|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 20 2014, 10:01pm
Post #26 of 53
(654 views)
Shortcut
|
that he can handle both aspects with flying colours.And i am completely sure that the same will happen with the tragic consequences of Laketown and BO5A plus the awesome depiction of the events during these sequences.Some directors have the inherent gift to achieve both.Cohen(not Coen) Brothers are awesome.But to handle the production and direction of any Middle Earth film?No,thanks.I'll pass
"Obsession and narrow-mindness is the trend of the 2000's"
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Apr 20 2014, 10:31pm
Post #27 of 53
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
...and used the term 'precious' and maybe even knew what it was. I tmade sense to take it off then as to leave it on was a greater risk. Bilbo put it on briefly later to get away but did not give Smaug enough time to work it out. I also hope you are not suggesting Tolkein fans are somewhat immature: now that is really a big call . I do not watch tele so have no idea of the Game of Thrones TV show or what 'more mature audience it is aimed for' - but really!!!
Or else I would be lumped in that category as a life-long Tolkien fan. I am comparing PJ's movies (not Tolkien's books) to the GoT television series on HBO.
First, I love PJ's LOTR and TH. That doesn't mean elements of it are not cartoonish, however. Second, the action sequences are over-the-top, IMO. Others may disagree, but some of them come off as silly. Even if they are silly, they are still entertaining!
Third, I find Tolkien's legendarium superior to Martin's Song's of and Ice and Fire, but I am a fan of both. The HBO series is much more mature in nature than PJ's stuff, which is Rated PG-13. GoT would be rated R if it were a move. I was speaking more to the ratings as opposed to the intelligence of fans of either series.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Apr 20 2014, 10:33pm
Post #28 of 53
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, I am calling the movies cartoonish....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Since you ask the question, I suppose I have to be more specific; either that, or use more monosyllabic words.
I wonder what the book is under that fashion of labelling.
Juvenille?
Silly?
Ridiculous?
Talking wallets and all you know?
There is more depth in these movies than there ever was in the book. That's the entire reason behind the 3-flim split so we don't have stuff like a complete stranger shooting the main villain out of the sky.
Last time I checked, The Hobbit was still listed as a classic of children's literature, and although it is written with children in mind, it is hardly "juvenile", enriched as it is with a vast amount of folkloric motifs. For instance, the "talking wallet" you mentioned is a motif right out of the Arne-Thompson classification system. Anyone with a literary background, or who has researched folklore and myth would recognize that.
"Silly"? "Ridiculous"? How about a psychedelic version of T.H. White's Merlyn (complete with bird droppings and hedgehog stolen from the same) riding a hare-raising rabbit sled?
"Juvenile"? PJ padding his three films with literally hours of over-indulgent chase scenes is juvenile. There is nothing mature in that bit of sophomoric film-making.
"Ridiculous"? Fan-fiction Elvish subplots complete with an archetypical Mary-Sue Matrix Xena the Warrior Elfess who, oh by the way, has Elrond's healing powers and glows like twinkly Twilight vampires? I'll take Tolkien's reference material from the Völuspá and the Elder Eddas any day.
I have no idea what it is that you refer to as "depth" in the films, unless the lexicon of English word usage has changed so dramatically that the word "depth" is now synonymous with "shallow". Oh, do you mean the padding and superfluous subplots necessary to make a children's book into a three-film Hollywood monstrosity? Yes, then there is certainly depth.
And finally, a stranger shooting the main villain out of the sky? Yes, now we have an ambiguous black market trader with a passel of brats and a giant tower-mounted mechanical arbelist with a harpoon. But we have lost the black arrow and the skill of Bard the "Bowman" in the process. The black arrow, by the way, is another well known portent in literature. I don't recall big-arse flying black harpoons ever used in a literary sense that ties a tale with the mythical past.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Apr 20 2014, 10:38pm)
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Apr 20 2014, 10:46pm
Post #29 of 53
(607 views)
Shortcut
|
If by padding you mean character moments or expositional scenes then I'm afraid I must disagree. I think I'll have a stroke the next time someone mentions padding anywhere. If we are REALLY to talk about padding then lets take a step back and look at Tolkien himself and most of FOTR. Tom Bombadil? Um, padding. That is padding.
Not stuff like Bard's expositional extension that actually does contribute towards the plot. Now I'm not saying Tolkien is at fault, I'm merely saying that Peter Jackson has given us the best possible adaptation of a book that appeals to only a very narrow demographic (objectively, an adult who has never heard of Hobbits would not find much joy and thrill in reading The Hobbit).
