Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 7:38pm

Post #201 of 240 (626 views)
Shortcut
Always two sides of the coin [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

There are some people who dont wish or cant stand to see precious Hobbit filmssss critisized and get all Smaugy and Intolerant ..but, there are also many people who value posts and opinions such as your own. Please, write away! Smile

That works both ways to be fair. There are some people who beat the horse past dead starting threads trying to remind us all why they think the movie is some kind of abomination in the guise of discussion. I think we all value open discussion both postitive and negative as long as its within a certain context of not beating someone over the head over and over with it. Cool



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 7:46pm

Post #202 of 240 (628 views)
Shortcut
Love Christmas [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess. I feel bad I really do that people did not like the movie. For me personally I got the gift I was looking for. It had the heart of the book with some nice additions and some things I'd change.

Design wise I really liked it. I would have liked to see him bite it and Bolg be the main bad guy chasing them. I'd have gone with Bolg to be honest.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 7:51pm

Post #203 of 240 (620 views)
Shortcut
There would be nothing to criticize [In reply to] Can't Post

if Jackson had kept his film up to the caliber of Tolkien's writing.

Abandoning a great story for spectacle and senseless action sequences IMO is always a mistake.

Like I said there were spots of brilliance but none of them were written by Peter Jackson. My biggest fear is Sauron will be more of a villian than Smaug. everything will become about the ring, and tale that Tolkien wrote about Bilbo and HIS adventure will be lost in some mess more concerned with middle earth as a whole than the story at hand.

Even though LOTR was released 10 years ago I think the film quality stands up in this day and age. where as the texture and style of the Hobbit films will be quickly forgotten by most who are not into Tolkien like those of us here on this and many other sites because of all the spectacle and lack of story. I loved the way they treated LOTR as historical instead of telling a fantasy story, to me it made it more believable and "real" for lack of a better word. The Hobbit just seems like some blockbuster Hollywood cookie cutter action adventure fantasy film instead of realistic like LOTR. which I feel will be its undoing ultimately


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 8:07pm

Post #204 of 240 (621 views)
Shortcut
Azog SUCKED [In reply to] Can't Post

sorry have to say it... I think it was the worst creative decision ever. I could have lived with Bolg hunting them wanting revenge for his fathers death. But instead they totally changed Tolkien lore for what? Some crappy God of War wanna be character. I hated it 100%.... And whats this nonsense I keep hearing about Bolg being the torturer of DolGuldur? talk about trying to wrap everything up in a nice little package and link it all to Sauron. Pathetic IMO. Like I said my fear is that Jackson is gonna make the Battle of 5 armies about Sauron coming down on the free people of middle earth all over again because Bolg will be working for Sauron who will be leading the Orcs/goblins in the BO5A making it all about Sauron wanting to gain control all over again, Instead of it being about the Goblins of the Misty mountains chasing after Thorin and company for killing the Great Goblin, or hearing that a Dragon Horde was unprotected like in the book. But instead it will probably all be about Sauron trying to come back to power ultimately... GOD I HOPE NOT!!!!! Mad


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 8:08pm

Post #205 of 240 (617 views)
Shortcut
more like [In reply to] Can't Post

finding a xbox box under the tree just to find out Santa took a dump in it Tongue


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 8:55pm

Post #206 of 240 (615 views)
Shortcut
LOL [In reply to] Can't Post

thats gross , no more poop please, i have seen all the poop i need already with Radagast! Laugh

Like Shelobbs Appetite said : Jackson paints a Mona Lisa and then he scribbles all over it.


I already feel that Azog and Sauron have taken up the antogonits role more than Smaug. You descriptiona nd fears are sensible and it is something that i fear as well...you know ....Nazgul riding the dragon... or Sauron manipulating Smaug...which diminishes Smaug as a villain...i could see jackson going this route...i hope i am wrong!

I think a lot of the anger directed at Azog would not exist if he was Bolg, as Tolkien wrote and not the mystical undead or born again Azog.


I think you are right about the timeless quality of lotr. I feel it stands alone as a very special trilogy of films. I feel that historical feel you mention could have been given to TH by shooting on film, using miniatures, no 3d, no 48 fps, judicious use of green screens and cgi, greater use of real world locations, competent and magical use of lighting and shadows, etc...In summary, what made lotr such a beautifull film...

