|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 7 2012, 6:41pm
Post #26 of 39
(483 views)
Shortcut
|
it's completely up to you how much you spoil yourself.
this is like getting mad at Hershey's for putting too many candy bars in the world while you're on a diet. no one's making you eat them.
and, as someone pointed out, the total amount of footage revealed amounts to a grand total of something like 7% of the movie.
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 7 2012, 7:34pm
Post #27 of 39
(439 views)
Shortcut
|
100%
that is all
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 7:52pm
Post #29 of 39
(427 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You're crossing the line a bit with characterizations of the director
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A director whose fans believe can do no wrong: check. A director who has grown a little too full on himself/his ideas and has been allowed to run wild and unchecked: check.
What is the saving grace here is that at least these movies are built on the foundation of an established story, and not purely the whims of someone who's lost complete touch with everything else.
I honestly hate when someone gets a hold of someone else's work and decides that they need to put their stamp on it, changing things that never needed to be changed just for the sake of change. I know omissions and changes are necessary here and there, but often they go too far (Ring in Osgiliath, shown a few feet from a Ring Wraith, springs immediately to mind. But at least they had the good sense to add the line "By all rights we shouldn't even be here" to that scene).
For those who are excited, good on you. But I hope you at least understand why some of us other fans simply aren't.
Of course not everyone is going to see things the same way and not like the choices made in adapting these movies. But "full of himself" implies you know the man. And you don't. In fact we have ample evidence to the contrary, with detailed making-of's that highlight the contributions of his entire team, rather than focusing on how great he is. He does this to promote them and his country, rather than just himself. This way they can get work outside of movies he makes.
And director with fans who believe he can do no wrong? I'd invite you to spend five minutes on this board, where every single decision made by him and his team is second-guessed (for the fun of it, of course, we're on a message board). There's hardly any shrine's to PJ built around here. Not everyone who agree's with some of his decisions thinks he can "do no wrong" either. I, for example, have pointed out where I disagree with him with LOTR. And I'll do so with The Hobbit.
I don't think it really hurts anything to be polite and give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he's just doing the best he can and he won't be able to please every person. So really, there's no need to take shots at his character.
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
Captain Sassy Pants
The Shire
Dec 7 2012, 7:55pm
Post #30 of 39
(418 views)
Shortcut
|
check.
but hey, it's your prerogative if you don't like what you've seen so far.
i think most of us have. that doesn't make us any less of Tolkien fans.
I don't believe that I've damned the whole thing, I just provided my opinion based on the facts as they've been made known to me, and what has been made known to me isn't looking good from my perspective.
And I never said it made you people who like PJ's treatment less of fans, I just want a separation for those of us fans who don't, who are getting swept up along side those who do with the "made for fans" non-sense. As if I am some how less of a fan because I dislike what they've shown me.
|
|
|
Captain Sassy Pants
The Shire
Dec 7 2012, 8:05pm
Post #31 of 39
(413 views)
Shortcut
|
A director whose fans believe can do no wrong: check. A director who has grown a little too full on himself/his ideas and has been allowed to run wild and unchecked: check.
What is the saving grace here is that at least these movies are built on the foundation of an established story, and not purely the whims of someone who's lost complete touch with everything else.
I honestly hate when someone gets a hold of someone else's work and decides that they need to put their stamp on it, changing things that never needed to be changed just for the sake of change. I know omissions and changes are necessary here and there, but often they go too far (Ring in Osgiliath, shown a few feet from a Ring Wraith, springs immediately to mind. But at least they had the good sense to add the line "By all rights we shouldn't even be here" to that scene).
