an external assessor? Regarding the shared universe with the movies, I don't know what to expect...


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 27 2018, 11:13pm

Post #4 of 84 (1640 views)
Shortcut
Sure [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Unfortunately anything PJ touches at this point in time turns to mud.


Yeah, who would want the aid of a a writer/director/producer with three Oscars to his name...


MoreMorgoth
Bree

Dec 27 2018, 11:20pm

Post #5 of 84 (1637 views)
Shortcut
and [In reply to] Can't Post

17 Oscars from the first three films and 6 billion in revenue... yeah - that's a lot of mud. Wink


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 28 2018, 12:11am

Post #6 of 84 (1635 views)
Shortcut
I'm not surprised... [In reply to] Can't Post

that they would mainly target fans of PJ's movies with this. Personally I would like to see something more in the spirit of Tolkien's writing rather than more of the middle school fan-fic that PJ has been delivering. His Hobbit was trash, and they wrote the script for Mortal Engines which was equally trash, and he has admitted he's not confident in his ability to write a tv series...looks like this thing is headed in the right direction.


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 28 2018, 9:21am

Post #7 of 84 (1584 views)
Shortcut
Sigh... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
they wrote the script for Mortal Engines which was equally trash, and he has admitted he's not confident in his ability to write a tv series...looks like this thing is headed in the right direction.


First, as I've said before, creative fields are everything but consistent in their outputs. Sir Ridley Scott hasn't made a particularly good movie in a long time, neither has Steven Spielberg - that makes neither of them bad filmmakers. In the 60s, Sir David Lean churned out Bridge of the River Qwai and Lawrence of Arabia, only to follow it up with Doctor Zhivago and Ryan's Daughter. Even Alfred Hitchcock had misses, and I'm not too crazy about every entry in Kubrick's filmography, either.

Second, a screenplay is often written with a certain director in mind, and being that Jackson and Co. wrote for Christian rather than Jackson himself may account for some of the reported issues with the screenplay. I'm sure Christian's insistence to keep the film a lean two-hours from the outset may have contributed to this, as well.

I should also add that even when the director doesn't contribute to the screenplay, he does through the editing: Editing is essentially the final rewrite of a script; and so the way Christian presented the material found in the script may also contribute to the poor reception.

Writing for TV is a completely different thing. Have you read a Peter Jackson screenplay? Because I have. He devises shots and transitions, in a way that you can't do in TV. Its not that he lacks the confidence to write for television - it just isn't his medium. You'd sooner get him to write a play.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Dec 28 2018, 9:25am)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 28 2018, 9:27am

Post #8 of 84 (1580 views)
Shortcut
Oh, really?... [In reply to] Can't Post

As you say 'at this point in time', I'll stick to that, and only remind you that he was the one chosen two years ago by the British to make the Special Documentary for the 11.11 2018 International Celebration of the WWI Armistice Centenary 'THEY WILL NOT GROW OLD', and it has received heaps, not of mud, but of praise, from all quarters, as an outstanding achievement, both technically and for the very moving effect it has had on all the audiences that watched it - so much so that he original screening period has had to be extended for more people to be able to view it. I would say PJ, far from turning anything to mud, has been rather like the legendary King Midas, as he has turned the actual mud from the trenches into gold!

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 28 2018, 9:55am

Post #9 of 84 (1572 views)
Shortcut
Fantastic example [In reply to] Can't Post

I've watched They Shall not Grow Old twice now (because I believe one can only truly make one's opinion on a film after seeing it twice). Indeed, its so much more than a technical achievement: rather, its technical achievement is a direct result of its narrative goal: to portray the warriors and their humanity, rather than the war itself. To do so, you need to rid the film of the buffer formed by the slow frame-rate, scractches and jerkiness of 100-year-old film; and you have to present the film in the veterans' own words.

Its doubly impressive because not too many directors from the field of narrative, tentpole blockbusters, can make an effective transition to making documentaries, let alone good ones. Its a completely different mode of filmmaking.

That he's not going to be elligible for Best Documentary is a real shame. He would've won it in a heartbeat.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Dec 28 2018, 10:07am)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 28 2018, 10:07am

Post #10 of 84 (1571 views)
Shortcut
Trash? [In reply to] Can't Post

I know it's only your own personal point of view, but please don't write such extremely and entirely negative statements about films you know many other Tolkien fans of long and deep acquaintance with his books do appreciate a lot, if you don't.
Even just as they are, those three 'Hobbit' films have been actually a resounding success, and this, in spite of all the often unfair criticism slung mercilessly at them.
And considering the terrible conditions PJ finally and unexpectedly found himself in for making those films, with an ulcer first of all, and not enough time at all for proper preliminary work, and under constant pressure from the Studio, the mostly improvised script of 'The Hobbit' - which is still far from being trash in my and many other people's eyes - shouldn't be brandished as a proof that PJ, Fran and Philippa don't know how to write good scripts. In this interview, PJ only said 'I have no experience in TV medium'. That's all.


'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


Alcarcalime
Tol Eressea


Dec 28 2018, 10:45am

Post #11 of 84 (1548 views)
Shortcut
Well said! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 




mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 28 2018, 11:32am

Post #12 of 84 (1556 views)
Shortcut
I for one am delighted!... [In reply to] Can't Post

In spite of the many occasions when I didn't like a certain decision they had made for adapting either 'The Hobbit' or 'The Lord of the Rings' to the big screen, the overall choices PJ & Co made (including the cast and direction), the visual representation and very atmosphere that were produced as a result of these main choices have been for me, and still remain, an incredibly fulfilling cinematic manifestation of Tolkien's Middle-earth, where I simply love to enter again and again as often as I can.From the very moment when, in the silent obscurity of that theater in December 2001, I heard that out-of-time, deep, entrancing voice - my beloved Galadriel's - rise from the long-forgotten past to pull all of us into that Middle-earth made so powerfully and beautifully and spiritually alive, these films ('The Hobbit' ones included), and particularly their Extended Versions, have become for me an endless source of inner satisfaction, completing wonderfully my own life of Conscious Spiritual Evolution in this Primary World too.So the perspective of getting, to whatever extent and in whatever form, more of it, cannot be but a deep joy for me.

