AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Feb 8 2013, 8:21am
Views: 531
|
I don't agree that it is definitively not a classic, though I do agree with some other points.
|
|
|
Time proves a classic, not merely critical reception. Many critics have been hostile in their time to works that were later love. This film, despite all of its flaws and shortcomings, has some very beautiful moments ( including much of that prologue you disliked. . . which meshed wondefully with the very to the letter of the book, beautiful and haunting choral of Far Over Mountains Cold) and some wonder inducing moments: enough for it to garner the love of many (many non-Tolkien fans who did NOT love the Rings movies for their weight and depth loved the Hobbit), and to be deemed a classic by many. There are many other films which are considered classic which do not offer as much. I don't see that the opening clashed with The Unexpected party. Even fairy-folktales that are trimmed and altered for the consumption of children are generally a fascinating merging of the grim and the whimsical, the magnificent and the comic. There really shouldn't be anything funny about the coming of a great dragon, and there shouldn't be anything serious about juggling dishware (unless it is a family heirloom! lol). I also object to the notion of film as a mathmatical equation. Life is not and neither is film. Film is art, and it needn't put everything in a perrfect, clinical fitting in order to be a good or even great work. That can be beautiful, or it can be cold and barren. I do agree with you on several key points. In my view there is much to complain about in PJ's films, particuarly as adaptations of the source material, but also just as films. (I would agrue PJ's verion is not even suitable for the target audience of the book) "So the question then is why is not a classic film? Well it is almost exaclty split 50/50 between an adaptation of the book and stuff PJ made up. Claims that he was drawing on the appendix ect had some limited credibility before we had all seen the film, but it has vey little now we have as nothing has survived even close to intact from the appendix without huge alterations in service of the stuff PJ has made up. Those additions PJ has made, particuarly the very artificial insertion of Azog into the story to give it more impetus is pretty disasterous. " Tis ^ I agree with, almost to the letter. I really couldn't agree more. I think Balin and the intensity of the moment salvages the Azanulbizar scene (and I agree, the graphic depiction of the fate of Thror was over the line for a movie which was not only inevitably going to draw many children, but which has ample evidence that the film makers were FULLY aware of that fact and filled parts of the movie with material quite specifically catered towards 4 to 10 year olds [no one else, save the odd man-child/woman-child is that amused by snot in soup and bird sh*t in hair]), but it is a far less powerful tale than the one the appendices give, and some of the changes made to the history of Arnor and Angmar for The Council scene are superflous and aggravating. The council scene itself is visually beautiful, well acted and at times compelling, but there are flaws, and, as I have lamented, while there are moments when the engagment between Gandalf and Galadriel is wonderful in it's intimacy, there are times when she very wrongly comes across too much as his supervising director (more service, no doubt, to Phillipa Boyens' wildly untested theory that Galadriel is the single most superbadass being ever to walk in any corner of Middle-Earth anywhere ever, since Ulmo and Orome were last here). And Bolg would have been a better choice than Azog. And while I thank GOD that we got to see Gandalf display his power and magic in a properly awesome display in Goblin Town (that part was wonderful, as, to my thought, was the balance of humour and malice given in the performance of Barry Humphries), the chase did turn a bit too much towards an Indiana Jones mad reel. And, I agree, Thorin's didn't put up much of a fight, especially considering he was wielding Orcrist. . . it is even more bizzare because the sword clearly had a powerful, forcefully repellent effect when he wielded it against the crushing blow of the massive Goblin King). That said, with the exception of the fact that the five minutes of Frodo was about two minutes too long, I was mesmerized and filled with wondrous joy by the first hour of the film (and anyone here will tell you, I am not part of the Peter Jackson butt kissing department. . . I speak up whenever he does something I don't like! [I am looking at you Lindir, getting a damn cameo for doing absolutely nothing of interest while Glorfindel gets the cold shoulder again. . . and don't get me started on book scenes of Gandalf in full Wizard awesome mode that were left from the films. . . or the neglect of any commentary about the relation of The Three, The One and the passage of the Elves. . . I could go on]), and found that the majority of the rest of the film shifted for me between enjoyable and extremely enjoyable. In retrospect, I could have done without the stone giants (surprising, as I wanted them, until I saw they were actual, full on walking mountains), and I'd have liked a slightly more impressive (and book blue) visualization