|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 4 2012, 7:13pm
Post #76 of 98
(662 views)
Shortcut
|
From James Russell's article:
The critique is pretty simple – Jackson and his team are stretching a simple story beyond reasonable limits to make more money from ticket sales. Harry Potter was the first franchise to split books, turning the Deathly Hallows into two separate movies. Although there was some creative rationale for the split – Deathly Hallows was a long book, and it meant we got two tonally distinct movies – it's also true Warner Bros probably increased its grosses by many hundreds of millions in the process. Other franchises, including Twilight and The Hunger Games, have since followed suit. Jackson, though, seems to be taking this idea to extremes, and many fans are up in arms at what they see as a blatant cash grab. The Harry Potter series was definitely not the first to split a single book into more than one film. Director Richard Lester did this in 1974 with Alexander Dumas' The Three Musketeers (since the book is followed by a sequel, The Man in the Iron Mask, I suppose it is fair to call it a franchise). And I'm not even sure that Lester was the first one to do this.
'Thus spake Ioreth, wise-woman of Gondor: The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known.' - Gandalf the White
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 4 2012, 7:32pm
Post #77 of 98
(674 views)
Shortcut
|
You have posted your message in reply to macfalk, which I don't think was intended. (Click on the 'In reply to' link on your post to see what I mean.)
When posting, click on the 'Reply to This Post' link of the message you want to reply to, not the link on the last message in the discussion thread.
Feel free to send me a private message (click on my nick and go from there) if you have any questions.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Fardragon
Rohan
Sep 4 2012, 7:54pm
Post #78 of 98
(641 views)
Shortcut
|
Dumas wrote a whole series of musketeer novels.
But this isn't really comparable. People like Middle Earth. They want to see more movies about Middle Earth. The problem is, Tolkien only published one more novel (in his lifetime) about Middle Earth. However, he did write lots of plot outlines and story fragments. What is being made is a prequel trilogy to LotOR, not a straight adaptation of one novel.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Sep 4 2012, 8:50pm
Post #79 of 98
(689 views)
Shortcut
|
|
3 could be a bonus, or a convuluting distraction. It remains to be seen.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Something is definitely lost in expanding The Hobbit this much, but something may also be gained. But as is said in The Hobbit. . . we will just have to wait and see if we gain anything.
I don't think stagnation or money are the issue for the creative team. I think hubris and excessive pleasure with their own addenda, fan-fiction-like though much of it may be, are the most likely causes of expansion. Sure, it's not morally acceptable, but I'm just glad it's being made into a film. 1 film is great, 3 is a bonus.
"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."
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Sep 4 2012, 8:58pm
Post #80 of 98
(643 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I excepedt long ago that we are no longer just getting The Hobbit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If we were just getting The Hobbit (as in the book) then 3 films would be an awful stretch. Since we're no longer getting just The Hobbit, more films seems most reasonable. 
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Sep 4 2012, 9:00pm
Post #81 of 98
(640 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agreed. And I wouldn't even call the absence of the Wood Elves feast a major
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
deletion. Larger things than that were left out of the live action Lord of The Rings movies.
My original thoughts about the originally planned One Film Hobbit were, "wow. Rankin Bass got most of the story in with a 79 minute film. I can't wait to see the full and proper treatment it will get in a 190 to 225 minute (Three hour plus) movie! They will be able to get in all of the book, AND be able to devout close to an hour." Two movies. . . I hated the notion of the space of wait between, but I could still see how it would work well. At hearing three, my initial exclamation changed to, "Just what the hell type bunk are they going be pulling out of their bums to supply this much filler?" Though, it would still be interesting to see what a 1 film adaptation of The Hobbit would be like. The animated Hobbit manages to tell most of the story in 77 minuites with three major deletions: 1) the character of Beorn; 2) the Wood-elves' feast in Mirkwood; and 3) the subplot with the Arkenstone. As long as you are willing to similarly compress the events of the book, there is no reason why the entire story couldn't be adapted in 2 hours or so.
"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."
