|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kzer_za
Lorien
Aug 23 2012, 11:28pm
Post #26 of 282
(4211 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think he's taking Jackson's statements too literally - Still a good article though
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Jackson is of course speaking quickly and in broad strokes for the purposes of an interview. As dormouse said, one can hardly expect him to go into the exact details of how the parts of the mythology were pieced together - it's pretty complicated stuff! He is oversimplifying and perhaps made some errors, but the basic idea that Tolkien didn't fully know what he was writing with The Hobbit (we can debate exactly how much it was connected with the existing Arda - I understand Rateliff says it actually had more connections in the early stages) and fleshed it out later in LotR and the appendices is correct.
Still, I think the article makes some good points, and I have been worried from the beginning about how the Dol Guldur storyline will turn out. The author does a good job presenting the worst-case scenario where Bilbo is overshadowed by material that is mostly invented. I don't think it'll end up as bad as he fears, but I won't discount the possibility either.
I do think that since the LotR films were first, the influence of the first trilogy on The Hobbit is inevitable. Some people say they want a Hobbit that is absolutely separate from LotR, but can that really be done unless you do a complete reboot with a new director, new actors, new designers, etc? I don't think so. Most of the audience is going to naturally expect some degree of organic connection and expect a tone that may be different, but isn't completely and radically different. And it's only natural that the many people who worked on LotR and are now on The Hobbit will see this as a continuation of their previous work.
But of course it is very possible Peter Jackson has gotten carried away and indulged his fancies too much. At the end of the day, what really matters and what we don't know at this point is whether this is still primarily Bilbo's story with the Necromancer in the background.
If it is truly about Bilbo, the Dol Guldur plot won't ruin the movie no matter how stupid and anticanon it is any more than the bad comedy ruined TTT and RotK (okay, some people think it did). If the trilogy becomes primarily about Dol Guldur or even equally about both, it will fail as an adaptation no matter how good the Necromancer stuff is on its own merit. Everyone involved talks about how great Martin Freeman is, so I'm hopeful for the former, but we'll see.
(This post was edited by kzer_za on Aug 23 2012, 11:38pm)
|
|
|
DesiringDragons
Lorien
Aug 23 2012, 11:36pm
Post #27 of 282
(4229 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But a well-reasoned article is interesting to read
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
no matter whether it's positive or negative in tone, and no matter whether one agrees with it. It gets you thinking.
And the occasional rant or letting off of steam (not saying this qualifies as one) is good for the blood pressure. ;)
If something really bothers you, you can always stop reading and go read something that appeals more. It's nice to have choice, though; it would be boring if everyone had the same opinion all the time. :)
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Aug 23 2012, 11:37pm
Post #28 of 282
(4325 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Patience apparently is not a virtue
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Since some can't seem to practice it.
We can't make a final decision on whether something in the movies is a "compelling reason" or not until we've, you know, actually seen the movie(s).
Look, quite obviously PJ is trying to tie The Hobbit in with his adaption of LOTR. This is perfectly logical. I say let him go for it and see if he can make it work. If he wants to draw material from the Appendices, go for it. If he ends up wanting to make a bridge move, do it. We as fans can judge in the theaters whether he succeeds or fails. But I for one am not going to call him a failure - "But it does seem a shame that Jackson missed his opportunity to make the definitive film adaptation of the book that Tolkien wrote" - before I've had a chance to see his work.
Until that point editorials like these are jumping the gun, in my humble opinion. Big time, jumping the gun.
King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.
Tim: Quite.
|
|
|
kzer_za
Lorien
Aug 23 2012, 11:41pm
Post #29 of 282
(4216 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is a forum for hardcore fans. Speculation is part of what we do //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(This post was edited by kzer_za on Aug 23 2012, 11:42pm)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Aug 23 2012, 11:51pm
Post #30 of 282
(4228 views)
Shortcut
|
I am merely softcore. The hardcore cases are kept on ward 51.
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.
(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Aug 23 2012, 11:53pm)
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
Aug 23 2012, 11:54pm
Post #31 of 282
(4196 views)
Shortcut
|
I guarantee no-one would have had a problem with Tauriel if she were not named. There are female elves right? Only a few male elves were even named in The Hobbit...
So if Tauriel was just a female elf without a name and people enjoyed her part they would be all like "That chick was awesome! What's her name??"
