|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dzhon
Nevrast
Jan 14 2012, 5:59am
Post #26 of 93
(2486 views)
Shortcut
|
I cannot understand that film Aragorn's lack of a Kim Jong-Il "Great Leader" complex makes him an "another angst-ridden man-child." Maybe it's a sign of how different modern sensibilities are, but the whole "man of destiny" thing would be completely off-putting. And if Elrond had really made it a precondition that Aragorn win the throne of Gondor before consenting to his marriage to Arwen, audiences would be rooting to see the "pimp of Rivendell" beheaded.
Frodo's character could have been a little stronger than the films portrayed him, but that criticism is overstated too.
Even the much despised changes to Faramir's character were for the better imo. Someone in his position might intellectually know that the Ring would only corrupt him, but anyone who's people faced extermination would be severely tempted to believe that they would prove the exception. For me, it made his ultimate decision to release Frodo and Sam all the more noble.
The only big criticism I have of Jackson's adaptation is the invincible green goo ghost army.
|
|
|
FoundEntwife
Ossiriand
Jan 14 2012, 6:15am
Post #27 of 93
(2508 views)
Shortcut
|
After all, if Gandalf were reading this that's probably what he would say.
This tale grew in the telling. . .
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Jan 14 2012, 6:41am
Post #28 of 93
(2506 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually, he IS "a freaking god"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...sort of. He is a maiar spirit (more-or-less equivalent to an angel) sent by the Valar to assist ME in the fight against Sauron. He is older, wiser, and more powerful than Galadriel by quite some.
But part of the conditions of his mission is that he is "clad" in human flesh, and subject to the same aches and pains as the rest of us.
IF Jackson is going to posit some romantic attachment, he is certainly way off base. But I seriously doubt that that's what's going on here. She would love him as a grandfather, at best.
Stay tuned for a Reading Room discussion of Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon by Brian Rosebury, starting January 23!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Jan 14 2012, 6:42am)
|
|
|
RoseCotton
Menegroth
Jan 14 2012, 7:40am
Post #29 of 93
(2566 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know what PJ et al plan for G and G, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Taken as just a moment in the trailer, I think it was my favourite moment!
As a Tolkien reader, I've never 'seen' Gandalf and Galadriel interact. This type of New Experience within Tolkien's world is one of the reasons why having a substantial part of The Hobbit movies as essentially fanfic is so exciting--and so scary... 
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Jan 14 2012, 9:33am
Post #30 of 93
(2521 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Read the article. He lost me....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... when he set out to explain why book fans take issue with the films. There was an important word missing - 'some'. Some book fans. Other book fans are as aware as he is of the changes made in the adaptation and still value the films, because they prefer to focus on all that was good in them. But no - no mention of 'I think', 'in my opinion': his judgements are facts, plain and simple.
And as for Galadriel and Gandalf, other posters have said it. It is perfectly possible for two characters, be they human, Elf, whatever, to show concern, affection, sympathy - and yes, even love - without it having any sexual implications whatever. When you think about it, that's true of most relationships - or am I just a Martian (don't answer that!  )
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 11:24am
Post #31 of 93
(2522 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think the article was just about G and G romance
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree that rumours of a Galadriel and Gandalf romance are ridiculous and the article is way off in that respect.
On the other hand the point about Gandalf looking rather forlorn and needy is a fair one I think. The scriptwriters for LotR believe in very strong character arcs, and adjusted Tolkien's characters accordingly for the films. This generally worked well, especially for Boromir and Aragorn. On occasion, it worked less well, such as the "Sam go home" part of RotK which the article writer mentions.
In the Hobbit Gandalf's character is rather more mysterious and a bit mischievous even compared to LotR. He's more a catalyst for adventure, and less the grey pilgrim, ever battling Sauron. There is a risk if they do a self-doubt character arc for Gandalf in relation to the white council storyline, then it won't gel with the Gandalf as written in The Hobbit.
