|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
May 22 2013, 9:38pm
Post #51 of 150
(1492 views)
Shortcut
|
I can see where you are coming from jimmyfenn, and I agree with you to a large extent
[In reply to]
|
|
|
(Warning in advance this turned out alot more ranty that I intended! Purely my thoughts, no offense intended to anyone!)
As a fan of the books first and foremost, yet introduced to them via the LOTR films i am pretty conflicted, BUT soely as a tolkien fan i can sympthathise with your views:
Whichever way you cut it Jackson is not adapting the hobbit, he is rewriting it into a direction that the story was never intended, conceived or designed to go in its original publication, a direction barely suggested by the vague notes in the appendices (the only addtional material they have the rights to, almost totally irrelevant and out of place to the tone of the story they are meant to be adapting, material not designed to fill in the gaps of a stand alone story, material largely ignored anyway) often contradicted by Tolkien's own comments and thoughts (often largely 'internal') on The placing of The Hobbit in his mythology (If he felt that strongly about rewriting it wouldn't he have done it?, not leaving it to a rough quickly abandoned attempt in old age) and seeminigly based on guesswork and shrewd buisness talk, not insight or detailed discussion with Tolkien's family who would probably know a thing or two about this spirit of the writing Jackson and co keep banging on about, nor the wishes of a siginficant part of Tolkien's fanbase who PJ often maintains he is making the film's for
'We weren't interested in adding any of our baggage, these should really be Tolkien's films not ours'
-Peter Jackson (roughly) on the LOTR films in one of the EE adaptting the books docs...what changed...
Furthermore this is a direction arguably bastardising, corrupting and limiting the way the 75 year old childrens, primarily stand alone story will be read by millions of new readers introduced to the story via the film ('Hey look its that book the hobbit-you know the one with the bunny sled and the attack on dol goldur!'-Let's be Honest very few casul readers will ever read the appendices material etc that the film is using-especially since it wasn't credited in the film ) , a direction that would likely hurt Tolkien enormously (espcially since his estate isn't getting nearly the 'cash or kudos' they deserve and he wanted from a film adaptation), a direction that also risks giving me hand cramp writing numerous rambling replies on the matter.
As a film fan on the other hand:
I still maintain the LOTR films were great adaptions (and great films) becuase they stuck to the sprit of the book and were more concerned with telling the source story in the best way possible, but here I agree at least partially with sinister:
If your adapting something IMO you should have to put your ego aside and put on the screen what is in the source material. Not make up a bunch of nonsense that never happened anywhere in the authors excessive amount of material written to flesh out the already existing story.
Almost all the issues i had with AUJ as purely a cinemgoer (Azog, CGI, overblown, overlong actions scenes, and a rather messy tone) are down entirely to PJ and his changes to the story and three film idea, however the three films turn out in terms of faifthfulness to tolkien, for me the first film is an entertaining, but seriously flawed film on its own, due largely to the ego of its director. And of course there still stands the fundemntal issues of: whether PJ changed the story becuase he needed to, or because he wanted to, whether the CGI soundstage approach was better than the glorious shot on 35mm locations of LOTR, and of course the abscence of the talking eagles.
I am not saying Jackson should follow the book to a t, nor am I saying pople aren't entiteld to their opinions, and I am not saying I din't enjoy the film-it was flawed but fun (Though I'd only git it a 7/10 at the most), but personally for me it has almost reached the stage where enough is enough, The Hobbit book for me always worked becuase it wasn't LOTR (for all his skillful prose LOTR book could be a little up its self at points) and I say this as someone who has read The Sil, COH, UFT, LOTR, The HOME and The HOTH (many times in the case of the first 4)-all the changes and addtions may be cool to other people, for me as a Tolkien fan three bloated action films bastardised into an adult's tale based on of a few pages of sketchy largely irrelveant notes isn't what I wanted from an adaption of the hobbit, nor is nine hours of rambling, confused CGI gimmicks what I was hoping for from a Oscar winning filmaker and supposed tolkien fan, my feelings are still so conflicted on the film I'm not sure I can take another two.