For those who are excited, good on you. But I hope you at least understand why some of us other fans simply aren't. Of course not everyone is going to see things the same way and not like the choices made in adapting these movies. But "full of himself" implies you know the man. And you don't. In fact we have ample evidence to the contrary, with detailed making-of's that highlight the contributions of his entire team, rather than focusing on how great he is. He does this to promote them and his country, rather than just himself. This way they can get work outside of movies he makes. And director with fans who believe he can do no wrong? I'd invite you to spend five minutes on this board, where every single decision made by him and his team is second-guessed (for the fun of it, of course, we're on a message board). There's hardly any shrine's to PJ built around here. Not everyone who agree's with some of his decisions thinks he can "do no wrong" either. I, for example, have pointed out where I disagree with him with LOTR. And I'll do so with The Hobbit. I don't think it really hurts anything to be polite and give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he's just doing the best he can and he won't be able to please every person. So really, there's no need to take shots at his character.
...the way he is changing the established canon, seemingly with no regard for what some fans think, even if it never needed to be changed (see: needless changes) and then trying to justify it with lies about "125 pages" of appendices which provide more insight into the Hobbit, or that this is what Tolkien had intended, or that his (and his cohorts) revisions are somehow in the vein of Tolkien. That smacks of something to me, especially with all of the unnecessary potty and gross out humour. But "it's a kid's book" so it's perfectly all right.
|
|
|
Metal Slug
Rivendell
Dec 7 2012, 8:12pm
Post #32 of 39
(414 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm a fan. I've been waiting at least 10 years for a Hobbit movie. I've been visiting this fan site since the movie was officially announced as in production.
With lot's of spoilers popping up on this site and others all of a sudden for a movie I eagerly anticipate, it's very hard to stop the mouse from clicking on them. 
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 8:14pm
Post #33 of 39
(413 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes but what you consider needless changes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and he does may be an honest difference of opinion. There's not really any reason to ascribe malevolence to his actions. You know, like adults, we can have differences of opinion without making the other person the boogey man.
And what's with this "lie" people are talking about with the 125 pages of appendices? He's simply describing how long the appendices are. If he goes out there and says 12 pages of appendices then he's going to get slammed for not knowing how long they are. It's nit-picking. He sat there on the Colbert show and admitted to 4 million people his ignorance about why or why not Tolkien didn't follow through on his changes to The Hobbit. It's not like he's looking to be Mr. Smartypants.
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
sycorax82
Rohan
Dec 7 2012, 11:45pm
Post #34 of 39
(379 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A 'director who can do no wrong'??
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
No wrong...except for the mess that is ROTK and the bloated Kong?? The fact that you can excise half of Kong and get a much better movie out of it shows Peter definitely can lose the plot in a big way!!
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 8 2012, 12:00am
Post #35 of 39
(364 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Totally disagree with you on RotK,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But i do agree somewhat on you with Kong in that i think it is a truly great 2 hour movie hidden inside a 3 hour "behemoth".
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Dec 8 2012, 6:15am
Post #36 of 39
(346 views)
Shortcut
|
A director whose fans believe can do no wrong: check. A director who has grown a little too full on himself/his ideas and has been allowed to run wild and unchecked: check.
What is the saving grace here is that at least these movies are built on the foundation of an established story, and not purely the whims of someone who's lost complete touch with everything else.
- is a bit like putting together a puzzle in a manner that makes everyone happy. That can be tricky.
I wouldn't say that PJ and Co can't 'do no wrong', but I think they got a lot more right than wrong. I am also certain that Peter Jackson is quite certain that he is doing the best he can for the fans, while also taking into consideration mainstream audiences and studio expectations.
___________________________________________________
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 8 2012, 7:36am
Post #37 of 39
(349 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The clips are encouraging and look good, making up for the minority of negative criticisms. Also, all the aired footage totals about 15
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
minutes of finished film material, and that includes all the trailers and the clips, many of which have material that is repeated, and therefore the 15 minutes gets cut down to about 12 minutes of non duplicated footage. That is less than 1/10th of this 167 minute movie, which is not even half of one quarter, and that is IF you are the sort of devoutee (or are a friend of one) who is actually seeking out and seeing every single trailer and preview clip, so we are far from truly spoiled. We got second trailer after months and months of waiting and it was fantastic. Now, we are getting a lot of TV spots, behind-the-scenes videos and really long clips from the movie.