Apart from that, TH is a fairytale and ahould have more of a fantastical feel to it.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 9:22pm

Post #207 of 240 (611 views)
Shortcut
You and Platt are not alone in this thought. [In reply to] Can't Post

I have gotten the feeling that, where Jackson knows he was not ever an Expert on the lore ("he says he's an expert!" no, he didn't), and while he does some things differently based on what he wants to see, he goes to Phillipa for her expertise. She wears the expert mantle, and seems more inclined to think she knows better than all other fans and scholars and better than Tolkien, seemingly undeterred by Stephen Colbert having proved that this is not necessarily so Tongue. This is not to say that no changes should ever be made to anything. Yet, they should be careful changes, and should not brazenly defy key aspects of story or cannon.

In Reply To
just a fool's hope. Wink


Yes, i am not holding my breath. For some reason i also get the feeling that it is Boyens who is less open to criticism and opinions from fans.

And if she can come up with Azog and the need for his tale of vengeance to happen in real time, what else might happen...


"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."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 9:32pm

Post #208 of 240 (622 views)
Shortcut
I don't know about more fantastical [In reply to] Can't Post

but I think the Hobbit should have started out more innocent than LOTR. Since in my mind it would have been a more innocent time in Middle earth. Sauron in hiding, no sign of dragons for 170 plus years, just a world where the evil seems to be less obvious, but as the film goes on and Bilbo's eyes are opened to the world outside the shire it grows more. Still all the while maintaining that historical feel and tone to the films. The thing that IMO gave LOTR its realism.

I think they made some poor decisions about scripting, about the technology, about changing so many aspects of the story. I hate the fact that they shortened the time frame. The key part of the time was, people had forgotten about the dragon. Smaug was a myth, something of legend, that nobody knew whether he existed anymore or not or some even doubted he ever existed. 60 years is just not long enough for people to forget losing everything that they had. They could have explained Thorin not coming back for so long in many ways, one of them being he had no help until this time. I'm not saying they had to make Thorin old either, Aragorn was 87 but looked 37 in LOTR, dwarves are a different race all together so the youthful look could be explained as that.

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 8 2013, 9:40pm

Post #209 of 240 (612 views)
Shortcut
yep exactly [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
This is not to say that no changes should ever be made to anything. Yet, they should be careful changes, and should not brazenly defy key aspects of story or cannon.

Hear hear!!! I agree with that. But it is quite obvious that no thought was given to the drastic changes that were made to the story... But they kept saying about the new filming style, "isn't this cool" or "don't you love the 48fps in 3D?"

I think Boyens should have went back and took the script writing 201 course. Cause obviously she still can't write a good script to save her life. The best parts of the Hobbit were written by Tolkien, and where they changed it, it shows Badly. Unsure

Like I keep saying the story is everything in a film like the Hobbit. The spectacle and flashy roller coaster ride theatrics should come second, which in Jackson's Hobbit is definitely NOT the case.



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 10:50pm

Post #210 of 240 (600 views)
Shortcut
I think one thing that is important, and this they have (mostly) managed, [In reply to] Can't Post

is that Bilbo does not see the darkening. He doesn't see any wraiths, he does not (and hopefully will not) encounter any obvious servants of Sauron. . . I wish Bolg had taken Azog's prominence. . . "Gorka Morka, I am alive," still sums alot of the Azog business up for me. Oh well. . . we shall see.

In Reply To
but I think the Hobbit should have started out more innocent than LOTR. Since in my mind it would have been a more innocent time in Middle earth. Sauron in hiding, no sign of dragons for 170 plus years, just a world where the evil seems to be less obvious, but as the film goes on and Bilbo's eyes are opened to the world outside the shire it grows more. Still all the while maintaining that historical feel and tone to the films. The thing that IMO gave LOTR its realism.

I think they made some poor decisions about scripting, about the technology, about changing so many aspects of the story. I hate the fact that they shortened the time frame. The key part of the time was, people had forgotten about the dragon. Smaug was a myth, something of legend, that nobody knew whether he existed anymore or not or some even doubted he ever existed. 60 years is just not long enough for people to forget losing everything that they had. They could have explained Thorin not coming back for so long in many ways, one of them being he had no help until this time. I'm not saying they had to make Thorin old either, Aragorn was 87 but looked 37 in LOTR, dwarves are a different race all together so the youthful look could be explained as that.

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.