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Sep 4 2012, 9:15pm
Post #82 of 98
(620 views)
Shortcut
|
To be an underlying assumption that a text of length x is best adapted into a screentime of y. I don't see any real evidence of this.
LR
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Sep 4 2012, 9:26pm
Post #84 of 98
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It seems that if someone is saying
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That screen time A is a stretch (based only on the duration and not the content) then A must be perceived to be greater than the correct time or range of times B for the adaptation of the text. So there has to be an implicit correct timing, for there to be a stretch, I think?
And I dont think B can be judged in the absence of content.
I'm not suggesting this solely in response to your post by the way!
LR
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Sep 4 2012, 9:27pm
Post #85 of 98
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Which is exactly what some people will understandably object to.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I like Dol Guldur and The Council of The Wise being included if it is done properly, and without TOO much invented speculative ficiton beyond what is needed to make the sub-plot work.
But The Hobbit is the name of the film, and it is the work they are adapting. It is thus, the work most people will expect to see. It would be entirely inappropriate and a damaging deviation, for example, if Jackson were to use the Appendicies to force Feanor and The Valar and the wars against Melkor into The Hobbit (and, believe it or no, there is just enough information on those beings and subjects in the appendecies to make for a fan fictionalized account much of what is in The Silmarillion without ever actually having to quote anything directly from that forbidden tome). Indeed, such diversion would cause it to no longer be The Hobbit.
It is not a problem that the only other text they have rights to is The Hobbit, if the film they intend to make is The Hobbit. It is only a problem if one wants to cram a lot of material that has very little to do with The Hobbit into a film that is supposedly based on that novel. Dumas wrote a whole series of musketeer novels.
But this isn't really comparable. People like Middle Earth. They want to see more movies about Middle Earth. The problem is, Tolkien only published one more novel (in his lifetime) about Middle Earth. However, he did write lots of plot outlines and story fragments. What is being made is a prequel trilogy to LotOR, not a straight adaptation of one novel.
"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."
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Sep 4 2012, 10:13pm
Post #86 of 98
(604 views)
Shortcut
|
I hope Dol Guldur is longish; more than a simpler subplot, but not equal to The Hobbit - 1/3 seems a perfect ratio for the film count. I would wish them well to use the Appendices to enter the area of the Silmarillion as far as the Appendices can possibly carry them. I wish this because I dislike the reluctance, nay obstinance, of the Tolkien Estate about allowing film rights for all the materials to legitimate productions. If they want it really done right instead of weighted toward fan, or "speculative," fiction, that's what they'd do. "What can we do to help you do it right" is a much more progressive attitude than their perceived obstinance.
But about cramming "material that has very little to do with The Hobbit," I would posit that the Dol Guldur thread can or might be used to clear obstacles or threats from Bilbo and the Dwarves' path that, were there not interventions by The Council, would otherwise have been there. The company would not have to know these things happened and the story from Bilbo's point of view does not have to be altered, leaving The Hobbit as-is while more tightly integrating the story of The White Council.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Sep 4 2012, 10:16pm)
|
|
|
Snaga
Lorien
Sep 4 2012, 10:38pm
Post #87 of 98
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Darn, I came late to this thread and everbody has just about said it all
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and pointed out the obvious, that anybody can create a 'sock puppet' identity as a web journalist and write whatever they want.
"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"
-Faramir
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Sep 4 2012, 11:24pm
Post #88 of 98
(575 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would disagree about their reluctance. Doubtless, by now, they know the fickle ways of Djinn
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
once out of the bottle and released from bond of wish commands (very specific wishes, mind), there is no telling what they might get up to.
And there is no garauntee that full rights to use The Silmarilion, would result in any manner of faithful translation. With full rights to LOTR, there were still a number of deviations. It might not do Christopher well to hear rumour of a scene in which the early promise of Galadriel's awesomness was displayed when she came to the rescue of her uncle Feanor, and singlehandedly defeated six Balrogs.  lol I hope Dol Guldur is longish; more than a simpler subplot, but not equal to The Hobbit - 1/3 seems a perfect ratio for the film count. I would wish them well to use the Appendices to enter the area of the Silmarillion as far as the Appendices can possibly carry them. I wish this because I dislike the reluctance, nay obstinance, of the Tolkien Estate about allowing film rights for all the materials to legitimate productions. If they want it really done right instead of weighted toward fan, or "speculative," fiction, that's what they'd do. "What can we do to help you do it right" is a much more progressive attitude than their perceived obstinance.
