|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jun 19 2014, 11:41pm
Post #76 of 195
(781 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for your response and I could not agree with you more about all the matters that were left out. I read the book once the filming got under weigh and I remember thinking that all the elements jarred with me as potentially part of the film adaption.
On the question of Azog/Bolg re reading my post I gave the impression that I was against Azog surviving because it was not book faithful. That is not concern.
My concern is I sense a lack of certainty about choices in these movies. If I remember correctly the main shoot lasted 266 days. The bulk of the acting took part during this period. At that precise point Azog was not in the first of the two film movie adaption other than at the battle of Moria and Bolg, Conan Stevens Bolg, was Gandalf's main adversary when he arrived at Dol Gulder. He was also the torturer jailor of Thrain and possibily Beorn.
Now for me that feels cohesive and interrelated sowing various threads of the story together and building character. Somehow in going to three films much of that has disappeared instead we have Azog taking over and then giving back when they reach Beorn's for me the momentum is lost and I am left thinking like Daniel why not
let Bolg take it all the way from Weathertop.
You will forgive if i mention another piece of late editing the movement of the High Fells from between Rivendell and the Goblin King to where it ended up. Given the story momentum built up at the White Counci the locality of the High Fells this change is mere expediency to try and keep the plot and sub plot narrative revealing at the same pace and link the High Fells to Dol Gulder in the same film and that feels entirely contrived to me.
I do completely accept your point about wait and see maybe we will understand the choices made better when the plot threads work themselves through.
At the last count Azog has built animosity with Thorin and
Beorn whereas in Bolgs case it is personal with Legolas and Dain of course is yet to appear. There in may lie the answers.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jun 19 2014, 11:43pm)
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jun 20 2014, 1:19am
Post #77 of 195
(762 views)
Shortcut
|
I think he's shown a fair amount with these movies. He's added some things and all that but I don't feel like he's thumbed his nose at Tolkien at all with these films. To each his own I suppose.
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Jun 20 2014, 3:11am
Post #78 of 195
(785 views)
Shortcut
|
but overall IMO they were muddied between too much made up content. Had they kept the fan fiction (sorry I don't know any other way to describe Jackson's made up content, which I do not consider a testament to Tolkien's writing at all) to a bare minimum and just told the story that is told in the book and the appendices, instead of thinking they needed to rewrite major chunks of the film. it would have been a film more entertaining than what we were given which in the opinion of many (not all) would have been more entertaining and more in line with Jackson's own LOTR. The Hobbit as Jackson tells it is just too Over the top. Esp in comparison to his own LOTR trilogy.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jun 20 2014, 3:38am
Post #79 of 195
(759 views)
Shortcut
|
My apologies on not giving you a longer reply. I just don't agree with the heart of your post and I'm sure you've seen enough of my posts to know I quite like these films.
(This post was edited by Elessar on Jun 20 2014, 3:39am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jun 20 2014, 6:00am
Post #80 of 195
(753 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Specific Choices as Opposed To Wholesale Condemnation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I noticed your post and Sinisters and set that against my exchange with Noria.
The reality is some of us love the movies with one or two reservations and this seems to be the place to discuss it rather than anywhere else. Whereas others write them off as conceptually misjudged and disrespectful.
There is much in the in the 330 minutes released so far to enjoy and the reason for that is there is a great deal of respect and desire in Wellington to bring alive so much of Tolkiens vision but the films operate in a particular genre which means some of the communication in the movie, notably the big set piece actions scenes, subscribe to modern cinema. There is an irony here without the technology available today the films could not be made at all but with that technology comes certain stylistic imperatives.
My points of reservation do not lie with any of that they lie in the choices that PJ has made with his filmed material.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jun 20 2014, 6:01am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jun 20 2014, 6:16am
Post #81 of 195
(755 views)
Shortcut
|
Noria I did not want to deliberately over complicate my reply by introducing the High Fells observations there was a piece left out which connects it to the Azog/Bolg narrative.
In the released movie Bolg turns up at Beorns and conveys Saurons message to Azog to return to DG before Gandalf has turned back West to the High Fells. To me that rids the journey of any tension for the audience it is obvious following this exchange that Sauron is in place and giving specific tactical orders to his commanders.