And please count the length of the action scenes; they don't really exceed intimate character moments.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member.
Really? Alright...
Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
KW
Rivendell
Apr 20 2014, 10:48pm
Post #30 of 53
(603 views)
Shortcut
|
Coen.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001053/
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 20 2014, 11:10pm
Post #32 of 53
(581 views)
Shortcut
|
Since i like Leonard Cohen much,i thought that the spelling of the name was identical.
"Obsession and narrow-mindness is the trend of the 2000's"
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Apr 20 2014, 11:19pm
Post #34 of 53
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Shall we get you a nurse for your oncoming stroke?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Or shall we just rely on Xenarwentauriel to magically remove the foul Morgul poison causing your aortic blockage?
Padding?
How about the chutes-and-ladders extravaganza inside Goblin Town, complete with a complete disregard for the laws of physics and gravity?
Or the Hobbits-of-the-Caribbean(TM) Whitewater Adventure Ride (I can see the attraction replete with plastic barrels and cushioned seats as soon as they open the Universal Hobbit Theme Park in Orlando, Florida).
And then the inane cat-and-mouse-and-molten gold race around Erebor, where a handful of dwarves with ropes and pulleys and ovens that have gone unused for decades manage to make a giant dwarvish casting that amazingly becomes molten liquid once again while they toboggan down golden sluices for at least 15 minutes of movie time. Not to mention the farcical extra minutes of wasted film time keeping a few of the dwarves behind in Laketown while they should be with their brethren at the Lonely Mountain.
Padding. Unnecessary to move the movie along. Forcing a story that requires no more than two movies into a prolonged three movie ordeal. At this point in the filming it is obvious that an editor with any real ability could eliminate most of this garbage and reduce the trilogy to a duology. But that is not what Hollywood wants, obviously.
Eliminate the garbage time, and PJ could actually have two great films. But sorry, the superficial padding and inferiorly-written superfluous subplots make for three films that do not in any way compare to his Lord of the Rings movies.
Think of it this way, imagine how ludicrous it would've been if PJ added a 10th Walker to the Fellowship. Tauriel and Legolas are added baggage to Bilbo's journey. Believe me, if you removed them you wouldn't miss a thing.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 20 2014, 11:21pm
Post #35 of 53
(579 views)
Shortcut
|
I had no idea i could google it.I am going to take this into account in the future :)
"Obsession and narrow-mindness is the trend of the 2000's"
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Apr 21 2014, 12:02am
Post #36 of 53
(564 views)
Shortcut
|
If padding is "unnecessary to move the plot along", then what about the entire beginning of FotR. It's a long sequence in the movie. And only the parts with Gandalf really move the plot along.
And then there's the warg attack in TTT. Mainly there for the action.
Or most everything in TTT concerning the Ents.
Then there's the chase through Moria in FotR. Since the chase through the goblin tunnels is "padding", then so is the Moria sequence.
I'm just trying to point out the flaw in your logic; the excessive analyzing. The barrel sequence isn't there to move the plot along (although technically it is). It's just plain fun. I enjoyed it. Others in the theater enjoyed it. Seems like a successful scene to me. And it's not like there's tons of these "fun" scenes. They're just sprinkled throughout, sometimes a little heavily, but sprinkled throughout to lighten the mood and be "fun", something LotR never really was.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
(This post was edited by Name on Apr 21 2014, 12:03am)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Apr 21 2014, 12:17am
Post #37 of 53
(557 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Who ever said there wasn't padding or unnecessary sequences...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in the Lord of the Rings movies? You are obviously new here. Those discussions occurred years ago. and there is no flaw in my logic.
I would suggest that about 45 minutes of TTT could be edited out and it would be a far better film (that would include the silly warg scene, Aragorn frenching his horse by the river, and Faramir dragging the hobbits back to Osgiliath only to release them anyway, just to show his "quality").
But the LotR films can rightly be told in a trilogy of films (just not 3 hours plus each, perhaps); in fact, you could add back in canon plot points where PJ made up his own nonsense. The Hobbit does not require three films to be told, and would be better, more precise, less tenuous, more taut and thrilling at two films.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Apr 21 2014, 1:27am
Post #38 of 53
(549 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You clearly misunderstand my point.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And here, I think, is where our opinions differ. From your last post, you say that you do agree about the "padding" in LotR. Yet I like those scenes. I still find them enjoyable. My point is, what you call "padding", I enjoy. For me, padding isn't a bad thing. If you want to edit down TTT that's fine. But I'm saying some "padding" is sometimes necessary, and I don't mind it. And from what you consider "padding", you must encounter it a lot in movies. I don't think everything needs to move the plot along, and when it comes to The Hobbit, I like some fun scenes. But that's just me.