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)

(This post was edited by mae govannen on Dec 28 2018, 11:34am)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 28 2018, 11:44am

Post #13 of 84 (1541 views)
Shortcut
Agree on all your points.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 28 2018, 11:56am

Post #14 of 84 (1540 views)
Shortcut
Gleefully with you on this.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 28 2018, 1:03pm

Post #15 of 84 (1531 views)
Shortcut
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post

to me, PJ's Hobbit is trash. Of course there are those who disagree, but as an admirer of Tolkien's story, I simply have no use for an adaptation that takes such enormous liberties with the narrative in ways that ultimately renders it almost completely unrecognizable. PJ and co. are skilled film makers, no doubt, but based on how they saw fit to adapt The Hobbit, I feel they have no understanding as to what separates Tolkien from any of the other run of the mill fantasy fluff you see these days. If Amazon wants cheese, they'll go with PJ, if they want Tolkien, they'll need to look elsewhere.


uncle Iorlas
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 2:18am

Post #16 of 84 (1441 views)
Shortcut
You can't have that wish, little bear [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I know it's only your own personal point of view, but please don't write such extremely and entirely negative statements about films you know many other Tolkien fans of long and deep acquaintance with his books do appreciate a lot, if you don't.


It's not a reasonable request to make. Anyway, if the mere knowledge that people exist who can't stand these movies is so painful to you that you want to be protected from it, imagine how it might feel to a certain author to learn how many people judge these movies to be a fair representation of his work. Or indeed an improvement on it.

If only people were half as protective of the author as they are of this preposterous director.


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 29 2018, 10:06am

Post #17 of 84 (1414 views)
Shortcut
Look [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
If only people were half as protective of the author as they are of this preposterous director.


Look, the fact of the matter is that you cannot make Tolkien's Middle Earth. The only way you could, were if Tolkien was the writer, producer and director of the films, and he isn't.

So you can either stay on the "keep it as the author intended" bandwagon, or you can accept that any filmmaker approaching the material is obviously going to nod to Tolkien, but also make their own work out of his source material.

Now, you're more than welcome to dislike the work, as it exists. But I'd advise against using such harsh words as "preposterous" so very lightly.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Dec 29 2018, 10:15am)


MoreMorgoth
Bree

Dec 29 2018, 11:55am

Post #18 of 84 (1387 views)
Shortcut
agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

Throughout these discussions about Jackson and his work, I find your observations very wise and insightful. Thank you for presenting them.

Fundamentally, I have always felt that some folks simply cannot accept that a book and a film are two different things and they are different and distinct from each other.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 12:11pm

Post #19 of 84 (1380 views)
Shortcut
so... [In reply to] Can't Post

if the point of an adaptation is not to create on screen something that fans of the book will appreciate, then why bother doing an adaptation at all?


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 29 2018, 1:23pm

Post #20 of 84 (1366 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
the point of an adaptation is not to create on screen something that fans of the book will appreciate.


It isn't.

The point is to maintain the core themes and rudimentary plot of the source material.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 1:37pm

Post #21 of 84 (1360 views)
Shortcut
well [In reply to] Can't Post

...if the point isn't to please fans of the book, PJ did a stupendous job then.


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 29 2018, 1:58pm

Post #22 of 84 (1354 views)
Shortcut
You'd hate what I would have done, then [In reply to] Can't Post

If I were to, say, get my hands on The Children of Hurin, I'd shoot it in two parts, with the first ending at the arrival to Nargothrond.

More importantly still, I'd put Turin's return to Dor Lomin before the sack of Amon Rudh as an action climax, and have the outlaws take part in it.

Filmmaking is to no small degree an exercise in boldness. And yes, making changing to a beloved book counts in my book as bold.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Dec 29 2018, 2:09pm)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 29 2018, 2:28pm

Post #23 of 84 (1338 views)
Shortcut
But many fans of the book [In reply to] Can't Post

did appreciate those films, as a matter of fact!... Smile
Or perhaps in your eyes anyone who liked those films simply couldn't have been a fan of Tolkien?!
Well, I have discovered 'The Lord of the Rings' in 1975, and have been reading it again and again since then, with the addition of the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, the Unfinished Tales, the books by Christopher Tolkien (HOME), the biography by Carpenter, Tolkien's own Letters, several of his smaller books not part of Middle-earth, and more I will stop listing out. I have been giving talks and even workshops about him and his so special writings, and I still do. I myself write articles about all things Tolkien on my Research Blog, besides managing to appear also here as often as I can since years. Is that enough to count as a 'fan of Tolkien' in your eyes?...And there are many others like me here on TORN, who are most definitely fans of Tolkien, and still appreciate those movies at least to some extent, if not more, or, for some, as much as I do.
The problem is that even very real fans of Tolkien may - and often do - disagree among themselves about any number of such things, even in their shared knowledge and appreciation of Tolkien.We are all different, and nobody could satisfy all of us together with any adaptation - except, as Chen G; rightly said, if it were J.R.R.T. himself doing it.This is why the use of such extreme words as 'trash', etc, seems to me out of place - just as I would avoid also calling those films 'perfect'. That too would be simply too absolute, when all our various differing perceptions cannot be but relative. That's all I meant to say.

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 29 2018, 2:42pm

Post #24 of 84 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Correct.. and yet [In reply to] Can't Post

in the films we are talking about, the whole team of PJ and Co were also trying their best "to create on screen something that fans of the book will appreciate"... for they too saw themselves as fans of the book to start with!... But they knew in advance that it would be impossible to satisfy everybody...


'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 29 2018, 2:58pm

Post #25 of 84 (1329 views)
Shortcut
It is not what I meant. [In reply to] Can't Post

It is not a question of finding it painful and wanting to be protected from it, as you wrongly assumed.But with such absolute judgements as this one-worded one, 'trash', there is simply no place for any discussion, let alone a meaningful one, that's what I was simply trying to point out.Please see my other posts in this thread, in which I hopefully may have explained my feeling better.