That one piece of dialogue takes him from being the shadowy necromancer of AUJ to a fully realised adversary and makes the High Fells tokenism. I can think of a number of ways that could have been avoided even in the three 3 film structure.
To me its those kind of specific choices which undermine the strength of the movie.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jun 20 2014, 6:18am)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 20 2014, 1:47pm
Post #82 of 195
(731 views)
Shortcut
|
For me the High Fells scene was more about the Nazgul than Sauron and I fully expect to see the Nazgul in BOFA. Usually I try not to have any expectations about what will occur in these movies but this seems to me to be the best explanation for the scene. But I agree completely that this scene is misplaced and IMO would have made much more sense in AUJ, hinting as it does about the Necromancer. Even the geography is off now! I also agree that the reference to the Witch King’s dagger is so long in the past now that it will have to be reintroduced in the third movie somehow.
No doubt the change to three movies impacted the version of The Hobbit being created by Peter Jackson and some amount of rejigging had to occur. Some of it is a bit awkward. The roles of Azog and Bolg were surely a part of this re-envisoning, probably a prominent part. IIRC, Azog’s first appearance was originally supposed to be in the Into the Frying Pan scene, surprising both Thorin and us, but Jackson decided it didn’t work in the three film format and introduced him earlier. The whole Thrain at Dol Guldur idea has been excised from the theatrical editions thus far so Bolg has been impacted as well.
I can only think that they wanted to establish a fierce personal animosity between Thorin and Azog, but they also intended him, as the senior orc, to become the Commander of Legions. Yet they wanted an orc pursuit to keep the pressure on the dwarves and a known orc to lead them. They could have had Bolg pursuing the dwarves from the outset, but how then to introduce Azog and have him resonate with the audience? It could be that in the final version of the story, in BOFA, there is a need for two villains on the ground, Bolg and Azog, since Smaug will soon be gone and Sauron is either a big black cloud or a fiery shadow.
Not only do we have to wait for BOFA to understand some of these things, there is the EE to complicate matters. Will Bolg’s original role at Dol Guldur be referenced? Will Thrain appear? Where is the Legolas/Bolg thing going? I look forward to finding out.
My comment about not caring about Azog's survival was not directed at you but was more a general comment about my attitude.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jun 20 2014, 10:27pm
Post #83 of 195
(733 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re:Specific Choices as Opposed To Wholesale Condemnation by Michelle Johnston
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Agreed. That's the thing I love about this board most of all is that on a good portion of the time spent here we can find great conversation between people who like you said love the movies but do have some issues with them.
I agree with you totally. There is so much that I love in what we've see so far and I see so much (for me) the vision Tolkien put in the book. I also think as you stated that they have a huge amount of respect for Tolkien and again I think that is quite clear within these movies. Technology is a double edged sword no doubt. I teach basic computer applications classes at the school where I'm employed. On more than one occasion because of things out of our control we're forced to do the pen/paper thing because of technology issues. So I understand in these movies there are some things that they must do with computers that won't always set well with people.
I hear ya. I have issues as well. I know some probably think I don't but I actually have some but as a whole they tend to be with silly little things like bird poop, snot gags, belching, etc. I would like to see a little bit of the action set piece at the end of DOS taken out but as a whole I'm simply loving these movies.
Thanks for chiming in Michelle. Quality post and thought. I enjoy reading your thoughts.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 21 2014, 12:19am
Post #84 of 195
(708 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re:Specific Choices as Opposed To Wholesale Condemnation by Michelle Johnston and Elessar
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Michelle, I missed this post earlier but wanted to say that I agree wholeheartedly. PJ and his crew made choices and we can agree or disagree with them, but there is no doubt in my mind that these movies were made with a lot of respect, love and attention. I have no problems with the use of technology because it was technology that made possible the making of all six of these movies. I just don't get why PJ should have to stay at a 2001 level.