But about cramming "material that has very little to do with The Hobbit," I would posit that the Dol Guldur thread can or might be used to clear obstacles or threats from Bilbo and the Dwarves' path that, were there not interventions by The Council, would otherwise have been there. The company would not have to know these things happened and the story from Bilbo's point of view does not have to be altered, leaving The Hobbit as-is while more tightly integrating the story of The White Council.
"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."
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Sep 5 2012, 1:14am
Post #89 of 98
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But this (prospective backlash)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is an article that seeks to "set the tone" and I am sure that the writer puts in print what many members of the media, the industry, and (yes) the Academy must be feeling. It's the opening shot, and I disagree that this article must not be taken seriously. it should be taken seriously indeed. Not just for what it says, but b/c he isn't content to back up his own arguments; he says "the fans are upset" and offers links or points to a Facebook page so readers can see for themselves. I'm sure the author has dubiously cherry-picked selected negative fan reaction to the news of the past months. This is serious. Ask yourself: if the media had not glowingly endorsed the films wth the sobriquet "it even won over die-hard Tolkien book fans" (LOTR), if there had been a fan backlash against LOTR, wouldn't that have muddied the critical acclaim and influenced thinking of the memebers of AMPAS?
This is the same type of article that began months before The Phantom Menace and esp Titanic. With TPM, the results were mixed while Titanic of course confounded all odds. We should expect to see aLOTmore of this the closer we get to Dec, and it means that Peter Jackson had better darn well deliver. And by "deliver", there are some hard hearts out there: this had better be not just as good as LOTR....the industry will now expect something better. The ods are already high, and Jackson seeming to set himself up as another George Lucas isn't doing him any critical favors.
Not that I think he is. But the article riases a valid point that he isn't the same scrappy PJ any more; he's now a seasoned mogul who has a small entourage who follows him around on the shoot and, as we have seen in the vlogs, puts the cup of coffee into his hand. (This is the exact point when Alec Guinness correctly opined that GL's best days were perhaps behind him....when he saw him thus on the set of ROTJ.) I do agree that TH was a lucky break for him; but after this he will have to do his Schindler's List to follow this Jurassic Park. I'd love to see him go back to his HC roots and be known for more than DeMillian epics. After all, even Spielberg went inward...
Peter jackson initially turned down TH b/c he didn't want to have to face the pressure of having to creatively top himself, before the 48fps and trilogy, he was already under pressure. Now, he is facing a situation far worse than even he dreaded--and he must be either just as the article says, OR that much of a genius. and confident that he can withstand all sotrms. ..that he can avoid the Mogul Curse that has claimed so many great directors creatively.
This worrying aspect--that just as George Lucas before him, Peter Jackson might become an accidental lightening rod for debate and criticism about all that is wrong with the industry, regardless of how TH turns out--is not something to be brushed aside as specious or of the moment. It may well become all the more potent within circles of the industry IF TH is commerically successful and has a modicum of critical success. After all, we now live in the Twitter Age, when praise so inevitalby turns to backlash. It seems that Th is already being set up to sink further if it falls out of the gate (and only perfection can come from this new gate) OR if it is successful, they'll drag it down.
B/c everyone is jealous of someone who is TOO good or successful. How can Peter Jackson become more than the enabler of the Bloated Blockbuster Franchise? (as they'd see it, not me.) Will Peter Biskind write another sequel to "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" and his follow-up critique of 90's Indie CInema with a book that has the likes of Cameron and Jackson symbolizing all that is bad in Tinseltown?
Having TABA open in Summer doesn;t help. "Summer blockbuster, NOT Oscar film." For the first time, I wish that the order were reversed--6 months between films 1 and 2, not 2 and 3! This is what drives me mad--that the fans too won't evn know if they've been validated (or not) for a whole year after!
