|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brotherbeck
Rivendell
Apr 11 2014, 3:58pm
Post #1 of 13
(888 views)
Shortcut
|
|
(Overlong) Thoughts on DoS
|
Can't Post
|
|
I’ve been a visitor to these boards for over a decade, since the lead-up to the release of The Fellowship of the Ring, when I was a college kid reading about some horror director from New Zealand making movies out of my favorite books of all time. With all of the interesting discussion and debate and dialogue I’ve enjoyed reading here over the years, I’ve never felt the need to dive in and add my two cents until now.
I come to these movies as both a life-long fan of Tolkien’s work – my father opened my eyes to the world of books by reading The Hobbit to me as a kid – and as someone passionate about movies and the art filmmaking. I recently purchased The Desolation of Smaug on blu-ray and watched it again for the second time, having caught it once in theaters when it was released. That fact right there showed how this film was different for me then all of Jackson’s other Tolkien adaptions so far, as I had seen all of the other Lord of the Rings movies and the first Hobbit movie several times in theaters and literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times since then at home on DVD and blu-ray.
I feel that up until this point, each one of Jackson’s Tolkien movies have managed the impressive feat of being both very good adaptions of Tolkien’s work and also great movies, with each film falling somewhere on that line. Before DoS, the most problematic and least enjoyable of the films for me personally has always been RotK, a film where I honestly believe the huge story and massive production simply got away from Jackson – yet that film still manages to get so much right. My hang-ups with that movie are more personal in nature. When I read the book RotK, so many scenes strike me as being so iconic and just so cinematic, that I simply can’t watch the movie and enjoy it without thinking of all the missed opportunities. The biggest example of this has always been Gandalf barring the Witch-King from entering Minas Tirith – a scene that would only require two actors, two horses and a set to be absolutely captivating and utterly thrilling. Such a simple yet powerful and heart-breaking scene gets lost in the shuffle, buried under all of that sound and fury and those bright green CGI ghosts.
DoS is the first of Jackson’s ME movies to strike me as just a pretty good movie. Out of the handful of movies I’ve seen this week, it’s one of them. That’s really it. There are things I enjoy immensely about it – the production design, the costumes and weaponry, the incredible actors. There are also things I think are incredibly dumb about it – it’s obscene length relative to the story it tells, it’s focus on overlong and consequence-less action, it’s odd insistence on computer-generating characters who would have been much more convincingly and dramatically portrayed by an actor on set.
I’m not one of those people who constantly criticize CGI. I actually enjoy watching CGI immensely – I just don’t understand why you would go through the astronomical expense and crushing workload to fully render a character with a computer when that character just looks like a tall muscular guy. I’ve seen some of the incredible concept artwork done for these films, and I simply cannot wrap my mind around why, if the designs we see on screen for Azog and Bolg are the ones they wanted to go with, rendering them with CGI was the way to go.
Which ultimately leads in to what I think hurt DoS the most – Jackson’s prior success. Peter Jackson has been so incredibly successful critically and financially with his other ME films that he doesn’t have anyone telling him ‘no’. On these films, if Jackson decides at the 11th hour that he doesn’t like a certain aspect, they go back in and CGI the whole thing over again at the last minute. Historically speaking, that’s where a producer would step in and tell the over-worked, sleep-deprived and panic-stricken director either “Relax, this movie is incredible. Have faith.” or “What are you ______ crazy?!? Absolutely not. No way. It’s not in the budget.” depending on their personal style. In my opinion, the best theatrical cut of Jackson’s ME movies is FOTR – the movie where he was under the most pressure, was still completely untested, and he didn’t have the autonomy and clout he has now.
Disregarding the myriad changes Jackson makes to Tolkien’s core story with this movie, while I watch DoS it just seems to me that Jackson loses focus on the story that he is trying to tell. Scenes that are not crucial to the story drag on for literally several minutes longer than they should, while other very important scenes are skipped completely or rushed through in seconds. Six hours is a huge amount of screen time, and the fact that massively important plot points like Fili & Kili’s relationship to Thorin still managed to slip through the cracks is unforgiveable, especially when we know how dramatic their story ultimately ends up being.
I’ll wrap up my obscenely long first post by saying that I hold out hope that many of DoS flaws will be ironed out with the extended edition. Watching the theatrical cut of DoS, I think it’s glaringly obvious that these films were drastically altered late in the game, long after scripting and shooting had been completed. Due to the fractured nature of this production and the way these films were made and released, I’m withholding my ultimate judgment until all three of the extended editions are released. I had been hoping that watching DoS would have answered some of my questions about AUJ and made some of that film’s more curious choices click into place for me, and instead I’m left still looking forward to TABA but more cautiously and with far less enthusiasm than I have ever felt for any of these films so far.
