|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirly
Lorien
Mar 31 2013, 3:26pm
Post #101 of 221
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As I recall, he gave it up as too difficult
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Notbecause it "wasn't right"
My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!
pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Mar 31 2013, 3:26pm
Post #102 of 221
(735 views)
Shortcut
|
|
These points I completey agree on.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There was no real reason to bring Azog back from the dead. Bolg would have served just as good a villain and NOT had to change the history of the dwarves and orc/goblins. It still would have been Orcs chasing dwarves for revenge, but this story line would have made sense instead of needless change. They obviously couldn't make up their mind about the story otherwise there would have been a more cohesive one. There was no reason to make the stone giants a roller coaster ride that was OTT. It was pure spectacle and took away from Bilbo's journey. Why does Bilbo and the dwarves have to personally interact with everything on the journey. Stone giants off in the distance with the rain and thunder and lightning would have worked brilliantly and NOT been OTT.
instead of trying to come up with some dialogue that Tolkien himself would have been proud of. But NO they had to try and create tension between Gandalf and Saruman with Saruman basically daring Gandalf to go find proof in DolGuldur. They couldn't even keep the fact straight that Gandalf discovered all this information 90 years before the Hobbit it had to be something that happened in the present. I guess nothing happened before Gandalf took the dwarves on this journey, the necromancer sat around twiddling his thumbs until he realized "Ohh no Gandalf is going on an adventure we need to do something, I haven't done anything for centuries so I suppose I aught to get off my butt now that Gandalf is out and about"
"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 31 2013, 3:29pm)
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 3:29pm
Post #103 of 221
(734 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien gave up the rewrite because the story of the Hobbit lost all the charm that it possessed being changed. Not ever that it was too hard. That is why he moved some of the material to the appendices of LOTR, because they fit there and did not ruin the feel and charm of the hobbit as it was written and left after the RID change. Some of that material is also if I remember correctly eluded to in UT. but it was never that writing the material was too hard for Tolkien, this was HIS world, he created.
(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 31 2013, 3:32pm)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 31 2013, 3:36pm
Post #104 of 221
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
Although I have read LOTR and The Hobbit a few times, it was a long time ago so I do not remember details of the books. I certainly don't intend to reread the books now, before the films are finished, and risk being disappointed, as I was when I first saw FOTR having read LOTR a short while before.
Some of the things the Tolkien mega-enthusiasts on this forum are complaining about in outrage at the film-makers having left out/included/changed leave me completely baffled. I don't even know what on earth they are talking about much of the time.
The fact is that this film is an adaptation of The Hobbit book. The story needed to be simplified for a much wider audience than just the well-versed Tolkien enthusiast – much of which has never read the books. Frankly, it seems to me that if some of the suggestions that I find so baffling were incorporated, the film would be incomprehensible to a wider audience. The film story is complex enough without it being made even more complicated. Yes, you might say that The Hobbit 'should' have been exactly like the book. However, had that been the case it would have been a far less enjoyable, specifically children's film, with a lot of cardboard-cutout characters à la Tolkien, which would have been of little interest to me and I suspect to many others.
I, for one, am very pleased with how The Hobbit has been interpreted. The storyline within the film makes perfect sense – and as I said, for me the books are one thing, the films another. As long as the acting, plot line, music and visuals continue to be of as high a calibre as they are in AUJ, that will suit me fine – and I'm sure many others who do love the film. (N.B. People I know who have seen the film in the UK are generally not very well versed in Tolkien – but they all love the film.)
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 3:45pm
Post #105 of 221
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The film version of the Hobbit is only as complex as it is because
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
all the made up stuff or changes to the story.
IMO an adaptation should tell you the story that is in the book, Peter Jackson has added a bunch of stuff not in the book because HE thought it was better not because it was Tolkien's lore, or it was from the appendices.(what he added is NOT from the appendices I read)
The Hobbit as a book even with the inclusion of the DolGuldur White Council subplot was at best 2 movies worth of material with being stretched thin...