"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."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 8 2013, 11:24pm

Post #211 of 240 (606 views)
Shortcut
lets hope the EE [In reply to] Can't Post

makes up for the socks. I much prefer the EE versions of LOTR and I never watch the theatrical versions because they are not as interesting for me, probably there will be a lot more Rivendell and Bilbo which will alter my idea that Bilbo gets too little time on -screen, if we get some nice stuff with Elrond and Narsil and him wandering about, that will make me happier. Also I would like to see more Hobbiton, the market scene looked nice.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 11:40pm

Post #212 of 240 (612 views)
Shortcut
I LOVE EE Fellowship. I HATE EE Rotk, and ONLY ever watch the theatrical of that. [In reply to] Can't Post

What Peter did with the scene between The Witch-King and Gandalf vexed and upset me so badly that I have been vehemently unwilling to watch that version since. And there were other additions that I liked, but they are not enough. That scene ranks easily among the top three most offensive, to me, additions, detractions and alterations ever made by Peter to these works, and that takes into account EVERYTHING in An Unexpected journey.

In Reply To
makes up for the socks. I much prefer the EE versions of LOTR and I never watch the theatrical versions because they are not as interesting for me, probably there will be a lot more Rivendell and Bilbo which will alter my idea that Bilbo gets too little time on -screen, if we get some nice stuff with Elrond and Narsil and him wandering about, that will make me happier. Also I would like to see more Hobbiton, the market scene looked nice.


"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."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 1:38am

Post #213 of 240 (586 views)
Shortcut
I prefer the EE as well [In reply to] Can't Post

but as AO said there are a couple scenes in the EE that are quite troublesome IMO. But for the most part I found them to be nice little character moments that rounded out the characters.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 9 2013, 12:45pm

Post #214 of 240 (571 views)
Shortcut
yes the Gandalf /Witchking scene [In reply to] Can't Post

is bad. Fast forward that bit. But the House of Healing makes up for it for me anyway.


Phibbus
Rohan


Mar 9 2013, 3:17pm

Post #215 of 240 (564 views)
Shortcut
What was the question? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm curious, in light of the fact that the critical consensus (see RT scores) seems to be that AUJ was not as good a film as any of the Rings films, whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?

Many of the replies so far seem to be answering the question of whether Jacksn ought to express regret instead of what you asked, which is whether or not he has.

While I don't think I've heard anything out of him which could be construed as regret (that would indeed be a dangerous thing for any commercial artist to admit, but especially so with two more installments in a series coming out,) I think he pretty clearly acknowledged the movie's lack of potential for critical recognition in the months leading up to release. It was n those months of final production that statements to the effect of: "I don't consider myself an artist, but an entertainer;" and "I have to make the movie I want to see" became key talking points in each of his interviews.

It must have been clear to him that the boat was not going to float very high in the review waters, and his strategy was a smart one: Given the number of times the sentiment has been reiterated in this thread alone, the message clearly reached the fan-base. It provides an easy means of deflecting criticism from the get-go (doing so before there's anything to criticize,) but at the same time does not reject critical praise in the unlikely event that it might actually come.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

(This post was edited by Phibbus on Mar 9 2013, 3:23pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 4:02pm

Post #216 of 240 (559 views)
Shortcut
Cheers to that [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 4:04pm

Post #217 of 240 (560 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

And its not as if her writing is superb. Azog is a wonderfull example of creative writing gone beserk . Gorka Morka indeed! Tongue


They should have hired you as a consultant. The films woudl have been better for it.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 9 2013, 4:36pm

Post #218 of 240 (560 views)
Shortcut
thats very interesting [In reply to] Can't Post

because I think he does consider himself an artist, very much so. In LOTR he really was an artist, in so many wonderful ways, his artistic vision made LOTR beloved of millions because of their visual beauty and emotional richness. Unfortunately something went pear shaped in AUJ, maybe it was over confidence in technology or maybe he was just bored of ME, perhaps he felt he was just rehashing old ground and lost that indefinable spark I feel so strongly in LOTR, but this just me thinking outloud I dont know any of this. I only know I didnt feel the same energy in AUJ.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 9 2013, 7:13pm

Post #219 of 240 (536 views)
Shortcut
Retelling the story out of sequence. [In reply to] Can't Post

This type of critique really puzzles me. We have known for three years that we were going off the page to actually experience what happened whilst Gandalf was on his "other business". It was cool three years ago to say "I am not up for an adult re imagining of the Hobbit, placed in its geo political context" As a deep fan what else did you expect.

