The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?



Joe B.
The Shire

Mar 6 2013, 7:19am


Views: 2565
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?

I suspect that many of you will be offended by the title of this thread, but I'm not here to (re-)litigate the merits of the movie; rather, I'm curious, in light of the fact that the critical consensus (see RT scores) seems to be that AUJ was not as good a film as any of the Rings films, whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?

(This post was edited by Joe B. on Mar 6 2013, 7:19am)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Mar 6 2013, 7:38am


Views: 1644
Affirmative on the first part.

In any case, no, he has not - and, no, he should not.

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Mar 6 2013, 7:41am)


Silmaril
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 8:07am


Views: 1556
why should he?

he made the film he wanted to see, which was the reason to do it again. and it's successful.


macfalk
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 8:20am


Views: 1472
$1,001,424,668 //

 



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:50am


Views: 1503
The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings.

It has neither the depth nor the scope, and therefore not the potential for being as much of a ground-breaker. Jackson has made the $1B the studio hoped for, and a lot of people have enjoyed the movie. I think he's very proud of what he's accomplished.








DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 6 2013, 9:04am


Views: 1457
That's assuming that the production team believe AUJ was a failure ...

Which, after making $1 billion, I don't think they will. Who cares about inflation and yada yada yada. Let's wait until all 3 films are out before calling The Hobbit a failure.

Smile


Angharad73
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 10:46am


Views: 1395
I don't see why he should

There will always be criticism and plenty of people who disagree with his choices, no matter what he does. PJ made the movie he wanted to make, and he's right in doing so. Why should he have regrets about it?

And the movie *did* make $ 1 billion, there is no denying that. So why would anyone see it as a failure, really?


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 11:34am


Views: 1366
Who gives a toss

what the self-opinionated American critic-idiots say? They were wrong, and audiences worldwide have made up their own minds.

I trust PJ will take no notice of those critics and proceed as he wants to when it comes to the next two films. (I think he will he seems to be his own man.)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 11:56am


Views: 1365
How much did Twilight make? //

 


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 12:03pm


Views: 1382
And wasn't Twilight the movie fans wanted to see?

 


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 12:19pm


Views: 1339
Was it just American critics?


In Reply To
Who gives a toss what the self-opinionated American critic-idiots say? They were wrong, and audiences worldwide have made up their own minds.

Just curious. I seem to remember at least a couple negative reviews coming out of the UK.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 12:53pm


Views: 1338
Judging by sales of things like "Twilight in Forks"

Anything with the word Twilight on it is what the fans want to see, that doesn't make them good films... If the book is popular enough, then sales figures become a meaningless indicator of how good the movie is. People were going to see The Hobbit regardless of how good critics said it is, just because they liked LotR or the books.

The only accurate indicator we have right now is what reviews are saying and almost all of them compare it to LotR saying that it's not as good... If you can't accept that then you're in denial.

For the record, I loved The Hobbit, I'm just not blind to what other people are saying


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 6 2013, 1:03pm


Views: 1317
A good indicator would be how many seats were actually sold

So we can get an idea of how many people actually saw the film. I have no idea whether this information is available?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Mar 6 2013, 1:05pm


Views: 1355
While I do consider 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' to be a flawed film...

I expect that some (if not many) of the criticisms aimed toward it will evaporate when the film is seen in the context of the entire trilogy. A similar phenomenon happened with The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 1:17pm


Views: 1298
I have wondered this myself a few times

And openly asked if anyone knows where this info is on the net. I am not entirely sure it is public knowledge. However one could estimate the number of people to have viewed the film by going off the BO takings and dividing it by average ticket price. Things get complicated when you have to factor in 3D and then IMAX and then different currencies etc. I think it could be done for say US or UK where we know the percentage of people watching in 3D and IMAX and the total BO takings.

Basically its lots of people but not as many as when people went to see the LOTR movies.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 1:19pm


Views: 1290
That only indicates how many people saw it. Not how many liked it.

Like I said, people were going to watch The Hobbit regardless of how good it is or how good people say it is. The franchise is just too popular for ticket sales to indicate anything.

Sales for the Extended DVD, however, will indicate how many people want to see more of the film. These people must have liked the movie.


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Mar 6 2013, 1:20pm)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 1:26pm


Views: 1270
I agree...

I think a lot of the qualms people have with AUJ stems from the fact that they don't know where the story is going and therefore don't see the relevance in certain scenes. Once the story is complete these scenes will make more sense.

One does wonder, though, whether it should be necessary to watch the sequel in order to appreciate a film.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Mar 6 2013, 1:46pm


Views: 1259
When the film is only part of the story?


In Reply To
I think a lot of the qualms people have with AUJ stems from the fact that they don't know where the story is going and therefore don't see the relevance in certain scenes. Once the story is complete these scenes will make more sense.

One does wonder, though, whether it should be necessary to watch the sequel in order to appreciate a film.



Well, in this case, the films are all part of a single, serialized story rather than three separate stories about the same character. We don't get a complete tale in any one of the three; the added sub-plots just add to the complexity of the whole (although I'm not sure that the 'Azog' story will pay off by adding any depth).

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 1:49pm


Views: 1279
So because

a few jaded critics who would not have liked AUJ no matter how it had turned out gave it negative reviews, you think PJ should apologize?
No thanks.


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Mar 6 2013, 1:59pm


Views: 1244
If Jackson is like other artists -


Quote
whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?


- he'll always have new ideas about a project, even after it is completed.

He had to make a film that served a number of different purposes and catered to very different audiences. The only other thing he could have done was make multiple versions of AUJ to please all the different kinds of viewers likely to watch it. I'll admit I'm not too thrilled about some of his decisions, but I think he gets most of it right - or better than I would have.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 2:00pm


Views: 1242
However,

The LOTR films were shown in cinemas FAR longer than the Hobbit has been. I don't know for sure, but cinema attendances may also have declined in general since LOTR appeared in cinemas. Possibly some people have those huge screens and do most of their film watching at home? I think it is impossible to make comparisons with the situation then and now.


In Reply To
And openly asked if anyone knows where this info is on the net. I am not entirely sure it is public knowledge. However one could estimate the number of people to have viewed the film by going off the BO takings and dividing it by average ticket price. Things get complicated when you have to factor in 3D and then IMAX and then different currencies etc. I think it could be done for say US or UK where we know the percentage of people watching in 3D and IMAX and the total BO takings.

Basically its lots of people but not as many as when people went to see the LOTR movies.



imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:01pm


Views: 1254
I don't think PJ should apologize

but do we have any proof critics were going to say its not that good no matter what they watched?


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:04pm


Views: 1244
OK compared to Skyfall then

They are both at the same year and ticket prices should be the same when its 2d vs 2d etc. I also think it was in the cinema for the same length of time or less.

The comparison with lotr was done as its previous M-e films. Comparisons could be done but it would be hard to know for sure how accurate they are. One way could be to look at how much LOTR made in the same amount of weeks as TH and work it out that way - like i said though it would be really hard to work out!


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 2:09pm


Views: 1221
The same applies to the LOTR films

These are also part of a single story. There are actually fewer subplots in the Hobbit than there were in TTT and ROTK I found the switching from scene to scene extremely tiresome, especially in ROTK, where the Frodo scenes in particular really dragged on.

For me, the Hobbit felt complete enough.

I really like the sub-plots in the Hobbit, and the fact that there are mysteries still to be revealed, for instance about the goings on at Dul Gurdur and Angmar's grave, and Gandalf's absences. I'm glad we are not ending up with a cartoon-like children's story.

At the end of the day, whatever PJ did, people would still complain endlessly they did in the case of the LOTR films, too. I thought he did brilliantly.

Well, in this case, the films are all part of a single, serialized story rather than three separate stories about the same character. We don't get a complete tale in any one of the three; the added sub-plots just add to the complexity of the whole (although I'm not sure that the 'Azog' story will pay off by adding any depth).



imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:14pm


Views: 1234
I agree

From reading some reviews of the film - some where critical of Tolkien's original work, others of HFR, others were about how characters just popped up then were left hanging with no resolution or further development - i think those problems will disappear when the three films can be watched together to show the whole story.

I didn't like Radagast in the film but i am interested to see where his story goes in the next two films.


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 2:16pm


Views: 799
Of course

there isn't proof, per say...but it is pretty obvious how critics were going to react to this film long before it came out:

48fps - new format? please, nobody wants that (at first).

3 Films - no matter how exciting, action packed, well paced, or what the story arc is for the film(s) critics will complain that one book should not be 3 films, because they cannot get that idea out of their heads once it is put there.

A follow up to one of the most successful film franchises in history (only this time the story isn't as epic)- enough said.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 2:20pm


Views: 794
Artists don't apologize

Movie making is an art. This is PJ's vision. He doesn't need to acknowledge anything. You either enjoy his vision or you don't. Over a billion dollars made the movie a success. I would say the vast majority enjoyed it and saw it multiple times. It is what it is. I will be looking forward to the next two very much so.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/12


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:36pm


Views: 784
Maybe

I am not sure so many people were out to 'get' PJ or put him down a peg or two. It's not like his other films have been critically massive success stories so its not the first time this has happened.

remember overall people still gave favourable reviews 65% RT for example.

Some people genuinely don't like HFR - the ones who don't seem to like it in general according to PJ are older people - maybe it is harder for them to adjust. If that is the case then its going to be the same for film critics.

I do think there is some of what you are saying from the reviews but i don't believe all or even most are like that - i think quite a few just didn't think it was that great a film.


Bumblingidiot
Rohan

Mar 6 2013, 2:36pm


Views: 780
This is only the (rather long) interval, and time to get three hundred and sixty five ice creams..

I don't think the Hobbit (book) is as great as The Lord of the Rings, but it is perfect for what it is, and it is a perfect precursor to reading LOTR.

I think the film fulfils the same function, and does so successfully. When I watch the whole lot in order, starting with AUJ, (assuming the rest of The Hobbit is as good), it will seem like a gigantic film that starts well and builds into something spectacular. I think, on current form, at least, that the whole series will be very well balanced.

So, no: no apology necessary - at least until we get to Tauriel in part two.


dave_lf
Gondor

Mar 6 2013, 2:40pm


Views: 794
Failure

If The Hobbit was a failure, then I need to stop trying so hard to succeed!


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 2:58pm


Views: 772
Well, I guess the point I am ultimately trying to make

is that IMO film critiquing as a profession is sketchy at best. It all comes down to each person's experience and someone that does it professionally has the tendency to be incredibly jaded...and their opinion, if you really think about it, doesn't mean that much.
I work pretty closely with two of the biggest film critics in the US, and while I do respect their opinions, it is kind of silly that so many people put so much stock into them.
Now, having said that, since film critics are just human beings I expect them to fall prey to the same media traps etc as anyone else, and therefore when you add up all of the hurdles, The Hobbit was always bound for critical failure.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 3:02pm


Views: 758
It completely comes down to personal likes/dislikes

Tarantino and Burton get hugely positive reviews. I just don't share or enjoy their vision in their films. It doesn't mean their films are failures by any stretch of the imagination as they are very popular and in that respect successful, it just means that I don't care for their style. That's fine. But I don't label them a failure.

This is the reason I don't read reviews of movies. Good or bad, they are the authors own opinion and I would rather experience the film for myself. I really don't care one way or the other about someone's opinion.

I feel the same way about politics. Quit telling me what to think. I will read for myself and decide thank you very much.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 3:05pm


Views: 750
Yeah i agree with all that

There are a few film critics who my views on films seems to match well but even then if they say a film is bad but i think it looks good i will still go and watch it.

i think it depends on how much time someone has to check out films/trailers etc. Currently i don't have a family and i imagine if i did the amount of time i would be able to devote to checking out films would be much reduced and as such i might rely on reviews to guide me through the plethora of films being released.

I do think like you say most film critics are jaded and sometimes look at films from different points of view as to how it should be looked at e.g. simple action movie is just meant to entertain not be thought provoking and life changing but critics seem to review films using a template almost - well most seem to! lol.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:18pm


Views: 757
he wont publicly show any signs of contrition

but privately he is probably feeling a bit battered and bruised by the whole mess. It started early on with all the troubles before filming, and then all the hoohaa over 48fps which didnt get a good reception from his peers, now no Oscars and general scoffing from the journalists and those famous 'bloggers'. I bet he is thoroughly sick of the mention of the Hobbit.


painjoiker
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 3:23pm


Views: 730
You must remember that,

The Hobbit films, and in some degree The Lord of the Rings films, are basically ONE film in three parts...
So it's not just three films that is connected, but basically one film cut in three parts, so in that sense one have to see the whole trilogy before judging the first film.

Especially with The Hobbit, I kind of feel that it is meant to be one film in three parts, as it is based on one book and I kind of like that they are connected in such a way that makes it hard to judge them separately!

Vocalist in the progressive metal band Renamed.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:25pm


Views: 755
I very much doubt

you would be calling the critics jaded if they had enjoyed The Hobbit.


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:28pm


Views: 726
I can see how

you would think that,
but nonetheless it is kind of offensive to say.
My opinion on critics does not change if our opinions happen to align on a specific film.
To be honest I would be very surprised if 'critics' really like either of the next two installments...but if they do my opinion will not change.
Anyway you obviously missed the entire point of what I was saying. And I very much doubt that you would have made the above statement if you had enjoyed The Hobbit.


(This post was edited by Lindele on Mar 6 2013, 3:36pm)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:55pm


Views: 733
I think you were rather

derogatory towards critics, and I have noticed a general negativity on this forum towards anyone who criticizes the film. You critisize them because they critisize your favourite film. But if you work with them I doubt you really understand that they are not 'jaded' hacks like you affirm, (which is ridiculous) but professionals in their field. You make them sound bad to denegrate their worth. People read critics because they know their stuff and are generally knowledgable and do not have axes to grind unless someone gets their back up. They are doing a job, and its strange that the majority think the same things about AUJ, or do you think its a conspiracy.


Old Toby
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 3:55pm


Views: 759
If a director, not just PJ but any director, lets critics dictate


In Reply To
I suspect that many of you will be offended by the title of this thread, but I'm not here to (re-)litigate the merits of the movie; rather, I'm curious, in light of the fact that the critical consensus (see RT scores) seems to be that AUJ was not as good a film as any of the Rings films, whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?


what they do with/to their art, they aren't worth their salt, so to speak. Sure, it would have been nice to have critical acclaim, but to let negative reviews sway what they think of their own choices, after the fact, would tell me that they didn't have faith in their own choices to begin with. As PJ has said, he can't make movies, nor should he, for other people be they critics or fans or whatever. He can only make them for himself, and he has made the movie that he wanted to see. Some may call this attitude self-indulgent. I don't think so at all. It would be how I would imagine every artist, in whatever creative medium they work in, would view their art and its creation.

This isn't to say they may not have some regrets in hindsight of some things they may have done differently, but I think that would not be dictated by public opinion but rather their own impressions of their own finished product.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 3:57pm


Views: 743
Ricky Gervais

Ricky Gervais said it the best on Twitter.

The best way to avoid criticism is never do anything ever. Or, do what you love, have a great life & let others spend their time criticising

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 3:58pm


Views: 729
I am not in denial about anything...

... but maybe I did not make my point clear enough. I just wonder whether a movie is "good" when critics say so, or when people (like for Twilight) go in several movies of a series because they seem to be pleased with the outcome.

Of course, I personally have the feeling that Twilight is a bad movie based on almost worse books. But changing it to make it more critic-appealing with the result of losing fans over the course of the series... is it actually a better movie then? Maybe a better piece of art...


But, of course, this goes into deeply controversial and almost philosophical areas. I agree that one cannot just dismiss the opinions of critics... and whoever here does so should immediately stop telling everybody how well received and praised LotR was. And although loving the Hobbit, I would have rated it lower than LotR as well.


All in all, I just wanted to support the notion that 1 billion dollars (plus overall positive audience reactions, plus critics that did not trash the movie) are a factor you can hold against people who might feel PJ should justify himself in any way, at least as longs as audience numbers do not drop significantly for DoS. I think he has not really a reason to do so (and I am sure we will hear comments to some critic points on the EE commentary).


(This post was edited by Arannir on Mar 6 2013, 4:04pm)


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 4:05pm


Views: 703
I was not

attacking critics as people, I was attacking the profession. I do not believe that anyone's opinion of a film should be taken so seriously.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, all I am saying is that if someone does it as a profession, they will have seen so many films in such un-glorified circumstances that their opinion becomes jaded, I do not think that is an opinion.
I have agreed with these same critics on many occasions. But yes, I do have an issue with someone saying that The Hobbit was a failure because a lot of critics didn't like it when generally speaking I do not agree with what they do.
You used the word 'hack' and made it sound like i think these people are frauds. I simply do not think that their opinions on a film should dictate it's success.


stoutfiles
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 4:27pm


Views: 713
The Hobbit wasn't a "failure"

It just wasn't the film it was hyped up to be, and that's ok. LOTR is currently on such a high pedestal that The Hobbit would have had to been the best film of all time to meet people's expectations. I have my problems with the film, but even with removing these elements you'd still be left with the Hobbit, a story that is undoubtebly weaker than LOTR.

Jackson doesn't need to apologize; he knew this was coming. There's a reason he didn't want to direct this film. He has to have known this film would not surpass LOTR and he would get criticized for it. The Hobbit's main goal though was to make money, and it did just that.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 4:33pm


Views: 701
It is actually a perspective. And I think Peter DID get up their backs

with his insistence on HFR, the Three Film decision, and a lingering feeling on the part of some that his retaking the helm was a little convienient, rather than a last minute act to save the project. Hell, he irritated me with some of the changes I heard about before seeing the film, and I was prepared to dislike it far more than I actually did.

I think he would have gotten MUCH better reviews if he had just dropped the HFR for the critic screenings. Many of the reviewers made it plain that the format was a hurdle for them getting into the movie. Some who have gone back and seen it in other presentations have said they enjoyed it much better, and were able to appreciate the characters and scenes more. Yet most critics did not bother with a second viewing with a normal frame rate.

Aside from that, you will note that, with a few extreme exceptions, most of the positive and negative reviews were similar in all but tone and emphasis. The negative reviews admitted there were good things about the movie, and the positive reviewers admitted there were flaws. It is just that the negative reviewers harped on the negative, and above all on what the film wasn't. It wasn't LOTR. The point some of them seem to miss is that it should not have been and never was supposed to be. It is almost certain that the attitude a lot of critics had going in affected their overall take on the movie.

There were things I did NOT like about the movie, and I have often and anon stated them. But the notion that it was a junk film, or even that it wasn't a good film requires a lot of bias and an excessively high bar of comparison, to my thought.

In Reply To
derogatory towards critics, and I have noticed a general negativity on this forum towards anyone who criticizes the film. You critisize them because they critisize your favourite film. But if you work with them I doubt you really understand that they are not 'jaded' hacks like you affirm, (which is ridiculous) but professionals in their field. You make them sound bad to denegrate their worth. People read critics because they know their stuff and are generally knowledgable and do not have axes to grind unless someone gets their back up. They are doing a job, and its strange that the majority think the same things about AUJ, or do you think its a conspiracy.