Elessar I also agree with you. Much as I love them, I don't think the movies are perfect any more than I think the even more beloved LotR movies are perfect. But it's nice when we can have a discussion about problems and flaws without "wholesale condemnation" or its converse. However, I think there is too much emotion involved for that to work very often.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jun 21 2014, 12:38am
Post #85 of 195
(727 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re:Specific Choices as Opposed To Wholesale Condemnation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm with ya 100% on that. I love The Lord of the Rings movies. They along with the books have made a huge impact on my life but I support your stance that those movies are not perfect. I'd give the whole trilogy like a 9.5 but there are issues with them all the same. That's the problem with the internet as a whole is that people tend to let the emotions of what we feel get in the way of great discussions. However, I do think this place is better than most at people able to have adult like discussions about what we like and don't in regards to Middle-earth.
(This post was edited by Elessar on Jun 21 2014, 12:42am)
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jun 21 2014, 2:16pm
Post #86 of 195
(709 views)
Shortcut
|
could not be made without the technology only because PJ choose that technology- but it is not necessary to adapt the book. It did not have to be in 3D, it did not have to have such over the top and elaborate effects sequences.
PJ himself proved with LotR's that you can do a large amount of the effects, especially scale work, in camera.
The problem for TH films is PJ's desire to play with the new tech had serious implications for how the films could be shot.
It meant scale work in camera became impossible- leading to sad out-takes like poor Sir Ian all but breaking down and lamenting this is was not what he became an actor to do- sit on a green screen on his own acting to nothing for hours on end and waiting in boredom whilst computer boffins plot and position things.
It meant that there was a lot more studio work where everything could be controlled, especially the 3D camera movements, and a lot less location work- and a lot of TH looks like what it is- set bound when compared to LotR's.
It meant that model work could no longer be done and everything had to be created in computer where there seems to be a temptation to go for the eye-catching, resulting in some interesting lighting and colouring choices which lack a sense of reality in many cases..
These choices were not necessary but solely driven by the choice to use that tech.
In my view this was the first major mistake in choices PJ made, driven more by his own desire to have a go with the tech than it was by desire to offer something to the story telling.
The next major error in judgement was the decision to go from two to three films made at the last minute and requiring uncomfortable rewrites and a very poor forced 'film ending' in AUJ where none was ever intended to be. Again this was a choice made by PJ.
The same goes for most of the choices, they are unforced errors, not driven by the needs of adaptation but by the makers themselves, and them alone.
If you look at what those who complain mainly complain about, they boil down to several specific things- cartoon over the top action sequences, complete rewritting of major scenes, invented, or not present in the book, characters, and Bilbo becoming a secondary character in his own story.
All these changes are by choice.
The book can be adapted without huge action scenes and cartoon like fights.
In just the first half of the story alone- to the goblin escape- PJ gives us, including flashbacks, 10 action scenes. Tolkien has 3 and his troll scene has no big fight and I'm including them losing their gear in the storm as an action scene. These extra scenes of action are not necessary to adapt the story, they are choices, the choice to put a lot more action into the story than there is.
The book can be adapted without inventing your own characters and story line and inserting them into it.
The excuse that the book is a 'sausage fest' is ridiculous, as TH has had generations of female fans, people are people, a good story well told will hold their attention, regardless of the gender of characters involved or the gender of the reader. I've recently been watching Orange is the New Black, and it would not be improved any more than TH has been by the clumsy insertion of a male prison wing just to have more sausage in it. Its good because its well written, well observed, and true to itself without compromising- none of which is true of TH.
Choices such as keeping Azog alive, and including Bolg, then being unable to make their mind up about what purpose they actually serve in the narrative, consistently tinkering with the characters; in appearence, in scritping, in who does what, where and when. None of these were forced on them, none of these things were necessitated by the pressures of adaptation. But by their own poor decision making.
The book can be adapted without rewriting Thorin's personality or completely altering Bilbo's character arc.
The character arc between these two in the book is good and interesting- it begins with complete disdain from Thorin and a complete lack of belief in Bilbo from all the dwarves- this eventually by the time of the escape from the Elf King Halls has been transformed. Thorin has been shown to in fact be a poor leader, and the dwarves now turn to Bilbo rather than Thorin for solutions. This switch also plays against Thorin's pride, Bilbo has completely undermined his authority. It is an interesting set up which all feeds into the final scenes between Thorin and Bilbo once they reach the mountain.