Obviously I'm reading way too much into one shot, but similarly when I saw the trailer I found that shot a bit strange and out of character.
|
|
|
geordie
Dor-Lomin
Jan 14 2012, 2:56pm
Post #32 of 93
(2455 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with much of what he says
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- esp. this:
Peter, Fran and Philippa must all have something against nobility of spirit and steadiness of purpose...
...Characters matter.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 3:39pm
Post #33 of 93
(2406 views)
Shortcut
|
...nothing.
I would bet money we won't even see the scene in the films. Jackson is notorious for filming scenes in many different ways to give himself and the film editors maximum flexibility when putting the film together.
I can see Jackson and crew having a mischievous little laugh over freaking out some fans with that throw-away scene's inclusion in the trailer.
|
|
|
karl marx
Registered User
Jan 14 2012, 4:15pm
Post #34 of 93
(2455 views)
Shortcut
|
|
don't dismiss him as an idiot, that's blind!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with some of his criticism of The Return of the King as well, and hope that it doesn't leak too much into The Hobbit. I think the article is fairly fair-minded in the sense that it does not condemn the movie, it is just voicing a potential concern.
I don't know, it kind of bothers me when people like something 100%, with no room for analysis, simply because they are fans. The trilogy is my favorite series of movies ever, hands down, but that doesn't excuse them from being critiqued in my eyes. Rather, I view my critiques as proof of how much I care, and respect the filmmakers/films. And I think PJ & Friends are the best crew to make these movies, but I don't think they are demigods/beyond reproach.
Anyway, I'm still excited about The Hobbit, and remember, the author wouldn't have written that article if he didn't care!
KM
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Jan 14 2012, 4:25pm
Post #35 of 93
(2415 views)
Shortcut
|
The LOTR EE director and writer commentaries reveal that Philippa and Fran are obsessed with "dramatic reversals," all the time, wherever they can be wedged in. It reminds me of amateur or armchair screenwriters who read a 101 on "film-making," and as such, are slavishly by the numbers about the need for this kind of constant, melodramatic tension for every character. They know the rules, but they don't know how to break them. That takes real artistry. In LOTR it didn't work because there were too many of these reversals, and it took away from the key protagonists Frodo and Sam. I mean, did Theoden really need to be painted as an indecisive leader post-exorcism, right up until the end of Helm's Deep?
It is a bit of a shame that more sophisticated writers and directors didn't get a chance to bring Middle Earth to life, but at least PJ, Fran and Philippa have their hearts in it.
|
|
|
karl marx
Registered User
Jan 14 2012, 5:18pm
Post #36 of 93
(2367 views)
Shortcut
|
Also, I never considered the Gandalf / Galadriel moment "romantic"... Is that the consensus?? Weird.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 5:19pm
Post #37 of 93
(2408 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It could easily have been FAR WORSE than much better.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite wrote: The LOTR EE director and writer commentaries reveal that Philippa and Fran are obsessed with "dramatic reversals," all the time, wherever they can be wedged in. It reminds me of amateur or armchair screenwriters who read a 101 on "film-making," and as such, are slavishly by the numbers about the need for this kind of constant, melodramatic tension for every character. They know the rules, but they don't know how to break them. That takes real artistry...It is a bit of a shame that more sophisticated writers and directors didn't get a chance to bring Middle Earth to life...
It's awfully easy now to forget the huge challenges facing the LOTR filmmakers back in 1999. The nature of the project required a huge budget which put tremendous pressure on the filmmakers to do everything possible to create mass appeal blockbusters that would more than recoup New Line's investment in the films. As you may recall at the time, the studio company's future rested on the performance of these films.
Now take a moment and think about most of the "blockbuster" films you've seen: the Harry Potter films.... Avatar.... The Twilight Saga.... Terminator 2... Transformers: Dark Side of the Moom... Jurassic Park... Indiana Jones... How many of them would you describe as being "critically acclaimed?" Now ask yourself, do you think the investors of these blockbuster films CARED if they were critical successes as long a they made tons of money?