For those that loved or liked the film I'm glad you do I really am. But after reading Tolkien's books for decades I find it hard to over look the OTT made up stuff, I call nonsense, that seems just added to propel these films to Hollywood blockbuster status. Instead of simply making a great film adapted from the book telling the story of the Hobbit without rewriting a vast majority of it.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Mar 31 2013, 3:45pm
Post #106 of 221
(718 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm glad you understand that. As I said that's not how the last part reads IMO. I'm sure there are fans who didn't just as there are fans who like/roll with them.
That discussion really goes no places IMO. I for one won't call you a narf and I don't think most folks would.
I agree Bolg being the main villain and we should have seen a glimpse of the Balrog at Moria. As far as Azog's look I thought he looked freaking cool. His design and the look on screen was much better than any video game. When people say that I wonder if they've actually played a video game especially God of War. I have and I can assure you that look we saw isn't achievable on any console at this time.
I didn't mind the size of the giants at all. Now, they could have had them in the distance and it would have probably worked better, but I didn't hate what they went with.
Totally disagree about The White Council. I loved that sequence and it played out sort of how I had imagined. It didn't feel crammed into me and I do believe they care about Tolkien. I think OU may be playing the drama card a bit hard with the last part. lol
I like Radagast. From the information out there I could see him being a bit goofy but I do agree that the bird poop was lame. As a whole this movie feels like the book that I love with some additions. All in it feels like the Middle-earth I love. The way I look at it Jackson has gotten a lot right and some wrong and Tolkien got a lot right and some wrong (I'm speaking of the Middle-earth sandbox).
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 3:48pm
Post #107 of 221
(715 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the rewrite would have definitely been more adult-friendly, as there likely would have been a lot of stuff that was altogether abandoned (the talking purse, the English names of the trolls, the "attercop" stuff, and Beorn's animal waiters spring to mind).
With that said, if the 1960 revised version were completed, I still doubt we would have seen Nazgul tombs and a resurrected Azog. I'm fine with PJ making the movie more adultish, but he could have done that without straying so far from the source. It's like I said to sinister71, the movie was great when it stuck to what Tolkien wrote, and it stumbled when it veered off-course.
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:00pm
Post #108 of 221
(715 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Been saying this for a while now
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the movie was great when it stuck to what Tolkien wrote, and it stumbled when it veered off-course. Completely agree. I've said that since the first time I seen AUJ the Baggend stuff is great i don't even mind they changed it so Thorin shows up late. It adds to his stature. Changes like that I was fine with I didn't even mind the betting scene, but stuff like Azog being resurrected without proper cause when Bolg would have worked perfectly, the trolls carrying off the ponies silently under the dwarves noses and sending Bilbo to investigate something they knew was dangerous, The company riding on a stone giant and about getting killed, Bilbo killing a warg and jumping into the middle of a fight with Azog when he's never used a sword other than holding Gollum at bay. It is changes like that, that I find annoying and so untolkien.
(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 31 2013, 4:01pm)
|
|
|
tarasaurus
Rohan
Mar 31 2013, 4:01pm
Post #109 of 221
(704 views)
Shortcut
|
completely. They are 2 separate entities. Tolkien didn't create the film(s) and PJ didn't write the book, so of course it's not going to be 100% book-to-screen! No movie ever is. They can get darn close but the changes make for an interesting twist to the movies and less predictable.
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:08pm
Post #110 of 221
(700 views)
Shortcut
|
If I wanted twists that deviate so far from the story I know and love I would rather just see something I don't know. A completely made up tale and not what should be an adaptation where almost or half of it is completely made up. I realize they are 2 separate entities but the film should to be IMO an adaptation not a rewrite with a bunch of fabricated events. The adventure for the audience who knows the story should be the presentation not the story itself, and the adventure for those who do not know the story should be in getting the adventure from the book. At least that's MY opinion on it.
|
|
|
tarasaurus
Rohan
Mar 31 2013, 4:10pm
Post #111 of 221
(698 views)
Shortcut
|
for what it is, I know this is going in circles because I disagree with all the elements people hated about the film, but I agree to disagree. I just can't wait for DOS and TABA :)
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:13pm
Post #112 of 221
(694 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am glad you enjoyed the film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and I'm glad your looking forward to the rest of the trilogy. 