And yes, I am rather new here. 
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Apr 21 2014, 4:26am
Post #39 of 53
(529 views)
Shortcut
|
--> Personal comments removed from this sub-thread
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Please remember that we can all disagree with someone else's POV without resorting to personal comments. It would be unfortunate if this thread were locked, but it *will* be locked if personal comments continue.
Thanks
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
(This post was edited by Altaira on Apr 21 2014, 4:26am)
|
|
|
Imladris18
Lorien
Apr 21 2014, 1:28pm
Post #40 of 53
(478 views)
Shortcut
|
Apparently his perfect Tolkien adaptions would've been dramas of sorts, where every scene must serve an absolutely crucial role to the plot.
I prefer to enjoy movies I watch, so I'm all about having fun and having action scenes. I'm not sure why there's so much hate for fun around here.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Apr 21 2014, 1:53pm
Post #41 of 53
(471 views)
Shortcut
|
And for many others, it does not involve 'hate for fun' – there is a lot more to it than that. There is a big difference between 'fun' and 'stupidity'.
I'm not sure why there's so much hate for fun around here.
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Apr 21 2014, 2:07pm
Post #42 of 53
(466 views)
Shortcut
|
That "big difference" depends on the person, and is all subjective.
And I will say, not specifically to you, but I will say that there is a certain degree of "hatred" towards scenes that are there for "fun". Which is fine. I don't like all of them myself. But I find it strange that some people passionately hate all of them, and I think some of those people don't understand that it is all just for fun. The barrel scene isn't supposed to affect you the way the warg scene or Helm's Deep does in TTT. And I think a lot of people are looking for something that isn't really meant to be there, thus they will never find satisfaction.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Apr 21 2014, 2:53pm
Post #43 of 53
(442 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not so much that I 'passionately hate' any scene (that's too strong a reaction for me in this case), but that I am so very disappointed with DoS due to a few scenes, which have spoiled the film for me. To me those scenes are not 'fun', but just plain stupid. My reactions are stronger than they would be towards to any other film, because I forget other films the instant I walk out of a cinema. However, the ME films mean much more to me than that, and I was greatly looking forward to DoS following AUJ (which I loved). My disappointment is all the more intense because I feel that DoS could have been great – because PJ is perfectly capable of producing something that is, and this was a missed opportunity.
That "big difference" depends on the person, and is all subjective.
And I will say, not specifically to you, but I will say that there is a certain degree of "hatred" towards scenes that are there for "fun". Which is fine. I don't like all of them myself. But I find it strange that some people passionately hate all of them, and I think some of those people don't understand that it is all just for fun. The barrel scene isn't supposed to affect you the way the warg scene or Helm's Deep does in TTT. And I think a lot of people are looking for something that isn't really meant to be there, thus they will never find satisfaction.
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Apr 21 2014, 4:02pm
Post #44 of 53
(426 views)
Shortcut
|
I completely understand your position, even if my position is slightly different. I was just trying to express my frustration with others who don't seem to have a logical standpoint for any of their arguments.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Apr 21 2014, 5:57pm
Post #46 of 53
(411 views)
Shortcut
|
Then again, I'm not the brightest electron on the CRT.
1. Like others have said, it's the ring's decision.
2. By attempting to defeat Smaug themselves the Dwarves achieve a higher moral ground in the film than in the book where they merely cower in a dead end as Smaug flies off to destroy Lake-town unmolested.
In the meanwhile, the dwarves sat in darkness, and utter silence fell about them. Little they ate and little they spoke. They could not count the passing of time; and they scarcely dared to move, for the whisper of their voices echoed and rustled in the tunnel. If they dozed, they woke still to darkness and to silence going on unbroken. At last after days and days of waiting, as it seemed, when they were becoming choked and dazed for want of air, they could bear it no longer.
-Not At Home
Note that Jackson does give a nod to that book passage of passive resignation with the dead bodies in the Western Guardroom, where Thorin responds "I will not die like this."
3. Re GOT being for a "mature audience": a repetitious plotline of "He dies, she dies, everybody dies" is the literary over-reaction of an angsty young writer who has suddenly received the blinding epiphany that "life is not fair". Thanks, but I figured that out in kindergarten.
******************************************
https://www.facebook.com/slatesforsarah
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Apr 21 2014, 9:31pm
Post #47 of 53
(371 views)
Shortcut
|
..also makes the Dwarves believable in battle, for BOFA.