(This post was edited by Sunflower on Sep 5 2012, 1:20am)
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Gondor
Sep 5 2012, 1:18am
Post #90 of 98
(564 views)
Shortcut
|
I didn't read the article after all, especially hearing they trashed Tintin just because the journalist didn't like mo-cap. I really liked Tintin, and I thought it was a good movie. I also have an open-mind about the Hobbit, PJ gets too carried away to be "running on empty."
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Gondor
Sep 5 2012, 1:28am
Post #91 of 98
(547 views)
Shortcut
|
There was actually going to be a sequel to The Lord of the Rings? And involved a Sauronic cult? That is interesting.
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Sep 5 2012, 1:40am
Post #92 of 98
(572 views)
Shortcut
|
Kind of dropped off there at the end...
The following is far from polished, please bare with me:
Although we don't know how this thing is going to go over -- the dust hasn't been whipped up yet, let alone settled -- I see what you are getting at. Since Cinema Con I've been thinking that some pundits/critics/whatever might like to get some negative viewpoints out there so they could then claim prophet status should the thing tank; Its success does not seem the foregone conclusion it once did, though I don't know why.
However, you are going one step further and suggesting that negative reviews will become the norm for this thing regardless of its success. There is a part of me that wants to agree with you... I think some of the more notable reversals of fortune (fortune=respect here rather than wealth) were engineered by media manipulating the mushy middle. It may be jealousy as you say, or a form of personality management media empires engage in. Or perhaps it is people wanting to be ahead of the curve should the fans turn on him as they have done on so many other sure things, it girls and boys, and so on.
My more practical side expects that if this is evidence of a mounting backlash, it might be around PJ trying to introduce a new format when the last one hasn't really caught on; but also something like a late announcement of an additional summer block buster must have screwed-up at least some (industry) people's plans.
The Tolkien comment leads me to think that at least some people aren't looking forward to another 3-5 year stretch where fantasy geeks rule popular culture, as we did during the LOTR years.
In any event, I agree that as much as this critique unfairly singles out Sir Peter, it may also be a taste of of what's in store.
eta: ah I see you edited the "and" out, now my opening makes no sense heh...
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on 0 secs ago)
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Sep 5 2012, 1:50am)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Sep 5 2012, 2:51am
Post #93 of 98
(568 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the real growing backlash will not be about blockbusters (I like those), but will be about the lack of new, creative films that have been substituted with multiple rehashes, reboots, remakes and any other word Hollywood chooses to describe the same thing - finally, I say with impatient glee. I do expect 3D to get the same backlash, as it always has. Every. Single. Decade. Or so. We still have to wear glasses? I also just noted a Chris Pine interview explaining that Star Trek 2 will not be "like the original but darker. We’re not making Batman." Relief! Darker, flawed and more humanized is what I hope is the next backlash against cliche. Bring back the heroes. Darker, flawed, and humanized is all Emperor's Clothes of someone who once said that was a good thing and pretentious writers and actors believed him.
I digress, but neither The Lord of the Rings nor The Hobbit are remakes, avoiding that backlash, but not the 3D, but we will have choice - and they probably will not be remade for a very long time. 48 FPS is the real unknown, but still there's choice. A smart audience, if they remember the premature criticisms, will think of the critics as rather silly (or prescient) in retrospect. I expect the former to prevail and the possible backlash will be immediately forgotten with the typical mass amnesia as we move on to the next shiney.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Sep 5 2012, 2:58am)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Sep 5 2012, 4:34am
Post #94 of 98
(523 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This article doesn't even mention Tintin. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Sep 5 2012, 10:03am
Post #95 of 98
(508 views)
Shortcut
|
Note to self: do not write posts in wee hrs when you're too wired to be tired, and too tired to be wired (you know the feeling I'm sure.)
Yep, another long, rambling essay--I'd drive a creative writing teacher mad. (But then, so would Tolkien have.) But then, that's purely intentional. I try to cultivate my creative wackiness.
I'm surprised nobody's done a spoof of my posts yet.  