"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."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 4:51pm


Views: 698
that would be true

of artists in general who normally show their own personal work of art, but this is different because Tolkien is the artist that PJ is using as a basis for the film so he has a duty to not screw it up, or defile it or twist it into something hybrid.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 4:56pm


Views: 702
Twilight is a niche movie

its made for tweenage girls, and very successful for that audience, it shouldnt be looked as a film for the general public because anyone over the age of 20 is going to realize its dross.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 4:59pm


Views: 696
This.


In Reply To
Jackson doesn't need to apologize; he knew this was coming.

I have a feeling Jackson was completely prepared for the reception AUJ recieved. I'm sure he was well aware of any potential backlash, and the comparisons it would invite to the LotR films, especially Fellowship. Add to that the "fact" that, i'm sure most of us would agree, The Hobbit was always going to be a much more difficult adaptation than LotR, especially when they were (rightfully so, imo) attempting to bring it's story and tone in line with the previous trilogy. It's just not a story that easily lends itself to the modern mainstream film treatment. And even though i have a few fairly major problems with it (mainly due, i suspect, to the "last minute" switch to 3 films), i think, overall, they pulled this difficult task off remarkably well.

I'm sure PJ & Co. were hoping for the best but expecting the worst when AUJ came out. With the critics, they definitely got the worst.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 5:03pm


Views: 706
That is your opinion

Just like the critics, you have an opinion. Your opinion is your own. I respect that. But whether or not you agree that he's an artist or not, these are the performing arts. Your saying that it isn't doesn't make it so. This is why it's called the the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science. It's all art. You may or may not disagree with it. But it's art.

Again I will say, there are many that like Tarantino and Burton. I don't care for them. They are artists in their industry nonetheless. I just don't care for their work. Both things can be true.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 5:12pm


Views: 669
Nope. ;-)

Which of Tolkien's visions is PJ duty-bound to present - the one of a poster like stoutfiles, for whom book Thorin is a despicable villain figure? Or the one of a poster like imin, who liked Thorin in the book? (Definitely not mine, I would not go see three movies about my pre-Jackson Thorin, he was a nonentity).

Clearly, the one he should present is the one that lives in his head, and if getting that one onto the screen for us in the most effective way "twists" or "hybridizes" the original, that's life. And moviemaking.

One person's "inexcusable" alteration is another's clever way to present the story. I think Azog is a good example. Yes, he's dead in the book, and I can see why some book fans would have a problem with that. But the change in the movieverse justifies his inclusion, and that of the battle of Azanulbizar/Thorin's acquisition of his name in scenes of the film, because it makes Azog relevant to a main character of the film, in the film's "real time".


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 5:15pm


Views: 681
I don't think he needs to nor should he

Just because some fans didn't care for it or some critics didn't like it. That's zero reason for him to come out and apologize to anyone for the movie. As someone who loved the film I would be disappointed if he came out and aplogized.



Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 5:21pm


Views: 745
Exactly

Well put. One person's horrible reaction is another person's dream. this is why it's the arts. I can accept that some don't like the movie. I think that's fine. It's all about whether you like something or not. This film is not Tolkien's vision. It's Jacksons. he bought the rights and makes the film according to his vision. People can like it or not, but it's not their vision it's his.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 5:26pm


Views: 755
That's why

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. lol You're going to get a mixed bag of results I think with any movie and especially a movie about books many of us love so very much.

I love The Hobbit (both book and movie). Book Thorin has far more moments where he is a jerk far more often than he isn't. Now, as Balin says in the movie he has all the right in the world to be that way. It helps to be honest make him a sad figure and one you feel bad for because of what has happened to him, his race, and his family. Movie Thorin is a more likeable character from the start. He still comes across as a Jerk but I think he comes across a bit sadder and more likeable. The ending with Bilbo Ioved that scene to be honest as it helps show Thorin has a good heart not hardned by life. So Jackson going that route I think in the end was the better route despite the misgivings of some.

As far as Azog. I think he looks cool and all that. I would have preffered he die at the battle with Bolg being the main bad guy (they should have shown the Balrog) but I will roll with it and not let that ruin things for me. I feel bad that some really didn't like this film that it didn't meet expectations just because you feel that way doesnt mean that your way is fact. That's something both sides of the arguement should remember.



Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 5:28pm


Views: 736
This is the deal

There are parts of the movie and Jackson's vision I didn't much care for: The slapstick humor is an example of that. I also didn't care for the CGI Azog (The character I liked, I just thought the CG wasn't that great). Nonetheless I can appreciate his overall story and vision and I think it worked for me. Again, it's my experience. Others experiences are different and I respect those.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


bborchar
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 5:29pm


Views: 769
Oh FGS, who cares?

He didn't commit a crime, he made a movie. If you didn't like it, so be it. Many directors have butchered source material far worse and didn't get nearly as skewered. If this hadn't been the movie he wanted to make, he wouldn't have made it. He's not going to feel bad about it, nor should he. Some people just need to let it go.


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 5:35pm


Views: 730
I can deal with that

I'm with ya. There are things in all four films so far that I don't like. I don't mind some of the humor but sometimes he goes a bit far belching, close up drinking, snot in the soup, bird poop. Some of that is ok all of it is too much and its the same way in The Lord of the Rings. I loved the way Azog looked (can't wait to get a statue from Weta). I can understand and roll with those not liking him. I'm with ya. I love reading others experiences but the most important one is my own.



macfalk
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 5:37pm


Views: 727
Less than The Hobbit. Far less. //

 



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 5:41pm


Views: 780
If PJ pandered to critics

we would have a lot more "girl power" in the way of sexualized scenes, completely altered female roles; some sort of "social agenda" (take your pick as to the flavor of the day) and a tightly compacted story eliminating the majority of charactar development which we have seen. My basis for this? Read the other proposed treatments over the years. Read about the one film LOTR, with Sean Connery as Gandalf, openly stating that (as far as the material) he "didn't get it". Cut to out present day state, where we are BLESSED I repeat BLESSED with a Gandalf who had a pocket sewn into his robes to carry the works with him. (Wiping a tear here. We love you, Sir Ian, we really do.)

As someone in love with ME for over twenty years, I shudder deeply friends, at what could have been.

I have always rather shaken my head at the CT stance that Sir PJ has "eviscerated" the works. Its easy to say, I think, from a distant ivory and academic tower. We must be realistic and acknowledge that MONEY and profit is why we have an entertainment industry. Indeed art for arts sake is an emotional goal, but to get what we as fans want, we must have a financially successful franchise. You don't get WETA class work, a talented cast, a heavenly soundtrack, without the bankroll or the clout. So I think Sir PJ and Co. has a sharp knife edge to dance on: ensuring as much of the integrity of the source material, even if in spirit, while producing a work that appeals to an audience of people other than TORn's membership. And for those who want more literalism, I must repeat what I have said before: its a different medium. No one goes to a theater to watch blocks of text scroll by, and Howe and Lee don't draw paragraphs, they draw interpretations.

I listen to critics for as long as I can. Which isn't long. As a long-time fantasy and sci-fi fan I have learned that the age-old bias against the genres remains. I have to chuckle though because the critics who now left-handedly use LOTR as a club to denigrate AUJ were the very ones mercilessly bashing FOTR and TTT when they came out. So as far as this fan goes they can take that compliment and...well hit the road, to stay G-rated. The throat-lock of an Oscar sweep for ROTK has changed their position a bit, but not much, as I think we see. How many reviewers got huge details wrong? How many still walk in with the low opinion of fantasy? One super example was one review discussing the "troll-laden" AUJ...laden? LADEN? One scene? Makes you wonder how long that one stayed for, or how much time they spent texting during the film.

So, apologize? No, unequvocally no.

I agree, Ainur Olorin, about the push for HFR. But I think it was done in good faith. The fact that it seems to be a polarizing sort of force based on individual perception remains a dividing issue. I posted about the HFR vs 3D vs 2D success a few days ago; most of the info seems privilieged and we will have to see how the tech goes forward. So giving critics 2D for DOS and TABA may be a better plan, this I grant you. More focus on the film itself will serve us.

But if Sir PJ came out and said - I never apologized for.... I would interrupt and say, NO....and you will never have to.


(This post was edited by Brethil on Mar 6 2013, 5:44pm)


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 5:59pm


Views: 738
Wow

no words...you are good at this
Well done.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 6:05pm


Views: 729
erm you are putting words into my mouth

"these are the performing arts. Your saying that it isn't doesn't make it so"

I never said PJ was not an artist. I said he is not the artist who wrote the books. He did not write the books Tolkien did, therefore he is using someone elses work of art to promote his own, therefore he has a duty of care. He cant just alter the original because it suits him without people complaining. You dont take the Mona Lisa and paint a moustache on because you think she needs 'modernizing'.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 6:06pm


Views: 731
That was awesome Brethil

Exactly 100% spot on.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 6:12pm


Views: 712
Yes however

It is his vision. Not yours, not mine, nor anyone else's. It's his. He gets to decide what the vision is as he has the rights to the material. You may or may not like it, but in the end it's his vision. That's the way adaptation works. Your feeling that he has somehow violated Tolkien or committed some heinous sin against the source material is not my view. I respect your view, but it is not mine nor that of many others.

So we will agree to disagree on this. I for one enjoyed it, with the things I disagreed with, and will look forward to the other two.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 6:23pm


Views: 706
Thanks Lindele

It's close to my heart.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 6:26pm


Views: 708
Very true Ham Sammy

and loving the source material but agreeing to disagree is what keeps this community together. I am with you though, and cannot WAIT (though I will in the pursuit of quality) for the next two!

Thank you for the compliment. Afraid I came off a bit hot there but, as I posted to Lindele it's a very present topic for me.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 6:36pm


Views: 681
I didn't feel it was hot at all

It's because we all love the source material. All of us. The opposite of Love is not Hate. The opposite of love is indifference. In order to hate something, you have to care on some level. If you don't care at all, you are passionless. All of us here post and discuss because we have a passion and love for the material.

So I say all opinions are good. No one is threatening anyone and everyone is expressing their opinion. All hail to our Founding Fathers at least for me as an American. Open, honest and opinionated discourse is important and what fuels the crucible of knowledge.

My favorite founding father, James Madison said " Knowledge will forever govern Ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives.

Well said Mr. Madison.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 6:46pm


Views: 704
*girl power*?

so what is Tauriel? other than pandering. and a completely altered female role. I bet she falls in love with Kili too.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 7:05pm


Views: 684
Well...

she's an addition, it's not alteration of a canon character, so I don't mind her all that much. (Haha, the height issues alone make the romance idea a bit comic....)Wink But seriously I don't think it's a franchise-breaker.

But it's back to the knife edge again, balancing wider appeal vs purism. We have to pay perhaps in small ways to get to the larger prize. Or all we would have are those (some half-finished) animations of yore which have their own issues different than this franchise. From an adaptation perspective I am prepared to go in with an open mind. I remember back in the day when there was talk of a scene involving Aragorn and a horse - and people FLIPPED out. Quite literally. Now we see how it works to give Aragorn depth. So I'm able to go forward on faith here, because of what we have been given. I think mathematically the canon spirit and presentation is in our favor as fans.

For the record, there are things I didn't love. But I can absorb them to have the rest of it, which to me is joyful, especially after so many decades of having next to nothing.

Bombadil posted a story a few weeks ago about his "knowledgeable" friend who walked out of FOTR because the sequence was changed, and never went back. Metaphorically it's like cutting off an arm, and never feeling anything good with it again, because a finger was crooked.


(This post was edited by Brethil on Mar 6 2013, 7:08pm)


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 6 2013, 7:08pm


Views: 676
They are on the lookout for padding


In Reply To
3 Films - no matter how exciting, action packed, well paced, or what the story arc is for the film(s) critics will complain that one book should not be 3 films, because they cannot get that idea out of their heads once it is put there.

I also believe this has a lot to do with the mixed reactions. Many of the critics are convinced that the three-movie-split amounts to nothing more than a huge money-grab, and because of that, they are going to make a big deal out of any perceived padding.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 7:11pm


Views: 673
I think that's true

Although honestly, logically the thinking makes no sense. For one thing, it's not like Peter Jackson needs money. So it has to really be for another reason. Also, he really didn't want to direct these films and had to after Del Toro stepped out. I agree with you though that that's the take on it by some. I just think with all the trials and tribulations associated with making a film like this, it would have been much easier to slap two movies together instead of 3 and call it a day. Jackson has to be motivated by something other than money.

He never had to make a film again after LOTR.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 7:23pm


Views: 697
I apologize but...

I really don't like the logic that since TH is not LOTR, it couldn't ever be as good. That's simply not true. The great thing about the art of film, is that you can be so creative with it. There are so many different ways you can take a story, or an adaptation that the possibilities for level of quality are pretty much infinite.

I will say though, Jackson has no duty to comment on the backlash from critics. The best thing he can do at this point is stand by his work. However, I really hope he takes some of the criticisms seriously, as I feel some are not being overly harsh, but just pointing out problems that a lot of people had with the film. It can only be used to fine tune the next two films.

Although I have heard comments from Richard Taylor, and other technincal artists on the film who said it was very rushed. Weta apparently only had a few weeks of pre production.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 7:31pm


Views: 665
I often wonder

if the words 'good' and 'epic' are used interchangeably. The Hobbit would never be as epic as LOTR in that the sense of danger and what is at stake is much lighter. But that doesn't mean that it can't be as good.

Also, Weta may have only techincally had a few weeks of pre-production time to start building the designs etc but this film was in pre-production for YEARS. The designing began back in 2008 at least.


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 7:37pm


Views: 648
That's true. I wonder as well

I never wanted, nor expected TH to be as epic as LOTR. But you can make a film about a piece of cheese, and if you do it right, you can wow a lot of people. So quality is not dependent on content at all.

And I believe that most of the pre-viz work done back in 08' was for Del Toro. I know Jackson kept a few things here and there, but it was basically back to square one once he left the project.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 6 2013, 7:37pm


Views: 649
My opinion

Of course I have no inside information on the subject, but I feel like once he got the ball rolling on The Hobbit, he didn't want to stop. I think adapting Tolkien's world to the big-screen brings out his inner child, and so he couldn't help but be a little self-indulgent. Just my opinion.


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Mar 6 2013, 7:39pm)


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 7:40pm


Views: 645
This is why I think films 2 and 3 will fix some things

he had to go back to square one for film one and get it to print. Although they film out of sequence it allows some time with films 2 and 3 and I am looking forward to see what happens with it there.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


glor
Rohan

Mar 6 2013, 7:49pm


Views: 647
Nicely put

If my memory serves me correctly didn't PJ walk out of his his original pre-New Line film deal for LOTR because, PJ was told, by a certain litigious producer to turn Samwise into a female character to provide a love interest for Frodo, amongst other aberrations .

This was when PJ was a cult director in New Zealand and had no clout or money and he had the integrity to walk away. Yes as a director he has his faults but he has demonstrated that he also has integrity and a significant level of respect for the source material. Not enough for some, I know but far more than many directors in Hollywood.


Balderdash Baggins
The Shire

Mar 6 2013, 7:50pm


Views: 627
I should hope not

After years of frustrating delays, he created a wonderful film (the first of three) which has become only the 15th movie to ever earn over a billion dollars at the worldwide box office. I can't imagine why he would feel the need to show any contrition whatsoever.


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 7:53pm


Views: 777
Right

Just as the effects improved with each LOTR film, I believe the same will happen for TH. I also now believe AUJ was the film most affected by the trilogy switch, which in turn, made the narrative of the film feel forced for me.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 8:02pm


Views: 759
That makes sense as well

Okay I see what you're saying there. I never thought of it that way but that makes sense. For me though, more than the narrative, I had a more creative concern with the slapstick humor which I felt was jarring and out of place. For instance, I don't mind adding Radagast and I get his inclusion but some of the slapstick humor didn't fit to me.

That isn't as much a pacing issue as a creative one for me. It didn't ruin my overall enjoyment of the film, but it wasn't my favorite thing. I'm hoping he takes some of that critique to heart as well over the next two films and we see even better pacing and effects as well.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:09pm


Views: 754
Thanks for bringing that up Glor

you are right, that is what happened. (abberations...ack...good word!) So yes, like you I see an integrity there, balanced with the real-world needs.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:14pm


Views: 752
I agree Itarkey

I see a general improvement/continuation of quality coming with the time pressure being different, and any bugs from the split being worked entirely out. I wholeheartedly support the Dec. date for TABA for this reason. I felt it could have been slower paced too - I mean, who can say NO to MORE ME?


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 8:16pm


Views: 746
Except that

Heavenly Creatures had been VERY well recieved critically, was modestly successful at the box office and on home video, and was Oscar nominated.


Rostron2
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 8:21pm


Views: 739
Thanks, my feelings exactly

As for where the criticism came from: I saw much more scathing comments from people here than any professional journalist anywhere.


AshNazg
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 8:34pm


Views: 777
15 Top Grossing films with their RT scores

This just popped up on IGN, thought it was interesting and relevant to this discussion Smile

http://uk.ign.com/...ng-films-of-all-time


(This post was edited by AshNazg on Mar 6 2013, 8:34pm)


droidsocket
Lorien

Mar 6 2013, 8:52pm


Views: 754
It really boggles my mind...

How did a movie like avatar ever make so much money! Crazy


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 8:58pm


Views: 717
For that matter

How did Alice in Wonderland make that much? Is that just straight box office?


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 9:00pm


Views: 715
It was marketed as a sort of brand new virtual reality expirience...

Rather than just a film. I feel like the masses can easily plug themselves into pandora just for the ooohh's and the ahhh's. The story was definitely garbage, but even I was impressed by how immersive they made that film feel.

I just think James Cameron spends 10+ years on a single film, and thus it get's a lot of attention and hype in the media.

Also, Alice in Wonderland was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I agree, THAT is mind boggling.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Mar 6 2013, 9:01pm)


AshNazg
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 9:17pm


Views: 695
Star Wars Episode 1 is a good example of franchise popularity over movie quality //

 


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 9:22pm


Views: 695
That's down to James Cameron

Looking at what's #2 on that list. James Cameron is a powerful presence in film.


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 10:17pm


Views: 681
I think Alice...

... got a boost because of Avatar as well. It came out a few months later and had - as you say - the same "visual experience" feel to its promotion.

Plus, of course, the popularity of the story. And Depp doing yet another version of Sparrow.


(This post was edited by Arannir on Mar 6 2013, 10:17pm)


burrahobbit
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 10:17pm


Views: 721
The critical reception of the LotR films

You make a lot of good points and I agree PJ has nothing to apologise for. But it is really not true to say the critical reviews of AUJ are similar to the reception for Fellowship. FotR was a massive breakthrough film for the fantasy genre, nominated for a record breaking 13 oscars, including the most prestigious best director and best film, and it won three in the more technical categories. Newspaper reviews were generally positive and many were glowing-

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...ws/?type=top_critics

For many reasons AUJ is not on the same level as the LotR trilogy. While the source material is a big part of this, there are other reasons. The three adaptation film decision is really strange, leading to a complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive for AUJ.

Without any real character arcs in the first third of the book, these are forced in with a shallow Azog-Thorin conflict. The added necromancer storyline also doesn't go anywhere. This is a world away from the dynamic and concise storytelling techniques used by the film makers in FotR, for which it rightly received a best adapted screenplay nomination.

You rightly point out the difficult balancing act blockbuster directors have to make in adapting popular books. I feel the Hobbit trilogy is much more of a franchise set of films compared to LotR. It is not the career defining trilogy that LotR was for PJ, and artistically is not at the same level.