"Tauriel"
"Oh cool!"
|
|
|
Snowghost77
Lorien
Aug 24 2012, 12:11am
Post #33 of 282
(4197 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm also just stoked I get to see this book made into a movie, let alone any of tolkiens works....I'd like to see as much Tolkien on screen as possible, we all love the world be created....even if it results in average cinema , I don't care...something is better than nothing at all
The path of the Warrior is paved in blood, sweat, tears and ultimately death. He weeps for the fallen, bleeds for the cause, and sweats till he dies.
In memory of operation FALLEN ANGEL and the mighty heroes of seal team 6, the PJ, and the civies who fell in Tangi
- Task force Warrior will not forget you
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 12:14am
Post #34 of 282
(4360 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is the post I agree with the most
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Since some can't seem to practice it.
We can't make a final decision on whether something in the movies is a "compelling reason" or not until we've, you know, actually seen the movie(s).
Look, quite obviously PJ is trying to tie The Hobbit in with his adaption of LOTR. This is perfectly logical. I say let him go for it and see if he can make it work. If he wants to draw material from the Appendices, go for it. If he ends up wanting to make a bridge move, do it. We as fans can judge in the theaters whether he succeeds or fails. But I for one am not going to call him a failure - "But it does seem a shame that Jackson missed his opportunity to make the definitive film adaptation of the book that Tolkien wrote" - before I've had a chance to see his work.
Until that point editorials like these are jumping the gun, in my humble opinion. Big time, jumping the gun.
Hehe we just can't get a break from all of this. While everyone is entitled to, and welcome to, their own opinion, especially here on TORN, I can't help but feel so worn out and turned off by complaints about this being a trilogy.
"But it does seem a shame that Jackson missed his opportunity to make the definitive film adaptation of the book that Tolkien wrote"
No offense to the poster or anyone else but that quote is about the only criticism I can tolerate. The reason why is because WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THE MOVIES WILL TURN OUT.
SERIOUSLY, if PJ makes 3 great films that are true to the work, and a person greatly enjoys them, is said person still going to be angry over the fact that it was 3 films instead of 1 and just thumb their nose to it? That just seems ridiculous to me.
Again, the only thing that wouldn't seem ridiculous is someone who greatly enjoys them but simply says, " it does seem a shame that Jackson missed his opportunity to make the definitive film adaptation of the book that Tolkien wrote". Assuming the movies turn out great, THAT opinion is just basically saying "well it would have been cool to see just the hobbit but the films were still excelently done." And that's okay.
But other than that, I just don't see any reason for people to already condemn these movies as bad because it's a 1 book film made into a trilogy. We haven't seen it yet. It could turn out to be mind-blowingly awesome! If that turns out to be the case for someone's opinion then why would they care so much that it's done in 3 rather than 1?
Case in point: all we can do is speculate at this point. We can speculate on how 3 films CAN work and how they might NOT work. And we can still express our skepticism of how it will turn out. But to just completely make a decision already of whether it will be good or bad is just absurd in my opinion.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 12:17am
Post #35 of 282
(4112 views)
Shortcut
|
I guarantee no-one would have had a problem with Tauriel if she were not named. There are female elves right? Only a few male elves were even named in The Hobbit... So if Tauriel was just a female elf without a name and people enjoyed her part they would be all like "That chick was awesome! What's her name??" "Tauriel" "Oh cool!"
To me it could turn out to be just like Lurtz in FOTR. He was just an orc, who's presence did really nothing at all to hurt the integrity of the story. And his name wasn't even mentioned in the movie.
But we will have to see with Tauriel.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
TomthePilgrim
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 12:21am
Post #36 of 282
(4200 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I AM NOT kept in Ward 51 . . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
. . . anymore . . . . . . . . . . I escaped . . . 
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
"Thorin sat up with a start. 'Something is not right,' he muttered to himself as he stood up and
looked towards the mirror . . . . . . . . . 'Durin's bones', he gasped, 'what's happened to my beard?'"
|
|
|
Unspoken_Request
Bree
Aug 24 2012, 12:34am
Post #37 of 282
(4189 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Only a new cast with a completely new production could have done what you argue for...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There is no way to have The Hobbit the way you want with the same crew and cast.
How could the shift in tone be justified for non-readers?
How can Ian Mckellen be fighting big animal-ish Trolls in LOTR and then see him manipulate rather civilized (with pants!) Trolls in the Hobbit.
As soon as the same cast and crew got involved, it was clear that a greater level of consistency was needed between the universes of the two books.