The arc we get in the film bears no resemblance to the one in the book. It is different at every point, from the moment when Bilbo decides to go on an adventure off his own initiative, to saving Thorin's life, and even when Bilbo's first crucial kill occurs, they are all gone from the film.
And again this is not something which has to be, they could have adapted the books characters and the books character arcs. They are there to be adapted. They choose not to for reasons all of their own.
There is nothing in the changes made which is driven by necessity of adaptation. They are all PJ choices made out of free choice, not out of any sort of need.
And its noticeable that the parts that gather the greatest complaints are those stemming directly from PJ's choices.
The blame if there is any, and I think there is plenty, is therefore ultimately at his door solely.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 21 2014, 3:29pm
Post #87 of 195
(706 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Of course a lot of the changes to The Hobbit movie were choices.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But made under some constraints. I’m pretty sure that Jackson was required to deliver two big movies, with lots of action, more vivid and sympathetic characters and so on. Therefore the story had to be expanded, characters fleshed out, dialog and scenes and subplots invented. Choices had to be made because The Hobbit book is too small and slight to sustain the movies the Jackson was employed to make.
Jackson could have made lots of different choices but the ones we see in the movies are the ones he made. For you those choices are poor ones. For me most of them are not, in fact I accept and even like the majority of them. I’m glad there are three movies, I love the 3D, the HFR, the digital sets and even the digital characters for the most part. I love most of the characters we see on the screen and I don't believe that Bilbo has been sidelined. I do have some issues with AUJ and DoS, most of them minor. But I would not change most of the things people complain about even if I could.
As for technology IIRC, Jackson settled on filming Tolkien’s works back in the late 1990’s partly because he believed that special effects technology had just then become sophisticated enough to do these stories justice. He also wanted to keep Weta employed. He made LotR with the state-of-the art technology that was available back then. He made The Hobbit with the more advanced technology available now. Those of you who loved the beautiful bigatures (which I did) and the people in plastic suits used in LotR are as out of luck as the people who loved stop-motion photography and models were in 2001. It’s sad but there it is.
In the end, I've come to realize that I like these movies more than I would have a single, simple movie that focused only on the book as it stands. So if I’m a NARF, I can live with that.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jun 21 2014, 4:17pm
Post #88 of 195
(711 views)
Shortcut
|
the films is not in question.
But I doubt you would defend them on the basis of being an accurate representative adaptation of the book, which is more my point.
You can view them as completely separate entities and take them on their own merits, that is fair enough, but if as some of us were hoping for, they would be a good adaptation of the book they fall woefully short on all counts.
But your post in its opening paragraph suggests a certainty I would strongly refute, whether intentional or not you imply there was some imperative, some force at work that meant PJ simply had to make the changes he did, phrases such as;
'Jackson was required to deliver', 'the story had to be expanded', 'Choices had to be made', 'The Hobbit book is too small and slight to sustain the movies'.
I dont believe for a second any of this true in that none of it 'had' to happen. Which was the point of my previous post- they were choices, ones they did not have to make for reasons of adapting the source material.
They made them because they wanted to. Because they did not want to adapt the book in the first place, but instead to rewrite it and tell their own story and to hang it on the skeletal outline of the books plot.
Which is what we got.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell
Jun 21 2014, 5:07pm
Post #89 of 195
(687 views)
Shortcut
|
You can view [the movies] as completely separate entities and take them on their own merits, that is fair enough, but if as some of us were hoping for, they would be a good adaptation of the book they fall woefully short on all counts.
Agreed on agenda driving what has happened to these films. I don't agree that Jackson is solely responsible. Peter Jackson is responsible for pushing technology. I believe it was the other writers who put their own agendas ahead of the story and Jackson simply agreed where he might have agreed to other things had there been different writers, making a somewhat weak leader for story direction. It happens to the best of directors: case in point - Ridley Scott on Prometheus. Great vision, poor script.