For me its just a matter of picking out the bits that ARE the Hobbit and enjoying them since I personally don't see any reason for such drastic changes.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:21pm
Post #113 of 221
(692 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well if you HAD read the rest of the post...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You'd see how wrong your claim that it's all "filling in" is. I originally said that the appendices material had been mangled, and you went and picked out the least-mangled bit to talk about in an attempt to stick up for PJ's inventions. And the only reason it's the least-mangled is because it's the least-described. All of the other appendices material that's been adapted - Azog, the Dwarf/Orc War, the pre-LOTR whereabouts of the Nazgul - none of it is even close to what was written in the appendices.
As for Radagast, every single thing to do with him was completely invented for the movie. You're right, I DON'T have proof that Radagast wasn't a bunny-sled-riding, magic-mushroom-consuming fool who walked around with bird-crap on the side of his face and had stick insects crawling around in his mouth. I don't have proof that spiders did not attack Rhosgobel and that he healed a hedgehog named Sebastian, you're correct. But that's all peripheral stuff. Radagast did not find an unknown evil presence in Dol Guldur during the time of The Hobbit (because it was already known that the Necromancer was Sauron, and it was Gandalf who had discovered it 90 years earlier), he didn't he didn't draw off orcs pursuing the dwarves (because there WERE no orcs pursuing the dwarves), and he certainly did not go with Gandalf to Nazgul tombs (because there were no Nazgul tombs).
|
|
|
tarasaurus
Rohan
Mar 31 2013, 4:22pm
Post #114 of 221
(696 views)
Shortcut
|
by how many people really disliked the film, or most of it. I know the forum isn't the majority of the fans by any means, but even my good friend who proclaims to be a LOTR diehard complains about it which I didn't expect. But I feel her complaints are kinda petty, like Thorin is a ripoff or Aragorn which I highly disagree with. But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it. That's what I was hoping I'd be coming to when I finally started to actually post here but I'm disappointed. :( And I understand everyone has their opinions and that's cool, just wish there were more people to enjoy the film talk with that actually liked it.
(This post was edited by tarasaurus on Mar 31 2013, 4:28pm)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 31 2013, 4:23pm
Post #115 of 221
(689 views)
Shortcut
|
I am really sorry you cannot enjoy the film – if I had your deep knowledge of Tolkien's work, perhaps I would feel the same. (I had an inkling of what that felt like when I first went to see FOTR, which initially left me baffled.) What you call the 'OTT made-up stuff' in fact fits perfectly in the film story (as far as I'm concerned).
Incidentally, the film may be financed by an American company, but creatively it is not American (in terms of acting, directing, etc.). The fact that it is making money is a good thing in my view, because that bodes well for the future two films, which I want to enjoy as much as I do the first one.
For those that loved or liked the film I'm glad you do I really am. But after reading Tolkien's books for decades I find it hard to over look the OTT made up stuff, I call nonsense, that seems just added to propel these films to Hollywood blockbuster status.
|
|
|
tarasaurus
Rohan
Mar 31 2013, 4:25pm
Post #116 of 221
(691 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the only thing I didn't like...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:26pm
Post #117 of 221
(688 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Even though I am probably one of the "mega-enthusiasts" you are talking about...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not outraged about any of the changes - disappointed at times, but certainly not outraged. Even for all its flaws, AUJ was a good movie, and I was able to immerse myself in it once I got past the changes.