I am also completely non plussed how people do not see the reason for contraction of times and transference into the real time line. Deep fans might want to have continual contextualisation of the past as look backs but if you want immediate emotional engagement for a global audience whom no nothing of the appendices you make it happen in front of them.

I am huge fan of the English Patient but thats hard work for a lot of cinema goers not because they are not bright but they want to discover the story through forward momentum.

I miss the splendid Azog/Thror/Nar/ Revenge Battle/Nain/Dain arc but I see exactly why they went where they did. Azog is/was hated by Thorin and the rest of the company we get to experience that real time.

It maybe it is because my partner is a non Tolkien fan who enjoyed AUJ but I see these decisions in the round.

Elsewhere you criticise the endless pace and reducing of Bilbo as do others.

After Rivendell if you compare time spent on small moments with Bilbo against large scale spectacular moments they are about even. The key actions sequences Giants/Goblin Capture and Goblin escape take up less time than the Gollum/Bilbo encounter. Giants/G Capture/G Escape/Cones may not be to your taste in execution but they were in the book. Many people lauded Sam Mendes for taking seven minutes over the key encounter between Craig and Bardem at 7 minutes, G/B is more than twice that.

Whether we like it or not these films are huge and need to play beyond 10,000 people registered with Onering.net. In that context the longest scenes bag end and riddles were very brave.

As someone whom was introduced to Tolkien 47 years ago I thought the film reflected what we know. Whatever the film makers strengths and weakness's they are placing moving images which refract a good deal of Tolkiens world on to the screen. They like Bilbo may not have told us everything in an entirely accurate way or dare I say how we see it, but it is middle earth, and for me a believable one, from which much pleasure can be drawn rather than worrying about a handful of moments that are flawed. Of course for some very little works and for those nothing will assuage their sense of disappointment and displeasure, hopefully they will find solace elswhere.





In Reply To

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 9 2013, 8:37pm

Post #220 of 240 (527 views)
Shortcut
Awww. [In reply to] Can't Post

BlushBlushBlushBlushBlushBlush Thanks. Definitely no "Gorka Morka" lines! lol

In Reply To
And its not as if her writing is superb. Azog is a wonderfull example of creative writing gone beserk . Gorka Morka indeed! Tongue


They should have hired you as a consultant. The films woudl have been better for it.


"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


Mar 9 2013, 8:51pm

Post #221 of 240 (521 views)
Shortcut
I agree with much of what you say here, but on the matter of Azog and The Giants [In reply to] Can't Post

My issue with Azog is that it could have been much more powerful if told closer to the way it was. Even if it were Thorin, not Dain, who slays him and beholds Durin's Bane in the shadows of Moria. The war of vengeance, the hunting of Azog etc. . . the utter inability of the Dwarves to reclaim Moria for the presence of the Demon Captain of the Elder Days. . . so powerful. The scene was good. It could have been better. The Timeline for the muster of the war could have been truncated easily enough. In the prologue of Fellowship we get from Sauron's forging of The RulingRing, to the Battle of the last Alliance in about 30 seconds. About 3,000 years, give or take a few centuries, truncated to 30 seconds. The same could have been done for the Dwarf war. We get Thrain's brooding grief and rage, and then. . . visions of the sacking of the goblin strongholds, and at the last, the great battle on the slopes of Moria's walls, pretty much as depicted in the film but with a few key revisions. And Bolg as the vendetta driven hunter. I liked the look of Azog (wouldn't have made him bald, but eh), and I thought he was properly menacing. But it wasn't, to my mind, worth warping the history to have him.


As to the stone giants. Too much. They were just too big and too litho-transformer. And I like the transformers, and have since childhood. I just don't want them in the time of Middle-Earth. They were so massive and so in the fore, I feel they ultimately diminish the vastness and force of nature strength of Smaug. As I said before, it is harder to be awed by the size and destructive power of even a great dragon, when you've just sat through Fox's "When Mountains Attack".

I also hope it is clear that Gandalf's earlier meeting with Thrain was LONG ago. It gives a better insight to casual viewers of just how long The Gray Messenger has been working the circuit, if you will, in vigilant service and defence against incursions of the ambiguous Shadow.


And I say this as someone who, like you, really LOVED the movie and thought it was a Great film in its own right. There were just a few things I think they really did get wrong.