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


uncle Iorlas
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 7:27pm

Post #26 of 84 (2009 views)
Shortcut
I don't think you've thought this through. [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to laugh. In the past year I spent a couple months working full time on a screen adaptation of a book. This very book. This very project. So to be continually told that I don't understand the demands of a screen adaptation runs afoul of two issues: first, that it has zip to do with anything I'm saying, and second, jeez, kids. I actually do.

Anyway, the only point I'm trying to make on this particular thread is that it's wrongheaded to ask people you disagree with to simply forbear talking. Mae Govannen, I was interpreting not assuming; by all means explain what else you're trying to prevent.

In the meantime, you guys are speaking on behalf of an overwhelming majority in here, and now the both of you have sternly admonished the tiny minority ejo disagree with you that they *should not even state their case.* It's not a good look.

A side note: how long would it take to dig up a dozen posts in which someone used precisely the word "perfect" to describe Jackson's work? How about if we limit it to threads in which you were active? I haven't seen one person reprimanded for that, so if indeed you feel in some abstract way that no one should say that, it clearly doesn't stir you to action in the same way defaming Jackson does. But don't start now, either. Just let people talk. It'll be okay.

Personally, whenever anybody says "perfect" in that context, I just change it to "precious" in my head, and then I feel a wonderful clarity about it all.


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 29 2018, 7:54pm

Post #27 of 84 (2004 views)
Shortcut
It would seem *you* didn't think this through [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
the only point I'm trying to make on this particular thread is that it's wrongheaded to ask people you disagree with to simply forbear talking.


No one, I think (and hope) is saying that. People simply have a hard time with sensationalism in film criticism. i.e. when I hear a film being described as "trash" or, at the inverse, as "perfect" - I have a knee-jerk reaction.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 8:02pm

Post #28 of 84 (1994 views)
Shortcut
well [In reply to] Can't Post

If it makes you feel any better, there's an old saying that goes, "One man's trash is another man's treasure." So there's that.


uncle Iorlas
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 8:09pm

Post #29 of 84 (1994 views)
Shortcut
Not gonna fly. [In reply to] Can't Post

You literally told me that I should not speak a certain sentiment. It's right there in black and white.

What's not there is any instance of you scolding someone for indeed describing Jackson fare as perfect, although that is far the lesser issue.


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 29 2018, 8:25pm

Post #30 of 84 (1983 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

I was very percise in my phrasing, which was "I'd advise against using such harsh words as "preposterous" so very lightly."

If you read into it as silencing or scolding, than that's your interpertation. Text-based communication is a very limited medium, so I'd hazard against reading too much into others' words.

And I do recall that when the terminology of "perfect" came up, that I did say that I didn't deem The Lord of the Rings perfect, although "its better than a lot of films that are perfect." I also wouldn't say its the further of the two truths.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Dec 29 2018, 8:32pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 29 2018, 8:32pm

Post #31 of 84 (1979 views)
Shortcut
really though [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think "preposterous" is that harsh of a word. You should see the words people use to describe PJ in the Youtube comments sections. oh boy!


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 29 2018, 8:56pm

Post #32 of 84 (1974 views)
Shortcut
Two wrongs don't make a right [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Ataahua
Superuser


Dec 29 2018, 8:59pm

Post #33 of 84 (1978 views)
Shortcut
Let's put an end to this sub-thread. [In reply to] Can't Post

Discussions about discussions and the meaning behind board members' posts always go down a rabbit-hole and end up nowhere good. If you wish to continue, please take it to private messages.

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

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauronís 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


Mari D.
Bree


Dec 29 2018, 11:32pm

Post #34 of 84 (1943 views)
Shortcut
I think the point is both ... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
the point of an adaptation is not to create on screen something that fans of the book will appreciate.


It isn't.

The point is to maintain the core themes and rudimentary plot of the source material.


If you adapt a work for it's quality, try to preserve that quality, imo, or you might as well adapt some other work. The question is, what is the core quality of the work and what is not.

Of course, books and movies will be different, again, the question is, are the changes in question necessary or unnecessary ... if I were directing an adaption I would like to stay as faithful as possible to the original. Else, I'd call it my own interpretation. That's because I'm a very detailed person, and I care for "the pure essence" of things and so I'd wish to preserve the essence of things, even down to details.

Ah, that leads to another question: Is a director directing an adaption supposed to make the franchise partly his/hers or is he not? In other words, is he supposed to add his own distinct flavour to the mixture as he thinks it's fitting, as opposed to valuing the voice of original and rather humbly refraining from adding his own as much as possible?

I am aware some of these things are a matter of degrees and maybe it's these degrees that we disagree on sometimes ...


(This post was edited by Mari D. on Dec 29 2018, 11:36pm)


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 30 2018, 4:13am

Post #35 of 84 (1915 views)
Shortcut
Well said! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


Victariongreyjoy
Lorien


Jan 4, 5:09pm

Post #36 of 84 (1820 views)
Shortcut
Peter Jackson [In reply to] Can't Post

I would love a shared universe with the movies, but don't let Jackson control every creative decisions. After seeing how Mortal Engines totally flopped at bashed by the critics, I think it's safer to keep him away as possible.


Cirashala
Tol Eressea


Jan 4, 7:16pm

Post #37 of 84 (1810 views)
Shortcut
IMHO [In reply to] Can't Post

I would be ok with PJ on it, BUT only if there's someone who is not afraid to tell him, "That's stupid. Don't do that!" when he starts getting too ridiculous for plausibility.

He has shown that he can produce cinematic gold- when he's not let completely loose (though to be fair, the studio, Walsh, and Boyens were largely responsible for the horrible Hobbit love triangle stupidity and ruining Tauriel and Legolas, both of which had the potential to be excellent characters otherwise).

I think if PJ collaborates on the TV series WITH REINING IN if his ideas get too bizarre, it will end up being a beautiful series. But if you let him have a go of it like a 12 year old with candy, Red Bull and a newly released video game, it could get a little too over the top at points.

So if there's someone involved who can tell PJ where to go if something isn't working or looks stupid/contrived/implausible/youfillintheblank, I would be completely ok with it.

My writing and novels:

My Hobbit Fanfiction

My historical novel print and kindle version

My historical novels ebook version compatible with all ereaders

You can also find my novel at most major book retailers online (and for those outside the US who prefer a print book, you can find the print version at Book Depository). Search "Amazing Grace Amanda Longpre'" to find it.