(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Mar 6 2013, 10:20pm)


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 10:19pm


Views: 671
I guess the world is less black/white to me.

 


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 6 2013, 10:50pm


Views: 668
Apart from PM, which was re-released, and Titanic...

...all the other movies on the list are less than 10 years old. RotK aside, on the 10-year limit, how can we not conclude that inflation and 3D price-hikes artificially distort the figures? The popularity of Titanic was an absolute phenomenon, of course, but I do think after that, RotK is probably is the outstanding success in real terms on that list. Not only that, but you have to admit that AUJ would not have generated anywhere near the amount it has, without the 3D/HFR/IMAX add-on costs, plus the different formats on offer encouraging multiple viewings...


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort






Escapist
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 11:00pm


Views: 667
It is difficult to measure the precise impact of the inflation.

since increased prices may have driven some away from theaters and the source of some of the inflation (3D HFR) was also a source of waves of terrible criticism and press that also may have reduced the number of tickets sold.

And at any rate, if inflation were to be considered, then other factors that may have had serious impact like economic recessions should also be considered.


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 11:03pm


Views: 686
On the contrary

I completely disagree that AUJ is not on the same level as the LOTR trilogy. For me, it absolutely is, and the effects are far better than many in the LOTR trilogy, e.g. Erebor, the Eagles and the Goblin Town. Artistically, I feel that it is at a higher level than LOTR, which contained very many faults, particularly in the case of TTT and ROTK, especially when it came to acting and characterisation, the effects in ROTK, idiotic CGI tricks and unnecessary changes to the storyline.

Equally, I disagree with your opinion that there is a 'complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive'. I feel that AUJ contains a very good story, and that the characterisation (and acting) of the three main characters Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf is superb. I also disagree that there is a lack of character arcs Bilbo? Thorin? Gandalf? Did we even see the same film? The 'Necromancer storyline doesn't go anywhere': well, how do you know? It is still being developed, and I will be fascinated to see where it goes.

I've seen AUJ more than 12 times now, and the more I see it, the more I appreciate it. I love it more than I do TTT and ROTK (though about the same as FOTR).

You say that AUJ is not the career-defining trilogy that LOTR was for PJ. Well, probably not, but that is because LOTR was a completely new set of films to cinema when it came out. Nothing like it had ever been done before. AUJ is just a continuation of that.

Still, I suppose we are all different and we all have different tastes.


In Reply To
For many reasons AUJ is not on the same level as the LotR trilogy. While the source material is a big part of this, there are other reasons. The three adaptation film decision is really strange, leading to a complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive for AUJ.

Without any real character arcs in the first third of the book, these are forced in with a shallow Azog-Thorin conflict. The added necromancer storyline also doesn't go anywhere. This is a world away from the dynamic and concise storytelling techniques used by the film makers in FotR, for which it rightly received a best adapted screenplay nomination.

I feel the Hobbit trilogy is much more of a franchise set of films compared to LotR. It is not the career defining trilogy that LotR was for PJ, and artistically is not at the same level.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 6 2013, 11:04pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 11:11pm


Views: 655
Another thing that should be considered

when making statements with regard to comparisons between box-office figures is the fact that film runs in cinemas are now much shorter than they used to be. LOTR ran three times as long in cinemas as AUJ has done. Some people conveniently forget this fact.

At the end of the day, even if the film made 6 billion dollars, and WHATEVER PJ would have done with it, some would still be saying AUJ is a flop and trashing it. Well, it's no flop for me and I will be catching it again at the cinema next week. (AUJ and LOTR are the only films I have ever seen in the cinema more than once, because I am quite indifferent to most of the films that come out.)


In Reply To
since increased prices may have driven some away from theaters and the source of some of the inflation (3D HFR) was also a source of waves of terrible criticism and press that also may have reduced the number of tickets sold.

And at any rate, if inflation were to be considered, then other factors that may have had serious impact like economic recessions should also be considered.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 6 2013, 11:12pm)


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 11:18pm


Views: 664
You bring up many valid points, Burrahobbit

It was a pleasure to look over your reply. I thought for quite a while about it (cooking dinner again! People keep getting hungry even though I have posts to write - Smile)


In Reply To
You make a lot of good points and I agree PJ has nothing to apologise for. But it is really not true to say the critical reviews of AUJ are similar to the reception for Fellowship. FotR was a massive breakthrough film for the fantasy genre, nominated for a record breaking 13 oscars, including the most prestigious best director and best film, and it won three in the more technical categories. Newspaper reviews were generally positive and many were glowing- _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Some certainly were. And groundbreaking is absolutely correct. But I remember just as many which were derisive and what bothers me as a fan is that the scorn was so genre-related that FOTR had to overcome far too many obstacles to be taken seriously. If ROTK hadn't turned out like it did - would FOTR have the credibility it has today? Aside from the fan base, that is. I know for me, I can remember that those technical awards -unaccompanied by more pithy ones - by themselves felt like biting on tinfoil. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ For many reasons AUJ is not on the same level as the LotR trilogy. While the source material is a big part of this, there are other reasons. The three adaptation film decision is really strange, leading to a complete lack of significant drama, new locations and narrative drive for AUJ. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ True, but even if we did two, where would our arcs be? If we sped up AUJ and ended with Mirkwood and the Elvenking's dungeon, the conflict of imprisonment by Thranduil would become the central conflict, and while it is going to ba an intense and revelatory interaction I don't think it belongs there, becaiuse as much as we might disagree with Thranduil he just isn't a "bad guy". Short of saving the entire conflictual force of the film for BO5A leaves us with an episodic travel film instead. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Without any real character arcs in the first third of the book, these are forced in with a shallow Azog-Thorin conflict. The add necromancer storyline also doesn't go anywhere. This is a world away from the dynamic and concise storytelling techniques used by the film makers in FotR, for which it rightly received a best adapted screenplay nomination. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ To play devil's advocate, concise for awards might be a purist's poison. We got concise but we threw Bombadil out with the bathwater... I do agree with you though on that point, as you are completely correct, FOTR is an extremely well-paced film. But I think that's an example of the trade-offs we make for quality: we got tight pace but lost detail. Was it necessary? Probably. As far as the Azog-Thorin subplot, I find that it showcases Thorin's charactar in a way that the text, due to it's airy nature, simply does not. I know changes are made in chronology to accomodate it, but I think it gives us an actual Dwarf to care about, not just one of 13 and not a one-dimensional player in makeup. I think the Necromancer introduction is fine as it is, bridging the charactar activities in DOS because we don't just "lose" Gandalf for half the film. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
You rightly point out the difficult balancing act blockbuster directors have to make in adapting popular books. I feel the Hobbit trilogy is much more of a franchise set of films compared to LotR. It is not the career defining trilogy that LotR was for PJ, and artistically is not at the same level. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ It certainly is difficult. As for TH, is it the artistry or the different tone of the source material? I think we've been given a visual treat in many ways, with a fantastic cast of charactars (each having definition, which by itself is miraculous). Having said that, the differences between TH and LOTR are huge, both in scale, tone, symbolism and intended audience. So here, by definition, I absolutely agree with you, in that TH is simply not LOTR. Does it stand by itself? I still think it does. Is it a career defining trilogy? Probably not. I think it is a labor of love though, and that gives it an appeal all its own. I think that's why I so passionately support the effort (oh dear, can you tell - have to laugh at myself a bit...).


(This post was edited by Brethil on Mar 6 2013, 11:21pm)


Escapist
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 11:19pm


Views: 668
I think that TH and LOTR are different.

but I wouldn't say one is overall on another level from the other.

LOTR: So much detail and dialogue is given in the books that it becomes an exercise in insanity to try to include all of it. Dramatic moments include one death early in the story, one near death/transfiguration, a love triangle, an unlikely friendship, a king falling victim to leach-craft, a threat of the end of the world of men, a woman struggling with gender issues and duties, family issues, personal identity issues, fallen leaders in high places, and a return of a king.

TH: Very scanty detail and dialogue is given in the books making a lot more invention necessary. Dramatic moments include a person being pushed into a burglar role, the reclaiming of a kingdom, many deaths, imprisonment of innocents because of deep misunderstandings, a war threatening to destroy people who could be friends, finding one's home "moved into" while being away for a time, racial struggles, and the guile of a wizard rather than his transfiguration. If you add in appendices, there are more deaths and imprisonments, lots of losses of great kingdoms and treasures, the discovery of an ancient evil returned and a debate amongst the wise about what should be done about it, and the resolution of that struggle.

I'd say the most obvious difference is that AUJ is more comedic and completely lacks romance. For some this means it is automatically less dramatic, for others not. I'm not surprised to see that since people naturally put different weights of importance on humor vs romance. Another difference is that LOTR has a more epic and apocalyptic feeling while TH is more localized. Depending on what a person finds compelling (the grandiose and epic or the close and personal), the two stories are likely to strike differing people in different ways. It seems silly to expect from TH all that which was delightful about LOTR.


Bellerock
Rivendell

Mar 6 2013, 11:20pm


Views: 683
I object to your wording

Your use of the term "contrition" suggests that Peter Jackson is guilty of some moral failure, in fact that he has committed a sin. That is an inappropriate way to talk about something so (comparatively) unimportant as a movie. Please choose your words more carefully.


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 11:50pm


Views: 646
Differing foci

in reply to:
Another difference is that LOTR has a more epic and apocalyptic feeling while TH is more localized. Depending on what a person finds compelling (the grandiose and epic or the close and personal), the two stories are likely to strike differing people in different ways. It seems silly to expect from TH all that which was delightful about LOTR.


I love the points you make, Escapist, particularly this one. You capture very clearly why the "feel" different. Its like the story unfolding, (TH to LOTR) from the bud to the flower, tighter and more personal to global and encompassing.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 7 2013, 12:06am


Views: 641
Also

TH story is not nearly as in depth or developed. This is why Jackson, which I applaud, took information from The Unfinished Tales and the Appendices to develop Thorin and the backstory. Say what you will, the character of Thorin in the book is not nearly deep enough nor developed for film. That's my opinion of course. But the story needed to be fleshed out a bit to make it into what I wanted to see and so far Jackson has done that. As we have said, not without some faults here and there. I didn't like everything I saw. But overall i get the vision and direction and enjoyed it.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 12:22am


Views: 635
So true!

Honestly without the fleshing out (and what fine flesh it is...ahem, slapping self) of Thorin what would we have by way of active protagonist? It is indeed Bilbo's story, very much from his perspective, but without some sort of conflict it would go nowhere fast from a purely cinematic viewpoint. And short of re-creating Bilbo and having either a warrior's temperament or an invented antagonist, we wouldn't have any such conflict for a long time. I love what they mined from what is licensed, and if they had to bring in augmented elements I think Thorin, not Bilbo, was who to do it with.

Our eyes, I think, are different than the general audience. For example, I would adore watching Sir Ian ramble about ME, just showing us Gandalf's ME life - but it wouldn't be a "theatrical" story necessarily: it wouldn't need to be, to make me happy. It wouldn't sell a ton of tickets though to anyone but us though.Angelic


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 12:27am


Views: 776
PJ committed

a crime against Tolkien, and that IS a sin. actually.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 12:31am


Views: 734
I think LOTR

will stand the test of time better than AUJ


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Mar 7 2013, 12:37am)


glor
Rohan

Mar 7 2013, 12:34am


Views: 725
The world has changed

Since 2003 or, rather the speed and bandwith of the internet has.

Many people never pay to go to the cinema nor do they pay for their dvds/blu-rays, they simply download and stream to their Tvs/play straight from a hard disk in 2013 and that's happening on a global scale.

Ticket prices after inflation are meaningless if one is considering the entire history of cinema and using it to judge the biggest films of all time, since the emergence of home video in the 1980s piracy has impacted the world of film in a way it never could for Gone with the Wind or the original 1977 Star Wars.

So yes inflation, piracy, the internet, and recessions are all factors that have to be taken into account, I just wonder if some academic economist has worked out a formula that takes all those things into account (rather them than meLaugh).

I think it's remarkable that any film can make a billion dollars at the box office when, most of the biggest markets for english language films could wait a week and download and watch for free, on a large flat screen with a basic surround sound system.

That's the big difference between 2003 and ROTK and 2012 and AUJ, the ability to download withou spending a dime.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 12:36am


Views: 728
I totally disagree

LOTR was a work of genius. AUJ is a flaccid video game.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 1:09am


Views: 701
Half is quite good

other half is as you say a flacid video game...with a few good moments peppered here and there...

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 7 2013, 1:16am


Views: 702
Close


In Reply To
...You dont take the Mona Lisa and paint a moustache on because you think she needs 'modernizing'.


Even modern women don't want a moustache. It would instead be multiple self-mutilating piercings and she would be painted more like The Scream to externalize her repressed rage at the male machine. That would be modern. But you were close.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 7 2013, 1:47am


Views: 698
Bilbo

How true. And yes, let's keep the flesh comments to a minimum. I have things to get done around the house and they might not get done if we start going off track. Can't have that.

Bilbo. Back to Bilbo. Bilbo was already very well developed in the story itself. We see the story through Bilbo's eyes (he is the author after all) and we know who he is. But honestly, the book Thorin needed to be more developed for the screen for exactly the reason you indicate. The payoff will be in films 2 and 3 and especially in film 3. We have to believe in the character and emotionally connect with him. We have to believe in the friendship developed between the two as the story goes.

This was the right thing to do and yes, I would pay money to sit and watch Ian McKellan read the back of a cereal box. But I don't think it would be a large commercial success because it would be you, me and a few others in the audience.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 1:51am


Views: 683
Oh you just made me hoot out loud!


In Reply To

This was the right thing to do and yes, I would pay money to sit and watch Ian McKellan read the back of a cereal box. But I don't think it would be a large commercial success because it would be you, me and a few others in the audience.



So would I!!!!! especially in the grey robes!


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 2:37am


Views: 714
Wow

The pieces are starting to come together.
I understand now


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 2:54am


Views: 677
I have to say I agree

I thought the Baggend part was well done and kept the feel of the book overall. Where the film went downhill for me was all the OTT video game style nonsense ( I hated Azog Mad and the whole story line around him) and made up story lines that really IMO had nothing to do with the Hobbit. I realize somethings need to be changed to work on film but the changes that we got were not those type of changes. They were Peter Jackson choosing spectacle over story. Which to me was a sad thing. I think if the they had stuck to what Tolkien gave them instead of wanting to make up as much as they could it would have worked SO much better.


Old Toby
Grey Havens


Mar 7 2013, 5:26am


Views: 679
Second that

so....double Wow.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 7 2013, 5:55am


Views: 641
Yep, exactly right IMO

I almost wish the whole thing was garbage so I wouldn't have such mixed feelings about it. The same phenomena occurs each time I watch the film, and this is my line of thinking:

Prologue: This is different than what I imagined, but wow it's actually pretty great...lots of CGI though. Is Thrors beard real?
Good Morning Conversation: This is awesome! On par with the quality expected from LOTR but with some added whimsy!
Unexpected Party: This is also awesome! Why don't I like this movie very much? Ori burps...oh that's one of the reasons
East Gate Flashback: This is great...but...wait...ughhh...there's Azog. It's not that bad though, still a good film so far!
Radagast: Now it's all coming back to me...this is nonsense.
Trolls: Mehhh, it was close to redeeming itself again
Everything after until Riddles in The Dark: Ok, now I remember why I wasn't impressed with this movie at all. Where's Bilbo? What was up with all that teribble CGI and corny chase scenes?

Then Riddles comes and I finally feel like I'm watching a film by the same person who directed LOTR...more nonsense...beautiful shots of the eagles...Smaugs eye is awesome!

I've come to the conclusion that I keep watching the film because Riddles, and the very last shot of the film leaves a good taste in my mouth. I find myself pretty much pushing the middle of the film out of my memory, involuntarily I might add simply because my brain likes to remember the good things.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 7 2013, 7:26am


Views: 648
Wow... this thread got quite extreme in some aspects.

 


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 7:28am


Views: 623
Exactly this. //

 


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort






Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 7:31am


Views: 645
I think we all agree on the parts that veer between meh! and oh so wrong...

...and I know the LotR had its dire moments, too...I just don't remember there being so many (or if there were, it was as many as AUJ but spread over 3 films, not all in the first!)


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort






tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 7 2013, 8:30am


Views: 617
Great summation

You have summed up exactly how I felt watching the film, and why I liked it better second time around - I knew how long all the boring scene 88 stuff and the Azog v Thorin nonsense would last and when to look out for the good parts, especially Riddles in the Dark which really does seem to be part of a different, more mature film. I also loved the Eagles and the final short of Smaug, even with the anger hug in between ..!

And I also hated Ori's burp!

I am looking forward to seeing The Hobbit on DVD, because I can fast forward and just enjoy the highlights.


Roheryn
Tol Eressea

Mar 7 2013, 8:33am


Views: 615
ROFL!

You two can, I think, turn *any* thread into a discussion of the *ahem* "finer" points of the movie. Well done! Wink

Just had to stick my hand up to say I'd be with you in that audience listening to Sir Ian read a cereal box. I do that myself in the mornings when I'm bored eating breakfast, and it would be far more interesting listening to Sir Ian read it.


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 7 2013, 9:02am


Views: 629
Well, we've already heard him read how to change a flat tire...

For any who haven't, click here.

And I'm sure cereal boxes would be just as good.Cool

Silverlode






DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 7 2013, 9:07am


Views: 628
Does that mean ...

anyone that enjoys the film is going to hell? Blimey, I better get repenting. Laugh


Kelvarhin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 9:12am


Views: 615
PJ's not the messiah...

he's just a very naughty boy! WinkLaugh

*sorry couldn't resist*

AngelicEvil


Bag ENZ Home of the Hobbit *with thanks to cameragod ;D*


One by one they faded, and fell into shadow...

One book to rule them all
One book to find them
One book to bring them all
And in TORn bind them
In the land of TORnadoes...where the brilliant play



Arannir
Valinor

Mar 7 2013, 10:07am


Views: 602
The worst?

While I agree that PJ was quite aware of what the reception by critics might be (at least with HFR and the less dramatical story). But I think it could have been a lot worse. A very clear majority still liked it.


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 7 2013, 10:16am


Views: 620
I do not see much evidence for this...

... but anyway - what I would like to ask you, do YOU think he should show signs of contrition? I mean, I know by now that you obviously cannot really stand the movie, but I would be interested in whether you would say that this adaptation is just not your cup of tea or if you think that it is so bad that PJ should apologize? Because one thing remains, of course, and that is that the overall verdict of the audience is positive... plus we can assume that the studio's expectations have been met. So many might say - mission of the director accomplished (whether one dislikes or likes the final outcome is on a different page, of course).


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 7 2013, 10:56am


Views: 607
That is just your opinion

I completely disagree as does everyone I've spoken to about it (old and young). Yes, LOTR was a work of genius, but ROTK and TTT in particular contained many flaws. In my opinion AUJ IS a work of genius.

I've never seen a video game, so cannot make comparisons between the ME films and such games.

You are quite entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. It is all a matter of taste.


In Reply To
LOTR was a work of genius. AUJ is a flaccid video game.



elaen32
Gondor

Mar 7 2013, 12:18pm


Views: 597
Tee Hee!

