|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Gondolin
Mar 13 2011, 4:20pm
Post #76 of 139
(646 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I love the choice of Armitage as Thorin
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
said it was "an inspired bit of casting" right here on The Hobbit Board in fact.
But I'm neither an "old regular" nor part of a "loud minority" (at least I hope I'm not).
I am a stirrer though, but (again, I hope) rarely argumentative or dismissive. At least it is not my intention to be. (Well there was that one time but it was quickly followed by both a public and private apology.) When I stir, or try to, it is to stimulate discussion and/or lighten the mood as it were.
There are certain voices [such as yours] I wish would join the battle here more often. If for no other reason than to help those peeking in get a more representative read on this community of Tolkien fans.
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Mar 13 2011, 4:27pm)
|
|
|
Plurmo
Nargothrond
Mar 13 2011, 5:19pm
Post #78 of 139
(575 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Any serious reply to your questions yet?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'll try to help you with your doubts, Arwen's Daughter. The following are some of my conjectures.
(slightly modified quote) "I'm terribly curious as to who these fans are who want (a) the changing of the timeline to include Aragorn & Arwen, (b) replacing Bard with Legolas, (c) making Bilbo a warrior, (d) bringing Sauron into the Bo5A. Why they want them, and why they want to make them under the film name The Hobbit."
First, who they are. They look like common forum members, but they are in fact:
(a) Elrond and his minions, the tra-la-la-li elves.
(b) Thranduil and his drunk agents and infiltrators.
(c) Itaril, the smartest girl in Middle-earth.
(d) The One Ring, the most unlucky object in Middle-earth.
Second, why they want them:
(a) His last chance to ruin the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen. He plans on throwing young Aragorn from a cliff drowning him in the Bruinen. He understands that PJ had a brilliant idea, but it was poorly executed because PJ sent the kissing horse instead of the water ones. (good news, you're going to have a new father!)
(b) To claim Dale for the elvenkingdom and rename it Rivendale. There's some rivalry going on between Thranduil and Elrond. Mirkwood elves are tired of being called the burrowing elves by the Rivendell folk.
(c) from the moment the first rumours started of a possible relationship between her and pretty much everyone else in the movies, she began a silent lobby with the purpose of turning Middle-earth into hunk-land. With the help of unaware forum ladies she has accomplished much.
(d) Overestimating his swimming abilities was his downfall. After hundreds of years in the hands of the most silly creatures there are in Middle-Earth (including Bombadil,) being rejected by every single worthy prospective adoptive master, tired of failing in every attempt at returning to daddy, he is doing everything he can to make daddy come to him and take him home.
Third, why they want to make them under the film name The Hobbit.
They reckon PJ is the one guy on Earth who can make all these absurd changes and still make a movie that will be qualified as a magnific adaptation of Tolkien's world. Go figure why, but they are right, you know.
|
|
|
Plurmo
Nargothrond
Mar 13 2011, 5:38pm
Post #79 of 139
(590 views)
Shortcut
|
Pity the guys become too serious from time to time and forget to bring lightness to the fore.
Thanks for this well-crafted moment of fun.
|
|
|
taekotemple
Hithlum
Mar 13 2011, 8:05pm
Post #80 of 139
(547 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm gonna borrow your Monty Python reference, AD. What we have here is the case of the coconut argument. It's one of my favorite parts of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I think ultimately, we're all going to have theories and opinions about where the coconuts came from (or what will be included/excluded from the films), but none of us will really know for sure where those coconuts came from. But what we can do is all express our ideas and opinions, and hopefully during the process not take each other so seriously that people get upset. It should be fun to come up with theories about how the films turn out, just as it is fun to watch Arthur and the knights try to figure out where the coconuts came from.
None of us will really know how the films are going to turn out until they're out anyway, and the people who are making the films are the ones who have the final say.