Happy reading everyone!


Eruonen
Valinor


Jan 4, 7:38pm

Post #38 of 84 (1797 views)
Shortcut
Agree 100% [In reply to] Can't Post

 


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 4, 7:59pm

Post #39 of 84 (1788 views)
Shortcut
yes [In reply to] Can't Post

It is likely that Amazon will want PJ to be involved in some way, but the writing should be left to more capable hands. He is really good at the technical side of things...not so much the storytelling side, which will be the most challenging aspect of this series as there isn't much from Tolkien to guide them. Jackson, Boyens and Walsh wrote the script for Mortal Engines, which is now one of the biggest bombs of 2018 and its being almost universally panned as having one of the worst screenplays ever put to paper. But I agree, there certainly needs to be someone else involved to keep his tendency towards excess in check.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 4, 8:08pm

Post #40 of 84 (1786 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I would be ok with PJ on it, BUT only if there's someone who is not afraid to tell him, "That's stupid. Don't do that!" when he starts getting too ridiculous for plausibility.

He has shown that he can produce cinematic gold- when he's not let completely loose.


Jackson had the last say on each and every one of his films, so this narrative just doesn't stick, I'm afraid.

Even on The Fellowship of the Ring, no one was in a position to overrule Peter. He had final cut rights from the outset.

And really, the question isn't whether the filmmaker has the final say (which any major filmmaker has) but whether or not that filmmaker is beyond reproach. Jackson clearly isn't, and unlike what this narrative would suggest, has been talked out of certain ideas by his cast and crew on numerous occasions.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 4, 8:19pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 4, 8:25pm

Post #41 of 84 (1777 views)
Shortcut
exactly the point [In reply to] Can't Post

The LotR movies were not perfect and would have benefited from having someone there to overrule some of his not so great decisions...it would have gone down a little like this; "Hey Peter, I know you think it's a great idea to have Arwen show up and save the day and carry Frodo to safety across the river, but that's a pretty important scene in the book and to Frodo's character development, so we're going to have to say no. Also, that Orc that looks like an under-baked scone, lets go with something a bit more traditional. We'll let you film a few more Gimli fart scenes, but only for the special extended editions."


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 4, 8:47pm

Post #42 of 84 (1769 views)
Shortcut
This sounds like every parent's nightmare [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But if you let him have a go of it like a 12 year old with candy, Red Bull and a newly released video game, it could get a little too over the top at points.





CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 4, 8:51pm

Post #43 of 84 (1769 views)
Shortcut
Hyberbole seems all too common these days; I blame click bait [In reply to] Can't Post

Seriously. "Celebrity X had the PERFECT response to Celebrity Y's trashing them. Click here." And then it gets overused in social media, so everyone had a PERFECT hamburger and fries for dinner last night, and I have a knee-jerk reaction too.


Archestratie
The Shire

Jan 10, 6:51pm

Post #44 of 84 (1108 views)
Shortcut
Yes! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
That's from a Peter Jackson interview for a Spanish newspaper promoting Mortal Engines (translation from Spanish is mine):


Quote
Q - Have you been involved in the script of "The Lord of the Rings" series?

A - They called me, but I have no experience in TV medium. I offered my help to develop the scripts, in case they needed it at some point, but I rejected the responsibility of controlling something I had never done before. I have helped them with the script, but a series of those characteristics needs an experienced person. I'm excited about the series and, of course, I have not closed the door to Amazon. I'm grateful that they want to do the series and that they develop it in the same world as the movies.


Here is the link to the whole interview (in Spanish): https://www.abc.es/...ak75NIGO5cohcvSzsI_k


Well, this looks like great news to me!


Noria
Gondor

Jan 11, 9:22pm

Post #45 of 84 (876 views)
Shortcut
PJ is all one package, both the sublime and the ridiculous. [In reply to] Can't Post

In the last couple of months I've been re-watching the Appendices of LotR and TH. I've also been reading Ian Nathan's "Anything You Can Imagine" about the making of LotR and in part, TH.

If there is one thing that's clear about PJ it is that he is his own film maker and has the final word about his movies. He is collaborative and likes to hear ideas from cast and crew , and of course he and Walsh are partners in every way. Boyens is in that mix too. But Jackson's movies are HIS movies and I can't see him accepting a situation in which someone else had real creative control over his work. With LotR and TH, he was pretty adept at evading studio interference.

So you can either reject PJ's work outright or accept that you are going to get both extremes, the great and not so great, in everything he makes.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 12, 1:03pm

Post #46 of 84 (752 views)
Shortcut
well [In reply to] Can't Post

...if that's the case, it's best to move on from PJ.


Noria
Gondor

Jan 12, 6:07pm

Post #47 of 84 (674 views)
Shortcut
For some people, alas, it might be better to move on from PJ. [In reply to] Can't Post

He is what he is and always has been, though like everyone else he must learn and grow. He may just not have grown in the direction that some would prefer.

PJ was fully formed and experienced as a writer-director (whatever one thinks of his earlier films) when he began LotR and his partnership with Walsh was part of that. He says he makes movies that he would like to see; now that I think of it, isnít that in part why Tolkien claimed to have written LotR?

Regardless, PJ doesnít hesitate to use special effects to build his worlds, peoples and creatures and loves to employ the most cutting edge methods to put what his imagination creates on film. He likes big, improbable action sequences and bigger battles, lots of gore, and certain kinds of humour. Thatís the downside for some with both LotR and TH.

The upside is great world building, compelling stories, captivating characterizations created by spot-on casting and fine acting, great visual and auditory beauty (RIP Andrew Lesnie), and many subtle, lovely and even sublime scenes and moments.