Made me laugh anyway!! "Always look on the bright side of life" *whistles*

"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 12:43pm


Views: 587
I feel the same way about Riddles

and thats why AUJ could have been as amazing as FOTR. Bits of it feel like PJ of yore.
Like flashes from Smaug's eye, you see that hidden fire, you desperately want to gaze into its depths even if it burns your mind to behold it. (LOTR burnt itself on my imagination, even when I sleep I see it)
Instead I got a Urine Taking of epic proportions


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Mar 7 2013, 12:51pm


Views: 627
Contrition?

 After seeing what Michael Bay did to Transformers, we should be giving a medal to Peter Jackson.

Both directors made billions, but they had very different approaches to the franchises they were responsible for.

Personally, I think PJ had the harder job, and he did it better too.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Mar 7 2013, 12:52pm)


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 12:51pm


Views: 634
Fine and finer...

Its just such a deliciously rich topic!
I will await our cereal show... it would be a variation of My Dinner with Andre.....Lucky Charms with Gandalf


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 12:52pm


Views: 636
yup that is just my opinion

I have never seen a video game either, but I get the picture. LOTR did contain many niggles, but it was genius anyway. AUJ fails as a story about Bilbo on every level. First, it was about Thorin and his story, and second Bilbo's character was fundamentally changed for the worst, becoming lukewarm, and thirdly he is hardly in the story. If you like AUJ because you see a bunch of old faces, music, visuals, fair enough, but it was in no way shape or form a work of genius. Genius is fresh and innovative, not a stale rehash.


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Mar 7 2013, 12:53pm)


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 12:53pm


Views: 636
It's better to be hot than cold

Wink repentance is hightly overrated anyway


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 2:00pm


Views: 618
It is that. lol

 



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 2:04pm


Views: 622
I think you assume too much

I thought there was a bit too much snot with the Trolls, drinking/belching could have been tweaked in Bag End, get rid of the bird poop, and I'd like to see a bit closer to the events of the Dwarven history. Other than that I loved the movie from start to finish so you would be incorrect with your assumption.



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 2:05pm


Views: 612
I figure I could go to hell for worse things

than loving AUJ. If that's the worse thing that I do in all my life I figure I'm quite successful

I think some might need to walk away from the edge of hyperbole. Tongue



Arannir
Valinor

Mar 7 2013, 2:14pm


Views: 629
No offense...

... but I wonder whether your feeling that people here are aggressive towards those who do not like the movie may come from the generalizations of your posts and the assumptions that your opinion can be objectively shown or proven.

There are other people on here who are very disappointed but who do not really get aggressive about it and no aggressive responses either. People like Ardamire for example (I hope it is okay to mention you here, Ardamire ;) ). Just a thought, since I tried several times to discuss several issues with you but it either turned very harsh or there was no response anymore. I mean, it is your perfect right - but it provoces certain reactions, of course.


(PS: This can certainly be applied to others here who tend to get pretty aggressive in those discussions. But in general I had the feeling that "lovers" and "haters" were able to discuss things quite nicely in this board... much better than in most boards).


ShireHorse
Rohan

Mar 7 2013, 2:23pm


Views: 603
"walk away from the edge of hyperbole"!

Good phrase, LOL!

I don't know why people will keep on insisting that Bilbo was "hardly in it" when we have proof that he has three times as much dialogue as Thorin. And if everyone in it apart from Bilbo was as 2D as in the book then that would ultimately take away from Bilbo.

And the other thing is that everything that TORn members enjoyed, like the Bag End scenes, were hated by the critics: they only began to enjoy the film once they got on to the "video game" bits. So, are we or the critics right or wrong?

Well, no-one is because it's only opinion and PJ has tried to give us something to satisfy everyone which is why people nitpick over the bits they don't like. I didn't like Ori's burp or Radagast but I noticed that people around me at the cinema obviously thought such additions wonderful. And so, I got on with it and enjoyed the many things that did please me.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 2:43pm


Views: 614
No offence but

the 'aggression' is in your imagination. I am discussing the subject and expressing my opinions, and when people say things like "well its just your opinion or the classic "lets agree to disagree" I just assume there is no point in continuing with someone who blocks the flow, or doesnt wish to discuss further. I have NEVER said anything about people being aggressive towards others who dont like the film, another case of you imagining what I said rather than actually reading what I said.

I have also given at least one objective moment when Bilbo's character was changed for the worst, so yes things can be objectively proven by giving examples.


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Mar 7 2013, 2:46pm)


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 7 2013, 3:05pm


Views: 610
Negativity was the term you used...

... my apologies.


Quote

I have also given at least one objective moment when Bilbo's character was changed for the worst, so yes things can be objectively proven by giving examples.



How is it objective to say that this is a change "for the worst"?

Wrong information can be proven wrong... an actual blooper can be found and labelled a "mistake". But a change in Bilbo's character... I think it can be different, changed or whatever. But certainly not "to the best" or "to the worst". Who would judge that?



(This post was edited by Arannir on Mar 7 2013, 3:07pm)


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 7 2013, 3:38pm


Views: 605
Lucky Charms with Gandalf

Now that's a great one. I want t play I do! ::;Does her best impression of flicking Bilbo's hand like he does in Riddle in the Dark::

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Noria
Gondor

Mar 7 2013, 3:59pm


Views: 603
Nothing to apologize for

PJ has nothing to be contrite about because hes done nothing wrong. He made the movie he wanted to make and thats how it should be. Movies are only movies.

I have read LotR, the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Unfinished Tales etc. more times than I can count over more than forty years. I love them.

But they are only books, books with flaws at that. I've never understood why people treat them as if they were either perfect or religious texts instead of novels. I rather doubt that Tolkien himself would be comfortable with that.


imin
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 4:18pm


Views: 607
Really?


In Reply To
I've never seen a video game


I am genuinely shocked. lol. Tongue


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 4:39pm


Views: 597
Thanks

I mean but I tried to say it in a joking way to not totally get anyones dander up.

I know. He's in it a lot. I find that arguement to be a strawmans argument to be honest but people feel that way for whatever reason they want to feel that way. I also thought Bilbo was every bit the Bilbo we know from the book.

Exactly! Who is righ or wrong with that is funny. As some will try to use critics as a way to say see the movie is bad but they like the things some don't like. Its a lot like cherry picking your argument.

I'm the same. There are things I didn't care for that I could tell others did. That's what the movies are all about. Varying likes within something most of us like. In the end most of the movie worked so well for me I loved it.



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 4:41pm


Views: 583
Proven for who?


In Reply To

I have also given at least one objective moment when Bilbo's character was changed for the worst, so yes things can be objectively proven by giving examples.



Yes, you can prove your point on why you feel that way but objectively (for your POV mind you) doesn't mean that's fact. That may not be what you're trying to say but that's how this comment kind of comes across.



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 4:43pm


Views: 587
They will stand it together.

In the end, unless things deteroriate badly in the quality of the next two films, they will be taken as a whole in the fullness of time, unless they are displaced by another re-imagining, which is not entirely likely, at least not for several decades.

As to the sin. . . I think many sin/crimes were commited in the earlier trilogy, and certainly from a purist perspective there is A LOT to gripe about. With the possible exception of the revision of Dwarven history, there are no changes here more outrageous than those in the LOTR movies.

In Reply To
will stand the test of time better than AUJ


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 4:59pm


Views: 591
Really? I have issues with both, but

my dear, lovely (I see you as Galadriel Wink) ElenorFlower. . . are you really going to tell me you found no merit in the Erebor sequence? Or that the Good Morning sequence (loved the Wizard's transformation of the smoke ring) and The Unexpected Party do a very admirable job of translating those scenes from the book? Are you really going to suggest that the Lonely Mountain song was not chillingly effective? The movie wasn't perfect. And PARTS may have been akin to the video game you speak of. But it is unfair to categorize the entire movie that waym and a false re-imagining to suggest that LOTR was perfect and sans flaw.

In Reply To
LOTR was a work of genius. AUJ is a flaccid video game.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 5:17pm


Views: 591
Don't overlook Gandalf's entrance into Goblintown.

Things may have gone downhill into a videogame sequence shortly thereafter, but that entrance was magnificently epic and appropriate.

In Reply To
I almost wish the whole thing was garbage so I wouldn't have such mixed feelings about it. The same phenomena occurs each time I watch the film, and this is my line of thinking:

Prologue: This is different than what I imagined, but wow it's actually pretty great...lots of CGI though. Is Thrors beard real?
Good Morning Conversation: This is awesome! On par with the quality expected from LOTR but with some added whimsy!
Unexpected Party: This is also awesome! Why don't I like this movie very much? Ori burps...oh that's one of the reasons
East Gate Flashback: This is great...but...wait...ughhh...there's Azog. It's not that bad though, still a good film so far!
Radagast: Now it's all coming back to me...this is nonsense.
Trolls: Mehhh, it was close to redeeming itself again
Everything after until Riddles in The Dark: Ok, now I remember why I wasn't impressed with this movie at all. Where's Bilbo? What was up with all that teribble CGI and corny chase scenes?

Then Riddles comes and I finally feel like I'm watching a film by the same person who directed LOTR...more nonsense...beautiful shots of the eagles...Smaugs eye is awesome!

I've come to the conclusion that I keep watching the film because Riddles, and the very last shot of the film leaves a good taste in my mouth. I find myself pretty much pushing the middle of the film out of my memory, involuntarily I might add simply because my brain likes to remember the good things.


"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."


imin
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 5:19pm


Views: 583
It was great

but as simple jack would say - my head movies was better for that scene going off the detail given in the book

Still im not complaining, i enjoyed his entrance and dont tell anyone but i kinda like the great goblin as well, lol


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 5:31pm


Views: 577
And I agree and entirely understand.

I too envisioned an even more amazing scene, closer to the book descrition. The lights all going out and a pillar of blue flame exploding up to the cavernous roof etc. However, as one who was all too aware of Peter's ambivalent attitude regarding magic, and his unapologetic tendency to diminish Gandalf's feats of enchantment, I was very worried that the arrival of The Wizard might be handled in a far less categorically magical and in a less epic manner. I didn't think it was perfectly handled. But it was VERY impressive, all things considered, and properly conveyed a lot of things that have sometimes been left in question. I wish the pinecone scene had measured up as well. lol

Amd, about the Great Goblin. . .Wink I also liked his portrayl. I won't go telling that you did, but fear not, I will take on the "onus" for us both, and say out loud that I liked it (you can hide behind me and just provide moral suppor), and dare anyone to tell me I should think otherwise. lol

In Reply To
but as simple jack would say - my head movies was better for that scene going off the detail given in the book

Still im not complaining, i enjoyed his entrance and dont tell anyone but i kinda like the great goblin as well, lol


"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."


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 5:34pm


Views: 570
Of course Ham Sammy!

I will put two front row seats in a state of eternal dibs!


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 5:36pm


Views: 567
Great Goblin

Outside of his chin I liked the characters design and how he was played. So you can protect me as well. lol Tongue

As far as the whole Goblin Town sequence other than a bit over the top at the end I really liked it and liked seeing Gandalf show just how much power his character does have.



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 5:41pm


Views: 558
Will do.

WinkAngelic And, agreed. Agreed on all the points of one of your earlier posts as well. Too much mucus, bird feces and burping, and too many revisions to history. I would add, too much stature imbalance in the Gandalf/Galadriel interactions at points. Otherwise, I thought it was very well done. Though the Stone Giants ended up being rather OTT.

In Reply To
Outside of his chin I liked the characters design and how he was played. So you can protect me as well. lol Tongue

As far as the whole Goblin Town sequence other than a bit over the top at the end I really liked it and liked seeing Gandalf show just how much power his character does have.


"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."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 7 2013, 5:51pm


Views: 570
I suppose I get my dander up

because those examples you quote which are indeed very good, and this excellent beginning up to say the Trolls went rapidly down hill (for me). I love the Misty Mountain song and Good Morning and the Party, all good stuff, and the Dale/Erebor sequence had me glued to the screen it was so interesting. Riddles was also excellent, Martin and Andy were the hilight of the film for me. The atmosphere of the Dale/Erebor sequence was very fresh and new, but at the point where they find the deserted house before the Trolls is where they lost me. I got increasingly disillusioned from that moment. it was fidgetsville. Laugh


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 6:00pm


Views: 673
Thank ya sir :)

Those are all things I know I didn't physically but mentally rolled my eyes on and with the change in history did feel a little let down when Balin got through his story. No Balrog on top of the other changes was a shoulder shrug. I would like to see Gandalf be considered more of an equal to Galadriel though its something I can work with in context of all things considered. I'm with ya. I loved this movie as I've said several times to the point I'm sure its annoys someone. lol Its not perfect but I was so glad with how it came out. The Stone Giants I liked but I can see how it could be OTT with some. I like the entire sequence but I could roll with them being smaller giants. I admit I expected more of what I saw in The Lord of the Rings: The War in the North video game.



Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 6:01pm


Views: 709
I agree, In relation to amount and scope of LOTR canon changes

Indeed many more were made than what we see so far in TH. It is one of the things I am profoundly enjoying about the three film split. As i posted earlier, we fans have the indulgence of the three film option solely BECAUSE of the success of LOTR. We are fortunate in that it has become rather a self-sustaining ecosytem, as it were.
I don't see the detailed charactarizations (ie:Thorin) as a departure or a canon violation; instead, given the light nature of the text some sort of development is completely necessary. I am willing to go on faith for the Orc subplots as the film requires an antagonistic focus. Even the Tauriel issue to me is rather a non-issue: she's not a mutated Arwen (thank goodness) and certainly in the background there were any amount of other random individuals running about; I don't see harm in highlighting some of them. As far as where they will go, (ie: Dwarf/Elf relationship ) I have faith there too. Thankfully we simply are NEVER going to see a sweaty and disturbing Excalibur type sexualized scene from this crew. That was one of my points earlier: I think this crew was weighing very carefully integrity versus mass appeal. I think they did well with the balance - because there will ALWAYS be that immovable issue in filmmaking.

I absolutely adore LOTR. We need to keep an mind when comparing the trilogies that we have had over a decade to let LOTR "settle" in our minds, In time and fullness of the three TH films this will happen as well. And as you state, Ainur Olorin, unless there is some sort of sharp decline I feel the finished product will nestle quite nicely with LOTR.

I feel that I did not address the question fully of whether TH is a "career defining" trilogy or not. Have thought a lot about it since last night, and two points arise:
1. Can there BE another more career defining trilogy for SPJ and crew after LOTR? and....
2. Does he require further definition? So is it a relevant issue at all.

I'm a negotiating sort but I will not entertain the apology concept.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 6:28pm


Views: 675
I understand.

There were some dodgy bits post trolls to be certain. The Council scene looked beautiful, but it was neither without merit nor without flaw. I forgive the second half for alot because Gandalf's entrance into Goblin Town made me so happy. lol. Yet I do understand where you are coming from on some of this.

In Reply To
because those examples you quote which are indeed very good, and this excellent beginning up to say the Trolls went rapidly down hill (for me). I love the Misty Mountain song and Good Morning and the Party, all good stuff, and the Dale/Erebor sequence had me glued to the screen it was so interesting. Riddles was also excellent, Martin and Andy were the hilight of the film for me. The atmosphere of the Dale/Erebor sequence was very fresh and new, but at the point where they find the deserted house before the Trolls is where they lost me. I got increasingly disillusioned from that moment. it was fidgetsville. Laugh


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 6:34pm


Views: 680
I am holding out hope, because of The Fire in the Moria scene within the halls,

and because of where we know things end up with Balin and Movie Gandalf and Saruman having full knowledge of what/who dwells within, and because so much is unclear regarding Azog (on site intervention by an Evil Maiar could certainly have gone a long way to helping him survive his loss of limb), that we will yet see a slightly larger nod to Durin's Bane. He is so inextricably woven into the fate of Durin's folk, after all.


In Reply To
Those are all things I know I didn't physically but mentally rolled my eyes on and with the change in history did feel a little let down when Balin got through his story. No Balrog on top of the other changes was a shoulder shrug. I would like to see Gandalf be considered more of an equal to Galadriel though its something I can work with in context of all things considered. I'm with ya. I loved this movie as I've said several times to the point I'm sure its annoys someone. lol Its not perfect but I was so glad with how it came out. The Stone Giants I liked but I can see how it could be OTT with some. I like the entire sequence but I could roll with them being smaller giants. I admit I expected more of what I saw in The Lord of the Rings: The War in the North video game.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 6:36pm


Views: 668
Wellllllllll. . . an Uther and Igrane style romping betwixt Filli (or Kili) and Tauriel

might be just the angle that would really sell me on this whole Tauriel affair after all. Lol.

In Reply To
Indeed many more were made than what we see so far in TH. It is one of the things I am profoundly enjoying about the three film split. As i posted earlier, we fans have the indulgence of the three film option solely BECAUSE of the success of LOTR. We are fortunate in that it has become rather a self-sustaining ecosytem, as it were.
I don't see the detailed charactarizations (ie:Thorin) as a departure or a canon violation; instead, given the light nature of the text some sort of development is completely necessary. I am willing to go on faith for the Orc subplots as the film requires an antagonistic focus. Even the Tauriel issue to me is rather a non-issue: she's not a mutated Arwen (thank goodness) and certainly in the background there were any amount of other random individuals running about; I don't see harm in highlighting some of them. As far as where they will go, (ie: Dwarf/Elf relationship ) I have faith there too. Thankfully we simply are NEVER going to see a sweaty and disturbing Excalibur type sexualized scene from this crew. That was one of my points earlier: I think this crew was weighing very carefully integrity versus mass appeal. I think they did well with the balance - because there will ALWAYS be that immovable issue in filmmaking.

I absolutely adore LOTR. We need to keep an mind when comparing the trilogies that we have had over a decade to let LOTR "settle" in our minds, In time and fullness of the three TH films this will happen as well. And as you state, Ainur Olorin, unless there is some sort of sharp decline I feel the finished product will nestle quite nicely with LOTR.

I feel that I did not address the question fully of whether TH is a "career defining" trilogy or not. Have thought a lot about it since last night, and two points arise:
1. Can there BE another more career defining trilogy for SPJ and crew after LOTR? and....
2. Does he require further definition? So is it a relevant issue at all.

I'm a negotiating sort but I will not entertain the apology concept.


"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."


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 6:48pm


Views: 663
That's my hope as well

As we've discussed before that hopefully because of what the characters know and just because of the importance The Balrog plays in the race of Durin as you said. So I'm crossing my fingeres Jackson will give us the nod the history, Dwarves, and The Balrog deserve.



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 7:09pm


Views: 660
Same. The Ancient Dwarven Kingdom of Moria, "Our Sacred halls . . ." as Thorin called them. .

why did the loose that ancient Kingdom in the first place? Why would they ever abandon the most sacred, holy, fabled kindom in all of Dwarven History, the seat of Father Durin, and why could they not reclaim it?. . . Because of THAT GUY, The Balrog, servant and captian of Morgoth, slayer of Durin, Bane of Noldor, Sindar and Silvan Elves, and of Dwarves and of Men.

In Reply To
As we've discussed before that hopefully because of what the characters know and just because of the importance The Balrog plays in the race of Durin as you said. So I'm crossing my fingeres Jackson will give us the nod the history, Dwarves, and The Balrog deserve.