As for Dol Guldur, it is only the next logical step in this consistency argument. From a general audience point of view, how can you have LOTR movies dealing with annihilation of all that is good in the world, while you have the films preceding it in the chronology of this universe about treasure hunting?
What you argue for is like switching from Tim Burton's 2 Batman movies to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins.
Or more accurately from modern Batman to old camp Batman from the 60s.
It amounts to a reboot.
(This post was edited by Unspoken_Request on Aug 24 2012, 12:42am)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 12:40am
Post #38 of 282
(4223 views)
Shortcut
|
For instance:
I am surprised that Tolkien fans, no matter how much they may love Jackson’s films so far, have been quiet and let him get away with this revisionist (to put it politely) history. If such a thing had been written by, say, George Lucas, everyone would be loudly calling him out for promulgating such claptrap; but — so far — Jackson has not squandered the fans’ goodwill as Lucas did.
Aren't we all taught not to judge a book by it's cover? I'll wait until I see the finished product before signing the "let's bring PJ down" petition.
All in all, it's a very cynical way of looking at the trilogy. I didn't pick out any positives, which there certainly are.
I don't understand why he is surprised.
Fans of Star Wars loved the original 3 films that Lucas made. But Lucas went back and altered THOSE 3 films with, what many fans feels, changes that were absolutely pointless, stupid, childish, etc. And this diminished the quality of the films that fans originally loved. And the worst part is that these changes he makes have become the definitive version of the films. He refuses to release the original theatrical versions in updated format.
And then there were the prequels. After that and Lucas's constant revising with BAD changes to his original trilogy, fans don't trust Lucas anymore and will call him out because he seems to be continuously destroying something that was once great.
Jackson on the other hand hasn't really done anything to let his fans down in this way. He releases both theatrical and extended editions. So we can still enjoy the films that we love.
Fans of his work on LOTR might not enjoy his more recent movies. To a lot of PJ LOTR fans, King Kong and Lovely Bones weren't spectacular films, but they didn't in anyway effect fans love for the trilogy. So far all he has done is tell us his plan for how he is bringing this new story to the big screen.
No matter what anyone's feelings are about whether this is good or bad, we don't know if PJ has done anything to disappoint his LOTR fanbase. So how could he be in any way comparable to Lucas? Lucas has consistently disappointed his fans throughout the years with the release of his products. Jackson, so far, has not released a project, related to his LOTR trilogy, that has affected his original films and disappointed his fan base. I feel like I'm just saying the same thing over and over but there really is just no room for comparison here.
Like you said, Daniel, we can't judge this until we see the final product. Only THEN can we decide whether it's good or bad.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Gondor
Aug 24 2012, 12:46am
Post #39 of 282
(4106 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This was an interesting article
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There are parts I agree with and parts I disagree with, but it makes sense and the author gets their point across. I can't argue, because they make valid points. I'm excited that The Hobbit is coming out, but I am concerned over the decision to expand it into three films. The Dol Guldor arc sounds interesting, but I hope it won't be the focus of the films, I just hope it will be like a side-story, and once it's finished, it's finished, and goes back to Bilbo. The Hobbit is, after all, Bilbo's story, and I'm concerned that the film adaptations won't be. I guess we will wait and see.
|
|
|
Black Breathalizer
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 12:59am
Post #40 of 282
(4286 views)
Shortcut
|
Ostadan wrote: When the first teaser trailer for Jackson’s The Hobbit appeared... It seemed that Jackson wanted to make The Hobbit over into the image of The Lord of the Rings, which is a troubling idea.
It's absolutely amazing that Ostadan can determine the tone of seven or eight hours of Jackson's The Hobbit based on 2 minutes and 28 seconds of trailer footage. What a psychic! As others have already pointed out, it's not wise to judge a book by its cover.
Ostadan wrote: One might infer with some justification that Jackson (who, it will be remembered, did not originally intend to direct these films) does not really like The Hobbit very much as a book, and considers it to be a kind of simple-minded early attempt by Tolkien...
One might infer? So in the absence of any real scholarly evidence to back up your opinion, a personal 'inference' is enough to write a 2500 word essay criticizing films that haven't been released yet??? Good grief.
Ostadan wrote: What is far more troubling is that Jackson has attempted to justify (his dislike of the book) by hinting that he’s just doing what Tolkien himself would have done, and has made statements bordering on misleading and self-serving revisionism, to put it politely.