As Iíve said elsewhere, IMO the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies are not so dissimilar except that TH has a lot more added material and, most markedly, a different tone. PJ eschewed the gravitas and self-importance that was part of what made LotR so great in favour of a lighter, more comedic and happier approach to TH, at least for the first two movies.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 12, 8:36pm

Post #48 of 84 (644 views)
Shortcut
The lighter tone is really in the first film [In reply to] Can't Post

Where its refreshingly different. There's still some of that lightness in the earlier passages of The Desolation of Smaug, but for the most part the bulk of The Hobbit trilogy is tonally akin to The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings deals with a theme of corruption, but - with the exception of Gollum - it never goes quite as far as it does with Thorin, and it isn't as front-and-center, either. The closer Thorin gets to his goal, the more dour it gets: When he sails to the feet of the mountain, instead of being a triumphant moment, its quite foreboding. He looks all imperious and his theme plays not in a celebratory fashion, but a portentous one.

And, of course, after Erebor is reclaimed, its all empty and broken and dark. The characters are cornered in it by the Lakemen and Elves. That's a very sobering idea, as well.

Some of the imagery is quite bold, too. I love that the Dwarves are motivated to take down Smaug by seeing the charred remains of their kinsmen, including a toddler. When was the last time we saw that kind of imagery in a tentpole blockbuster?

Fili's death, too, is quite bold. Its effectively an execution, and the presentation is very matter-of-fact. For a moment, I thought I was watching a movie directed by Clint Eastwood.


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Jan 13, 12:38am

Post #49 of 84 (558 views)
Shortcut
Can you imagine Alfird toitering about in his bra at Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith? [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't.

Your description of these components of the trilogy is beautiful, but it can't rid the tonal violations that exist in all three films, jambags and all.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 13, 8:34am

Post #50 of 84 (507 views)
Shortcut
Yeah [In reply to] Can't Post

But theyíre few and far between enough that they donít undo the tone of the film: just violate it, to use your words, momentarily.

For the most part, the trilogy gradually morphs into quite bleak stuff. Basically, because it calls into question the premise itself, as if to say: ďwell, is retaking Erebor really worth it?Ē

You donít see that kind of questioning being branded around in other tentpole film series, because thatís not a question you can really pose when the premise is predicated upon defeating some absolute evil like Voldemort, the Empire, or the Ring for that matter.


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Jan 13, 11:00am

Post #51 of 84 (799 views)
Shortcut
Thereís the rub! [In reply to] Can't Post

Tonal violations are an essential ingredient of the trilogyís tone itself.

Iíd also argue that book ROTK does make the argument about the worth of personal cost of carrying and destroying the Ring, but the film didnít particularly take advantage of that story thread. Iím still interested in a six-part adaptation of Rings where the last entry tackles that head-on.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 13, 11:19am

Post #52 of 84 (794 views)
Shortcut
well... [In reply to] Can't Post

though the violations may be distributed between other less silly moments, some of them are so over the top silly that their effects haven't fully worn off by the time we reach a moment we're supposed to take seriously. Like for example, when smoke came out of Radagast's ears...my thoughts kept returning to it and I remember thinking, "Did that really just happen?". And then there's moments like "because it was real", which (I presume) is meant to be serious, but elicited a great deal of laughter in the theater, thus blurring the line between silliness and profundity.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 13, 1:09pm

Post #53 of 84 (776 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, I don't like that one, either [In reply to] Can't Post

But on the whole, The Hobbit is quite profound. In the course of charting Thorin's journey, it deals with greed, isolationism, zeal, vengenance, grudges, morality, allegiance, etcetra.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 13, 1:23pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 13, 2:02pm

Post #54 of 84 (764 views)
Shortcut
well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose PJ did manage to exclude his main protagonist (Thorin) from being subject to the silliest of the silliness, and is mostly portrayed in a serious though jarringly melodramatic manner.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 13, 2:24pm

Post #55 of 84 (752 views)
Shortcut
Melodrama [In reply to] Can't Post

I wouldn't know about melodramatic. Certainly, all six of these films aren't too restrained with their emotion, which I like.

Its one the best aspects of films set in a non-modern setting: you can have characters, especially men, expressing emotion much more explicitly because we the audience are meant to understand that the societal codes that frown upon such behavior were not in existence at the time.

Really, with so much of contemporary cinema, I get the feeling that in an attempt to avoid melodrama, we get films of sanitized emotion - I like the approach of these films better. I guess my point is: its not melodrama if its earned, which it is here.

Hell, its not even that histrionic: most Spielberg films, for instance, have much more hightened emotion than these.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 13, 2:28pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 13, 2:45pm

Post #56 of 84 (747 views)
Shortcut
PJ's tendency towards the melodramatic [In reply to] Can't Post

The balance between real and genuine feeling emotion, and sand bag over the head melodrama is something PJ hasn't really mastered. But then, subtlety has never really been his style, in all areas of his movie making, so I suppose expecting more realistic and subdued emotion is somewhat unreasonable when dealing with PJ.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 13, 3:00pm

Post #57 of 84 (743 views)
Shortcut
Subdued emotion sucks [In reply to] Can't Post

I like my emotion strong. That's why The Return of the King is my favorite of these (and of all of cinema, really). Because its unafraid and unapologetic about its characters displaying emotion.

And really, what's with this newfound cry for subtlety in western cinema?! So many great movies of the past have no subtlety whatsoever. Is The Silence of the Lambs subtle? No more than a sledgehammer is. Does it make it any less effective? No.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 13, 3:02pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 13, 3:20pm

Post #58 of 84 (732 views)
Shortcut
well... [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ and Co. write emotional moments that feel straight out of the Tommy Wiseau guide to screenwriting.


squire
Half-elven


Jan 13, 3:29pm

Post #59 of 84 (729 views)
Shortcut
Can we be more specific than "PJ's films" or "Western cinema"? [In reply to] Can't Post

Not all his movies are the same, and God knows not all the western world's movies are the same, in how they approach the infinite possibilities of conveying human emotion on the screen.

Nor should they be. Blockbusters, tentpoles, epics, romantic comedies, complex thrillers, artistic explorations of the medium, period pieces, genre romances, experimental films, domestic triangles, adolescent romps, etc. are some of the varieties of films out there, about which it's kind of silly to say "they're all melodramatic" or "none of them show enough open emotion" or "only subtlety truly works".

In my opinion, the emotional quotient in Tolkien's works is always present, but always tightly restrained in the stereotypical British manner. Of course, the presence of repressed or barely expressed strong and powerful emotions in a character or a narrative can itself be a vehicle for the reader or viewer to provide their own emotional responses in tune with what they realize is hidden in plain view.