"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."


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 7:12pm


Views: 645
**wiping tears away****


In Reply To
might be just the angle that would really sell me on this whole Tauriel affair after all. Lol.




Quite a bit of helpless laughter there...............!Evil

Well then that suits me fine. Might level the playing field between you distant males and those of us in the poor hapless fangirl contingent.


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 7 2013, 7:21pm


Views: 641
Exactly! We have a bingo

There is some real power that could impact an audience as much as anything we see if we could get just a sliver of that. We only get a short bit of The Balrog in The Fellowship of the Ring but its amazing. Now, give us why when we first get there everybody is dead and why the Dwarves cannot retake it until the world has changed. This is goosebump type awesome material.



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 7:23pm


Views: 643
Sinister71 : ei there!

Long time no see. Smile Hows your health?

About Azog, someone, when told by me that he wasnt in the novel, replies thus : really?? But it was everything about him. ....His vendetta, the white council storyle, the lack of Bilbo post Trolls, the video game antics, overshadowed the actual storyline of the quest of the dwarves and the main charcater Bilbo. That is one of the films major flaws.

Jackson choosing story over spectacle? Wake me up when it happens. Wink


Tolktolk : i too hope my subsequent viewings of the film, improve my affection for it, but im not hopefull. There were only a few scene in lotr that i skipped...with TH, theres a lot more i shall just ignore...

That fan edit ideia is starting to seduce me...

jtarkey : No, dont me so mean, if everything was garbage we would never have Bag end and the party, i love those scenes!

If i may add :

Prologue: Thrors beard looked fake but grandiose and epic in its own right. My favourite part of the film, i think. Absolutely a cinema spectacle the likes of which i hadnt seen in a while.

Good Morning Conversation: This is awesome! On par with the quality expected from LOTR but with some added whimsy!

Agreed. Very much like the book. They nailed it and captured the tone and feel of the scene exactly as it should be.

Unexpected Party: This is also awesome! Why don't I like this movie very much? Ori burps...oh that's one of the reasons

Now, here i disagree. I loved ALL of it, including Ori's only good line in the whole film : BURP.

I felt the burp was appropriate as it showed the difference between these barbaric, boisterous, dwarves and the polite, softly mannered country gent that is Mr Baggins. His reaction is priceless.


East Gate Flashback: This is great...but...wait...ughhh...there's Azog. It's not that bad though, still a good film so far!

It looked a little too digital and fake and the line between green screen added background and the foreground action is just blatantly obvious . Check the screencaps on the bluray forums. Otherwise i liked it, though the ACTUAL canon is much more interesting and cinematic.


Radagast: Now it's all coming back to me...this is nonsense.

I enjoyed him as a different woodmanesque excentric but his insect and dung peppered face along with his pot induced groovy moments were too much for me.

I like the concept of bunny sleds but ....

Trolls: Mehhh, it was close to redeeming itself again

It had some greta moments, but the absence of Gandalfs magical ventriloquism, the disappointing and pointless action scene, the stupidity of dwarves surrendering to trolls, the snot, the boring dwarves theme reprise, the obviousness of the set they are in at times, the fcat that it doenst feel as clever and whimsy as the book moment...made a somewhat disappointing scene for me...


Everything after until Riddles in The Dark: Ok, now I remember why I wasn't impressed with this movie at all. Where's Bilbo? What was up with all that teribble CGI and corny chase scenes?

IDEM.

Jackson forgot what TH was about and who the main charcater was when we get to rivendell.

And what was that ludicrous pseudo elf science stuff Elrond talked about? And Balin trying to prevent Thorin from showing Elrond the map? That was his only bad line. Crazy He came across as very undiplomatic and stupid at that moment which is not fair since he is by far the best dwarf interpretation we have.

Then Riddles comes and I finally feel like I'm watching a film by the same person who directed LOTR...more nonsense...beautiful shots of the eagles...Smaugs eye is awesome!

Agreed though i enjoyed Bilbos Home speech...Vey Bagginsish of him.

And the eagles music is quite adorable ...well, at least the evrsion i heard. I know there are two.

When Smaug appears i felt : oh right Smaug, forgot about him...Azog, you devil...Wink

Perhaps the rivendell section might improve a little with the extended edition and Jackson will do some much needed trimmming with the goblin scenes ...

Have i mentioned i look forward to the Fan Edit? Angelic

Elenor : you too? Who appears when you are sleeping? I remember the shire and the dark moments...And on the subjetc of innovation, i am sad that the score still feels like its living of past glories at times. The shire and rivendell music tracks for instance ..i wish we had something a little different. And a proper Bilbo Theme. The rotk theme was so lovely and heart warming.


Arannir , i dont think elanor is agressive towards other posters...she just stronlgy dislikes what jackson has done with TH.

The same level of enthusiasm can be applied to those who scream Genius and Love it!! and He is soo Good ...

Those are not being accused of being so agressive are they? Tongue


AinurOlorin : indeed, gandalfs entrance was masterly done...if only, not amidst such a messy sequence! And right before the goblin king arrives video game boss style PAPAAM and delivers a slapstick line right at the moment of his death Crazy

And the neil flinn song is wonderfull, it is actually my favourite of all the score songs.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 7 2013, 8:24pm


Views: 613
Yes! Sorry to leave it out

Gandalfs entrance was one of my favorite Gandalf moments in all of the films so far! But then the next scene happens...

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 7 2013, 8:27pm


Views: 626
About Ori...

I have this ridiculous hatred for Ori which I don't even understand. He just rubs me the wrong way entirely. Everything from his design, to his lines, to the way he speaks, that slingshot...ughhh

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 8:37pm


Views: 613
Indeed....


In Reply To
Which, after making $1 billion, I don't think they will. Who cares about inflation and yada yada yada. Let's wait until all 3 films are out before calling The Hobbit a failure.

Smile


remember, this is only the first part of it....

remember... we were looking at a fresh new idea when LOTR happened, the impossible had happened, our Saga was on Film!

...now, we've been there, done that, perhaps we are a bit um, jaded? Expecting the wrong thing? expecting too much?

I personally love, it, was glad to return to Middle Earth, applaud the design, the whimsy, and yes, the bunny sled.

I think it's harder to make than LOTR was...stuff has to be added, it has to be fit into that wider world, and yet retain the voice of the book as much as possible.

Go outside and play...


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 8:37pm


Views: 617
Haha

i understand that. I xan see that. Certainly his chips line is more suitable for teletubies than TH.

PS : dont neglect your PM mail box. Wink

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 7 2013, 8:52pm


Views: 614
Ori -ble!

I feel sad for Ori because Adam himself seems lovely and I think he was supposed to be a loveable Private Pike type person (British people know who I mean) but somehow it just hasn;t worked, so far anyway.I think it's because he is supposed to be the baby of the group but looks middle aged!

On another note, does anyone know if any of these fabled fan edits exist and if so, has anyone seen one?


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 7 2013, 8:59pm


Views: 601
Not only the brits

Tongue

It hasnt worked. He looks wonderfull i think. But its his line delivery that i find over the top and ridiculous.

And hes not the youngest! Mad

I have read somewhere that A fan edit has been made already...but i havent seen it...the SW fan edit eventually showed up on youtube...

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 7 2013, 9:27pm


Views: 602
Baby is right

I wouldn't be surprised if he has a diaper on for the whole journey.

He just seems far less capable than even Bilbo, when Bilbo should seem like the biggest fish out of water. I mean, a slinshot? Really? Even Bilbo has a sword.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 11:19pm


Views: 576
It certainly could.

Kili and Tauriel go Excalibur/Game of Thrones in their antics. That will be worth the extended edition price. I won't make the obvious joke about what is being extended and to whom. Wink

In Reply To

In Reply To
might be just the angle that would really sell me on this whole Tauriel affair after all. Lol.




Quite a bit of helpless laughter there...............!Evil

Well then that suits me fine. Might level the playing field between you distant males and those of us in the poor hapless fangirl contingent.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 11:33pm


Views: 572
Absolutely. And, for those who complain about too explicit a reveal, it need not be.

Strong hinting and allusion, with a small amount of pictoral aid (i.e. Saruman's book illustration or a glimpse in Galariel's mirror, or in the memory of Thorin or, or Dain and Dwalin (wouldn't it be great if those two DID go in to make certain that Azog was finished, and beheld the Terror and came out. . . and said nothing of it, being too petrified. "Name him not!") the thought's of The Council etc. I do think, if Gandalf is trying to sell The Council on war on Dol Guldur, based in part upon the alliances Sauron could bring to bear, the Demon should be mentioned since his presence is known to the filmic versions of The Wise. No force of evil could be a more horrifying prospect to The Elves in particular.

About the dwarves. . . I think it just ties together wonderfully and powerfully. The history of Durin's folk in The Third age is one of exile after exile, and it all began the slaying of Durin himself (reincarnate as he was) by The Balrog of Moria. Thorin says (rightly so) that that kingdom's halls are most sacred to the Dwarves. . . how dreadful and yet apt that they have been defiled and made into passages of dread by a truly profane being, one of the original forces of Evil to exist in the world. It is serious material, and as these are really 6 films and not two well seperated works, that really merits mention. Like it or no, this version of The Hobbit, though it certainly maintains much of the spirit and material of The Hobbit Proper, is being made as the opening acts of the larger Rings saga, and from that perspective, The Demon who slew Durin, sent Elves fleeing from Lothlorien by the terror of his presence (Princes of Dol Amroth, you indirectly owe him your existence . . . as does Faramir of Gondor, being of that line), and turned Khazad-Dum into the dark pit of Moria, definitely merits an allusion in that prelude.

In Reply To
There is some real power that could impact an audience as much as anything we see if we could get just a sliver of that. We only get a short bit of The Balrog in The Fellowship of the Ring but its amazing. Now, give us why when we first get there everybody is dead and why the Dwarves cannot retake it until the world has changed. This is goosebump type awesome material.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 7 2013, 11:53pm


Views: 570
I felt the same.

Cheers to you and Lustiano on the matter. As to the next. . . I understand. lolFrom a Silmarillion worthy moment to Indianna Jones in ten seconds flat. lol

In Reply To
Gandalfs entrance was one of my favorite Gandalf moments in all of the films so far! But then the next scene happens...


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 12:02am


Views: 558
I think that despite your general good nature,

somewhere deep inside there may be a little inner bully who wants to kick the ass of poor Ori, the nerd whose eldest brother clearly gives him the mother hen treatment. lol I liked him, though not half as much as Balin and Bofur and possibly Gloin. If it pleases you, he doesn't make it out of Moria. . . but that thought makes me rather sad.Unsure

In Reply To
I have this ridiculous hatred for Ori which I don't even understand. He just rubs me the wrong way entirely. Everything from his design, to his lines, to the way he speaks, that slingshot...ughhh


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 12:04am


Views: 547
I think a poll would have to be done to see whether he worked or not. A lot of

people liked him. I think kids identified with him well.

In Reply To
I feel sad for Ori because Adam himself seems lovely and I think he was supposed to be a loveable Private Pike type person (British people know who I mean) but somehow it just hasn;t worked, so far anyway.I think it's because he is supposed to be the baby of the group but looks middle aged!

On another note, does anyone know if any of these fabled fan edits exist and if so, has anyone seen one?


"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."


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 1:47am


Views: 539
Spot on

That to me sounds perfect. I think you could really make the impact showing the book page and then going into flashback. I think the audience would be pulled immediately into the importance of the event then and what is to come in The Lord of the Rings. IMO it just makes things even more powerful than they currently stand. I agree that by mentioning him even thenwould only add. I mean we already know part of retaking of The Lonely Mountain is because of a possible Smaug/Sauron and would make sense to go that route with Sauron/Balrog.

It does tie their history together. Between what we see in The Fellowship in Moria and what Thorin has said it makes it so much more powerful. It also helps represent the importance both have in the text Tolkien wrote. It does what I think has been done so well capture the heart of the text.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 2:07am


Views: 559
I have my good days and bad days

but hopefully I'll beat everything. I'll just say I'm healing and I have hair again Wink

Anyways I have been lurking just not posting, since I am in the minority of people who think the film was less than spectacular. Like I said I thought the first half, minus the crappy mostly made up prologue, was pretty darn good. Once they left Baggend I just think the whole film went down hill into B movie standards with modern technology. Peter Jackson was worried more about his big sweeping 3D camera moves than telling the story of Bilbo. More concerned with making up additions to directly link the LOTR trilogy instead of telling the Hobbit story and letting LOTR tell people what they need to know after the fact.

I see major plot holes in Jackson's troll sequence. Kili and Fili are on watch, yet some HUGE troll strolls in unheard, and unnoticed. All the while uprooting and knocking over trees to carrying off 2 ponies at a time as if the nags were going willingly and silently. Doesn't make sense to me. I still think the dwarves being wet and cold seeing a fire in the distance sending Bilbo to investigate would have worked just fine plus it wouldn't have opened up the holes Jackson opened.

Goblin Town to me was just some amusement park ride so they could show off the new 3D CG environment that they built. which IMO just looked OTT and fake. All the falling and nobody getting hurt just totally unbelievable to me. The Great Goblin was well acted by Humphrey's but he just looked like a character from a video game. Unlike Gollum who truly looked like part of the scene The Great Goblin just looked placed on top of the scene. Gandalf's entrance was pretty good and then right back to some sort of roller coaster ride to make you dizzy and seasick.

The ring I hated that they had to slow motion the ring, see it falling out of Gollum's clothing. All the while playing up the whole presence of the thing. Foreshadowing was definitely NOT needed since we get the whole story at the beginning of FOTR. Just another cheap tie in to the LOTR for no good reason other than they could.

Radagast while I love most of the character visually, other than the bird crap covering on his head and face, was just awful. He neither led the wargs away or did anything useful. Other than look like he was green screened in over a field crisscrossing in front or behind the dwarves leading the Orcs (who truly had no place in the Hobbit) only closer to them.

Azog I hated him right from the start. He looked like something from the God of War video game, superimposed over top of something that was really on the screen. He just felt like something they thought of at the last minute and said "hey, you know what would be cool?" and just did it without thinking it through. I found the altered Tolkien lore that they made up awful and just in poor taste compared to the original way the Azog/Thror - Dain/Azog storyline actually went. The flashback stuff could have been SOOOOOO much better had they stuck to what Tolkien wrote. Instead of opting to make up more and more material, CLAIMING to be using the appendices.

The White Council to me seemed like they forgot Saruman and Gandalf were supposed to be friends. That Gandalf felt comfortable enough in going to Saruman at the beginning of FOTR for help only to then be betrayed. In the Hobbit version it was almost like there was some power struggle between the two. Or that Gandalf was some subservient of Saruman's. Saruman basically daring Gandalf to go to DolGUldur to find proof about the necromancer. The only thing I did like about the white council scene was the fact of Saruman down playing the necromancer. Dismissing him and passing him off as "some human wizard" rather than pushing the whole Sauron issue. (Which personally I feel should just be ignored but feel it will come into play in a major way in the next 2 films) The acting overall just seemed subpar compared to LOTR (personally I see Smaug being a lesser bad guy in Jackson's films of the Hobbit than Sauron when its all said and done which is horrible IMO)

The stone giants Totally OTT and awful. seeing them in the background throwing boulders would have been really cool. Close enough to be a threat and cause the dwarves to seek shelter but not Hey I'm riding the giant at Six Flags close. But for the dwarves to be riding on them, and more falling and more danging off cliff faces. Just too much. It was a great visual, but the concept was poorly thought out IMO. To me it seemed the story came secondary to the flash bang effects and roller coaster thrill ride aspect.

And then the Gandalf telling Bilbo when to not take a life speech. seemed like a rehashed version of what Gandalf told Frodo in FOTR. It was something that wasn't needed and took away from Bilbo's character growth that we get to see from the book. Then there was the whole Bilibo killing a warg part, the saving Thorin part. Almost made me wonder if Jackson even read the Hobbit at all.

I loved the parts that stayed close to the book but the sections that deviated from it into made up fan fiction territory to me were awful. Those moments were far too many and far too close together to be ignored for me. Its almost as if Jackson set out to deliberately change the tale Tolkien wrote into something it isn't. I always found the Hobbit to be about Bilbo first and foremost, with Thorin and Gandalf to be supporting characters. I don't think they need to be as important as Bilbo or should be. Bilbo's adventure was not as grand as Frodo's and should never have been tried to be made as such. I don't care about just seeing more middle earth, I only ever really cared about seeing the story of the Hobbit brought to life.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 8 2013, 2:13am)


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 2:18am


Views: 535
Completely and utterly

There needs to be some allusion to Durin's Bane and the death of Balin (Ori and Oin would be a bonus). If there isn't, well I'll be annoyed.

I'm not at all concerned with an Azog-Balrog connection though....


marillaraina
Rohan

Mar 8 2013, 2:19am


Views: 613
ROFL

Love it. Yeah. I can imagine Jackson thinking, regarding the critics "Here's your $1,001,424,668 act of contrition right here"


marillaraina
Rohan

Mar 8 2013, 2:32am


Views: 626
No so sure...


In Reply To
so what is Tauriel? other than pandering. and a completely altered female role. I bet she falls in love with Kili too.


I listened to http://www.aidanturnerunited.com/...-with-the-movie-bit/, which I believe was posted here a while ago, with Aidan Turner yesterday and noticed in this interview he flat out says that Laketown is important for his character.

So I'm not sure what ever is between Kili and Tauriel will actually be that a big of a deal given as Laketown appears to be more of a big deal for the character, I noticed he also mentioned they'd meet Bard in Laketown which makes me wonder, again, if the two of them won't interact in some significant way.

As for Tauriel, I don't think it's a huge thing to change the Capt of the guard into a female elf instead of a male. There are other changes, but for the most part I think those changes probably would have been made if the character had remained male.


(This post was edited by marillaraina on Mar 8 2013, 2:34am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 2:52am


Views: 611
Absolutely


In Reply To
That to me sounds perfect. I think you could really make the impact showing the book page and then going into flashback. I think the audience would be pulled immediately into the importance of the event then and what is to come in The Lord of the Rings. IMO it just makes things even more powerful than they currently stand. I agree that by mentioning him even thenwould only add. I mean we already know part of retaking of The Lonely Mountain is because of a possible Smaug/Sauron and would make sense to go that route with Sauron/Balrog.

It does tie their history together. Between what we see in The Fellowship in Moria and what Thorin has said it makes it so much more powerful. It also helps represent the importance both have in the text Tolkien wrote. It does what I think has been done so well capture the heart of the text.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 4:02am


Views: 614
Prayers and well wishes to you Sinister71

I hope you improve steadily and rapidly.

"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."


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 10:32am


Views: 579
Seconded wholeheartedly...


In Reply To
I hope you improve steadily and rapidly.






Your welcome voice has been missed around here. Smile


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort






Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 10:36am


Views: 621
Disconcerting...


Quote
I listened to http://www.aidanturnerunited.com/...-with-the-movie-bit/, which I believe was posted here a while ago, with Aidan Turner yesterday and noticed in this interview he flat out says that Laketown is important for his character.


Oh good grief...is this going to be another reason why we had to have 3 films in stead of 2?