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Rohan
Apr 11 2014, 4:28pm
Post #2 of 13
(564 views)
Shortcut
|
i agree with you wholeheartedy, Its funny because the final prosthetic azog design they went with before cgi azog was actually pretty terrible, but like you said the designs before that were amazing! apparently it was a lot to do with the prosthetic stuff all looking real fake on camera in 3d and hfr.
again, yes the amount of over cgi use in the film is baffling, there is a scene with the dwarves just before they meet bard, which looks good becauses its real actors in a real location, but then in the same scene what obviously must be a pick up as its the real dwarves cgi'd onto the real background they were just in, looks terrible, you can tell by the hairlines looking odd on the background.
annoying
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Rohan
Apr 11 2014, 6:14pm
Post #4 of 13
(453 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it's difficult in one regard for us who have read the book (and supporting appendices material) because so far we have two films that place emphasis on things and go off on certain moments that in a way don't make sense to us and that's a shame, split half-way between unfocused filmmaking and lack of perspective on our end. I'm so curious to see the DoS EE and finally TABA and the TABA EE. I'm hoping everything will be straightened out. I don't remember so many dangling loose ends in the original trilogy, but then again I was but a wee lad just shy of 17 by the time ROTK came out and I may not remember all these lingering mysteries.
Come to think of it, The Hobbit is emphasized as more of a mystery story and that may be where some of our frustration comes from...
"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
(This post was edited by There&ThereAgain on Apr 11 2014, 6:16pm)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Apr 11 2014, 7:37pm
Post #5 of 13
(449 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Excellent thoughts, thank you!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I especially agree with your observation that RotK was "a film where I honestly believe the huge story and massive production simply got away from Jackson." I have said here many times that that movie should have been split in two, for a coherent presentation of its very complex plot element. In contrast, the extension of TH into three films is detrimental.
I also agree that the films are increasingly focusing on action sequences for their own sake, rather than story-telling. The bunny-sled chase, stone giants, and Goblintown sequences in AUJ and the utterly ludicrous dwarf/dragon chase in DOS are wasted budget and film time as far as storytelling is concerned.
I didn't really get hooked on the LotR movies until I saw FotR-EE. The added character-oriented bits (especially the gift-giving sequence, which laid groundwork for many things later on) made it come alive for me for the first time; the TE seemed to me to be a simplistic sequence of action/pause scenes without much character development.
I'm not as bothered by the CGI as some people (largely because I hate 3D, so I watch only the 2D versions), but I do think that the complex technology has assumed a dominant effect on the filmmaking process to the detriment of good storytelling.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Apr 11 2014, 7:38pm)
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 11 2014, 9:25pm
Post #6 of 13
(384 views)
Shortcut
|
"while I watch DoS it just seems to me that Jackson loses focus on the story that he is trying to tell. Scenes that are not crucial to the story drag on for literally several minutes longer than they should, while other very important scenes are skipped completely or rushed through in seconds. ........and the fact that massively important plot points like Fili & Kili’s relationship to Thorin still managed to slip through the cracks is unforgiveable"
BTW nothing wrong w. longer posts, thank you for the very thoughtful commentary which I think many would agree with. Though I wonder if some of this is just simply the tunnel vision of human nature - I mean, if you are the person making something, it is very hard to step away and see what is so OBVIOUS to many others - and the Kili/Fili issue re Thorin IMO is a perfect example. I understand that PJ, Boyens, and co. wanted the audience to come on the journey w. Bilbo so we would get to know characters the way you would in real life - gradually - but we're NOT Bilbo. It's not until well into DOS it's specifically known Kili/Fili are even related to Thorin - as of right now, too, how is a general audience supposed to know Fili is Thorin's heir?
The one that gets me is PJ happily describing how dynamic the Goblin sequence was re the CGI goblins. Don't get me wrong, I think the Goblin sequence is so imaginative and personally love the Goblin King. But. I wince when PJ seems to be so happy with himself, because IMO so many of the CGI goblins (especially when falling or swinging from ropes) look fake, fake, fake. And why did Legolas need to be on a fake horse? Bloom has a reputation for being an athlete, surely he could have done some riding.
But, for me, there is so much good here, and it was PJ's movie to make - I still hang on to the fact that I'm happy these movies were made at all!
"Richard Armitage’s performance has been one of the best things about the new trilogy, making you believe that a hairy dwarf, so often the comedy element of the LOTR films, can be a heroic, tortured, and dangerous badass." - Den of Geek, The Hobbit: There & Back Again, 7 Apr 2014 - 07:07
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Apr 11 2014, 10:20pm
Post #7 of 13
(347 views)
Shortcut
|
I especially agree with your observation that RotK was "a film where I honestly believe the huge story and massive production simply got away from Jackson." I have said here many times that that movie should have been split in two, for a coherent presentation of its very complex plot element.
