|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 5:41pm
Post #1 of 60
(2877 views)
Shortcut
|
|
hobbit in retrospect
|
Can't Post
|
|
I must admit after watching pans labyrinth last night, a great fantasy film, i cant help thinking weve been a little short changed with these films. I do love watching them and some of the visuals are spot on, for the most part, but what we have is basically a run of the mill adventure film.
the hobbit could have been one of the best fantasy films ever made. a simple story, with weight and some great scenes. but i think what we have so far, is really convoluted story about councils,necromancers and dwarven history (thats all wrong) that really isnt part of the book.
its a film made for fans of the lotr films.
i do love the film and some of the visuals are great but theres just too much twisted that takes it away from the essence of reading that book for the first time and being transported.
when i think of the hobbit , i imagine strange little bearded dwarves , hobbits that live in holes and can suddenly hide from strangers a subversive land of fantasy and adventure. instead ithink were in danger of just making a typical hollywood film.
when i think of good fantasy i think of dark crystal,pans labyrinth edward scissor hands, Godzilla,never ending story,brazil, midsummer's nights dream!(ok not a film) gibli, gilliam etc etc they all have a darkness and otherness that i cant explain. its a shame the hobbit is so glossy and hollywood.
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Jan 13 2013, 5:47pm
Post #2 of 60
(1649 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They never stated that they adapted just the book,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
they have always said that they are adapting the STORY which involves so much more than just the book!
The LotR appendixes is also being adapted into these films 
I know some people wanted just the book, but it's really not something to hope for when they aren't even trying to adapt just the book 
Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse
|
|
|
morgul lord
Rivendell
Jan 13 2013, 5:59pm
Post #3 of 60
(1593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sounds like you want a live-action of the Rankin-Bass animated version.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Personally, I don't understand this desire for a "simple" movie. I just can't see how they could have made it simpler, without cutting out hours worth of very important (and awesome) stuff. I think it's perfect the way it is.
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 6:10pm
Post #4 of 60
(1542 views)
Shortcut
|
|
there were no bunny sleds in bakshi ;)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
i just wish it had that subversiveness and weight that all good fantasy has, not glossy bunny sleds and hollywood beardless dwarves.
i dont mind the appendix stuff, heck im a huge tolkien geek, but they changed it around already and will have to make so much of it up. its gonna water the story down and tthe writing of these films is already weakest part, which is ironic because the best thing about tolkien is his writing.
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 13 2013, 6:17pm
Post #5 of 60
(1562 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The film is no more faithful to the LOTR appendices than it is to THE HOBBIT. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 13 2013, 6:21pm
Post #6 of 60
(1510 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We don't know what Guillermo del Toro would have made of it.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For instance, he seemed quite convinced, during the brief period when he posted to these forums, that there was an obvious dividing point in The Hobbit that would lend it easily to a two-film division. But he didn't specify where that division would come, and there was absolutely no agreement among the posters here, almost all of them very familiar with the book in that inter-film epoch, as to what the breaking point would be! More than one person did point out that a two-film Hobbit was probalby going to have to be bloated with unfaithful additions from outside Tolkien's text.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Jan 13 2013, 6:31pm
Post #7 of 60
(1535 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you go in expecting the book
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
brought to life as a visual adaptation, then you will always be sorely disappointed. And it really does no one a service to gripe about it. Of course Tolkien's writing was great! We all know that otherwise we wouldn't be here. But unless you can get away from the "but-they-didn't-include-this-or-that-from-the-books" attitude, you will never ever enjoy these films for what they are. And I don't agree that this is some glossy Hollywood show. This is a PJ-Kiwi venture, albeit with Hollywood film industry via Warner Bros. financial backing. But PJ has enough clout to be able to call his own punches in Hollywood or elsewhere by now.
Gosh, why is it that it seems we've been through all of these same complaints and discussions with every single LOTR film? Personally I have absolutely no problem with whatever changes have been made to the story, and although there are certain things from the books I would love to see on screen, I realize that this isn't my film and can just sit back and enjoy the ride. (And I didn't care for Bakshi at all, thang you berry much!)
