|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
May 7 2013, 1:26pm
Views: 163
Shortcut
|
I am sure, by the way, that PJ and Co will comment on the changes on the commentary and do not want to hide that those are changes to the lore. Not that this makes it better for those not liking them, but I doubt there is deliberate organized lying behind it. They stood by all of their changes in LotR, I do not see why they wouldn't comment and explain on them for TH. The appendicies quotes you mention were used, as far as I recall, when questions regarding the two and then the three movie split came up - as to why one would need two or three movies to tell that tale. My issue is not them using the appendices but the misleading that they are doing while promoting them. Jackson has always insisted there are 125 pages, which that much is correct. The problem is there are maybe 11 or 12 pages at most that have anything to do with the Hobbit or the characters contained in the Hobbit. Most of which being in the section on Durin's Folk (appendix A section III) which is roughly 8 and a half pages with a nice lineage tree as well. The only thing from them that Jackson did right was Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror, other than that unfortunately, events of the dwarfs was altered so that it does not resemble what is in the appendices. 3 pages of the appendices are of the battle of Azanulbizar their lead up and execution Nothing like what we got in the film.
Personally I think 2 films would have been enough, the Hobbit is a 309 page book, FOTR was 376 pages, TTT was 321 pages, and ROTK was 382 pages (all roughly depending on the versions you have) without the index but including the appendices. Adding of the Necromancer and DolGuldur surely is not 3 films worth of material, not to mention the Azanulbizar flashbacks we got are maybe 15 minutes of film. Definitely not 3 films worth IMO, unless one whole film is made up fan fiction content Which to me is the worst idea ever in the history of film  ...
I also think its great for people to be introduced to Tolkien but Jackson isn't doing that. The people who pick up the books thanks to his films have a wide variety of experiences because of being introduced to his films first. Some do not like Tolkien because it doesn't match what Jackson put on film, some could take it or leave it and do not care, and then from my understanding it is only a small percentage that actually end up loving the books as much or more than the films. I feel it would be better if Jackson stuck closer to the book that way when a persona reads the book they can see where it was drawn from, instead of having to wade thru all the made up stuff that Jackson felt he needed to insert into the story. One of my nephews is a prime example of hating the book after seeing Jackson's film first. He read it after seeing the Hobbit AUJ, upon reading it he wanted to know where Azog was or Radagast. When I informed him that Neither were characters in the book he thought that the "book sucked" and "wasn't like the movie at all"... So to me a more faithful (not exact) representation of Tolkien's works on film would be better to interest people into reading the books. Which is not what Jackson gave us. LOTR while being diferent from the source in some ways at least had the feel and tone making smaller deviations, where as the Hobbit makes monumental deviation waving its bare behind in Tolkien's face IMO. Now had they kept the dwarf history as it should have been and inserted more of it THAT I would have loved to have seen. But watching an Orc who was dead for years suddenly resurrected just to make a film villain and changing Brilliant dwarf history was just a waste of time and misleading to people who will read the book, but thats just MY opinion 
|
|
|
|
Subject
|
User
|
Time
|
Dwarves of the iron hills
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
|
May 5 2013, 12:13pm
|
Excellent point
|
Kaede
|
May 5 2013, 1:20pm
|
|
They have already
|
Sinister71
|
May 5 2013, 5:32pm
|
|
This quote from Tolkien sums up your comment in my mind
|
Oin's parasite
|
May 5 2013, 7:14pm
|
|
I still think it paints Dain in a poor light
|
Sinister71
|
May 5 2013, 7:37pm
|
|
Dainīs role (ssspoilers)
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
|
May 5 2013, 8:13pm
|
|
But the movies aren't over yet.
|
Roheryn
|
May 6 2013, 1:12am
|
|
the fact is though
|
Sinister71
|
May 6 2013, 2:03am
|
|
hmmm
|
The Mitch King
|
May 6 2013, 3:37am
|
|
My problem with that is
|
Sinister71
|
May 6 2013, 4:33pm
|
|
I have complete understanding for this...
|
Arannir
|
May 6 2013, 5:16pm
|
|
I can respect your views
|
Sinister71
|
May 6 2013, 7:08pm
|
|
To quote Gandalf...
|
The Mitch King
|
May 6 2013, 7:27pm
|
|
I see the changes you list, of course.
|
Arannir
|
May 6 2013, 7:54pm
|
|
issue with the appendices
|
Sinister71
|
May 7 2013, 1:26pm
|
|
I agree
|
Yngwulff
|
May 12 2013, 5:12am
|
|
|
|