I so agree with this! The last book is my favorite and yet whenever I see the movie I can't help but feel disappointed because it feels so short ! Also some of my most favorite scenes are not even in the film at all, ie Houses of Healing.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Apr 11 2014, 10:58pm
Post #8 of 13
(348 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Very good post – thank you, and welcome to the forum.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with much of what you say about DoS, especially the following statement:
'DoS is the first of Jackson’s ME movies to strike me as just a pretty good movie. Out of the handful of movies I’ve seen this week, it’s one of them. That’s really it. There are things I enjoy immensely about it – the production design, the costumes and weaponry, the incredible actors. There are also things I think are incredibly dumb about it – …it’s focus on overlong and consequence-less action…'
I actually feel DoS could have been great, but for me it somehow didn't have the 'heart' that AUJ and the LotR films have. For me, this is probably due to a combination of factors, including the addition of non-canon elements to the story, the gratuitous ninja-elf action sequences, too little time taken on developing canon characters such as Beorn and Thranduil, and music that I find forgettable and does little for me (unlike the music for the other four films).
I also agree with what you say about RotK, and think that FotR is the best of the trilogy. To think that PJ said he regretted that he couldn't make the Black Riders CGI! To my mind they were by far more effective than the Riders on the fell beasts. They were, in fact, one of the most impressive elements of FotR…
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Apr 12 2014, 12:38am
Post #9 of 13
(321 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Black Riders were wonderful!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They were definitely better than anything CGI could do. The later "fell beasts" were excellent CGI, but the reality of the horses was important at that stage.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Apr 12 2014, 12:38am)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Apr 12 2014, 11:37am
Post #10 of 13
(279 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm obviously not the only one to have reservations about DoS in particular. DoS was shown on Sky last week. In a short piece about the film in Radio Times (the major magazine with TV listings in the UK), this is what was said:
'Martin Freeman soldiers on along a bumpy road as Bilbo Baggins, but is pushed even further into the background in this second instalment of Peter Jackson's adaptation…
Even vengeful dwarf Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), who dominated the first film, is made to look one-dimensional on this leg of the journey. The visual realisation of Middle-Earth and action scenes are extraordinary, including Bilbo's close encounter with the evil dragon Smaug (boomingly voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch)…
The dramatic tension comes in fits and starts, however, and for that reason the film can be a frustrating watch…'
Three stars out of five are given to DoS. LotR has always received five stars (for all the films).
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 12 2014, 2:09pm
Post #11 of 13
(264 views)
Shortcut
|
Noone ever told that you are the only one to have reservations about DOS.Noone ever questioned your taste and personal preferences by rating DOS as your least favourite ME movie.What i personally questioned/disagreed with, was SOME of your arguments you had against SOME aspects of the movie.Nothing more,nothing less.
Imagine now if i asked myself, "Am i the only one(LOL) who liked AUJ less?"-then copy paste 100 links by critics and folks who said that DOS is a vast improvement over its predecessor(AUJ)-then say i am obviously not the only one to think so.
And i still do not agree with what you did now.In order to justify your opinion,you copied the review of a magazine in your country.Your opinion would have the same gravity with or without that review.It is your opinion.End of story.Even if noone agreed ,your opinion is still worthy and valid 100%.I just happen to disagree with you.No big deal after all
(This post was edited by NecromancerRising on Apr 12 2014, 2:10pm)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Apr 12 2014, 3:36pm
Post #12 of 13
(241 views)
Shortcut
|
Why bother trying to start up another argument over something I disagree with you about?
I did not say that NO ONE 'ever questioned' my 'taste', etc., etc. What the hell are you on about now? Why have you taken my posts as a personal attack on you?? I can assure you, nothing could be further from my mind than you when I write on these forums.
I couldn't care less whether you agree with 'what I did now'. It is perfectly valid to quote the opinions of others in order to emphasize a point you are trying to make.
As I have always said, what I say is MY OPINION. However, if I want to add other's opinions that I see as valid and that contribute to a discussion, I am perfectly entitled to do so.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Apr 12 2014, 3:37pm)
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 12 2014, 4:03pm
Post #13 of 13
(231 views)
Shortcut
|
I am the one who disagrees with you and i am perfectly entitled to do so.I cannot understand your outburst right now.Forums exist for disagreements and contradictory opinions as well.End of story by me.
P.S.I never thought you personally attacked me except for your last post.
|
|
|
|
|
So noticing the extra occasions of CGI use that I hadn't before was a bit disappointing. I think it may bother me more because I've played many video games and it's just too reminiscent of them at times. I'd rather the films feel more realistic than look so much like games I've played. I guess it's harder to be pleased when you have something close to compare it to. Anyway, it's just one of those things you sigh at and move on. 