To your point above, the only reason these movies were made was because of decades nearing a century of popularity for the world Tolkien built in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. The movies were not made because Jackson wanted to make them, but because the popularity of the story over so long a time demanded it and provided an opportunity for all involved to make money doing it. The audience did not order what Jackson delivered, and Jackson and the writers failed, in my opinion, to honor why the movies were made possible in the first place by Tolkien and decades of love for the lore. History has produced too many writing teams that do this to beloved franchises and fail the audience through hubris or failure to learn from others' mistakes. Obviously, a lot of people like the films just as they are, but I strongly suspect they would have been just as happy with the work, and more people would pay more for the films and home video releases, had Jackson and the writers been more true to Tolkien and his fans.
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
(This post was edited by J Pierpont Flathead on Jun 21 2014, 5:10pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jun 21 2014, 6:03pm
Post #90 of 195
(684 views)
Shortcut
|
but dumb ones are. And that gold statue is just about the dumbest thing i've ever seen in a film, no exaggeration. And the Tauriel/Kili love scenes aren't too far behind.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 21 2014, 8:31pm
Post #91 of 195
(694 views)
Shortcut
|
I think my first paragraph is simple logic.
However, it is based on a premise that I have argued since before AUJ was released: given the huge success of the epic LotR movies, the studio that owns the movie rights and is paying for the Hobbit films to be made was not going to be satisfied with anything less than big, epic Hobbit movies that would potentially make lots of money. In my firm opinion, after 2001 there was never a hope in hell of a small Hobbit movie based solely on the book, whoever directed it. If you don’t believe that, then of course I understand that you can’t accept the rest. If I am right, then there were certain obligations that Jackson had to meet and his choices were partially, but not completely, determined by that fact. There were a myriad of choices he could have made within those constraints. It is up to each of us to decide what we think of the ones he made. I like most of them and I might have liked others just as much but I’ll never know. You don’t like the choices made, fair enough.
I really do think that the movies are a pretty good adaptation of Bilbo’s physical and emotional journey, which is there pretty much in its entirety IMO. Other stories have been included in the movies, those of Thorin, Gandalf and the White Council, the Elves of Mirkwood and to a lesser extent Radagast, all intertwined with each other and with Bilbo’s story. I like that – IMO the movies are richer and more complex for it.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 21 2014, 8:54pm
Post #93 of 195
(683 views)
Shortcut
|
After watching the LotR and Hobbit documentaries and listening to the commentaries many times, if there is one thing about Peter Jackson that seems pretty clear to me is that he is the captain of the ship, very strong willed and sure of his vision. He delegates, he listens to ideas, but has complete final approval. The scripts were written by all of them together, and while the re-writes are done by Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, I really don’t believe that Jackson films anything he doesn't like.
I’m not sure that I understand the rest of your post. If you are speaking of the making of the LotR movies, Jackson and Walsh jumped through hoops to get the film rights and the financing together in order to make the movies. I've never heard that anyone else showed any interest, at least in the late 1990’s when the technology to do justice to the story was emerging. I've always argued that if a minor horror film maker from New Zealand could manage to get hold of the rights to LotR and the money, then surely any big name director could have, if they had been interested.
If you mean The Hobbit, then there was no way that somebody, as in whoever possessed the film rights, wasn't going to make one or more movies after LotR was so profitable. There was too much money to be made.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 21 2014, 8:56pm
Post #94 of 195
(691 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell
Jun 21 2014, 9:15pm
Post #95 of 195
(684 views)
Shortcut
|
...I’m not sure that I understand the rest of your post. If you are speaking of the making of the LotR movies... <snip> ...If you mean The Hobbit, then there was no way that somebody, as in whoever possessed the film rights, wasn't going to make one or more movies after LotR was so profitable. There was too much money to be made.
I write only of The Hobbit. Lord of the Rings was great and the underdogs who made it deserved all the awards they got. The Hobbit - nope.