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 6:44pm
Post #8 of 60
(1481 views)
Shortcut
|
ido enjoy these films for what they are, im just expressing an opinion , is that ok?
all im saying is i think these adaptations have lost some of the essence of the original text. these films are glossy, and like i said compared to a film like pans labyrinth they have lost that dark/light essence which i think makes a great fantasy film.
i sort had hoped the hobbit could have reigned it in a bit, but on retrospect they are just big blockbuster films.enjoyable but not unique.
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
Yva
Lorien
Jan 13 2013, 6:46pm
Post #9 of 60
(1423 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah, I didn't know he did (post) //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
MasterOrc
Rivendell
Jan 13 2013, 6:56pm
Post #10 of 60
(1418 views)
Shortcut
|
movie business, "simple" just won't do. It's been the reality of the industry for some years now.
Personally, I don't understand this desire for a "simple" movie. I just can't see how they could have made it simpler, without cutting out hours worth of very important (and awesome) stuff. I think it's perfect the way it is.
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Jan 13 2013, 6:59pm
Post #11 of 60
(1437 views)
Shortcut
|
that you are just expressing your opinion, and I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. It's just that I'm so sick of folks who are constantly complaining about how films aren't what they expected because they were changed from the books they were based on etc etc. Just getting tired of the tirades, if you know what I mean.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
MasterOrc
Rivendell
Jan 13 2013, 7:10pm
Post #12 of 60
(1420 views)
Shortcut
|
100%.......Unfortunately, they'll never be happy about the film in any form. Some people look for something to complain about (kind of like an extra hobby) no matter what.
Let them nitpick all they want all the way up to one billion worldwide (they'll complain about that too) or more.
that you are just expressing your opinion, and I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. It's just that I'm so sick of folks who are constantly complaining about how films aren't what they expected because they were changed from the books they were based on etc etc. Just getting tired of the tirades, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 7:15pm
Post #13 of 60
(1407 views)
Shortcut
|
It has no multiple narratives, and the qualities of a classic fairy-tale. It is a far more complete and consistent story than AUJ, and rightly is going to win several oscars.
"Simple" is probably not the word I'd use to describe the enchanting quality jimmyfen is looking for. I think minimalist, elegant and subtle are closer to the mark.
|
|
|
MasterOrc
Rivendell
Jan 13 2013, 7:21pm
Post #14 of 60
(1403 views)
Shortcut
|
a good movie indeed. Really enjoyed it.
The Hobbit on the other hand isn't complete until the credits start rolling after the TABA.
I'm sure after all is said and done, the trilogy will be held in high regard. Have patience.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 7:23pm
Post #15 of 60
(1398 views)
Shortcut
|
|
AUJ is a much "simpler" film than Pan's Labyrinth
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think simple is the best way to describe an alternative fairy-tale approach that could have been taken to making The Hobbit.
Fairy tales are not necessarily simple, they work on different levels, have emotional depth and symbolism, and an enchanting aesthetic. You can see this in films like Spirited Away or Pans Labyrinth (and most certainly not in Rankin-Bass).
Mainstream Hollywood films often having seemingly adult themes- revenge, jealousy etc- but treated in a shallow way as to feel juvenile. Aspects of AUJ, like the Azog-Thorin revenge storyline, are rather too close to this style of screenplay writing for my liking.
Similarly does adding the necromancer storyline really add thematic depth to The Hobbit story? It helps secure the film as a prequel to LotR, but it just felt like a rehash of LotR themes (rise of Sauron, Saruman suspicion, Gandalf vulnerability) and failed to dovetail with The Hobbit themes to make a greater and consistent artistic whole. Maybe the next film will do this more successfully, but I'm not really sure how.
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 7:25pm
Post #16 of 60
(1396 views)
Shortcut
|
theyll/some people......i have a name lol!
ive never griped about the bbc adaptions, dont know why!
so if i we cant complain or nitpick about films we might as well close this site down right now? or maybe no one in the history of watching films can dislike stuff?
im here because love tolkiens work, not the films in themselves, and because i love the books i will complain if they cut thorins beard off!!! but i will praise if they design a cool smaug, deal with it.
thanks yes i am looking for that 'other quality,minimalist, fairytale' vibe i think these films miss, i havnt seen pi yet, but it does look good.