Not that Jackson approached Tolkien that way in LotR at every point. But he (or his actors) did so quite often, in ways that I found satisfyingly in tune with the book. Of course if you, as you say, like your emotion strong, I imagine you found other parts of the films more rewarding, which I may have thought were too over the top to be true to Tolkien's style.

As far as I can tell, artists who believe in themselves never are afraid nor apologetic for how they approach the portrayal of emotions in their works, whether strongly or subtly or in any other way. That's the nature of being an artist, I think. But that doesn't mean we have to like their art, or return to it after getting a sense for where they're coming from. There's plenty of others to go to for what we personally are looking for.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 13, 4:32pm

Post #60 of 84 (717 views)
Shortcut
In talking about western cinema [In reply to] Can't Post

with regards to what some people want of it. i.e. that they want every film to be the most subtle version of itself that it can be. I just don't see the value of it: at the end of the day, if its effective its effective.


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 13, 5:17pm

Post #61 of 84 (718 views)
Shortcut
That was my problem with the Star Wars prequels [In reply to] Can't Post

From Phantom Menace to Revenge of the Sith, none of the characters seemed to have authentic emotions. It was either over-the-top romantic emotions or almost robotic speech (by humans, not droids). I guess they were going for "subtlety," but it didn't work. All the clones rebelled, everywhere, and people seemed to shrug. I realized how repressed everyone was when Obi Wan finally let loose at Annakin in their fight on the lava planet, saying something like "You were the chosen one! How could this happen?" He was genuinely upset about something--finally! Kids being slaughtered in the Jedi Temple? *shrug*

In the LOTR movies, there was lots of ebullient emotion, with just a couple examples being how Frodo is greeted by the other hobbits in his recuperation beds in Rivendell and Minas Tirith--Merry & Pippin jumping in bed with him, slapping each other on the back, etc--it worked. You felt like you were celebrating with them. (And subtlety worked there where Frodo & Sam just exchanged glances after having been to hell and back--you knew it wasn't going to fit into words, and a mutual glance did as much to bury the past as illuminate the bond between them.)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 13, 5:19pm

Post #62 of 84 (713 views)
Shortcut
yeah... [In reply to] Can't Post

but if it's so over-the-top that people are laughing and/or cringing during moments that are intended to be emotionally moving in a way that is not meant to be humorous, I would hardly call that effective.


squire
Half-elven


Jan 13, 5:50pm

Post #63 of 84 (710 views)
Shortcut
Well, clearly some people are speaking for themselves. [In reply to] Can't Post

As Richard Feynman is supposed to have said, "what do you care what other people think?"

I would be curious to read several examples of criticism by some people that every film must be as subtle as it can be. Perhaps in their essays they allow for differences, or explain which types of films they're talking about, or otherwise keep themselves from looking like complete fools when their views are quickly summarized in a discussion about film criticism like this one.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 13, 8:20pm

Post #64 of 84 (668 views)
Shortcut
My thoughts exactly [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I realized how repressed everyone was when Obi Wan finally let loose at Annakin in their fight on the lava planet, saying something like "You were the chosen one! How could this happen?" He was genuinely upset about something--finally!


Exactly.


In Reply To
In the LOTR movies, there was lots of ebullient emotion, with just a couple examples being how Frodo is greeted by the other hobbits in his recuperation beds in Rivendell and Minas Tirith--Merry & Pippin jumping in bed with him, slapping each other on the back, etc--it worked. You felt like you were celebrating with them. (And subtlety worked there where Frodo & Sam just exchanged glances after having been to hell and back--you knew it wasn't going to fit into words, and a mutual glance did as much to bury the past as illuminate the bond between them.)


Excellent examples. Killing dialogue is a great way to make hightened emotion work. In Braveheart, the betrayal of Robert the Bruce was going to have quite histrionic dialogue. By striking through the dialogue, it doesn't come across as melodramatic.

I actually think a lot of the emotion in The Hobbit may actually be less histrionic than in The Lord of the Rings. Again, I'm thinking of two moments from The Desolation of Smaug: The Dwarves beholding the sillhuette of the mountain from across the lake, and them opening the hidden door.

Both moments are sparse in dialogue, and aren't overly hightened: the Dwarves are breaking into tears, they don't lean down to kiss the soil or anything like that. There's just this sense of awe and reverence. It gets to me every single time.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 13, 8:25pm)


Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Lorien

Jan 13, 11:23pm

Post #65 of 84 (627 views)
Shortcut
I agree with all these points [In reply to] Can't Post

The emotions are powerful, rich, and there's so often some sort of innocence about the emotions - a purity, as it were, that I find to be quite refreshing. It would be impossible to put in words, so that's all I'll say.

I love The Hobbit. Always will.


Archestratie
The Shire

Jan 14, 2:28pm

Post #66 of 84 (545 views)
Shortcut
LOL [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...if that's the case, it's best to move on from PJ.

That just WILL NOT happen. There is way too much money to be made by cashing in on the existing fanbase. For anyone to even think Amazon would move on from PJ's Middle-earth is a self-delusion. They are a business, not a museum.


Archestratie
The Shire

Jan 14, 2:30pm

Post #67 of 84 (539 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Where its refreshingly different. There's still some of that lightness in the earlier passages of The Desolation of Smaug, but for the most part the bulk of The Hobbit trilogy is tonally akin to The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings deals with a theme of corruption, but - with the exception of Gollum - it never goes quite as far as it does with Thorin, and it isn't as front-and-center, either. The closer Thorin gets to his goal, the more dour it gets: When he sails to the feet of the mountain, instead of being a triumphant moment, its quite foreboding. He looks all imperious and his theme plays not in a celebratory fashion, but a portentous one.

And, of course, after Erebor is reclaimed, its all empty and broken and dark. The characters are cornered in it by the Lakemen and Elves. That's a very sobering idea, as well.

Some of the imagery is quite bold, too. I love that the Dwarves are motivated to take down Smaug by seeing the charred remains of their kinsmen, including a toddler. When was the last time we saw that kind of imagery in a tentpole blockbuster?