In Reply To
This type of critique really puzzles me. We have known for three years that we were going off the page to actually experience what happened whilst Gandalf was on his "other business". It was cool three years ago to say "I am not up for an adult re imagining of the Hobbit, placed in its geo political context" As a deep fan what else did you expect.

I am also completely non plussed how people do not see the reason for contraction of times and transference into the real time line. Deep fans might want to have continual contextualisation of the past as look backs but if you want immediate emotional engagement for a global audience whom no nothing of the appendices you make it happen in front of them.

I am huge fan of the English Patient but thats hard work for a lot of cinema goers not because they are not bright but they want to discover the story through forward momentum.

I miss the splendid Azog/Thror/Nar/ Revenge Battle/Nain/Dain arc but I see exactly why they went where they did. Azog is/was hated by Thorin and the rest of the company we get to experience that real time.

It maybe it is because my partner is a non Tolkien fan who enjoyed AUJ but I see these decisions in the round.

Elsewhere you criticise the endless pace and reducing of Bilbo as do others.

After Rivendell if you compare time spent on small moments with Bilbo against large scale spectacular moments they are about even. The key actions sequences Giants/Goblin Capture and Goblin escape take up less time than the Gollum/Bilbo encounter. Giants/G Capture/G Escape/Cones may not be to your taste in execution but they were in the book. Many people lauded Sam Mendes for taking seven minutes over the key encounter between Craig and Bardem at 7 minutes, G/B is more than twice that.

Whether we like it or not these films are huge and need to play beyond 10,000 people registered with Onering.net. In that context the longest scenes bag end and riddles were very brave.

As someone whom was introduced to Tolkien 47 years ago I thought the film reflected what we know. Whatever the film makers strengths and weakness's they are placing moving images which refract a good deal of Tolkiens world on to the screen. They like Bilbo may not have told us everything in an entirely accurate way or dare I say how we see it, but it is middle earth, and for me a believable one, from which much pleasure can be drawn rather than worrying about a handful of moments that are flawed. Of course for some very little works and for those nothing will assuage their sense of disappointment and displeasure, hopefully they will find solace elswhere.





In Reply To

The Necromancer in the Hobbit book was just a name given to where Gandalf was going and something told that was beyond Thorin. His involvement in the Hobbit was a matter of 2 sentences and nothing more. Had Tolkien fleshed him out more in this period and time. I wouldn't mind seeing him included but only as a secondary bad guy. But with the direction Jackson is going Smaug will end up being an after thought to the necromancer aka Sauron and the BO5A will end up being about something other than fighting over treasure which is all it was about. Why else would the Witch King be making an appearance? Why would they be making the White Council all about finding out the Necromancer is Sauron? And wouldn't that bring up issues about Sauron's ring? Which by all accounts now we know Bilbo has a newly found ring. I'm sorry but a 5 year old could figure out this line of plot development.. Which makes me think Gandalf must have been an idiot since he spends so much time investigating Sauron and DolGuldur right after Bilbo finds a magic ring. Maybe had they left the time frame alone and given Gandalf time to be in DolGuldur 90 years before the Hobbit events it might make more sense. but all of it happening about the same time is IMO terrible writing and make Gandalf look stupid IMO again.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing... I realize there is growth and change but to make changes just for the sake of technology, or to make something fit into a mold that it was never meant to fit in doesn't improve anything it only makes it worse and I think AUJ proves that without a doubt.



"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 Mar 9 2013, 8:53pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 8:52pm

Post #222 of 240 (510 views)
Shortcut
Thank god! [In reply to] Can't Post

just out of curiosity, how would you have handled the azog bolg stuff?

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 9 2013, 9:10pm

Post #223 of 240 (511 views)
Shortcut
For what it's worth. . . [In reply to] Can't Post

lol. As all such revision is vain for now. lol. I'd have stuck much closer to the book on some of the Dwarf war details. Azog would have perished, Bolg would have hunted Thorin (if I were going to hew at all closely to the way Peter did things), and, if the Thorin charging down the tree scene remained at all, it would be driven by Bolg speaking of Thrain in similar manner, i.e. Bolg had Thrain in his none too tender keeping at some point and gives Thorin to know it.

I also would have let the wargs show up on their own at first in the last chase, to give them a little air as the frightening and indepently evil creatures they are, attempting to hem the company in during the night (nothing like borderline werewolves chasing you through a nightime forest) rather than having Azog mount the ridge in broad daylight and essentially yell "charge!".