I think it's great that there are so many ideas and opinions. Personally, I just like reading them, because I've seen so many good points and ideas. I'm among those who aren't offended.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Mar 13 2011, 11:43pm
Post #83 of 139
(538 views)
Shortcut
|
being critical at all. I also love TORn - but that doesn't mean we can't observe and comment on what we see. I think the tone of discussion on this forum is markedly different now than it has been in the past and I think wider exposure is at least part of it.
Silverlode
"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
Mar 14 2011, 12:25am
Post #84 of 139
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They know that they won't get verbally slapped upside the head here.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If anyone attempts to confront this silliness with reason they get warned off as being confrontational or argumentative.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
Mar 14 2011, 12:31am
Post #85 of 139
(527 views)
Shortcut
|
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
Mar 14 2011, 1:24am
Post #86 of 139
(539 views)
Shortcut
|
would never allow himself to be cross-dressed as a sheep.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
LordMaximus
Ossiriand
Mar 14 2011, 2:18am
Post #87 of 139
(513 views)
Shortcut
|
I would reference the serving dogs by having a massive doberman with a serving tray try and stand on its hind legs and either spill the lot and beorn has some quip like "I don't know why they keep doing that" or Beorn tells the dog off and says "you will spill it again".
I haven't really seen any suggestions from people about how this how situation could be both realistic and fantastic at the sametime. Come on, surely we can come up with something that will keep (almost) everyone happy!
|
|
|
sphdle1
Hithlum
Mar 14 2011, 4:00am
Post #88 of 139
(519 views)
Shortcut
|
These movies can't be exactly like the book, nor take on the exact feel of the book, or else they may as well just make a children's cartoon. To have too many silly parts and too many talking animals or too much singing...well, they might as well call it "Narnia: A Hobbits tale".
Though you are completely sarcastic, I more agree with what you said in your sarcasm taken literally. I prefer the dramatic, and added bridge material, extra battles, and what would give movie fans the best thrill, because I don't know the book...I only care that the movie is awesome, and that I enjoy it at the theatre...this does not take anything away from others that are purists, because no one can take away your books...you can read the original story anytime you like and relive it in your imagination over and over. I prefer to relive the writers and directors versions.
sphdle1
"You shall not pass!"
|
|
|
Eldaria
Ossiriand
Mar 14 2011, 4:46am
Post #89 of 139
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
I would reference the serving dogs by having a massive doberman with a serving tray try and stand on its hind legs and either spill the lot and beorn has some quip like "I don't know why they keep doing that" or Beorn tells the dog off and says "you will spill it again". I haven't really seen any suggestions from people about how this how situation could be both realistic and fantastic at the sametime. Come on, surely we can come up with something that will keep (almost) everyone happy!
When Sam was caught snooping, ("I ain't been dropping no eaves"), he pleaded to Gandalf not to turn him into 'something unnatural'. Sam obviously believed, real or imagined, that Gandalf had the power to do so.
Maybe these serving dogs, etc. were previously normal animals who, because of some episode of bad behaviour, were turned into walking, talking beasts by Galdalf.
This bit of magic would rate on the same level as Gandalf's firework displays and making his staff brighter in the Mines of Moria. Not quite on par with Dumbledore and not quite the degree of magic that people here are hoping to see, but good for some comic relief and a tie-in to LOTR.
“There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep ... that have taken hold.”
|
|
|
Arwen's daughter
Gondolin
Mar 14 2011, 4:57am
Post #90 of 139
(506 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually I think it takes something away from both of us
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is likely to be the best chance in my lifetime to see The Hobbit, a marvelous, rich, and complex story, come to life. To change it to a story that cuts out half the book would be to rob both me and you of that experience.
Yes, balance is the key. But The Hobbit is not the simple children's story you seem to be imagining. The story becomes much closer to LOTR in its last few chapters and I've never understood the need to bring the first half down in tone to match that. It's not as though the threat of being eaten by goblins, trolls, and wolves is all that lighthearted!