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort






burrahobbit
Rohan


Mar 8 2013, 1:34pm


Views: 615
Agree about the foreshadowing and LotR links

They were all unnecessary, trying so hard to link to the LotR franchise while failing to enhance the telling of The Hobbit story and its characters. It's a real misunderstanding of The Hobbit story to see it as a LotR prequel.

The filmmakers have added lots that is relevant to LotR, but how does the necromancer storyline help explain Bilbo's adventure and transformation? Or enhance the themes of greed, bravery and the comedy between the dwarves and Bilbo? It just comes across as clumsy screenwriting, with the director unsure if he's being comic or serious, epic or personal and the multiple threads failing to link thematically. I couldn't really believe the same team could have written FotR and have made such basic adaptation mistakes in AUJ. Azog seems like something out of a Michael Bay film.

It would be great if AUJ was some anomaly and the trilogy will change course in writing terms. At least we will get some new locations in the forthcoming films and focus on the actual quest of Erebor. But then it seems we will get a pointless Legolas cameo, more Azog, more necromancer and goodness knows what else. The CGI heavy aesthetic is here to stay also. DoS has to be better than AUJ, but most of the key adaptation decisions are now fixed.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 8 2013, 1:40pm


Views: 613
Ori is trying to be

Pike but its too forced to be natural. When he throws down his sling in the Goblin caves or wherever it was, it doesnt look natural, its more like some doofus comedy move. it weirded me out. its not ME.

Yes I dream of Minas Tirith mostly, I can hear the wind over the Pelennor fields and the silver trumpets in the dawn calling me.

Blush


tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 8 2013, 3:14pm


Views: 598
And the Jacksie line!

That was also clearly inspired by Pike, or rather Jonesy (in fact I am now starting to see the dwarves as Dad's Army) but it was just embarrassing.


elaen32
Gondor

Mar 8 2013, 4:41pm


Views: 591
What, as in....

"They don't like it up 'em Sir"??!! Or alternatively
Ori: "Whistle while you work, Azog is a twerp, 'Es 'alf barmy , So's, 'is army...."
Azog" Your name will also go on the list, what is it?" (translated into Black Speech of course)
Thorin: Don't tell him Ori!"
Apologies to all who don't know this classic Brit sitcom... I haven't lost the plot completely!!
The idea of Thorin as Capt Mainwaring, with that wig is v funny!!!

I agree though, turning Ori into Pike et al was not a good move.

"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"


tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 8 2013, 4:51pm


Views: 589
Hee hee

You've got it exactly, love the idea of Captain Thorinwaring with the wig and Bilbo is a bit sgt Wilsonish when he is rolling his eyes during the parasites speech. Kili and Fili are the stupid boys ... this is fun!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 4:53pm


Views: 583
Adam is

theater actor so i would assume he has some acting chops on him..its just the fault of the clumsy director and writers to give him such ridiculous lines and elivery. I agree with imin : i wnat to bully the geek out of him!Evil

Wow, that sounds like a wonderfull dream Elanor.But who are you in the dream?... Jacksons Steward? Shocked

I once dreamt i was a hobbit with a big sword and a company of sandwiches with pikes.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 4:59pm


Views: 578
Agreed but

those basic writing choices were made also with Lotr, to expect different from jackson and crew this time around was a leap of faith that proved unprofitable.

Jackson has already said : next movie there will be some stuff which is different form the book which is good...i dread...what could it be? Bard having a bigger role and Tauriel as means to an end : having the audience know more about the woodland elves: i understand but made romances? More Azog nonsense? I sure hope dos redeems jacksons over the topness and excessiveness with AUJ.

As to the cgi aesthetic, sadly that is here to stay. If Guillermo had remained we might have had a much more middle earthean aesthethic and feel with 35 mm celluloid and miniatures ...

I look forward to the preview -trailer this month.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 5:21pm


Views: 584
Great!

Getting hairy? Wink In no time you shall be turning it into an star fish head! Laugh

Great review sinister.

I think you make some valuable plot points and the way and his basic writing choices and directing style has really turned what looked to be a magical fairytale Hobbit story, just as Tolkie wrote into something else that is neither hobbit, nor lotr.

I disagree about the prologue, i loved that part. Erebor, the dragon, the dwarves, Dale etc i found was very fairytalish, beautifull and rich.

What did you think of the soundtrack?

Oh and please do post more if you can. Your comments are sorely missed and this website certainly needs some balance at the scale.

You should post a review of TH on the first page, like you did when Jackson announced the 3 film split and the appendices material and you got a hold of the transcripts.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 6:09pm


Views: 582
Thanks

First off I will never have a hair-do like Nori's EVER!!! Wink.... That is the one that I hated the most, as far as dwarven hair goes LOL. But I have decided I'm growing my hair as long as it will grow and never cutting it again. The same goes for the goatee too within reason. Secondly, I figured people don't want my point of view since I call it like I see and and point out places where, what was written in the book would have worked better on film than what Jackson gave us. Like I said the first half in Baggend I found fabulous but it quickly fell apart into something NOT the Hobbit, being more concerned with special effects and sweeping 3D camera moves rather than the actual story.

As far as the soundtrackI think in the film was far too repetitive and under utilized. The official soundtrack that is for sale as an album sounded wonderful, but in the film I kept hearing the same 3 or 4 themes over and over again. OR what seemed like rehashed mixes from LOTR... Nothing new and invigorating. Almost seeming as if Howard Shore said screw it and walked away from the film and a third grader stepped in and made the decisions on what music went where in the film. I was truly let down with the way the music in the film played out after hearing the actual soundtrack cds. It could have been SO much more grandiose IMO.

Let me rephrase Erobor and the prologue.. I liked the look of Erobor and Dale, and for the most part the characters. I just didn't care for the rewritten back story involved in it. To me that scene would have been much better as a memory (flashback) of Thorin's in Baggend rather than Bilbo telling it ... Bilbo telling the tale of Erobor just didn't have the weight it should have had IMO. But Thorin telling it would have. Like someone recounting a tale they knew nothing about but telling it like they knew every detail and what really happened. Even though they truly don't have a clue. Then having the elves that close to Erobor after Smaug attacked and doing nothing? Really? Sounds like a badly written made for TV drama, making up something so bad just to make up some sort of conflict that's not needed. Thranduil imprisoning the dwarves should have been enough to cause the dislike between the races. I liked the look of the dragon from what we could see, but we really didn't get to see much of him.

There were a couple things changed that I did like such as Thorin showing up late, and the betting scene was entertaining. Riddles in the dark wasn't ALL bad, although I will say I hated Gollum chasing Bilbo and wish they had Bilbo follow Gollum like in the book. That and honestly I would have preferred to see Gandalf show up at Baggend just as Bilbo thought things were over and rush him out the door to join the dwarves, with NO backpack. Bilbo wearing a hood and cloak that were too big for him (I believe he was wearing Dori's spare hood and cloak) would have been a nice touch. Hearing Bilbo talk about bacon and eggs and his warm fire in Baggend more would have been cool, since in the book he is constantly grumbling about wishing he was back at Baggend...There were so many little things Jackson could have done and still stuck closer to the book to make AUJ, SO... SO.. SO much better than it was. To me I think Peter Jackson was more concerned with the technology in making the film and connecting it to the LOTR trilogy than actually telling the story of the Hobbit or keeping any faithfulness to the text of that book. Or at least keeping the context of the story intact as Tolkien wrote it.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 8 2013, 6:11pm


Views: 576
No Learning


In Reply To
I sure hope dos redeems jacksons over the topness and excessiveness with AUJ.


Jackson and maybe Boyens (I have my doubts about her affection) love their fans, but not their opinions. Jackson makes the movie he wants to see, and if that coincides with fan opinion, so much the better, but is not dependent upon them. By all empirical evidence, Hollywood does not learn from history, but willfully repeats it. Look for more of the same.


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 6:46pm


Views: 560
Calling it like it is

Is always welcome. The key is to remember we're only calling it like it is for us. Sometimes that gets lost by people who post critical comments and positive comments. So post that you don't like the movie. You're not gonna be alone there are at least a few of ya. lol Cool



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 6:48pm


Views: 557
There was never much hope

just a fool's hope. Wink


Yes, i am not holding my breath. For some reason i also get the feeling that it is Boyens who is less open to criticism and opinions from fans.

And if she can come up with Azog and the need for his tale of vengeance to happen in real time, what else might happen...

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 8 2013, 6:57pm


Views: 568
I have a horrible feeling

they are going to make Thranduil a 'baddie'. and Tauriel is in Laketown falling in love with Bard and his sickeningly cute kid. 'gee pop! is that my new mom?'

*projectile vomit*


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 7:02pm


Views: 559
I thought the film was great

when it stuck to the book. Other than that IMO it was awfully written and rehashed dialogue from LOTR in spots and took events out of context to match Jackson's LOTR trilogy instead of keeping with the story in the book. Trust me I know I'm not alone in my displeasure of the film so far. Personally I feel let down. Peter Jackson took an opportunity to make what was one of the most anticipated films ever and turned it into something that strays so far from the source that the only real common thread is the name "the Hobbit"

I get his wanting the bigger picture, but in doing so he has killed the escence of Bilbo's adventure turning it into something its not. But that's only MY opinion Wink


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 8 2013, 7:05pm


Views: 578
When would Bard and Tauriel ever come in to contact?

A relationship with Kili is far more likely.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 7:10pm


Views: 564
How about some Bofur mustache?

Wink

By all means, be hairy, be happy! Sly

There are some people who dont wish or cant stand to see precious Hobbit filmssss critisized and get all Smaugy and Intolerant ..but, there are also many people who value posts and opinions such as your own. Please, write away! Smile


I think jackson is more interested in making a good spectacle with lots of action and cgi and hacking and chasing around than properly adapting TH. He nailed it in the first hour, i think, but then he forgets what TH is about.

The bacon dialogue would have been wonderfull.

When i hear that scenes such as :

Gloin talking about his family
Saruman and the seven rings
Bilbo buying the fish at the market and avoiding Gandy
Bilbo exploring Rivendell and Meeting Elrond
Bofur singing a song at the dinner table
Gandalf remembering young Bilbo

was left out in fvaour of time spent with : cgi extravaganza ott theme park ride with flying ladders and golins and video game antics with the Gobli King, ridiculous warg chases, Azog behaving and talking like a God of War charcater with the thro him to the wolves scene, pointless action at the trolls, OTT giants boxing match, etc...

Jckson's priorities become clear to me. Which is why i look forward to the Extended Edition.

Agreed, the album soundtrack is more interesting than the actual film music which was used. I was quickly tired of the misty mountains theme being inserted into every dwarfs attacking moment...

I understand your quibbles with the prologue and i can imagine how Thorin narrating it might be interesting, but for me, since i didnt like Thorin and like Bilbo, and since its a film about Bilbo, and his tale , i find it appropriate that it is him who narrates the prologue.

The elves...i liked it all even Thranduils abandoning of the dwarves...Blush and visiting Thror.


Thorin showing up late is a change i appreciate, a is Bilbos next morning scene. I prefer it to the actual book moment. It was just so powerfull, his body language, his movements, his slow realization of what his life would be if he stayed that he just JUMPS out the door in full Tookish mode to go on an adventure! And the bet scene was lovely yes, and the handkerchief was such a good laugh.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Mar 8 2013, 7:15pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 7:18pm


Views: 565
I get Thranduil being

played as an unlikeable character at first...but Bard and Tauriel? Dont give me nightmares please...Crazy

Also, wouldnt that be interracial breeding, which in ME ...doesnt really happen that much? I dont remember...between woodland elves and the men of laketown...

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 7:31pm


Views: 549
Fair Enough

I don't think its perfect but I did enjoy it very much. I feel bad for yall that feel let down because I know how I would have felt if this movie wasn't what I had wanted to see. For me this was every bit The Hobbit as I could hope. I hope for those that didn't like it things going forward are better for you all.



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 7:35pm


Views: 551
It is like

having been teased with the greatest christmas gift ever....and then having it be just some socks. Sly

What did you think of Azog?

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 7:38pm


Views: 625
Always two sides of the coin


In Reply To

There are some people who dont wish or cant stand to see precious Hobbit filmssss critisized and get all Smaugy and Intolerant ..but, there are also many people who value posts and opinions such as your own. Please, write away! Smile

That works both ways to be fair. There are some people who beat the horse past dead starting threads trying to remind us all why they think the movie is some kind of abomination in the guise of discussion. I think we all value open discussion both postitive and negative as long as its within a certain context of not beating someone over the head over and over with it. Cool



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 7:46pm


Views: 627
Love Christmas

I guess. I feel bad I really do that people did not like the movie. For me personally I got the gift I was looking for. It had the heart of the book with some nice additions and some things I'd change.

Design wise I really liked it. I would have liked to see him bite it and Bolg be the main bad guy chasing them. I'd have gone with Bolg to be honest.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 7:51pm


Views: 619
There would be nothing to criticize

if Jackson had kept his film up to the caliber of Tolkien's writing.

Abandoning a great story for spectacle and senseless action sequences IMO is always a mistake.

Like I said there were spots of brilliance but none of them were written by Peter Jackson. My biggest fear is Sauron will be more of a villian than Smaug. everything will become about the ring, and tale that Tolkien wrote about Bilbo and HIS adventure will be lost in some mess more concerned with middle earth as a whole than the story at hand.

Even though LOTR was released 10 years ago I think the film quality stands up in this day and age. where as the texture and style of the Hobbit films will be quickly forgotten by most who are not into Tolkien like those of us here on this and many other sites because of all the spectacle and lack of story. I loved the way they treated LOTR as historical instead of telling a fantasy story, to me it made it more believable and "real" for lack of a better word. The Hobbit just seems like some blockbuster Hollywood cookie cutter action adventure fantasy film instead of realistic like LOTR. which I feel will be its undoing ultimately


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 8:07pm


Views: 620
Azog SUCKED

sorry have to say it... I think it was the worst creative decision ever. I could have lived with Bolg hunting them wanting revenge for his fathers death. But instead they totally changed Tolkien lore for what? Some crappy God of War wanna be character. I hated it 100%.... And whats this nonsense I keep hearing about Bolg being the torturer of DolGuldur? talk about trying to wrap everything up in a nice little package and link it all to Sauron. Pathetic IMO. Like I said my fear is that Jackson is gonna make the Battle of 5 armies about Sauron coming down on the free people of middle earth all over again because Bolg will be working for Sauron who will be leading the Orcs/goblins in the BO5A making it all about Sauron wanting to gain control all over again, Instead of it being about the Goblins of the Misty mountains chasing after Thorin and company for killing the Great Goblin, or hearing that a Dragon Horde was unprotected like in the book. But instead it will probably all be about Sauron trying to come back to power ultimately... GOD I HOPE NOT!!!!! Mad


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 8:08pm


Views: 616
more like

finding a xbox box under the tree just to find out Santa took a dump in it Tongue


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 8:55pm


Views: 614
LOL

thats gross , no more poop please, i have seen all the poop i need already with Radagast! Laugh

Like Shelobbs Appetite said : Jackson paints a Mona Lisa and then he scribbles all over it.


I already feel that Azog and Sauron have taken up the antogonits role more than Smaug. You descriptiona nd fears are sensible and it is something that i fear as well...you know ....Nazgul riding the dragon... or Sauron manipulating Smaug...which diminishes Smaug as a villain...i could see jackson going this route...i hope i am wrong!

I think a lot of the anger directed at Azog would not exist if he was Bolg, as Tolkien wrote and not the mystical undead or born again Azog.


I think you are right about the timeless quality of lotr. I feel it stands alone as a very special trilogy of films. I feel that historical feel you mention could have been given to TH by shooting on film, using miniatures, no 3d, no 48 fps, judicious use of green screens and cgi, greater use of real world locations, competent and magical use of lighting and shadows, etc...In summary, what made lotr such a beautifull film...

Apart from that, TH is a fairytale and ahould have more of a fantastical feel to it.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 9:22pm


Views: 610
You and Platt are not alone in this thought.

I have gotten the feeling that, where Jackson knows he was not ever an Expert on the lore ("he says he's an expert!" no, he didn't), and while he does some things differently based on what he wants to see, he goes to Phillipa for her expertise. She wears the expert mantle, and seems more inclined to think she knows better than all other fans and scholars and better than Tolkien, seemingly undeterred by Stephen Colbert having proved that this is not necessarily so Tongue. This is not to say that no changes should ever be made to anything. Yet, they should be careful changes, and should not brazenly defy key aspects of story or cannon.

In Reply To
just a fool's hope. Wink


Yes, i am not holding my breath. For some reason i also get the feeling that it is Boyens who is less open to criticism and opinions from fans.

And if she can come up with Azog and the need for his tale of vengeance to happen in real time, what else might happen...


"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."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 9:32pm


Views: 621
I don't know about more fantastical

but I think the Hobbit should have started out more innocent than LOTR. Since in my mind it would have been a more innocent time in Middle earth. Sauron in hiding, no sign of dragons for 170 plus years, just a world where the evil seems to be less obvious, but as the film goes on and Bilbo's eyes are opened to the world outside the shire it grows more. Still all the while maintaining that historical feel and tone to the films. The thing that IMO gave LOTR its realism.

I think they made some poor decisions about scripting, about the technology, about changing so many aspects of the story. I hate the fact that they shortened the time frame. The key part of the time was, people had forgotten about the dragon. Smaug was a myth, something of legend, that nobody knew whether he existed anymore or not or some even doubted he ever existed. 60 years is just not long enough for people to forget losing everything that they had. They could have explained Thorin not coming back for so long in many ways, one of them being he had no help until this time. I'm not saying they had to make Thorin old either, Aragorn was 87 but looked 37 in LOTR, dwarves are a different race all together so the youthful look could be explained as that.

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 9:40pm


Views: 611
yep exactly


Quote
This is not to say that no changes should ever be made to anything. Yet, they should be careful changes, and should not brazenly defy key aspects of story or cannon.

Hear hear!!! I agree with that. But it is quite obvious that no thought was given to the drastic changes that were made to the story... But they kept saying about the new filming style, "isn't this cool" or "don't you love the 48fps in 3D?"

I think Boyens should have went back and took the script writing 201 course. Cause obviously she still can't write a good script to save her life. The best parts of the Hobbit were written by Tolkien, and where they changed it, it shows Badly. Unsure

Like I keep saying the story is everything in a film like the Hobbit. The spectacle and flashy roller coaster ride theatrics should come second, which in Jackson's Hobbit is definitely NOT the case.



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 10:50pm


Views: 599
I think one thing that is important, and this they have (mostly) managed,

is that Bilbo does not see the darkening. He doesn't see any wraiths, he does not (and hopefully will not) encounter any obvious servants of Sauron. . . I wish Bolg had taken Azog's prominence. . . "Gorka Morka, I am alive," still sums alot of the Azog business up for me. Oh well. . . we shall see.

In Reply To
but I think the Hobbit should have started out more innocent than LOTR. Since in my mind it would have been a more innocent time in Middle earth. Sauron in hiding, no sign of dragons for 170 plus years, just a world where the evil seems to be less obvious, but as the film goes on and Bilbo's eyes are opened to the world outside the shire it grows more. Still all the while maintaining that historical feel and tone to the films. The thing that IMO gave LOTR its realism.