Didn't see what you were talking about there either at the end, Sir Dennis, but then I edited it....:)
Yr point about the writer possibly being resentful of another period when "The geeks rule the world" esp Tolkien geeks, never thought of that. I can think of a prominent film site or two whose members clearly are dreading TH. And maybe this is in part what may fuel a backlash if there is one: at a time when the creative well has run long dry and the clock is clearly ready for a pendulum swing to the return of some smaller, quirkier, origional cinema programming, here comes this 800-pound gorilla smashing the china in the teashop. In the past, we had Lucas and Spielberg; now, it's Cameron and Jackson. And sorry to say, TH is NOT origional programming....it's yet another YA adapatation (if a critic wants to be really snarky about it.)
As for backlash: I ws there, I remember following the pre-release online drama of both TPM (on then-brand new sites Jedinet.com and theForce.net) and Titanic (on ComingSoon.net, and later AICN.) If it weren't for Harry Knowles's origional screening reports, Titanic might have died in the water...(remember how it didnt take off until 2 weeks after release.) of course all has changed sinc then. Today we have the Twitter backlash (see current item: "Beasts of the Southern Wild" , a *fantastic* indie film with a little child actress who has been getting a lot of buzz as a Oscar contender, a la Anna Paquin. Or she was, until about 2 wks after the film came out about 2 months ago..., to glowing reviews..now those same critics are backpedalng and trashing it....
We shall see. I hope we are in for another "Titanic" style phenom. But it will be tougher. Cameron hadn't built up a resovoir of resentment among critics before his film...just people enjoying the macabre spectacle of the production saga and munching the popcorn.
(This post was edited by Sunflower on Sep 5 2012, 10:04am)
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Sep 5 2012, 10:16am
Post #96 of 98
(492 views)
Shortcut
|
It will be much more difficult for America to drop the need for "dark, flawed" heroes when she is so currently muddled and confused about her own direction, and even reson d'etre while she is held in the strong jaws of the rapacious 1%. Post-9/11 and Gitmo America will never again be able to create, much less believably return to, say, Superman or Mickey Mouse. (Captian Jack was a bit of a corporate miracle.) How can we convincingly re-invent or reimagine new heroes to look up to, when torture and warrantless spying are Constitutional? King of hard, there, to preach lofty ideals through a myhtic creation, when you're betraying your own ideals.--with the peoples' silent consent (bit of a harsh statement there, but it has to be said.)
I just finished reading a very interesting book over the summer about the history of Comic-Con. It brings up (a little) this very oint, that most of the totular American cult heroes and figures were born in a much more inocent age when American economy was expanding and even in the light of some setbacks, the nation was expanding and people in general had...well, Estel. for lack of a more powerful word. Now that is all in doubt.
The book suggested that in future, Comic-Con might not be THE global pop-culture leader, but merely one of several globally recognised Cons. And that the next Superman or Batman or cartoon icon that we look up to with shining eyes, might come from, say, India....or Brazil. Some other nation giong through its period of expanding middle class and hope for the future.
Personally, I don't have much hope in future of the continued expansion of Industrial Civ...not in a world of exploding population growth against a backdrop of rapid rescource depletin, more expensive food and emergy,and accelerating climate change...so they should enjoy the party in its last hours.
Sorry to get OT there. But I hope you get the gneral gist of what I mean.
(This post was edited by Sunflower on Sep 5 2012, 10:20am)
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Gondor
Sep 5 2012, 7:51pm
Post #97 of 98
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was referring to Carne's post
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He mentioned they dissed Tintin, and that much of what the Guardian says is rubbish. Had I not read his post, I would've wasted minutes of my life reading a silly article by a prejudiced journalist, who hasn't even seen The Hobbit yet. I should've been more specific the first time.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Sep 5 2012, 8:41pm
Post #98 of 98
(500 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ has probably one of the most creative teams in the buisness behind him, all directors have access to these teams, they all go together to make a whole. I would like to see someone say to WETA and Lee/Howe and Howard Shore and all the top flight costumers,actors, set designers that the project they are working on is creatively stagnated. They would laugh their socks off.
|
|
|
|
|