On another matter personally I think it's a little sad for supposed tolkien fans, people on this forum (and others) seem all too ready to jump through hoops praising Jackson for each and every change , forgetting or even resenting the tone context and purpose of the hobbit as a simple childrens story (written in a differnt time with a much differnt purpose than three blockbuster films-I've had it up to here with 'PJ is improving the story by adding a female', don't people consider Tolkien was a man of a different time and tastes, not a just a sexist windbag?) ) conceived to primarily stand apart from tolkien's legendarium, often thinking soley in the light of what might have been (a 'epic' hobbit fully linked to the necromancer and dwarven hsistory materials) forgetting what the hobbit is for many others- a simple fairytale about a simple man's growth to maturity.
Granted I've only seen the film twice (I know!), (back in december) so perhaps I'm not the best placed to talk about it, but those were my rambling, contradictory thoughts.
‘As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said ‘All is now ready.’
Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
May 22 2013, 9:39pm
Post #52 of 150
(1456 views)
Shortcut
|
Found that picture when I was Googling for Azog once, it's such a cool image.
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Rohan
May 22 2013, 9:41pm
Post #53 of 150
(1519 views)
Shortcut
|
Don't blame PJ just because he came up with better ideas for the story than Tolkien did.
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
May 22 2013, 10:02pm
Post #54 of 150
(1430 views)
Shortcut
|
if only for the royalty cheques it would be worth it!
"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
May 22 2013, 10:03pm
Post #55 of 150
(1409 views)
Shortcut
|
On to the point, I agree with you on a great many things. The Hobbit book is something I love for what it is, and I don't think that's what I got from this movie, and I doubt I'll get it in the next two.
This might be a weird way of looking at it, but for me, I worry that people will watch this trilogy in the years to come and then turn to the book and be disappointed because it's so much simpler and fairytale-like.
Anyway, good post. You've said much that I've thought and felt.
"...not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall.
As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.
For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men,
it is bitter to receive." -Arwen Undómiel
|
|
|
Kullervo
Rivendell
May 22 2013, 10:04pm
Post #56 of 150
(1423 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree, that Jackson isn't really changing the face of filmmaking, or doing anything radically new (I don't think he even attempted to do that with the Hobbit). I think he just wants to make an entertaining and engaging movie(s), and I think he succeeded in that. The quality of the art can be argued, but changes and radically new interpretations from the original are not a bad thing inherently, quite the opposite actually. That was my point. That even if I didn't like Jackson's vision of middle-earth (which I do, for the most part at least), I'd still want him to make his vision and not somebody elses. I don't want middle-earth to go stale, I want it to be seen as many different ways as possible.
And, of course you have a right to voice your opinion (I apologise if you thought I meant you shouldn't, I really didn't mean that), but so do those who like the changes, and having that opinion doesn't make them any less of a fan of the original works by Tolkien.
(This post was edited by Kullervo on May 22 2013, 10:08pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 22 2013, 10:09pm
Post #57 of 150
(1435 views)
Shortcut
|
Don't blame PJ just because he came up with better ideas for the story than Tolkien did.
I am all for giving Peter Jackson some slack for expanding on Tolkien's basic story instead of making a rigid, scene-for-scene transfer from book to screen. Just the same, I can't think of more than a handful of Jackson's changes that improve on the original except for making it more cinematic. Half of those changes create as many problems as they (supposedly) solve, such as moving the Necromancer's occupation of Dol Guldur to within the timeframe of the films.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Roheryn
Tol Eressea
May 22 2013, 10:25pm
Post #58 of 150
(1462 views)
Shortcut
|
Enough speculation! Rein in the silliness! No more jokes! We need to TAKE THIS MUCH MORE SERIOUSLY. Stop the tongue-in-cheek threads! End the endless speculation! The Necromancer speaks?!? NOOOO!!! Tauriel might be okay, after all??? NEVER! Never mind Tolkien, *I'm* going to start turning in my grave!
Seriously. If I see one more thread with a sense of humour or that gets me thinking outside the box, I just might throw up on my arms.
And don't even get me started on posts that use proper punctuation, capitalization, and the occasional grammatically correct sentence.
The weather outside was a-rainin'
While Thorin his kingdom did reign in;
But gross speculation
Effects consternation;
This silliness ought to be reined in!
|
|
|
Fàfnir
Rohan
May 22 2013, 10:29pm
Post #59 of 150
(1372 views)
Shortcut
|
I probably found it the same way ! ^^
Since it's a portrait it's perfect for an avatar, and it kind of show my support for this poor Azog, since I know a lot of people are not exactly found of him (an opinion I totally respect, by the way).