Next, think about some of the films you've seen that were made by "sophisticated writers and directors." How much money did the Shawshank Redemption make? Or Schindler's List? Or Citizen Kane? The fact of the matter is that you can count the number of critically acclaimed "blockbusters" of all time on one hand.
So rather than taking pseudo-intellectual 'shots' at Jackson and Company, fans should be grateful that the filmmakers resisted so many of the studio pressures and temptations they faced in order to give us three incredible films. As many here have said, they're not perfect but they've given us years of joy---as well as provided us the opportunity to see two more Middle Earth films in the not-so-distant future.
|
|
|
geordie
Dor-Lomin
Jan 14 2012, 5:32pm
Post #38 of 93
(2411 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think you must be thinking of someone else -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- I never dismissed anyone as an idiot.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 5:48pm
Post #39 of 93
(2389 views)
Shortcut
|
- I think showing the fact that they are shown to be close (unromantically, of course) in the Hobbit makes Galadriel's concern about his absence in FOTR more understandable.
A number of people object to the idea of Aragorn as the reluctant king. It will be interesting to see how Thorin Oakenshield will be portrayed.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Jan 14 2012, 5:55pm)
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Jan 14 2012, 5:53pm
Post #40 of 93
(2375 views)
Shortcut
|
Try not to tell people what they "should" or "should not" think when it comes to matters of opinion.
I am not "grateful" just for the films being made, nor "should" I be.
Tolkien was a master storyteller, who created a wonderful world. I do not think it is too much to ask that a master filmmaker adapt his books to screen.
And I am not a purist. In fact, I am a huge cinemaphile. My gripe with the films is that they are rather subpar in terms of style, substance and craft. They are loud, melodramatic, poorly edited, uneven, schmaltzy, nerve-wracking, amateurishly directed, jumbles of scenes.
I didn't want every detail of the books to be on screen. But the tone of the books is very important. And PJ and co. were way off the mark there as well.
I think an Alfonso Cuaron, PT Anderson, Akira Kurosawa, and perhaps even Ridley Scott (though he's hit or miss) would have made films that were dramatically better than the occasionally beautiful, yet generally awful films we got.
I hope in my lifetime we'll get someone else's vision.of these enchanting books.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 6:02pm
Post #41 of 93
(2359 views)
Shortcut
|
But the tone of the books is very important. And PJ and co. were way off the mark there as well.
- I always get the opposite impression.
|
|
|
karl marx
Registered User
Jan 14 2012, 7:30pm
Post #42 of 93
(2339 views)
Shortcut
|
Yeah, sorry, if you read my post I think you'll see I'm in agreement with you. That was just a mistake on my part, I didn't remember that I specifically replied to your post, and so the title is not meant to be in response to your post.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 7:30pm
Post #43 of 93
(2320 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You've got to cut them a bit more slack
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well first of all, these forums try to be generally friendly and interested in the movies, so please try not to be polemical in your arguments, otherwise we end up with the same old angry debates, and it gets awfully dull.
PJ and co went for an action-fantasy interpretation of LotR, which scored very well in bringing to life some aspects of the books, and less well in some of the more poetic and subtle character aspects. Frankly I think that making the movies was so risky in attempting to make fantasy mainstream, such a huge investment, and such an unbelievable marathon from the filmmakers, that it wouldn't have been made unless they went for an action-fantasy genre from an eccentric and wonderful director like Jackson. A less mainstream LotR just could not have happened, as much as I'd love to see it!
The question of how other directors would have approached LotR, and indeed The Hobbit, is definitely an interesting one. I was looking forward to seeing how Del Toro would interpret The Hobbit, and sadly that didn't work out.
Unfortunately the list of directors you provide, to me just shows how thin the list of alternatives is. I doubt Cuaron or Anderson (as much as I admire their work) would have been interested, or entirely suitable. Kurasawa (probably my fav director) is sadly no longer with us, and Ridley Scott... have you seen Legend?