But, I still feel that the weakest parts of the movie were the parts that deviated the furthest from what Tolkien wrote.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 31 2013, 4:32pm
Post #118 of 221
(680 views)
Shortcut
|
I know at least one person who didn't like the LOTR films, but did like The Hobbit very much.
The trouble is, whenever people start to discuss something about the film in a thread on these boards, you inevitably get one of three posters (sometimes all three) interjecting with 'it sucks'-type comments, which don't really say anything but act like a damp squib. (They may not actually say 'it sucks', but the tone is the same.) I don't quite know the motive for such comments – and I'm not talking about constructive criticism here, such as that by a few of the posters immediately above.
That's partly why I intend to disengage from further perusal of message boards relating to this film. I don't want to have my viewing experience spoiled and want to see the next film with few preconceived ideas.
But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it. That's what I was hoping I'd be coming to when I finally started to actually post here but I'm disappointed. :( And I understand everyone has their opinions and that's cool, just wish there were more people to enjoy the film talk with that actually liked it.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 31 2013, 4:35pm)
|
|
|
tarasaurus
Rohan
Mar 31 2013, 4:36pm
Post #119 of 221
(677 views)
Shortcut
|
It's kind of dampening my spirits not seeing a thread where we can praise the film instead, but rather I have to explain myself constantly on why I liked what others disliked. I dunno, I really wanted to post more here but I may have to go away for a bit.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 31 2013, 4:38pm
Post #120 of 221
(677 views)
Shortcut
|
The things I most disliked were probably the PJ favourites: the snot and Radagast's facial make-up. Even some children in audiences blanched at the former (while also laughing).
But these are really minor things, and don't affect my viewing experience of the entire film.
I too have to go away for a bit. Don't be despondent. :)
about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 31 2013, 4:39pm)
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:39pm
Post #121 of 221
(682 views)
Shortcut
|
let down, disappointed, saddened, having a feeling of lacking, that the story Tolkien wrote is something great, loved for decades, by many and has been reduced to something which is only a sign of the times. Looking at the material Jackson had to work with that Tolkien wrote I feel the film was changed into something subpar in comparison IMO. 
I just see the potential to be SO much better than what we got while sticking to Tolkien's stories instead of Peter Jackson's that's all.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:39pm
Post #122 of 221
(685 views)
Shortcut
|
Some of the minor changes, like Thorin showing up alone at Bag-End, worked well as book-to-movie translations. But then you have minor stuff like the dwarves attacking the trolls, which then spirals into an unbelievable scenario where the dwarves lay down their arms and allow themselves to be stuffed into sacks. It just seems like every time they change something, the consequences of the changes snowball into something that makes no sense. Take Radagast finding the Necromancer - because they decided to do that instead of allowing Gandalf to explore Dol Guldur, now they have to alter how Gandalf found the map and key, or just leave it out completely.
|
|
|
tarasaurus
Rohan
Mar 31 2013, 4:40pm
Post #123 of 221
(681 views)
Shortcut
|
I just roll my eyes at Bofur's line but it doesn't make the viewing experience any less enjoyable, or the bird crap on Radagast...in fact, I quite enjoyed Radagast! Haha, he loves animals as much as I do. I just don't have the same wardrobe as him. And I like that they presented him as such a hugely different wizard class compared to Saruman.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:42pm
Post #124 of 221
(675 views)
Shortcut
|
At some points, it just felt like I was watching Peter Jackson rather than Tolkien.
I did enjoy the movie, but I felt some parts should have been handled much differently than they were, judging by the amount of material Jackson had to work with.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Mar 31 2013, 4:49pm
Post #125 of 221
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Of course they don't have to show everything
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and i never said they did. But there are simple ways to cinematically show the passage of time. Just look at FotR for many, many excellent examples of this. AUJ could have used a bit more of that sort of thing-- it would have helped it seem more like a real journey, and not just a series of events. It just makes me wonder if the filmmakers intend for it to be just a day or two passing, or if it's supposed to be longer, and it's just sloppy filmmaking. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
I know – that's just daft :)
[