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
May 22 2013, 10:43pm
Post #60 of 150
(1420 views)
Shortcut
|
And don't even get me started on posts that use proper punctuation, capitalization, and the occasional grammatically correct sentence. J.R.R. Tolkien was extraordinarily concerned about precise use of language. Seeing someone purporting to be defending his legacy by using language in such a sloppy manner is actually quite offensive to me, despite the fact that I largely agree with much of the general point that is (badly) being made.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on May 22 2013, 10:45pm)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
May 22 2013, 10:46pm
Post #61 of 150
(1366 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The films are one thing, the books another as far as I'm concerned
[In reply to]
|
|
|
For myself, I would not be interested in a straight adaptation of The Hobbit book, a 'simple children's story' complete with 'garden gnomes'. Since I haven't reread the book for a long time – and don't intend reading it until after all the films have come out – I can easily view the books and films separately without comparing them with each other.
It all comes down to taste, but I absolutely love AUJ, barring the odd blip, and the story makes perfect sense if one doesn't keep nitpicking and constantly alluding to the book. For the record, I don't 'jump through hoops praising Jackson for each and every change'. I can only say what my gut reaction is to AUJ – it gives me a huge amount of pleasure and for me it's the best film I've seen in years. I LIKE the fact that the story has been expanded and can't wait to see more of Middle-Earth. I LOVE the casting and acting, and the visuals and music.
As for the next two films, why not wait until they have actually been released before passing comment on them? (Personally, I think that those who dislike AUJ should stay away from the next two films – it seems rather masochistic to allow oneself to get so aggravated by something one dislikes so intensely.)
On another matter personally I think it's a little sad for supposed tolkien fans, people on this forum (and others) seem all too ready to jump through hoops praising Jackson for each and every change , forgetting or even resenting the tone context and purpose of the hobbit as a simple childrens story (written in a differnt time with a much differnt purpose than three blockbuster films[
Granted I've only seen the film twice (I know!), (back in december) so perhaps I'm not the best placed to talk about it, but those were my rambling, contradictory thoughts.
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Rohan
May 22 2013, 10:53pm
Post #62 of 150
(1356 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know if "knocking out" is the right word.
[In reply to]
|
|
|
Making a movie is a very difficult and easily just as difficult if not more so than writing a book in your spare time like Tolkien did (he had a day job and was technically not an "author" in the career sense).
Making blockbusters are like a journey unto themselves with months and years of hard work, sleepless nights, fights with the studio, reigning in a crew of hundreds, dealing with the elements, etc.
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Rohan
May 22 2013, 10:58pm
Post #63 of 150
(1343 views)
Shortcut
|
|
how does having Necromancer in DolGuldur create problems?
[In reply to]
|
|
|
It is better to show it all in this timeframe. Having the greenwood turn into mirkwood then revealing later that Necromancer is actually Sauron is better than them knowing everything already and just showing us the final stage of their actions.
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
May 22 2013, 11:18pm
Post #64 of 150
(1449 views)
Shortcut
|
I think translating the Hobbit to the screen is a difficult proposition.
That said, IMO, there is potential 'danger' for this trilogy in that the
spectacle delivers at the expense of the story and its delivery.
That is, the story becomes the means for visuals and marketable gimmicks
rather the visuals as the means to the story. I love the visuals, but
not if it correspondingly were to come at the expense of the story.
I don't know whether this will be the case with the trilogy, and perhaps
there is little redeeming value in the story for its literal film translation with
the visuals and other aspects added to compensate. However, I don't think
it is easy to hide, or compensate for, a 'deficient' story no matter how many
added characters and recognizable, contemporary narrative is breathed into the
films. The story itself and its delivery still has to carry some clout.
If the film productin is finding that there is not enough to be found in The Hobbit,
the disillusionment for those imagining certain scenes in a particular way may be
palpable. For instance, I think of the BoFA and its intensity and care for the characters,
but no am thinking that it will be populated with irrelevant fictions that will
elicit the glee but ultimately miss the point. oh well. I wonder if DoS and
TaBa will deliver.
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Rohan
May 22 2013, 11:36pm
Post #66 of 150
(1326 views)
Shortcut
|
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Lorien
May 22 2013, 11:38pm
Post #67 of 150
(1329 views)
Shortcut
|
ya gotta admit, that goblintown/physics/video game stuff was pretty funny.
|
|
|
Lusitano
Tol Eressea
May 23 2013, 1:41am
Post #69 of 150
(1233 views)
Shortcut
|
beautifully i must say...still a preliminary effort...