I think they made some poor decisions about scripting, about the technology, about changing so many aspects of the story. I hate the fact that they shortened the time frame. The key part of the time was, people had forgotten about the dragon. Smaug was a myth, something of legend, that nobody knew whether he existed anymore or not or some even doubted he ever existed. 60 years is just not long enough for people to forget losing everything that they had. They could have explained Thorin not coming back for so long in many ways, one of them being he had no help until this time. I'm not saying they had to make Thorin old either, Aragorn was 87 but looked 37 in LOTR, dwarves are a different race all together so the youthful look could be explained as that.

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.


"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."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 8 2013, 11:24pm


Views: 605
lets hope the EE

makes up for the socks. I much prefer the EE versions of LOTR and I never watch the theatrical versions because they are not as interesting for me, probably there will be a lot more Rivendell and Bilbo which will alter my idea that Bilbo gets too little time on -screen, if we get some nice stuff with Elrond and Narsil and him wandering about, that will make me happier. Also I would like to see more Hobbiton, the market scene looked nice.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 11:40pm


Views: 611
I LOVE EE Fellowship. I HATE EE Rotk, and ONLY ever watch the theatrical of that.

What Peter did with the scene between The Witch-King and Gandalf vexed and upset me so badly that I have been vehemently unwilling to watch that version since. And there were other additions that I liked, but they are not enough. That scene ranks easily among the top three most offensive, to me, additions, detractions and alterations ever made by Peter to these works, and that takes into account EVERYTHING in An Unexpected journey.

In Reply To
makes up for the socks. I much prefer the EE versions of LOTR and I never watch the theatrical versions because they are not as interesting for me, probably there will be a lot more Rivendell and Bilbo which will alter my idea that Bilbo gets too little time on -screen, if we get some nice stuff with Elrond and Narsil and him wandering about, that will make me happier. Also I would like to see more Hobbiton, the market scene looked nice.


"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."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 1:38am


Views: 585
I prefer the EE as well

but as AO said there are a couple scenes in the EE that are quite troublesome IMO. But for the most part I found them to be nice little character moments that rounded out the characters.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 9 2013, 12:45pm


Views: 570
yes the Gandalf /Witchking scene

is bad. Fast forward that bit. But the House of Healing makes up for it for me anyway.


Phibbus
Rohan


Mar 9 2013, 3:17pm


Views: 563
What was the question?


In Reply To
I'm curious, in light of the fact that the critical consensus (see RT scores) seems to be that AUJ was not as good a film as any of the Rings films, whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?

Many of the replies so far seem to be answering the question of whether Jacksn ought to express regret instead of what you asked, which is whether or not he has.

While I don't think I've heard anything out of him which could be construed as regret (that would indeed be a dangerous thing for any commercial artist to admit, but especially so with two more installments in a series coming out,) I think he pretty clearly acknowledged the movie's lack of potential for critical recognition in the months leading up to release. It was n those months of final production that statements to the effect of: "I don't consider myself an artist, but an entertainer;" and "I have to make the movie I want to see" became key talking points in each of his interviews.

It must have been clear to him that the boat was not going to float very high in the review waters, and his strategy was a smart one: Given the number of times the sentiment has been reiterated in this thread alone, the message clearly reached the fan-base. It provides an easy means of deflecting criticism from the get-go (doing so before there's anything to criticize,) but at the same time does not reject critical praise in the unlikely event that it might actually come.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

(This post was edited by Phibbus on Mar 9 2013, 3:23pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 4:02pm


Views: 558
Cheers to that

Smile

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 4:04pm


Views: 559
Agreed

And its not as if her writing is superb. Azog is a wonderfull example of creative writing gone beserk . Gorka Morka indeed! Tongue


They should have hired you as a consultant. The films woudl have been better for it.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 9 2013, 4:36pm


Views: 559
thats very interesting

because I think he does consider himself an artist, very much so. In LOTR he really was an artist, in so many wonderful ways, his artistic vision made LOTR beloved of millions because of their visual beauty and emotional richness. Unfortunately something went pear shaped in AUJ, maybe it was over confidence in technology or maybe he was just bored of ME, perhaps he felt he was just rehashing old ground and lost that indefinable spark I feel so strongly in LOTR, but this just me thinking outloud I dont know any of this. I only know I didnt feel the same energy in AUJ.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 9 2013, 7:13pm


Views: 535
Retelling the story out of sequence.

This type of critique really puzzles me. We have known for three years that we were going off the page to actually experience what happened whilst Gandalf was on his "other business". It was cool three years ago to say "I am not up for an adult re imagining of the Hobbit, placed in its geo political context" As a deep fan what else did you expect.

I am also completely non plussed how people do not see the reason for contraction of times and transference into the real time line. Deep fans might want to have continual contextualisation of the past as look backs but if you want immediate emotional engagement for a global audience whom no nothing of the appendices you make it happen in front of them.

I am huge fan of the English Patient but thats hard work for a lot of cinema goers not because they are not bright but they want to discover the story through forward momentum.

I miss the splendid Azog/Thror/Nar/ Revenge Battle/Nain/Dain arc but I see exactly why they went where they did. Azog is/was hated by Thorin and the rest of the company we get to experience that real time.

It maybe it is because my partner is a non Tolkien fan who enjoyed AUJ but I see these decisions in the round.

Elsewhere you criticise the endless pace and reducing of Bilbo as do others.

After Rivendell if you compare time spent on small moments with Bilbo against large scale spectacular moments they are about even. The key actions sequences Giants/Goblin Capture and Goblin escape take up less time than the Gollum/Bilbo encounter. Giants/G Capture/G Escape/Cones may not be to your taste in execution but they were in the book. Many people lauded Sam Mendes for taking seven minutes over the key encounter between Craig and Bardem at 7 minutes, G/B is more than twice that.

Whether we like it or not these films are huge and need to play beyond 10,000 people registered with Onering.net. In that context the longest scenes bag end and riddles were very brave.

As someone whom was introduced to Tolkien 47 years ago I thought the film reflected what we know. Whatever the film makers strengths and weakness's they are placing moving images which refract a good deal of Tolkiens world on to the screen. They like Bilbo may not have told us everything in an entirely accurate way or dare I say how we see it, but it is middle earth, and for me a believable one, from which much pleasure can be drawn rather than worrying about a handful of moments that are flawed. Of course for some very little works and for those nothing will assuage their sense of disappointment and displeasure, hopefully they will find solace elswhere.





In Reply To

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 9 2013, 8:37pm


Views: 526
Awww.

BlushBlushBlushBlushBlushBlush Thanks. Definitely no "Gorka Morka" lines! lol

In Reply To
And its not as if her writing is superb. Azog is a wonderfull example of creative writing gone beserk . Gorka Morka indeed! Tongue


They should have hired you as a consultant. The films woudl have been better for it.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 9 2013, 8:51pm


Views: 520
I agree with much of what you say here, but on the matter of Azog and The Giants

My issue with Azog is that it could have been much more powerful if told closer to the way it was. Even if it were Thorin, not Dain, who slays him and beholds Durin's Bane in the shadows of Moria. The war of vengeance, the hunting of Azog etc. . . the utter inability of the Dwarves to reclaim Moria for the presence of the Demon Captain of the Elder Days. . . so powerful. The scene was good. It could have been better. The Timeline for the muster of the war could have been truncated easily enough. In the prologue of Fellowship we get from Sauron's forging of The RulingRing, to the Battle of the last Alliance in about 30 seconds. About 3,000 years, give or take a few centuries, truncated to 30 seconds. The same could have been done for the Dwarf war. We get Thrain's brooding grief and rage, and then. . . visions of the sacking of the goblin strongholds, and at the last, the great battle on the slopes of Moria's walls, pretty much as depicted in the film but with a few key revisions. And Bolg as the vendetta driven hunter. I liked the look of Azog (wouldn't have made him bald, but eh), and I thought he was properly menacing. But it wasn't, to my mind, worth warping the history to have him.


As to the stone giants. Too much. They were just too big and too litho-transformer. And I like the transformers, and have since childhood. I just don't want them in the time of Middle-Earth. They were so massive and so in the fore, I feel they ultimately diminish the vastness and force of nature strength of Smaug. As I said before, it is harder to be awed by the size and destructive power of even a great dragon, when you've just sat through Fox's "When Mountains Attack".

I also hope it is clear that Gandalf's earlier meeting with Thrain was LONG ago. It gives a better insight to casual viewers of just how long The Gray Messenger has been working the circuit, if you will, in vigilant service and defence against incursions of the ambiguous Shadow.


And I say this as someone who, like you, really LOVED the movie and thought it was a Great film in its own right. There were just a few things I think they really did get wrong.

In Reply To
This type of critique really puzzles me. We have known for three years that we were going off the page to actually experience what happened whilst Gandalf was on his "other business". It was cool three years ago to say "I am not up for an adult re imagining of the Hobbit, placed in its geo political context" As a deep fan what else did you expect.

I am also completely non plussed how people do not see the reason for contraction of times and transference into the real time line. Deep fans might want to have continual contextualisation of the past as look backs but if you want immediate emotional engagement for a global audience whom no nothing of the appendices you make it happen in front of them.

I am huge fan of the English Patient but thats hard work for a lot of cinema goers not because they are not bright but they want to discover the story through forward momentum.

I miss the splendid Azog/Thror/Nar/ Revenge Battle/Nain/Dain arc but I see exactly why they went where they did. Azog is/was hated by Thorin and the rest of the company we get to experience that real time.

It maybe it is because my partner is a non Tolkien fan who enjoyed AUJ but I see these decisions in the round.

Elsewhere you criticise the endless pace and reducing of Bilbo as do others.

After Rivendell if you compare time spent on small moments with Bilbo against large scale spectacular moments they are about even. The key actions sequences Giants/Goblin Capture and Goblin escape take up less time than the Gollum/Bilbo encounter. Giants/G Capture/G Escape/Cones may not be to your taste in execution but they were in the book. Many people lauded Sam Mendes for taking seven minutes over the key encounter between Craig and Bardem at 7 minutes, G/B is more than twice that.

Whether we like it or not these films are huge and need to play beyond 10,000 people registered with Onering.net. In that context the longest scenes bag end and riddles were very brave.

As someone whom was introduced to Tolkien 47 years ago I thought the film reflected what we know. Whatever the film makers strengths and weakness's they are placing moving images which refract a good deal of Tolkiens world on to the screen. They like Bilbo may not have told us everything in an entirely accurate way or dare I say how we see it, but it is middle earth, and for me a believable one, from which much pleasure can be drawn rather than worrying about a handful of moments that are flawed. Of course for some very little works and for those nothing will assuage their sense of disappointment and displeasure, hopefully they will find solace elswhere.





In Reply To

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.



"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Mar 9 2013, 8:53pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 8:52pm


Views: 509
Thank god!

just out of curiosity, how would you have handled the azog bolg stuff?

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 9 2013, 9:10pm


Views: 510
For what it's worth. . .

lol. As all such revision is vain for now. lol. I'd have stuck much closer to the book on some of the Dwarf war details. Azog would have perished, Bolg would have hunted Thorin (if I were going to hew at all closely to the way Peter did things), and, if the Thorin charging down the tree scene remained at all, it would be driven by Bolg speaking of Thrain in similar manner, i.e. Bolg had Thrain in his none too tender keeping at some point and gives Thorin to know it.

I also would have let the wargs show up on their own at first in the last chase, to give them a little air as the frightening and indepently evil creatures they are, attempting to hem the company in during the night (nothing like borderline werewolves chasing you through a nightime forest) rather than having Azog mount the ridge in broad daylight and essentially yell "charge!".

You already know even without me saying those pinecone fires would have been a little more blue to start with, and packed just a touch more punch on first impact. Nothing crazy, but. . . you know. Wink lol

But, hey. . . it is what it is at this point. lol

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Mar 9 2013, 9:12pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 9:32pm


Views: 503
Some facts remain to be seen

but from what we have seen so far. Gandalf's business will end up being as important or more important than Bilbo's adventure with the direction Jackson is taking. Which is NOT what the Hobbit was about. Yes I find it interesting to see where Gandalf went and what he did but that could be flashback at some point in the tale as well as the stuff happening while he is away from Bilbo. Keeping timelines intact, esp since there is no real reason to alter them... I find no fault in Jackson wanting to show where Gandalf went or what he did. Where I find faults with his story is the whole, making the Necromancer just as big a part or as important a part, as the tale of the dwarves adventure to the lonely mountain.It's just, to me anyways, a mistake no matter how it gets done. Peter Jackson made changes just because he knew he could get away with them instead of telling the story the way it was supposed to be. And people still make excuses for him. Where gandalf goes should not be the focus of the story it should IMO be a minor detour along the way telling Bilbo's story. Plus we are getting more made up stuff by from all reports Legolas and Tuariel showing up to save or at least help save the dwarves from the spiders. When is enough change enough? I really could have cared less about seeing Legolas. A cameo would have been enough, esp with Orlando Blooms wooden acting. But again its changes like these that if more people were less forgiving and wanted the story as it should be instead of just accepting what we get on screen maybe books we love would get adapted the right way instead of being something totally different. Change just to make it different is not a good thing. If people like the book they are gonna like a movie that follows the book.

The fact remains Jackson is making this film more about middle earth than the adventure at hand which was a book called the Hobbit as everyone knows. Whats sad is people who haven't read the book think all Jackson's made up crap is in there too. Then are either let down when they read the book because its not there, or think WTF was he thinking putting that in the film. With all the changes I don't think they took the book serious enough. I think they set out to deliberately change it and over all except the parts they kept close to the book I feel they ruined it.

Stuff like Azog and changing the whole story around the battle of Azanulbizar was either a pathetic lack of research or caring on the part of the film makers. The actual story of events is SO much richer and fulfilling than the garbage we were given. Even if they wanted to have orcs chasing the dwarves they could have kept the history the same and used Bolg as an antagonist wanting revenge for his fathers death. which would be playing out in real time. There is a difference between going off the page and burning half the book and just making up the rest of it.

My wife is a non Tolkien fan and said many of the same thing i do. "If they wanted to adapt the book why not adapt it instead of change it?" She had never read the Hobbit before seeing the film and after seeing the film read it. She thinks the book is much better than what we got on film. As far as playing beyond the members of Tolkien websites, give them the material as it was written and I'm sure they would have found it entertaining but they were never given a chance. Just because the basics of the events are there does not mean the events that we are given were anything like the book. I don't remember rock em sock em rock giants in the book at all, I don't remember the company riding on one of the stone giants or falling off cliff faces or any of that nonsense. I do remember them seeking shelter because some stone giants were throwing rocks at one another across the valley in a storm.what we got and what the book portrays are 2 totally different thing but similar scenarios.... I'll take the one from the book because it makes much more sense and doesn't look ridiculous. Not everything needs to be OTT like Jackson does it.

I'm glad some people can accept what we got on film and think its good. I think some of it was good, even great. But I found much more of it to be typical Hollywood OTT nonsense not befitting a film based on Tolkien. LOTR was a film befitting of Tolkien for the majority of those films with a few bad choices made in script. The Hobbit has it totally backwards IMO, a few moments of greatness with the majority being OTT and not worthy of having the name the Hobbit attached to it.

But opinions very that's what makes the world go round.Wink


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 9 2013, 9:41pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 1:08am


Views: 484
Your version

would have been better. Be it the bluer pinecones, having Bolg instead of Gorka Morka, the wargs forst etc...

Hell, the rankin bass version is better. I ve recently discovered that scene is probably the scene i hate the most. Unsure

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 1:11am


Views: 674
Amen

your last 2 paragraphs, very well said.

You have summed it up neatly.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 1:24am


Views: 665
All Ablush again. lol

I, unsurprisingly, think it would have worked better thus. But, not to us were those millions entrusted lol. A too liked the Rankin Bass pinecone envisioning better. I am glad it was included at all, but I must admit Peter had rather gotten my hopes up after the Wizard's entrance into Goblin town, and the burst of blue fire that he used to dislodge the boulder there. It lulled me into thinking that Peter had gone back and read about Gandalf's penchant for explosive bursts of blue flame, and that the pinecone scene would be properly impressive, even as it avoided going overboard into sheer Michael Bay territory.

In Reply To
would have been better. Be it the bluer pinecones, having Bolg instead of Gorka Morka, the wargs forst etc...

Hell, the rankin bass version is better. I ve recently discovered that scene is probably the scene i hate the most. Unsure


"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."


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 10 2013, 3:02pm


Views: 652
How they chose to avoid over balancing the book narrative

On the question of the mis-casting of the giants as transformers and Radagast and the "hare brained" non decoy decoy I am, as you know, right there.

On the question of your solution to Azog's back story in isolation I would agree. However there is a more fundamental challenge for the film makers of the Hobbit particularly when a hugely successful LOTR has already been made.

The Hobbit only gained its significance within the legendarium long after it was written. Tolkien re wrote the riddles chapter, found out the meaning of the white council and the necromancer and wrote up the Thror/Thrain back-story twenty years later.
The very real danger of investing a post LOTR Hobbit film within its context is the context becomes bigger than the subject.

There are, for film goers, four contextualising subjects to deal with:-

1) The destruction of Erebor.
2) The death of Thror at the hand of Azog.
3) The incarceration of Thrain by the servants of the enemy.
4) The reintegration of Saurons form and his acolytes and I use that word deliberately within the context of the film universe.

The script writers found a solution and hierarchy of reveal for each of the four elements and made conscious decisions about the weight of each and which should be real time and which should be look back.

Erebor was a no brainer as the epilogue it is the most important and drives the story.

The death of Thror was the next but was simplified and threaded into the real time narrative so it had immediacy and pertinence rather than "oh that's interesting history but why slow things down" .

The incarceration of Thrain was to be yet another epilogue but the decision was take ,wisely in my view, to delay its inclusion into the second film and I suspect like the Thror story arc it will not complete ninety years ago it will straddle and be threaded into the real time narrative.

The reintegration of Sauron could have been a fourth epilogue but instead it has been brought into the real time narrative, though at the last minute it was decided Gandalf and Radagasts discovery at the high fells will now be recounted but from within the current movie time line.

The weight of all this material needs to be used sparingly and carefully to add depth to tell the story but not lose sight of the strategic decision made that these films are about Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf . So whilst I would have loved every nuanced element of the appendices to appear, and I still hope for the Balrog in the Thrain arc,if you delve to deep you over turn the lead story. The balance they have applied may not be to every bodies taste but I can see why they went as far as they did.

Now for those who wanted their episodic children's book and none of this other hoey my argument doesn't work. But WB were never going to stump up a quarter of a billion dollars to send a different group of actors to NZ to make that story in a single film. What they were happy to do is underwrite a two film adaption which would draw the original talent and other talented actors into something different which would be aimed like LOTR at a global audience which would also satisfy the curiosity of Tolkiens long standing following even if they did not approve of everything done.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 10 2013, 3:05pm)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 10 2013, 3:19pm


Views: 644
they could have easily

made the Hobbit in 2 films using nothing but the book. One film would have been rushed, but two would have done the story justice without ANY additions from the appendices or made up material. IMO


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 8:34pm


Views: 619
In my opinion

A smart film maker would have handled the Hobbit films as if LOTR had never existed. None of the events that happen in LOTR have occured and there is no reason to bring them into play in the Hobbit. To me a smart film maker would have kept to the story giving some subtle hints of things that were known at the time of the Hobbit but came to fruition during LOTR. But nothing more than subtle hints. Just because LOTR was as successful as it was they should have looked at doing the Hobbit the same way. BUT they opted NOT to do that instead opting to change the way it was shot, opting to add 3D, opting to make it more of a standard fantasy film instead of going for the more historical feel of LOTR. All choices made by Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. Had they actually listened to the people who were going to be watching these films, Not about the content but the style and feel, maybe the films might have fit together more like LOTR instead of feeling like there was no solid direction for the film until the very last minute when it was actually too late to do any good. There were a ton of ways to make the Hobbit without feeling the need to make as many direct links to LOTR as Peter Jackson did. Or go so OTT and fake as they did. Personally I preferred the more realistic, historical based LOTR, which felt like real characters and real places. Instead of the Hobbit where it feels like actors in costumes and sets on a soundstages. Using rehashed dialogue and lacking the insight into the story of the Hobbit to bring it to life without making it a caricature of LOTR and over all a joke to the franchise IMO.