I'm not complaining that The Hobbit was made or why - just how. Unlike LOTR where I felt immersed in the realism, and the heart of the story was palpable, the CGI and unrealistic falseness through parts of The Hobbit leaves me detached and distant - ironic since their intent with HFR was to bring us closer to the story. But just as all the technology in the world can't create or explain love, the same goes for the quality of an adaptation.
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jun 22 2014, 9:34am
Post #96 of 195
(675 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes and No some where choices but some where imperatives.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response. The thread began with the question of whether PJ could have done more to please everybody and very quickly one or two people offered a reality check on whom he had to please and how.
My view is that when Sir Peter was asked to be involved in these films there were certain matters over which there was no real choice, but imperatives. Given the huge success of the LOTR he had to make populist films which tied in with the zeitgeist of 2010. To me that means a 3 D presentation using CGI with large exciting action sequences. Only those ingredients would achieve the audience levels for a movie of this financial size or more to the point that would be the obvious perception of the studio who would wish to minimise their financial risk.
Another imperative once he became director was he had to make films that sat with the LOTR films. The small charming story of Bilbo (up to the point of Smaugs demise) had to be recast in the context of its geo political context, as it retro actively emerged to JRRT. Mercifully Tolkien made this easy by doing just that in the appendices putting the tale in its historical context. The best example being the accident of Gandalf’s other business actually turns out to be a crucial part of the struggle between Morgoth’s strain and the emissary’s of Manwe.
I would there fore suggest there were clear imperatives in making these films and I do not accept that it was an option to make a retro style 2D film or the charming children's tale.
Beyond that I agree, everything is choice. How many Dwarves, who is at the White Council, shall we omit the Trolls what do with the Nazgul. All of these were story telling choices and there were a whole lot more, beside the few I have mentioned and as fans of middle earth it is understandable and fun in an idol moment to debate these matters.
I have no problems with receiving three films. But I agree it is legitimate to discuss how that has affected the outcome given that once again this information is in the public domain. One day we will get to here how they did not see it happening from the outset. Can you not measure the effect of filming material days and what that translates into?
When they set out filming it is quite clear that in one matter they opted to place the entire spine of the book in to the films but move the film toward the tone of post Smaug earlier and incrementally. Hinting to begin with and then once the Warg attack begins before Rivendell placing it in the centre. What is entirely clear is that from that point until the Dwarves and Bilbo reached Erebor and Gandalf reached Dol Gulder they made choices and then kept on changing them. Whether the final 2/3rds of the original two movie structure has also undergone shifts only time will tell. What will tell me a great deal about the answer to that is how the interaction between the White Council and Sauron is framed. That was envisaged and filmed in the summer of 2011 and as far as I aware the participants have not re filmed their segments.
Why do I mention this latter point because those who have followed the making of these films are aware of many of those changes and one can either be phlegmatic and trust PJ or like me get excited about the deepening interaction between Gandalf and Thrain, with the wonderful Antony Sher’s involvement ,only to see it dashed when released. I think to publically question Sir Peter when these matters are already in the public domain is fair. What I personally disagree with and to me is a denial of the real politic of the film making of the Hobbit is for people to keep on saying he could have made these films in a radically different way given the context of when 2010 (ten years after LOTR), how much has been invested by W B and by whom is it being made, the same director.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jun 22 2014, 9:39am)
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jun 22 2014, 1:25pm
Post #97 of 195
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
The imperative to make these films is in fact in my view, from the studio point of view, singular- cash.
However, I do not, and have never believed that cash is PJ's motivation for film making, not now and not ever.
But if the bottom line is cash then in fact it would make more sense to make two less complicated, less action orientated films based on the TH than three films which cost more than the entirety of the LotR's films.
Most of the cgi and expensive action sequence are utterly unnecessary additions and therefore unnecessary additional costs.
You could make several independent films just out of the budget of all the extra action PJ put in (you could probably make a few just from the cash wasted on scenes that only made the cutting room floor).
I dont think the changes are studio driven, because its a very strange coincidence that most of the stuff added which ruin the original (in my opinion of course) are all stuff PJ likes- new tech-check. Lots of over the top action-check. Violent on-screen deaths- check. Little focus on narrative and character building- check. Base humour from the toilet end of the humour scale- check.