of the pinecone scene, but overall, I loved far more than I disliked in this film. It is certainly a classic in my esteem, though a flawed one, as many are. the first is that there is certainly a perception that it is very hard on ToRn to offer any sort of complaint of PJ's Tolkien based works without what has occured here happening: 3 pages of people shouting down the OP, calling them a troll (I was accused of this myself in the past), or making silly statements that imply thinking PJ did a less than stellar job means you dont think anyone invovled with the film did anything right or were any good. There is a good reason ToRn has a reputaion as being the home of PJ fan boys who will not tolerate any negativity about their favourite films- this thread rather indicates why that reputation persists, even if it might not be strictly true. The second point is the problems with the films themselves. I would agree that the OP post was not the most diplomatically worded OP ever, but that does not make the points or post, or opinion invalid either. In my view there is much to complain about in PJ's films, particuarly as adaptations of the source material, but also just as films. Which brings me to TH. It is in my view a very average film that could have been a timeless classic film. But somehow it is not, I think even the most vervant PJ fan here would not claim TH was the greatest film of all time, or even one of the greatest childrens films of all time. (I would agrue PJ's verion is not even suitable for the target audience of the book) So the question then is why is not a classic film? Well it is almost exaclty split 50/50 between an adaptation of the book and stuff PJ made up. Claims that he was drawing on the appendix ect had some limited credibility before we had all seen the film, but it has vey little now we have as nothing has survived even close to intact from the appendix without huge alterations in service of the stuff PJ has made up. Those additions PJ has made, particuarly the very artificial (in practise, feel and look) insertion of Azog into the story to give it more impetus is pretty disasterous. During these parts PJ tries to recreate a tone suited to his LotR's film, but he has to sit it alongside whimsical moment like the Crack the Plates song. And it does not work well at all I would say, as the two tones clash from the off. And that is leaving aside the way Azog just pops up whenever the script needs him without otherwise any rymne nor reason, nor the subpar pulp fantasy book dialogue. I also think the opening prolgue was a mistake- I do think having old Bilbo narrate was a good idea, this is in keeping with the narrators voice present throughout the book and the conceit Tolkien got it all from the Redbook- but all the Erebor and Dale stuff, whilst pretty and bombastic is completely the wrong mood to begin TH with, Bilbo is an unsuitable narrator for that information, and its irrelevant because all the information divulged in it comes out in the telling of the story later anyway. Its main purpose seems to be to have a big opening to the film wih some action and lots of effects. That seems to fit in with PJ's view, expressed throughout his LotR's work that his audience is largely a bit dim and will stop watching if something effects laden and blatantly exciting doesnt happen right away. In fact its this thinking (beyond needing filler to stretch it to a trilogy) which seems to be behind the inclusion of Azog and much of the other more ridiculous unnecessary action scenes- dwarf/troll fight-bunny sled/warg chase/ -stone giants fairground ride, everything in the Goblin Town escape- Thorin proving he cant fight worth tuppence to Azog/ Bilbo killing a warg and orc, proving he is a much better fighter than Thorin, who is truelly pathetic.. For me the obvious way to deal with the difference in tone between TH and LotR's was to have Bilbo narrate the tale to a young Frodo and Sam. This is in keeping with the book as we know Sam has been listening to Bilbo's tales all his life. And more importantly it allows for the difference in tone as it can be explaind as Bilbo telling the tale suitably for a child audience. It would also have been much shorter. And the opening sequence is far to long, as especially as nothing of any relevance beyond 'oh look its Frodo!- doesnt he look older?' happens in most of it. And as to altering the final line for no good, or even apparent reason, of the opening famous, iconic paragraph I am at a lost for any reasonable explanation. The only thing I can think of is that PJ deliberetly wanted to stick two fingers up to people like me who think his handling of Tolkien's dialogue and language throughout the adaptations has been nothing short of disgraceful. Now these are just a few initial points, I could of course go on to give reasons and explainations for many more things about the film I thought were poorly handled or detrimental to Tolkiens original tales. (And people on here always complain those who are negative dont give thought out reasons, so I have offered some). The point I suppose is that there should be room on any forum for a wide variety of view to be able to be expresed and debated without it becoming accussations of trolling and other unpleasantness right from the off. "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."
|