You're a good one to talk about self-serving revisionism. The phrase 'the pot calling the kettle black,' springs to mind. You referenced a quote Jackson made during a day when he was literally doing dozens of back-to-back media interviews at ComicCon. While it's true that Tolkien began writing his mythology many years before he ever thought about writing the Hobbit, you've determined that Jackson was referring to the larger mythology? "As most Tolkien fans know," isn't it far more likely he was referring to the various efforts Tolkien made to bring his children's story of the Hobbit more in line with the LOTR mythology he created later? Couldn't that be classified as 'mythology' as much as the tale of Gondolin??
If you expect to be taken seriously, don't build the foundation for your entire essay on quicksand.
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Grey Havens
Aug 24 2012, 1:15am
Post #41 of 282
(4196 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oooh, another post about how Jackson doesn't know what he's doing on these movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...We haven't had one of those in about...2 weeks...
Honestly, while the author of this article makes good points, it just feels like another one of those, "Peter Jackson knows nothing about Tolkien, Peter Jackson will adapt The Hobbit in a horrible way". Blah, blah, blah.
Here's a more succinct and accurate prediction of what will happen. Check this out:
If you liked The Lord of the Rings movies and how they were treated, you'll probably like The Hobbit. If you didn't, you're probably going to feel the same way about The Hobbit.
I don't mean to sound glib, but 99% of the total population that sees this film won't give a hoot about anything that was mentioned in this article. They just want to see a good movie for a couple hours. The critics and the Academy, and probably the public at large aren't going to be pouring over Tolkien's notes in an effort to discredit Jackson's adaptation of the material.
I'm about 98.974% sure of this.
I prepared myself for loose adaptations with some artistic license being taken for dramatic effect long ago. I'm just hoping for some good movies.
"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Grey Havens
Aug 24 2012, 1:17am
Post #42 of 282
(4095 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I fully agree with this post. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Aug 24 2012, 1:20am
Post #43 of 282
(4299 views)
Shortcut
|
Isn't your previous post a complaint? Aren't you saying you wish people would behave differently? And didn't you post to make your voice heard by everyone?
From your point of view, perhaps a better post would have been something positive to set the example?
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 24 2012, 1:24am)
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Aug 24 2012, 1:26am
Post #44 of 282
(4303 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I find it consistently astounding
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How offended some people are by another person's opinion.
I am perfectly thrilled that lots of people love the LOTR films, and say so often and with enthusiasm.
I don't get annoyed at people for liking the LOTR films, and for being optimistic about the Hobbit. So why get annoyed at people who didn't like the LOTR films, and are not optimistic about the Hobbit?
Baffling.
|
|
|
hamlet
Rivendell
Aug 24 2012, 1:38am
Post #45 of 282
(4137 views)
Shortcut
|
The Boss' version is better. As for PJ's The Hobbit, I look forward to it! The more Middle Earth, the better. I LOVE the books, but books are not movies and movies are not books.
|
|
|
Istaris'staffs
Rivendell
Aug 24 2012, 1:46am
Post #46 of 282
(4144 views)
Shortcut
|
Firstly, I think you took Jackson's comments too literally and out of context.
Secondly, why does it really matter whether there is one or two or three movies? I think we all agree that LOTR could've been four, five, even six movies. Most people like Peter Jackson's interpretation of Middle Earth. So why wouldn't you want to see more of the characters, etc.
Thirdly, adding the Dol Guldur subplot, if nothing else as to add epic scenes and therefore make more money, does clarify where Gandalf went and lets us see more of Middle Earth. Why does that upset everyone?
Fourthly, honestly, I'm tired of this argument when we haven't even seen the first film. We don't even have a good trailer. So really it can't be judged.
|
|
|
Milknut
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 1:52am
Post #47 of 282
(4079 views)
Shortcut
|
Ever hear about "too much of a good thing?" Or the dangers that come with a lack of moderation?
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___
|
|
|
Milknut
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 1:55am
Post #48 of 282
(4110 views)
Shortcut
|
He didn't seem irritated or angry at all. He was just expounding on the ridiculousness of the article.
Incidentally, I don't sit in either camp myself. I'm somewhat in the middle, kind of like Bilbo with the arkenstone.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___
|
|
|
Milknut
Rohan
Aug 24 2012, 1:55am
Post #49 of 282
(4158 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You are never going to let that drop, are you? :)//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___
(This post was edited by Milknut on Aug 24 2012, 1:56am)
|
|
|
|
|