Fili's death, too, is quite bold. Its effectively an execution, and the presentation is very matter-of-fact. For a moment, I thought I was watching a movie directed by Clint Eastwood.


Very insightful. An Unexpected Journey is the most strikingly light-hearted, but I think that's great because it helps contrast the other 5 movies.


Archestratie
The Shire

Jan 14, 2:34pm

Post #68 of 84 (542 views)
Shortcut
Alight, I'm with you here. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
though the violations may be distributed between other less silly moments, some of them are so over the top silly that their effects haven't fully worn off by the time we reach a moment we're supposed to take seriously. Like for example, when smoke came out of Radagast's ears...my thoughts kept returning to it and I remember thinking, "Did that really just happen?". And then there's moments like "because it was real", which (I presume) is meant to be serious, but elicited a great deal of laughter in the theater, thus blurring the line between silliness and profundity.

Yeah, I agree about Radagast. The Hobbit movies totally abused and misused that character and didn't even bother to give him a satisfying death to explain why he didn't show up in the LotR trilogy. For the most part, I can easily forgive the license PJ took with the Hobbit Trilogy, but the way he turned Radagast into a buffoon was nauseating.


Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Lorien

Jan 14, 6:34pm

Post #69 of 84 (500 views)
Shortcut
Gotta say, I always liked Radagast [In reply to] Can't Post

He felt more like a shaman and hedge-witch (or rather, hedge-wizard) than a buffoon, at least to me.

I love The Hobbit. Always will.

(This post was edited by Thor 'n' Oakenshield on Jan 14, 6:34pm)


Archestratie
The Shire

Jan 14, 6:42pm

Post #70 of 84 (497 views)
Shortcut
Maybe in the 2nd two films... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
He felt more like a shaman and hedge-witch (or rather, hedge-wizard) than a buffoon, at least to me.

That whole scene outside the troll cave was awful, though. The smoke out the ears, the bug in the mouth, the hyperventilation, the memory loss...That was very disappointing. The later scenes were more tolerable, I guess, but still. I would have preferred a more serious Radagast.


Noria
Gondor

Jan 14, 7:19pm

Post #71 of 84 (493 views)
Shortcut
This is probably true. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
...if that's the case, it's best to move on from PJ.

That just WILL NOT happen. There is way too much money to be made by cashing in on the existing fanbase. For anyone to even think Amazon would move on from PJ's Middle-earth is a self-delusion. They are a business, not a museum.


PJ's Middle-earth is Middle-earth now and for some time to come.

Anyway, for all the complaints regarding action, CGI, characterization, plot, theme etc. directed against LotR and/or The Hobbit, I recall few criticisms of the world-building - the design, the cinematography, the sound and so on.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 14, 10:55pm

Post #72 of 84 (436 views)
Shortcut
Not for me it's not [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that for most people, PJ's interpretation of Middle-earth is all that they know, but for myself and for many others who had the good fortune to have found it long before PJ came along, the movies are just movies based on something far far greater.

However I agree, the likelihood that Amazon will leave PJ behind is not very good...and for the very obvious reason that most people will be expecting more Peter-earth and they probably will not want to take the financial gamble of putting something out there that most will not recognize.


(This post was edited by 2ndBreffest on Jan 14, 10:56pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 14, 11:00pm

Post #73 of 84 (430 views)
Shortcut
Radagast is awful [In reply to] Can't Post

It's a real shame what PJ did with him...he's always been one of my favorite characters.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 14, 11:26pm

Post #74 of 84 (432 views)
Shortcut
Not greater [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I agree that for most people, PJ's interpretation of Middle-earth is all that they know, but for myself and for many others who had the good fortune to have found it long before PJ came along, the movies are just movies based on something far far greater.


Not greater - different.

They're works in two profoundly different mediums, to the point that comparing them on the level of their merits is irrelevant.

The books are books, the movies are movies. Both have their own strengths and weakenesses.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 14, 11:42pm

Post #75 of 84 (422 views)
Shortcut
well... [In reply to] Can't Post

of course it's a matter of personal taste, but if I could only have one...there's no question in my mind which I would choose.


(This post was edited by 2ndBreffest on Jan 14, 11:44pm)


Archestratie
The Shire

Jan 15, 12:46pm

Post #76 of 84 (376 views)
Shortcut
Without a doubt [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It's a real shame what PJ did with him...he's always been one of my favorite characters.

Yes, the Istari should have been presented with more regal stature and respect than a mushroom-eating hippie.


(This post was edited by Archestratie on Jan 15, 12:46pm)


Noria
Gondor

Jan 15, 10:42pm

Post #77 of 84 (346 views)
Shortcut
The books and the movies [In reply to] Can't Post

I first read LotR and The Hobbit in the late 1960's and have reread them and The Silmarillion something like 20 to 30 times since, not to mention Unfinished Tales, The Book of Lost Tales, The Children of Hurin and so on. I believe that I was well familiar with Middle-earth long before PJ came along.

And I love the movies, especially the LotR trilogy but also the three Hobbit films.

Obviously you and others dislike what PJ did with the characters and stories, but do you really object to the carefully and lovingly realized and beautiful Middle-earth that appeared on the screen? A world consciously modeled on the works of Alan Lee and John Howe? That's what I was talking about.

Yes, Amazon will have to carefully consider whether or not to leave that world behind.


MoreMorgoth
Bree

Jan 15, 11:24pm

Post #78 of 84 (340 views)
Shortcut
ditto [In reply to] Can't Post

my Tolkien Middle-earth experience is a whole lot like yours. I first read LOTR back in the 70's and have read it a dozen times and have read the other Middle-earth books many many times as well.

I was disappointed with the Rankin & Bass TV versions and the Bakshi film version. But the Jackson films were more than I ever had hoped for and I love them and treasure each viewing.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 16, 8:51am

Post #79 of 84 (290 views)
Shortcut
well... [In reply to] Can't Post

to be clear, I certainly did not object to the decision to hire on John Howe and Alan Lee, and I agree, it would be not be a bad idea for whoever does end up doing the series to do the same. I don't think they are the only ones who could do it, however, for a post-PJ Middle-earth series, Amazon will likely want to keep it consistent with what people are already familiar with, and I would much rather see them do it than someone else trying to imitate them.