So yes it could have been better, but it's surprising it got made at all.
|
|
|
kiwifan
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 7:59pm
Post #44 of 93
(2285 views)
Shortcut
|
|
that would make me a Martian, too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
because i quite agree with you. Yes, I was surprised at this particular scene but I, too, see it as genuine affection, a comforting gesture by Galadriel, and not at all dreadfully out of place. Who says a Maia doesn't experience emotions like fatigue, and requires comfort? In the Silmarillion, even the Valar (who are practically gods) were seriously upset when the two Trees were destroyed, so does that make them wimps?
Besides, the author doesn't seem to even know the difference between 'counsel' and 'council'... so I for one am not taking this article seriously.
'Goodness gracious, you really are a messie!' 'Oh no, I'm not, these are all just mathoms...'
|
|
|
MatthewJer18
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 8:14pm
Post #45 of 93
(2310 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't doubt that he's genuinely concerned and wants to be wrong, but his comments -- especially the one about Aragorn supposedly entertaining the idea of betraying Arwen romantically in the films -- seem to be misreadings, imo. Similarly, his reading into one rather beautiful shot is just way off base, even if he's taken exception to some changes before. Gandalf hardly looks needy in that shot -- and if anyone was to comfort him, it would be Galadriel. In most of his interactions with the company, he seems to cloak his emotion behind thoughtful, pensive looks...it's a lovely contrast.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 8:24pm
Post #46 of 93
(2330 views)
Shortcut
|
burrahobbit wrote: Well first of all, these forums try to be generally friendly and interested in the movies, so please try not to be polemical in your arguments, otherwise we end up with the same old angry debate.
After looking up the definition of polemical, I AGREE. 
(This post was edited by Altaira on Jan 14 2012, 11:28pm)
|
|
|
MatthewJer18
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 8:29pm
Post #47 of 93
(2274 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think my primary issue with the post...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is that the laundry list of unfavorable one-liners, delivered with plenty of antagonism in tone, seem to be baiting, given that this thread hardly calls for someone to appear out of the blue and start ranting about the films as a whole.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Hithlum
Jan 14 2012, 8:35pm
Post #48 of 93
(2270 views)
Shortcut
|
That is an opinion of one's own directed at the films. "Troll" is an ad hominem directed at a person for their opinion. The former is acceptable to most moderators. The latter is not. The workaround is to refute the opinion without denigrating the person. And if you can do that, most of us are smart enough to know who the better person and argument is, given the evidence.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jan 14 2012, 8:38pm)
|
|
|
MatthewJer18
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 8:41pm
Post #49 of 93
(2332 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Still disagree, so I'll just ignore the post and move on without bringing it up further.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think baiting is a very real concern, and the burden should not automatically be put on those who were remaining on-topic in the thread. But I respect your official judgment and will therefore remove myself from the discussion because I don't think it's an "opinion" that should be expressed so harshly on a thread where the films were not being put on trial. It's derailing, in my opinion, and not even an argument in the first place that can be engaged -- the tone of the post itself makes that abundantly clear.
(This post was edited by MatthewJer18 on Jan 14 2012, 8:44pm)
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Nargothrond
Jan 14 2012, 8:45pm
Post #50 of 93
(2274 views)
Shortcut
|
JWPlatt wrote: That is an opinion of one's own directed at the films. "Troll" is an ad hominem directed at a person for their opinion. The former is acceptable to most moderators. The latter is not. The workaround is to refute the opinion without denigrating the person. And if you can do that, most of us are smart enough to know who the better person is, given the evidence.
I don't disagree. Differences of opinion should be applauded. It makes a board interesting. But if you are deliberately going to use language designed to pull peoples' chains, then at least back up your opinions with examples that you believe support your case. But when you simply throw out lines like, loud, melodramatic, poorly edited, uneven, schmaltzy, nerve-wracking, and amateurishly directed I have a hard time believing that the 'intent' is to stimulate a good discussion of opposing views.
I used the term as a joke by saying Middle Earth is not the only place where they exist and added a smiley face.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Jan 15 2012, 2:51am)
|
|
|
|
|