As for talking animals, there are what? three instances in the whole book and one is a semi-major plot point. Why strip them?
I'm all for battles and CGI and artistic vision. I just don't understand why we need to sacrifice the story of Bilbo Baggins as Tolkien wrote it to get them. Tolkien wrote lots of action and excitement into his book for the filmmakers to work with.
My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive
|
|
|
painjoiker
Hithlum
Mar 14 2011, 7:30am
Post #91 of 139
(488 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The only "animal" I want to speak
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in the movie is Smaug...
All other talking animals should be quiet!
I will be disappointed if the spiders are talking... It will take away most of the scary part of it...
Talking dogs walking on two legs belongs in a cartoon... not a live action movie...
|
|
|
moreorless
Mithlond
Mar 14 2011, 9:54am
Post #93 of 139
(497 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Are the changes that are being suggested really that great though?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Admittedly I don't keep up with these boards to the extent that many do but the kind of changes you were pointing out really didnt seem to be that great, certainly not to the extent where I'd expect anyone who enjoyed Jacksons version of LOTR to believe removing entire sections was prefferable.
The trolls being tricked by Gandalf can still be kept without a talking wallet and with less "human" conservation(or names) between them.
Rivendell can still be a "lighter" enviroment than in LOTR without the "silly" elves, you could still even retain a similar kind of welcome with them poking fun at Bilbo and the Dwarves in a fashion more inline with LOTR.
Beorn can still retain the trained animals just have them behave in a more restrained fashion.
Basically I can still see a version of the Hobbit that makes those changes to better fit into the Middle Earth established in LOTR retaining a similar kind of atmosphere to the book.
Personally I'v always been on the "film of two halves" side of the debate, that is I do think Jackson will keep a somewhat lighter tone in the first film compaired to the second. The main thing that makes me believe that is that he was originally considering making The Hobbit and a bridge film., I suspect the thought process of changing that to two Hobbit films may well have been a realisation firstly that a single Hobbit film would entail removing much of the pre Lonely Mountain material and secondly that the latter stages of the Hobbit provide a good match in tone for the "bridge" material.
I think people underestimate just how much of a shift in tone having two seperate films allows for, for example Back to The Future part 2 and 3 may have directly followed on from each other but obviously had very different tones. Indeed I'd say in this situation that shifting the tone is often helping in creating a seperate "indentity" for each of them, you could have an opening adventure film focused on Bilbo's journey to Laketown and the growth of his courage during it then a second film that introduces the White Council material and focuses on Bilbo's morals being tested.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Hithlum
Mar 14 2011, 11:35am
Post #94 of 139
(469 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They aren't cutting half the book
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That's one of the reasons they are doing two movies ... because they want to fit in everything they can, and one movie would end up leaving a lot out. With two movies they can keep most of the book in tact and add in additional story line to better meld it into the LOTR continuity. They might 'change up' the tone or how animals are portrayed to some degree, but likely most of the book will make it into the 2 films.
As long as the first half doesn't become a Narnia tale or too much geared toward children, then great, but that's going to be hard to do by the sounds of what the first half of the book has in it.
If it makes for a better 'film' for an 13+ audience, then I am all for doing whatever it takes to make these movies stay away from the childlike parts, and not have certain animals talk that may have in the book. What works in a book that may be for a completely different audience, doesn't always work in a pg13 movie.
I'm sure the first half of the movie (or maybe just the first movie itself) will be much more light hearted than the second half, but it shouldn't necessarily be exactly like the book IMHO. There should be a balance and the first half shouldn't be quite as light hearted as a Tolkien purist would want...just wouldn't work for the 'movie', unless the goal is to make the first half much like Narnia.
sphdle1
"You shall not pass!"
|
|
|
sphdle1
Hithlum
Mar 14 2011, 11:36am
Post #95 of 139
(490 views)
Shortcut
|
Talking dogs on 2 legs ... can you say 'Narnia"!
sphdle1
"You shall not pass!"