My question is: why WB wants us to see a quarter of the footage just before premiere? I mean, six clips couple of minutes each, and now...the White Council clip, which made me a little bit upset. I haven't seen it, just like other clips. If it contains great acting from Our Old Friends, why would we want to see this ripped out of context in front of our computers with tea or coffee when the premiere is in a couple of days?
I'm okay with TV spots, but for me they've gone a little too far withs those clips and making-of-videos (seen couple of scenes and turned it off). I'm also surprised that a lot of people have seen it here. It's all WB's fault.
I would appreciate Your thoughts about this.
"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."
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Dec 8 2012, 7:54am
Post #38 of 39
(325 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I love the LOTR movies, for the most part, and I think I will mostly Love The Hobbit films. And I appreciate what Jackson has done, HOWEVER
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some of the changes really are needless, in so much as there are changes which the story does not require in order to be coherent, concise, etc. There are changes which complicate more than they streamline. And, yes, it is misleading for Peter to keep mentioning the 125 pages in the way that he and Phillipa do. They use a lot of misleading implications. They mention the 125 pages in a way such as suggests that the bulk of that 125 pages deals with events that directly relate to The Hobbit or The Council (at least half of those pages do neither), and which further suggests that all the filmic addenda is based faithfully upon those appendices, when in fact, from all we have heard, their film adaptation directly and defiantly contradicts what IS in the appendices in at least several places.
Further, they often cite Tolkien's revisions and attempted revisions of The Hobbit in a way that seldom if ever acknowledges that he abandoned that attempt because the changes would have changed the tone too drastically. Instead, they imply that he simply failed to complete a fully intended and never abandoned alteration.
It isn't lying, per se, but it is very deceptive, and a Thror slain in battle at Azanulbizar, an Azog who looses a hand but keeps his life in that same battle, an orc horde that is not utterly routed there, a dwarf horde that passes up a seeming opportunity to retake Khazad-Dum for ANY reason other than the fact that the Dwarf Father-King slaying, Demon of Might who first drove Durin's folk from the kingdom is still lurking within it waiting for other royal Dwarven heirs to slay, a Watchful Peace that begins 400 rather than 900 years before the events in The Hobbit take place, and Nazgul who were routed by Dunedain magician-priests rather than by the combined might of Arnor, Lindon, Rivendell (Glorfindel led) and Gondor, are all anything but faithful changes and deviations to what the vaunted and often held up Appendices actually state. Its a pack of falsehoods and inaccuracies in what, I believe, will otherwise be a really great film and a good adaptation.
and he does may be an honest difference of opinion. There's not really any reason to ascribe malevolence to his actions. You know, like adults, we can have differences of opinion without making the other person the boogey man.
And what's with this "lie" people are talking about with the 125 pages of appendices? He's simply describing how long the appendices are. If he goes out there and says 12 pages of appendices then he's going to get slammed for not knowing how long they are. It's nit-picking. He sat there on the Colbert show and admitted to 4 million people his ignorance about why or why not Tolkien didn't follow through on his changes to The Hobbit. It's not like he's looking to be Mr. Smartypants.
"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."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Dec 8 2012, 7:58am)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 8 2012, 7:56pm
Post #39 of 39
(309 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And what bothers me about these possible changes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is that they seem so incosequential to the overall plot of The Hobbit-- why change them at all? Those are the type of changes that bug me when i watch the trilogy. I understand why they altered Aragorn, so to me that's a small, accptable change. But Gimli saying that dwarves aren't good at running long distances, when Tolkien's dwarves are known for their endurance, for the sake of a dumb joke-- that's the kind of thing that rubs me the wrong way each and every time. The thing i really love about Tolkien is his vast mythology, it's deep history, and how it all fits together so elegantly. So i'm really hoping P.J. and Co. keep that sort of thing to an absolute minimum, and only do so only when absolutely necessary for the story, and not just to slap on some cheap, made-up conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about that
[