But as for the scripts, based upon what I have seen from PJ's Hobbit, I think it would be best to find someone new, someone whose style more closely resembles that of Tolkien's


Archestratie
The Shire

Wed, 1:01pm

Post #80 of 84 (252 views)
Shortcut
Nice [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I first read LotR and The Hobbit in the late 1960's and have reread them and The Silmarillion something like 20 to 30 times since, not to mention Unfinished Tales, The Book of Lost Tales, The Children of Hurin and so on. I believe that I was well familiar with Middle-earth long before PJ came along.

And I love the movies, especially the LotR trilogy but also the three Hobbit films.

Obviously you and others dislike what PJ did with the characters and stories, but do you really object to the carefully and lovingly realized and beautiful Middle-earth that appeared on the screen? A world consciously modeled on the works of Alan Lee and John Howe? That's what I was talking about.

Yes, Amazon will have to carefully consider whether or not to leave that world behind.

I came along 20 years after you, but that pretty much characterizes my experience with the books and movies as well :)


Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Lorien

Wed, 4:42pm

Post #81 of 84 (231 views)
Shortcut
Mushroom-eating hedge wizard, is how I always see him [In reply to] Can't Post

And we know from the books that Radagast basically abandoned the purpose of the Istari because he fell in love with the plants and animals of Middle-earth. Respect and regal stature is more befitting of Saruman than of Radagast, or even of Gandalf. At least in my opinion, Radagast, despite having some silly jokes, evoked images of the classical fairy-tale witch or wizard living in the woods, caring for animals, a bit of a hermit and looked upon as completely crazy. And since the Hobbit, the book, is essentially a fairy-tale, I've got no problem with his light-hearted tone. His character, and parts of the Goblin-Town sequence, really capture the more "childish" tone of the book for me. While parts like the White Council, and Riddles in the Dark, bring in the darkness that was only just beginning to creep into the edges of the story at the time of the book's writing. If they had cut out the whole Azog storyline, than the darkness would have been confined to the sidelines, where it, IMO, belonged, and then everything would have been much better. But bringing Azog into Thorin and Bilbo's storyline caused a collision between the dark tone of the later writings and the light tone of the actual book, and that was where things fell apart for me.

I love The Hobbit. Always will.


Chen G.
Lorien

Wed, 4:46pm

Post #82 of 84 (229 views)
Shortcut
Yes and no [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
At least in my opinion, Radagast, despite having some silly jokes, evoked images of the classical fairy-tale witch or wizard living in the woods.


Yes. Especially the design of Rhosgobel was evocative of fairytales, which is a nice touch. Within An Unexpected Journey, the lightest of all six films, it works quite nicely.


In Reply To
While parts like the White Council, and Riddles in the Dark, bring in the darkness that was only just beginning to creep into the edges of the story at the time of the book's writing. If they had cut out the whole Azog storyline, than the darkness would have been confined to the sidelines, where it, IMO, belonged, and then everything would have been much better. But bringing Azog into Thorin and Bilbo's storyline caused a collision between the dark tone of the later writings and the light tone of the actual book, and that was where things fell apart for me.


No.

I like the gravity attached to Thorin's story. His is after all, a tragedy. But I also like the more fairytale-ish touches of An Unexpected Journey - they're a refreshing change - and I can't for the life of me see why you can't have both.

After all, the lighter stuff is almost entirely confined to An Unexpected Journey, and the transitions between the the two tones are almost never too ubrupt.

The only thing that passes for bathos (an ubrupt transition of tone) in these films is the smoke-from-the-ears joke right after the (quite scary) account of Radagast's flight from Dol Guldur, and maybe Gimli burping in Edoras in The Two Towers.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Wed, 4:56pm)


Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Lorien

Wed, 5:57pm

Post #83 of 84 (211 views)
Shortcut
Okay, well there you have a point [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess, yeah, that's true: but Thorin did have such a tragic arc in the book too, which didn't need Azog or Bolg or Gundabad Orcs to make it work. And if I remember correctly, Azog, etc, really had no effect on Thorin's arc even in the movies. So I still just don't see why they (the Orcs) were needed. I would have liked the darker parts (specifically, Dol Guldur, Orcs, Sauron) to be one half of the storyline that only comes into contact with Thorin and Bilbo's storyline at the Battle of the Five Armies. For instance, I really really love the bit where Smaug talks to Bilbo about the Ring: subtler cross-over moments between the two storylines, like that one, would have been enough for me until the conclusion, when Gandalf shows up with his dire warning and all that. I understand why the orcs were in there, but I don't think they were ultimately necessary in the first two films: or, if they had to be in the first two, I think they should have been exclusively part of the Dol Guldur storyline, rather than part of Thorin's - which took away from the menace of Smaug, IMO.

I love The Hobbit. Always will.


Chen G.
Lorien

Wed, 9:15pm

Post #84 of 84 (135 views)
Shortcut
Azog was necessary [In reply to] Can't Post

He was necessary to provide momentum to the storytelling, he was the connective tissue between the Dol Guldur subplot and the main plot (by making him a subordinate of Sauron) and he actually gives Thorin something to achieve.

Think about it: Thorin isn't the one that comes up with the idea of the Quest - Gandalf does; Thorin does slay Smaug - Bard does; he isn't the one to truly turn the tide of the Battle of the Five Armies - Beorn does. He had to have something to achieve, and slaying Azog works very well: I love their final showdown.

As for reducing the menace of Smaug - well, yeah, that's the idea. Smaug is essentially the biggest red herring in cinema history: He's only in the trilogy for less than twenty minutes, he isn't revealed proper until very late and even then he's often weaving in and out of shadows, and he dies at the beginning of the third film.

In the film, the dragon doesn't bring the dragon sickness, but the other way around: it is Thror's hoarding of a treasure that is beyond any real use which brings upon it the dragon. That's the real enemy. Well, that and Sauron (and his proxy, Azog).

And it should be said, Azog has the best, most concrete motivation of all the villains of the series: he wants revenge on the guy who humbled him and took his arm.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Wed, 9:18pm)

 
 

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.