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Mar 14 2011, 12:54pm
Post #96 of 139
(494 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, in fact Beorn's dogs don't talk...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... he talks to them in 'animal noises'. They are capable of walking on their hind legs and using fore-paws like hands - which suggests that they're not even built exactly like dogs. It's been said before in this thread, Beorn's dogs are more disturbing than cute, and an interesting challenge for Weta if the filmmakers do include them.
Dogs in Narnia could use human speech, but they didn't walk on their hind legs.
|
|
|
DrDeath153
Menegroth
Mar 14 2011, 1:38pm
Post #97 of 139
(475 views)
Shortcut
|
Personally i don't find the reductio-ad-absurdum attitude with which you started this thread at all productive AD, but thankfully your views have mellowed. I'd probably characterise my own opinions on the adaptation of The Hobbit to the big screen as more on the 'progressive' side. Lord of the Rings then The Hobbit was the order in which i read them and so in reading The Hobbit i carried over a distinctively more 'Ringsian' view of Middle-earth than those who read them in the books in the chronological order, and this i believe is both an advisable and artistically superior way through which to approach the Hobbit film adaptation (particularly in the light of the existing LotR films). Certainly in reading them the 'wrong way round' The Hobbit didn't lack it's unique character or flavour, but in fact became more compelling by the knowledge of where these events would lead and the desire to read became all the more voracious.
One thing i do think many on this board in the more 'Stand Alone' Hobbit camp are wrong in is the assumption that it is the juvenile elements in the book which constitute its lighter tone- that it is the nonsense-singing elves, the anthropomorphic animals and the fact everything talks (including purses though it might as well be singing potatoes) that provide the lightness to the story. Personally, that is not what makes The Hobbit uniquely appealing to me (much like Flagg rather than letting those alter my perception of the book, i instead simply read or glossed them over ignoring them) but rather it's Tolkien's humour, present in LotR but far more central in The Hobbit that defines the tone of the story. Regrettably this is somewhere that i found PJ's adaptation of LotR lacking the brilliance he often achieved. Tolkien has for years and years been characterised as dour and humourless and for me this stands as a complete fallacy- the man is hilarious but in a very dry and subtle way. What's fantastic about The Hobbit is the collision of the world Tolkien studied with all these heroic scandinavian myths and the world he lived in- a rather twee, rather uptight Edwardian idyll. The Hobbit in a way attempts to reconcile the two and what results is a cross between an archetypal beowulfian adventure and an 'Englishman abroad' comedy of manners. I very much agree with Moreorless that that spirit of the book (and in a far more specific and intimate sense than just the broad ‘themes’) can be maintained even through a less frivolous interpretation of the individual sequences.
But it isn’t just the humour that constitute’s the Hobbit’s difference in tone. One crucial difference i don't believe anyone has ever mentioned (probably due to it's obviousness) is the fact that The Hobbit does not take place under nearly as apocalyptic a circumstance as LotR. That's not to say it's less dramatic or that the perils the characters face are any less lethal, but the fate of the world is not in the balance and so the tone is not as dourly epic (a term which has now become truly mundane through it's overuse in the past decade) as the latter tale. The Hobbit is more in line with the classic 'action adventure' genre- something that Peter Jackson has proven himself to be superb at delivering (as Fellowship of the Ring shows). So long as everyone involved in making it keeps a close eye on the amount of hyperbole they slather the film in, i believe the lightness of the book will be preserved.