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
MasterOrc
Rivendell
Jan 13 2013, 7:32pm
Post #17 of 60
(1378 views)
Shortcut
|
this a forum. To express our opinions good and bad.
Where your more of a Tolkien loyalist, I'm a huge fan of movies in general...especially foreign films.
Since your happy already, are you shiny too?
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Jan 13 2013, 7:41pm
Post #18 of 60
(1344 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course people can dislike stuff and can disagree on things! But it's unfair to base one's critique of a film on how closely it follows the book it is based on. These days with new movies coming out based on relatively new novels, one of the reasons I don't read the book before I see the film is so I can just see the film as it is without any preconceptions. Then I read the book. I've found this works out better for me and I'm less judgmental. I think seeing a film first doesn't have as much influence on my perception of the book as the other way around, mostly because so much is left to the imagination when reading, and there is usually so much more detail. Sometimes I like the book better, sometimes the film. In any case I find myself less annoyed at the outcome.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
(This post was edited by Old Toby on Jan 13 2013, 7:50pm)
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 7:49pm
Post #19 of 60
(1345 views)
Shortcut
|
|
yes so dont knock 'those people' for having one!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
im a huge fan of movies in general too...good ones that is. im joking ;)
i work in the film industry so its not that im against adaptations (it means more work ;), its im against watering a great story down, when it could easily be made that way. shouldnt we strive for films that are more than just 2 dimensional, 2 a penny copys of the latest blockbuster, do you make a commercial film or a film with integrity ,for me pj is teertering on the edge of that at the moment.
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Jan 13 2013, 7:59pm
Post #20 of 60
(1355 views)
Shortcut
|
|
People are giving the book too much credit.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's a really simple kids book. Yes, there's some stuff there if you dig deep enough but it's so cursory.
One thing i really liked about PJ's Hobbit is how he emphasized the dwarves' loss of home.
|
|
|
tolktolk
Lorien
Jan 13 2013, 8:10pm
Post #21 of 60
(1289 views)
Shortcut
|
Seeing the transcript of the script brought it home how unbalanced it was and where I think the film went wrong. There are pages and pages of exposition and tedious dialogue about things that had nothing to do with The Hobbit (for instance gthe Azog storyline, Radagast and the Necromancer, the White Council scene) all of which should have been trimmed down or excised altogether. It seems to me they they spent so much time concentrating on all those diversions, they forgot about the central story and the main characters they should have been focusing on.
I did enjoy the film, and enjoyed it much more the second time when I knew when to expect those boring additions and how long they would last, and I expect I will enjoy it even more on DVD when I can fast forward through them. But I agree it was a bit of a missed opportunity and could have been a lot better,
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 13 2013, 8:12pm
Post #22 of 60
(1332 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, it's only the second-best children's book ever.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
After The Wind in the Willows.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Jan 13 2013, 8:19pm
Post #23 of 60
(1307 views)
Shortcut
|
giving the book too much credit!!! its one of the most loved books ever!
and by incorporating all those confusing stroys arcs into the films you end up with not much 'hobbit' left.
fine to link up the trilogies. but i would like to see a 'hobbit' only adaptation in my lifetime.
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
peace1993
Bree
Jan 13 2013, 8:32pm
Post #24 of 60
(1294 views)
Shortcut
|
I am very glad that the Hobbit has incorporated side-plots. Otherwise, they would have never seen the light of day on the cinema screen. For example, the council facing off against Sauron at Dol Guldur:EPIC.
In addition, one can only evaluate the completeness of the film when the next two films are released as they will further explain some of the seemingly "incomplete" scenes in the first film.
Sam: Trust a Brandybuck and a Took.
Merry: What? That was just a detour, a shortcut.
Sam: Shortcut to what?
Pippin: Mushrooms!
(This post was edited by peace1993 on Jan 13 2013, 8:33pm)
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Jan 13 2013, 8:35pm
Post #25 of 60
(1298 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, i know i wouldn't meet many like-minded people here....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...when it comes to my opinion on the Hobbit book.
|
|
|
|
|
1