3. Re GOT being for a "mature audience": a repetitious plotline of "He dies, she dies, everybody dies" is the literary over-reaction of an angsty young writer who has suddenly received the blinding epiphany that "life is not fair". Thanks, but I figured that out in kindergarten.
Yep! the mature fantasy argument re GOT is actually the tired tropes and cliches of every genre that has badly attempted a more adult approach to it's subject, throw in more violence, more sex and nudity and death which, actually doesn't make something more adult, it just gives it a higher rating/watershed slot, that's not the same thing as making something more grown up.
|
|
|
TnuaccayM
Bree
Apr 21 2014, 10:04pm
Post #48 of 53
(371 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Smaug needed to have good reason to be angry
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the film smaug needed to have a pretty good reason to get angry and go attack lake-town. Talking with Bilbo wouldn't have been enough to make him angry enough to do that. There needed to be a confrontation between the dragon and Thorin, not only to give him reason to get angry, but to show the hatred between the two.
And as for the fight being pointless and silly because Smaug could have easily killed them, I think you are wrong. At first it is obvious that the dragon was just playing with the dwarves, then he got frustrated and got really angry. And it wasn't so easy to kill the dwarves because he was so big, and they were so small that they could easily hide. Yes, he could breathe fire, but if you look closely you can see that he can't just throw fire whenever he wants, he needs to produce it first in his chest, that's why his chest lights up when his going to throw fire. The whole action scene was to avoid a long boring conversation where the dragon can't even see who is talking to and having a very angry and frustrated dragon with no real reason. It works in the book, but watching a film is not like reading a book.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Apr 21 2014, 10:23pm
Post #49 of 53
(359 views)
Shortcut
|
First of all, I've never seen Game of Thrones so I will make no comparison. Second, this entire thread is CRAZY - I could hear people shouting at each other over the Internet. No need to be insulting just because someone doesn't agree with you! I think it's safe to say that some like the book better and others like the movie better (myself included - really didn't like the book). I do not believe liking the movie makes one "juvenile," it just means that for whatever reason you like the movie better.
This is not to say that every decision made was a good one. I didn't mind Tauriel at all, but could have done without the "love triangle." I LOVED the barrels scene despite the (admittedly) OTT action and video-game quality of the elves. However, I agree that the Smaug v. Dwarves scene was not a great concept, BUT I can understand it. Two things: 1. PJ kind of boxed himself into a corner with his development of Thorin in AUJ, in fact I wondered how the Thorin that risked his life pulling Bilbo to safety would allow Bilbo to face Smaug unaided? As Balin said, the Thorin from AUJ wouldn't hesitate to go to Bilbo's aid. So PJ had to have Thorin attempt to kill Smaug, just to stay true to his original character. And 2. Whatever plan Thorin came up with had to fail. No getting around that, to have the Dwarves succeed would have really screwed up the movie far worse than Tauriel and Legolas could ever have done. That's my opinion, not trying to insult anyone (least of all Peter Jackson), but maybe we can all just take a deep breath and calm down, after all it's only a movie, not life or death.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Apr 22 2014, 2:28am
Post #50 of 53
(348 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You completely misunderstood Smaug...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...and so did PJ. obviously.
This is a dragon who is incensed by the mere theft of a single cup. As the story goes, Smaug's fury "is only seen when rich folk that have more than they can enjoy lose something they have long had but never before used or wanted."
This mirrors Beowulf's winged dragon (which Tolkien patterned Smaug after), who is enraged by a theft and exacts a terrible revenge on the countryside.
The fight by a handful of dwarves is indeed pointless, considering Smaug utterly destroyed an entire Dwarven civilization at Erebor and the thriving kingdom of Dale. This makes the entire dwarf/dragon chase scene simply ridiculous.
As far as the importance of Bilbo remaining invisible, Smaug would have eaten him instantly, and even being unable to see him, the dragon still nearly roasted Bilbo alive when at last the hobbit ran up the passage. It was downright silly watching Bilbo surfing about on piles of coins (which looked to me out-of-scale and oversized, like the tons of tumbling skull's in the LotR Path of the Dead scene). It was also particularly annoying since it muffled much of Tolkien's excellent dialogue.
But the impetus for Smaug's rage, beyond the theft of a cup, is the perceived conspiracy of Dwarves and Laketown that the dragon slyly uncovered in his riddling conversation with Baggins. Perhaps I think too much of the audience, believing it unnecessary to beat filmgoers over the head and bludgeon them bloody with plot points as PJ does far too often.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
|
|