On the point of the tone of this board, and being i perceive part of the 'loud minority' Magpie identifies (particularly in regards to the Richard Armitage as Thorin matter, on which i have been rather Stentorian (or Brian Blessedian if you prefer)). I would like to defend my 'volume' on such matters. Personally part of the reason for perhaps doggedly chasing this matter and taking the opportunities to express my view (although i have never 'spammed' or even posted threads purely dedicated to the issue (in fact i don't think i've actually started any threads here at all- i'm more a responder)) is because i feel the balance is sometimes too heavily tilted the other way- and not just on the matter of Armitage but on any contentious matter. There seems to be a lot of very vocal blind enthusiasm for pretty much every decision made, and so to slow a snowballing bandwagon of blind praise and loviness i will post what i hope is a more objective take on it. To use the Armitage example (and knowing full well i've rabbited on about it long enough) I will show you the flipside of Magpie's argument. You see just as mortified as you may be to hear a reporter generalise the reaction of this board to the news as purely negative, i would be just as mortified if i read that TORn's response generalised as being purely positive and for exactly the same reasons as you- because it shows that my opinion is not registered- So i think we can both agree that the real issue there is just sloppy journalism rather than a thought out analysis of the 'opinion poll' of the board members themselves. Equally just as you suspect that people who support Armitage don't post on this board, i have always perceived the opposite and have found a disproportionate bias in favour of the move, while the cynics and undecideds tend to sit quietly in the corner for fear of being accused of bringing the mood down.
This is a point on which i feel in a sense villified and emancipated by this board because, in holding a cynical opinion (on some matters- i'm perfectly if measuredly positive on other matters) i'm almost characterised as 'party pooper in chief', and so just like you Magpie, there are times (although it might not seem it) when i take your view (paraphrased) of "I've said this before. If I don't like this constant need (of some) to keep reiterating and reiterating (with much obnoxious enthusiasm in many cases) a particular point then how am I different to bring this up yet again" When i do state my opinion it is never my intention to bring about an argument (or even to be responded to) or to bring down the mood, it is merely to be heard and have my opinion registered, and it is incredibly frustrating to be labelled a malcontent or trouble-maker just because my opinion might not be one of pure unadulterated happiness. So you see Magpie whatever side of the debate you are on, we face the same fears and treatment. I know from personal experience that forum debates never get fully resolved because the deeper you go into them the higher the stakes seem and the more fatigued, pissed off and actually quite personally offended you feel, but then again- should we call an end to debate- lay the blanket rule that unless everyone posts with a fix smile on their face they should be disiplined? In my opinion no- since that just represses people and alienates them by making them feel any opinions they hold strongly are wrong. My advice is instead just let these wars of attrition run their course- the people involved will eventually see the funny side, and well if you don't like it then don't post- the threaded nature of this forum means that the business of the thread can go on as normal while letting people go off on their own little conflicted tangents eventually they will get bored and the whole thing will die out.
Dr Death
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
Mar 14 2011, 2:32pm
Post #100 of 139
(498 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Who is a Tolkien purist and what would They want?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I see a lot of usage of the term "Tolkien Purist" but get no real sense of who these vile creatures are. I know they are the enemies of reason and modern tastes and and are completely disconnected from the needs of mass market film making. They are those people who would insist on making The Hobbit into movies as it was written including the uncomfortable silly bits and leaving out all of the things that makes Lord of the Rings and for that matter the Silmarillion great. Mostly, what I hear is "the Purists are those who, due to there inflexibility, would not give me what I want".
I am a bit of a Tolkien enthusiast and have a pretty good understanding stemming from having read all of J.R.R. Tolkien's main works many times and The Silmarillion several times ( I must admit I have not gotten all of the way through the twelve volumes of The History of Middle-earth.) Unfinished Tales and many many volumes written about Tolkien & his writing. Does this thirty plus years of involvement make me a purist? I do not know. I do think the adaptation and imaging of The Hobbit as two live action movies should be done in a manner that respects the original works to the extent that translation into the different allows. I also am a movie enthusiast and want The Hobbit made into great cinema and understand the demands that Movie making place on translating books to movies. Does this make me not a Tolkien Purist?
I believe that the millions of people that have read and loved The Hobbit in the seventy plus years since it was published deserve a good, nay an excellent set of movies that show and tell the story of Bilbo Baggins' great adventure.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
|
|