The only thing I can conceivably see being studio driven is the awful love triangle- and even then I am more inclined to blame Walsh- as she is the one who banged on about feminine energy and I find it hard to believe she would then just cave to the studio and write a female character who is entirely defined by the males around her. So I think Walsh gets the blame for that.
The question underlying all this is, would it have been possible, and commercially sound, to have made a smaller, more intimate closer to source narrative and character focused adaptation that cost a lot less to make and could therefore return a profit for the studio?
I think the answer to that is yes, and the need to make them like the Avengers, or a Spiderman move was utterly misplaced as well as unnecessary.
I simply do not buy the notion that the only way TH could be made is by turning it into a tent-pole blockbuster film. I believe we got the films PJ wanted. Its just PJ is the wrong person to adapt Tolkien.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Jun 22 2014, 1:29pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 22 2014, 1:38pm
Post #98 of 195
(658 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Interesting how things look different to different people.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I love the giant gold statue as representing the hubris and greed of the dwarves, especially Thror, and the greed of Smaug as he gazes at it in rapture (the latter is also very funny IMO). I like that Thorin uses gold as a weapon against the dragon. It amuses me to imagine how attractive but also how slippery and weird the floor of the Hall of Kings will be henceforth. To my mind, a people who could make magic maps and doors might have metallurgical magic as well so the improbability doesn't bother me.
As for Kili and Tauriel, IMO the Starlight Feast scene is one of the loveliest in all the films as Tauriel speaks reverently of walking in starlight and Kili more prosaically describes the wonder he has seen, the firemoon. The scene evokes for me the essential nature of the elves, which is different from that of either human or dwarf, and reminds me of the waking of the elves under starlight as described in The Silmarillion. I also like the interaction as showing that elves and dwarves could put their hostility and biases aside as these two young people do. We all know that it isn't going anywhere.
The healing scene is more problematical for me, but I like it up until “Do you think she could have loved me?”, which is a step into silliness IMO and may be worse in BoFA. We'll see. I still don’t hate the scene as a whole though.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Jun 22 2014, 2:02pm
Post #99 of 195
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
is as close to a high point as this love triangle gets- the rest of it is a releationship as conceived by a twelve year old- it consists largely off knowing looks between Tauriel and Kili and frowny knowing looks between Legolas and Tauriel interspersed by innuendo about what Kili might have down his trousers.
Its so weak that the importance of Kili to Tauriel has to be highlighted in the script by a captured orc, who shouldn't know anything about it or that telling Tauriel about Kili should have any particular relevance to her- that is just bad scripting however you look it.
One half decent speech based on ideas from the Sil cannot ever save it.
And as a conduit for female energy Tauriel is awful, everything she does is defined by males- Kili, Legolas and Thranduil, she has no personality or individuality outside those parameters.
And the less said about the soft porn healing scene the better for everyone I think!
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Jun 22 2014, 2:06pm)
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Jun 22 2014, 2:09pm
Post #100 of 195
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
With the diversity of audiences familiar with Tolkien's work and those who have never read the books before... there will always be those who are disappointed or upset with the films... including LotR.
I had lunch with someone just this week who is vehemently upset with The Hobbit films and refuses to watch them. My retort, enjoy the films for what they are and don't expect them to be the book. If I want the book, I'll read it. I love the diversion and excitement of Jackson, Walsh, Boyen's storytelling. And that's what Peter Jackson does. He tells his version of the story and isn't even trying to re-create the book-to-screen version.
I love the movies! Not every minute of every film... but 98% of it is awesome. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the barrel ride and the Dwarves going down into the chambers with Bilbo and fighting Smaug. A VERY welcome change, imho. Makes me cheer inside every time I watch it or think about it... like now. *woohoo!* :D
6th draft of TH:AUJ Geeky Observation List - November 28, 2013
4th draft of TH:DOS Geeky Observation List - May 15, 2014
"There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West."
I'm SO HAPPY these new films take me back to that magical world!!
TIME Google Calendar
TORn's Geeky Observations Lists for LotR and The Hobbit
|
|
|
|
|