You already know even without me saying those pinecone fires would have been a little more blue to start with, and packed just a touch more punch on first impact. Nothing crazy, but. . . you know. Wink lol

But, hey. . . it is what it is at this point. lol

"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 Mar 9 2013, 9:12pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 9 2013, 9:32pm

Post #224 of 240 (504 views)
Shortcut
Some facts remain to be seen [In reply to] Can't Post

but from what we have seen so far. Gandalf's business will end up being as important or more important than Bilbo's adventure with the direction Jackson is taking. Which is NOT what the Hobbit was about. Yes I find it interesting to see where Gandalf went and what he did but that could be flashback at some point in the tale as well as the stuff happening while he is away from Bilbo. Keeping timelines intact, esp since there is no real reason to alter them... I find no fault in Jackson wanting to show where Gandalf went or what he did. Where I find faults with his story is the whole, making the Necromancer just as big a part or as important a part, as the tale of the dwarves adventure to the lonely mountain.It's just, to me anyways, a mistake no matter how it gets done. Peter Jackson made changes just because he knew he could get away with them instead of telling the story the way it was supposed to be. And people still make excuses for him. Where gandalf goes should not be the focus of the story it should IMO be a minor detour along the way telling Bilbo's story. Plus we are getting more made up stuff by from all reports Legolas and Tuariel showing up to save or at least help save the dwarves from the spiders. When is enough change enough? I really could have cared less about seeing Legolas. A cameo would have been enough, esp with Orlando Blooms wooden acting. But again its changes like these that if more people were less forgiving and wanted the story as it should be instead of just accepting what we get on screen maybe books we love would get adapted the right way instead of being something totally different. Change just to make it different is not a good thing. If people like the book they are gonna like a movie that follows the book.

The fact remains Jackson is making this film more about middle earth than the adventure at hand which was a book called the Hobbit as everyone knows. Whats sad is people who haven't read the book think all Jackson's made up crap is in there too. Then are either let down when they read the book because its not there, or think WTF was he thinking putting that in the film. With all the changes I don't think they took the book serious enough. I think they set out to deliberately change it and over all except the parts they kept close to the book I feel they ruined it.

Stuff like Azog and changing the whole story around the battle of Azanulbizar was either a pathetic lack of research or caring on the part of the film makers. The actual story of events is SO much richer and fulfilling than the garbage we were given. Even if they wanted to have orcs chasing the dwarves they could have kept the history the same and used Bolg as an antagonist wanting revenge for his fathers death. which would be playing out in real time. There is a difference between going off the page and burning half the book and just making up the rest of it.

My wife is a non Tolkien fan and said many of the same thing i do. "If they wanted to adapt the book why not adapt it instead of change it?" She had never read the Hobbit before seeing the film and after seeing the film read it. She thinks the book is much better than what we got on film. As far as playing beyond the members of Tolkien websites, give them the material as it was written and I'm sure they would have found it entertaining but they were never given a chance. Just because the basics of the events are there does not mean the events that we are given were anything like the book. I don't remember rock em sock em rock giants in the book at all, I don't remember the company riding on one of the stone giants or falling off cliff faces or any of that nonsense. I do remember them seeking shelter because some stone giants were throwing rocks at one another across the valley in a storm.what we got and what the book portrays are 2 totally different thing but similar scenarios.... I'll take the one from the book because it makes much more sense and doesn't look ridiculous. Not everything needs to be OTT like Jackson does it.

I'm glad some people can accept what we got on film and think its good. I think some of it was good, even great. But I found much more of it to be typical Hollywood OTT nonsense not befitting a film based on Tolkien. LOTR was a film befitting of Tolkien for the majority of those films with a few bad choices made in script. The Hobbit has it totally backwards IMO, a few moments of greatness with the majority being OTT and not worthy of having the name the Hobbit attached to it.

But opinions very that's what makes the world go round.Wink


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 9 2013, 9:41pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 1:08am

Post #225 of 240 (485 views)
Shortcut
Your version [In reply to] Can't Post

would have been better. Be it the bluer pinecones, having Bolg instead of Gorka Morka, the wargs forst etc...

Hell, the rankin bass version is better. I ve recently discovered that scene is probably the scene i hate the most. Unsure

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.