Its incredible how short Bilbos time in rivendell is and how little he has to actually care about the place, concerning Rivendell, when all the non Hobbit scenes are cut...maybe with a few added Bilbo material from the EEdition it will improve...
PS : AZog only appears in one scene, and it works 
Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!
|
|
|
Lusitano
Tol Eressea
May 23 2013, 1:47am
Post #70 of 150
(1258 views)
Shortcut
|
music fits that running escaping scene in Goblin Town better than the actual soundtrack - Brass Buttons!
 
Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!
|
|
|
The Mitch King
Rohan
May 23 2013, 3:05am
Post #71 of 150
(1212 views)
Shortcut
|
|
See the Mitch King's most recent thread haha
[In reply to]
|
|
|
I have had it with these changes in this trilogy. Sorry, it sprang to mind.  Although I personally don't mind the changes. And where are you getting Radagast is the Necromancer? |
|
|
Yngwulff
Gondor
May 23 2013, 5:48am
Post #73 of 150
(1183 views)
Shortcut
|
He stays there for a while on the journey home (in the book) dont forget, naybe PJ will expand on that.
Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!
|
|
|
Súlimë
Rivendell
May 23 2013, 7:18am
Post #74 of 150
(1181 views)
Shortcut
|
I think everyone has the right to feel disappointed if an adaptation doesn't come out the way they wanted, especially if they are 'fans' and feel that they have a stake in the fate of the story.
Still, I think sometimes it is just a matter of taste and preference.
What people seem to forget is an adaptation is always going to be an adaptation. It is *never* going to be "a movie version of the book". In fact, the interesting thing about watching an adaptation is that it gives you a chance to look at how other people interpret and imagine the book. When it's done with so much effort and love, like what PJ and team did, and although I may not agree with every decision they made, it is still a fascinating experience.
I think AUJ is one of the better adaptations already -- at least far better than most of the Harry Potter movies, which while being relatively 'canon', failed to capture the true spirit of the series. There are also a lot of disappointing adaptations. Every Count of Monte Cristo adaptation I've seen manages to mangle the ending and spoil the final message somehow. Avatar the Last Airbender also messed up, well, just about everything -- but then no adaptation can ever please everyone.
One of the reasons I could enjoy AUJ so much was because I had very little expectation of it. I did not read up on any news concerning the writing, filming, or anything at all, because I knew it was going to create expectation. And to be honest I thought it was going to be really bad, because the Hobbit, in my opinion, is a far more difficult movie to adapt than the Lord of the Rings.
The most commendable thing about the Lord of the Rings trilogy was that it dared to go where no one had ever gone before -- it was pretty much an underdog story -- attempting the impossible, risking everything, and doing it with sheer love and passion. So even if the movies themselves are flawed, I still loved them because of the faith and effort they put into the work.
Now for the Hobbit it is even more difficult. After the success of the Lord of the Rings -- you are no longer and can no longer be in that privileged 'indie-ish' position. Now there is expectation -- a lot of it, coming from all directions in all forms. I think PJ did a good job in balancing the 'catering to fans' and the 'pleasing the masses'. The down side is, both groups are going to be disappointed in some ways, but that is just inevitable.
Sorry this is also extremely long, and probably quite incoherent. I'll stop now >_<
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
May 23 2013, 7:22am
Post #75 of 150
(1164 views)
Shortcut
|
...I realised what kind of terrence malick fan would I be if I didn't have a picture of him (He is the american film director behind The Tree of Life and The Thin Red Line, and my no 1 choice for the silmarillion if it ever get made) unfortunately he is a bit of recluse (he hasn't given a proper interview since 1975) so I had to settle for his cameo from his directorial debut Badlands (great film) as my new icon.
Nice to see I'm not the only one who appreciates the hobbit for what it is, not for what it may have turned out to be, one of my friends saw the hobbit six times at the cinema but complained about a great many things (he was a massive fan of the LOTR trilogy so wanted exactly the same this time around)-I said to him well why don't you read the book to get a better idea of its original purpose and tone to see where PJ is coming from?-he said he din't see the point is reading a 'silly little kids book when the film was bound to bound to be better becuase it was longer'. I wasn't surprised since he read The Children of Hurin and complained it wasn't modern enough with too little action. He is entitled to his opinions, but yes sometimes I do wonder whether all the overexposure Tolkien has got in recent years is truly good thing...
‘As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said ‘All is now ready.’
Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth
|
|
|
|
|