The destruction of Erobor could have been done as a memory of Thorin's in Baggend and been just as powerful as it was as a prologue. I felt it was an awful choice having Bilbo recount the tale, instead of Thorin. It took away from the feeling of such material. Bilbo wasn't there and wasn't emotionally invested in its telling, whereas Thorin was or even Balin for that matter. Erobor might have been the reason for the journey but it lost all its weight by being told by Bilbo. I felt the reason for the journey should have been discussed at Baggend to fill in Bilbo on why they were going on this quest.

The death of Thror at the hands of Azog is a major event, BUT it doesn't need to be changed. Azog did kill him, where I have the problem with that is they shorten the whole dwarf and Goblin war into one basic event instead of declaring that it went on for years. That the beheading of Thror was the start of it in fact. They lacked the whole Dain killing Azog part which IMO is much more important than having Azog chase Thorin all over the countryside. Since Dain becomes king under the mountain. He takes Thorin's place on the throne. Therefore his character should have been more important to the overall story. But Jackson chose to ignore it, even though it is 100 times more entertaining than what we got. Like I said Bolg could have been used as the Orc chasing Thorin and it would still have been in the current time without butchering Tolkien's lore. It would still have the same effect but still kept Tolkien history intact better than the horrible lets rewrite Tolkien lore bringing Azog back from the dead ruining more details than it helped to make better. I feel that was a lack of direction on Jackson's part or the script writers listening to someone who obviously had no clue about middle earth.

Thrain being captured by the enemy... nothing says it couldn't be shown as a flashback. But it didn't happen during the battle of Anazulbizar, it was years later. That is part of where Jackson loses faith in moviegoer to understand timelines. chooses to simplify things instead of leaving them to the imagination to the fans. Heck put times in subtitles at the bottom of the screen if he is that worried about people not understanding. At least it would add some depth to the story making it feel like there was some history involved and not just everything being rushed and in the present. Again taking it out of the past and injecting it into the present takes the weight out of it, it strips it of any historical feel which IMO carrys more weight than everything all happening at once

As far as Sauron and showing his "reintegration", he was barely mentioned in the Hobbit. 2 sentences tops in the Hobbit book. So there really is NO need to bring back Sauron as a character. I understand some people want more of that storyline, but its not important to the tale at hand which is Bilbo's adventure followed secondly by Thorin reclaiming Erobor...The Necromancer could have been done visually to be reminiscent of Sauron from LOTR but never once confirming that is who he is. Hooded figure in tattered robes almost like he had been buried for decades (also tying in the whole Necromancer, dealing with the dead thing)with rusty armor being seen underneath the robes that is reminiscent of Sauron's armor from FOTR. possibly even walking with a staff like a cane to show he has not regained his power and is weakened. But never once revealing who he truly is. Something like that would have worked fine for the necromancer character to be included without dealing anything with the ring or his real identity, but visually he would be noticeable when watching FOTR.

I don't find any issue with flashbacks making things less important to the current story. they are there for a reason to give some backstory to the current events. They shouldn't feel as frantic as the current story but should add some depth and weight to it. With them pushing everything into the current time they just make everything seem rushed and frantic and that there is SO much going on at the same time.

When Jackson stuck to Tolkien and his history and events the film was great, when he deviated from Tolkien not so much, I would just say mediocre.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 10 2013, 8:35pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 8:50pm


Views: 630
As you know, I agree with a lot of what you say here, though I still

believe that the war of The Dwarves and Orcs could have been more faithfully and better handled, without loosing the tension and villain Peter sought. Bolg works just as well as a secondary or tertiary villain and foil as if father does, if not better.

In Reply To
On the question of the mis-casting of the giants as transformers and Radagast and the "hare brained" non decoy decoy I am, as you know, right there.

On the question of your solution to Azog's back story in isolation I would agree. However there is a more fundamental challenge for the film makers of the Hobbit particularly when a hugely successful LOTR has already been made.

The Hobbit only gained its significance within the legendarium long after it was written. Tolkien re wrote the riddles chapter, found out the meaning of the white council and the necromancer and wrote up the Thror/Thrain back-story twenty years later.
The very real danger of investing a post LOTR Hobbit film within its context is the context becomes bigger than the subject.

There are, for film goers, four contextualising subjects to deal with:-

1) The destruction of Erebor.
2) The death of Thror at the hand of Azog.
3) The incarceration of Thrain by the servants of the enemy.
4) The reintegration of Saurons form and his acolytes and I use that word deliberately within the context of the film universe.

The script writers found a solution and hierarchy of reveal for each of the four elements and made conscious decisions about the weight of each and which should be real time and which should be look back.

Erebor was a no brainer as the epilogue it is the most important and drives the story.

The death of Thror was the next but was simplified and threaded into the real time narrative so it had immediacy and pertinence rather than "oh that's interesting history but why slow things down" .

The incarceration of Thrain was to be yet another epilogue but the decision was take ,wisely in my view, to delay its inclusion into the second film and I suspect like the Thror story arc it will not complete ninety years ago it will straddle and be threaded into the real time narrative.

The reintegration of Sauron could have been a fourth epilogue but instead it has been brought into the real time narrative, though at the last minute it was decided Gandalf and Radagasts discovery at the high fells will now be recounted but from within the current movie time line.

The weight of all this material needs to be used sparingly and carefully to add depth to tell the story but not lose sight of the strategic decision made that these films are about Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf . So whilst I would have loved every nuanced element of the appendices to appear, and I still hope for the Balrog in the Thrain arc,if you delve to deep you over turn the lead story. The balance they have applied may not be to every bodies taste but I can see why they went as far as they did.

Now for those who wanted their episodic children's book and none of this other hoey my argument doesn't work. But WB were never going to stump up a quarter of a billion dollars to send a different group of actors to NZ to make that story in a single film. What they were happy to do is underwrite a two film adaption which would draw the original talent and other talented actors into something different which would be aimed like LOTR at a global audience which would also satisfy the curiosity of Tolkiens long standing following even if they did not approve of everything done.


"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."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 8:55pm


Views: 614
I don't think it would have worked for the same director and cast to handle a prequel

even one that authentically came first, as if it were not a prequel. It would have been dissapointing on some levels if this film team made no attempt to tie the films into the larger series. That said, I still disliked some of their choices. I was fine with Erebor, fine with Necromancer inclusion. . . I severely disliked the changes to Dwarven (and Arnorian/Angmarin/Lindonian/Rivendellian) history, in large part because it was not required to get the story across, and because it was less potent than the actual tale.

In Reply To
A smart film maker would have handled the Hobbit films as if LOTR had never existed. None of the events that happen in LOTR have occured and there is no reason to bring them into play in the Hobbit. To me a smart film maker would have kept to the story giving some subtle hints of things that were known at the time of the Hobbit but came to fruition during LOTR. But nothing more than subtle hints. Just because LOTR was as successful as it was they should have looked at doing the Hobbit the same way. BUT they opted NOT to do that instead opting to change the way it was shot, opting to add 3D, opting to make it more of a standard fantasy film instead of going for the more historical feel of LOTR. All choices made by Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. Had they actually listened to the people who were going to be watching these films, Not about the content but the style and feel, maybe the films might have fit together more like LOTR instead of feeling like there was no solid direction for the film until the very last minute when it was actually too late to do any good. There were a ton of ways to make the Hobbit without feeling the need to make as many direct links to LOTR as Peter Jackson did. Or go so OTT and fake as they did. Personally I preferred the more realistic, historical based LOTR, which felt like real characters and real places. Instead of the Hobbit where it feels like actors in costumes and sets on a soundstages. Using rehashed dialogue and lacking the insight into the story of the Hobbit to bring it to life without making it a caricature of LOTR and over all a joke to the franchise IMO.

The destruction of Erobor could have been done as a memory of Thorin's in Baggend and been just as powerful as it was as a prologue. I felt it was an awful choice having Bilbo recount the tale, instead of Thorin. It took away from the feeling of such material. Bilbo wasn't there and wasn't emotionally invested in its telling, whereas Thorin was or even Balin for that matter. Erobor might have been the reason for the journey but it lost all its weight by being told by Bilbo. I felt the reason for the journey should have been discussed at Baggend to fill in Bilbo on why they were going on this quest.

The death of Thror at the hands of Azog is a major event, BUT it doesn't need to be changed. Azog did kill him, where I have the problem with that is they shorten the whole dwarf and Goblin war into one basic event instead of declaring that it went on for years. That the beheading of Thror was the start of it in fact. They lacked the whole Dain killing Azog part which IMO is much more important than having Azog chase Thorin all over the countryside. Since Dain becomes king under the mountain. He takes Thorin's place on the throne. Therefore his character should have been more important to the overall story. But Jackson chose to ignore it, even though it is 100 times more entertaining than what we got. Like I said Bolg could have been used as the Orc chasing Thorin and it would still have been in the current time without butchering Tolkien's lore. It would still have the same effect but still kept Tolkien history intact better than the horrible lets rewrite Tolkien lore bringing Azog back from the dead ruining more details than it helped to make better. I feel that was a lack of direction on Jackson's part or the script writers listening to someone who obviously had no clue about middle earth.

Thrain being captured by the enemy... nothing says it couldn't be shown as a flashback. But it didn't happen during the battle of Anazulbizar, it was years later. That is part of where Jackson loses faith in moviegoer to understand timelines. chooses to simplify things instead of leaving them to the imagination to the fans. Heck put times in subtitles at the bottom of the screen if he is that worried about people not understanding. At least it would add some depth to the story making it feel like there was some history involved and not just everything being rushed and in the present. Again taking it out of the past and injecting it into the present takes the weight out of it, it strips it of any historical feel which IMO carrys more weight than everything all happening at once

As far as Sauron and showing his "reintegration", he was barely mentioned in the Hobbit. 2 sentences tops in the Hobbit book. So there really is NO need to bring back Sauron as a character. I understand some people want more of that storyline, but its not important to the tale at hand which is Bilbo's adventure followed secondly by Thorin reclaiming Erobor...The Necromancer could have been done visually to be reminiscent of Sauron from LOTR but never once confirming that is who he is. Hooded figure in tattered robes almost like he had been buried for decades (also tying in the whole Necromancer, dealing with the dead thing)with rusty armor being seen underneath the robes that is reminiscent of Sauron's armor from FOTR. possibly even walking with a staff like a cane to show he has not regained his power and is weakened. But never once revealing who he truly is. Something like that would have worked fine for the necromancer character to be included without dealing anything with the ring or his real identity, but visually he would be noticeable when watching FOTR.

I don't find any issue with flashbacks making things less important to the current story. they are there for a reason to give some backstory to the current events. They shouldn't feel as frantic as the current story but should add some depth and weight to it. With them pushing everything into the current time they just make everything seem rushed and frantic and that there is SO much going on at the same time.

When Jackson stuck to Tolkien and his history and events the film was great, when he deviated from Tolkien not so much, I would just say mediocre.


"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."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 9:02pm


Views: 609
I'm sure there would always be connections

but those connections should have been much more subtle and well thought out. I think in the case of most of Jackson's connections they seem forced and unnatural, or complete rehashing of LOTR. They could have done things much better IMO and not had so much foreshadowing of what is to come, since not even Gandalf can see the future, And the Hobbit happened 60 years before LOTR.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 10 2013, 10:55pm


Views: 606
The core issue

I have read your responces and am most grateful for the varacity and application you have applied in doing so. There are I think two types of critique of AUJ those whom accept the outcome but dislike certain elements (ill judged humour, inappropriate heirarchical interpersonal relationships Galadriel/Gandalf use of CGI elements etc). Then there is the other type of criticism which suggest the whole business of the movie making is ill conceived and ill judged.

Where I think you and say Eleanorflower are flat out wrong is to suggest the current film makers could have made an innocent Hobbit isolated from its literary surroundings. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit he had no idea :-

1) Who Gandalf was.

2) Who Gollum is and the significance of the magic ring in his possession.

3) The background to the formation of the White Council and its concerns and its place with in the Ainu's strategic care for middle earth.

4) The back story regarding Azog, Thrain and the Necromencer (at this stage the 2nd age had not been fully written which is crucial in understanding the significance of Morgoth's lieutenant after Morgoth was banished at the end of the first age).

We do, we know the answer to all of these things and to suggest that PJ could have made a film without addressing and recognising this rich vein of historical context and indeed utilising and drawing on it would have been a huge missed opportunity.

All I can say is we have to agree to disagree at the most fundamental level about our approach to these movies. The key reason I am interested in them is because he is giving us a re imagined Hobbit with the benefit of hindsight. I am not interested in the childrens book with all its failings being played out on screen and I am delighted with the approach they have taken. Far from disliking the realism and immersion of 48 fps I think it combined with the semi mythical quality of the CGI prologues (not epilogues my bad!!) is riveting.

It can still go wrong and they have to be careful with Sauron and how they complete his arc after the battle of Dol Gulder but so far so mostly good.







In Reply To
but those connections should have been much more subtle and well thought out. I think in the case of most of Jackson's connections they seem forced and unnatural, or complete rehashing of LOTR. They could have done things much better IMO and not had so much foreshadowing of what is to come, since not even Gandalf can see the future, And the Hobbit happened 60 years before LOTR.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 10 2013, 10:57pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 11:41pm


Views: 592
things like

the character of Gandalf does not really change from the Hobbit to LOTR. He might have been a bit grumpier in the Hobbit but still overall the same character...

There really is no need to play up the magic ring or what it was since we get all that info in FOTR which is what those films are about the Hobbit however is NOT about the ring or Sauron for that matter. we find out what the rings significance was also in the beginning of FOTR

The white council, while I can respect what Jackson tried to do was just poorly written. It felt rushed together and incohesive. Gandalf and Saruman didn't seem like friends as we are led to believe at the beginning of FOTR. It obviously seems like there is a power struggle there which seemed unnecessary and forced to create conflict and nothing more.

Azog storyline Jackson created is nothing like Tolkien's and IMO honestly and bluntly just plain sucks when compared to the way Tolkien wrote it. As I said had it been Bolg chasing Thorin and the rest of the history been intact it might have worked much better but the way it stands now. It's nothing compared to the original way Tolkien wrote it..

If Jackson had followed Tolkien's history instead of trying to change it maybe it would have worked better but I still feel he failed miserably in presenting something Tolkien would have considered good or even been proud of


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 10 2013, 11:49pm


Views: 594
Feigned Ignorance

Yes, I would not want to keep myself in feigned ignorance of what was later discovered about Middle Earth. I'd rather approach the story as if there were a history unearthed after the original telling. That seems to me to be in keeping with the spirit of the historical or nostalgic nature of the Middle Earth collection. Telling the story as if we did not already know the background and the outcome would be, perhaps to a real historian, dishonest and incomplete. Maybe even propaganda.

That said, the quality of the telling of the historical record is deeply in question.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 10 2013, 11:56pm


Views: 598
Spectacle

We have heard time and again that Tolkien would have looked at his work being turned into spectacle with great disdain.

Yet Peter Jackson, and hence Boyens, who both claim to have a fondness for the stories of Middle Earth, and who want to work in the spirit of Tolkien's work if not the man himself, says in one of the recent UK interview videos that he would hope Tolkien, if he were alive today, would enjoy the "spectacle" of the movies. This presents a man out of touch. I was stunned by the statement and I still have some cognitive dissonance about it. I can't believe he would really be that oblivious to what he was saying.

Here's the video:
http://www.facebook.com/...t=vb.175992219114649


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Mar 11 2013, 12:00am)


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 11 2013, 12:27am


Views: 581
I believe he meant

You can use spectacle in a couple ways. I think Tolkien was talking spectacle in something that would be pure trash. Take the movie Battleship its pure cheese (and while I enjoy it) and more the type of spectacle Tolkien would have been worried about. What Jackson meant was I believe the spectacle of seeing his works comes to life in a positive way. Also, if we're going to pick at Jackson for word choices its Middle-earth (like Tolkien wrote it) not Middle Earth.



Phibbus
Rohan


Mar 11 2013, 1:54am


Views: 587
Golly


In Reply To
I am not interested in the childrens book with all its failings being played out on screen


Now there's a piece of off-the-cuff pejorative worthy of Ms. Boyens herself.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 11 2013, 6:53am


Views: 586
I share the authors view of his book

My view of Tolkiens work is almost identical to his own.

The LOTR was the great passion and love of his literary life that he felt confident to have published, though he felt it to short.

The core of his creatity was the Silmarillion which evolved and revealed itself slowly to him over 30 years and which after retirement he lacked the energy and self belief to find solutions to how to bring an orderly narrative to publication. Though deeply frustrating in its lack of coherance and consistancy of tone it is my great passion to, as is much of the variant material.

The Hobbit was written for Michael and Christopher and over the years he grew to regret the narrative style with its third person look ins. He recognised at the time, he hesitated whilst writing, and later, that the narrative collapses after Smaug's death. When he restarted quite unconsciously the book began to take on the feel of the later hobbit story and the Silmarillion and this incompatability came to a head with the BOTFA which he resolved by dwindling it to a look back scene. It was unashamedly written for children which is why I had not read it for thirty years until I began thinking about the films last year. What I have discovered on this forum is that whereas for my generation the Hobbit is merely regarded as a gentle read that you pursue after the greatness of LOTR, for our childrens generation it is one of their cherished childhood memories. Indeed I read it to my eldest daughter when she was 6 or 7.

On the question of Pippa she is of course right that screen adaption requires different treatments to source material its a different medium. However I found whoever wrote in the fake personal jeopardy arcs, that turned up particularly in the TTT, to be very trite whether Theoden, Legolas and particularly Treebeard. So far that has been avoided matters seem to develop properly though I know many are against what they see as the fake reconciliation between Thorin and Bilbo.

I am with Martin Freeman who did not want that drawn to far into the movies I also think that it fits in the mythology for Bilbo to emerge from underhill transformed by not only his accumulated experiences thus far but by his encounter with Gollum and the acquisition of the ring. When Tolkien wrote the book it was merely a trinket to give Bilbo a hidden advantage just as Gandalf's other business was a narrative ploy to allow Bilbo to shine, rather than connected, as it has become, with a key part of the history of the third age. Its this kind of understanding developed by Tolkien after the childrens book was written that should inform the film makers and the artistic outcomes that they pursue. It is the modus operandi beautifully set out by Ian Holm when he opens up the "real story" to us." I never told you" and as for my good self .... and so dear readers I must get on with my day and whatever that brings Wink

I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 11 2013, 6:56am)