Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Could Peter Jackson have kept everyone happy?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Elthir
Grey Havens

Jun 23 2014, 4:05pm

Post #126 of 195 (835 views)
Shortcut
LOL [In reply to] Can't Post

1976? So we can't even blame Ralph Bakshi for that Crabbit wind, neether Wink


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 23 2014, 4:31pm

Post #127 of 195 (815 views)
Shortcut
I liked the script compared to PJ's! [In reply to] Can't Post

It was like Tolkien but in note point. Smile So no, no crabbit wind from Bakhsi, though maybe from a lot of the visuals, a bit- but it might have had something to do with the year starting off with Bohemian Rhapsody at no 1 in charts and by years end that had become Showaddywaddy Unsure Some things there can be no forgiving for, like Shakin' Stevens. Or a PJ script. Wink

"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 23 2014, 4:31pm)


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

Jun 23 2014, 4:44pm

Post #128 of 195 (813 views)
Shortcut
What I Like [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with you on many things, but I am not as extreme in most things.

For example, I don't have a problem with three films. The more Middle-earth the better. I just lament that they didn't do it right, preferring spectacle, sweeping changes to story, video games, physics-free cartoons, and token feminine energy - among other things - to faithfulness of the source material in the same tone as LOTR. I also like the inclusion of the White Council story. I really wanted to see that and revisit the center of power in Middle-earth before it diminished. If only they had actually used the appendices uncorrupted...

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


Elessar
Valinor


Jun 23 2014, 5:00pm

Post #129 of 195 (822 views)
Shortcut
Same thing IMO [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that's the same thing to be honest. Just wording it a little different.

I totally disagree on the second statement but it doesn't matter. In the end I just prefer to discuss with people are of a similar mindset as myself. They don't have to love the films but not as extreme as how you feel about them. I don't like wasting my time and honestly it isn't fun discussing with someone who feels what you love is complete rubbish. So I hope you understand why I will be passing on a back and forth. Smile



pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 23 2014, 5:03pm

Post #130 of 195 (809 views)
Shortcut
I agree actually [In reply to] Can't Post

 it being in three films is not the problem for me, and I agree three films not filled with invented guff would be ideal.

The issue with three films for me its that it was not meant to be three films, the decision was taken very late in the day to make them so, and the adaptation suffered horribly from the (in my view) disastrous changes they felt necessary to AUJ, and what it meant for character arcs and development, particularly of Bilbo, just to give it a 'stand alone' and an 'end of film' vibe.

Its a slapdash, haphazard way to write a narrative and a script. I know PJ sort of film makes on the fly, coming up with , trying out and discarding a plethora of ideas and alterations as he goes along, like a kid in sweet shop unable to decide what to pick. But where it caused, I would say, some serious problems to the scripting and pacing of the LotR's films (particularly TT and RotK) it has completely undermined the narrative of TH films. Especially in the light of them being supposed adaptations of a book.

On the WC I personally would not have included them, but I would have had more hints than the book as to what was going on- but Gandalf, the mysterious wandering wizard who comes and goes about his business without explanation to anyone is a big part of his character in TH.

One of the problems with making LotR's first is that the mystery and even uncertainty (think of him at Bag End under a cloud of glowing smoke rings looking 'sinister') that surrounds him in the book is ruined by knowing all about him when he walks up to Bilbo's front door that sunny morning. Gandalf is supposed to be mysterious, and what he is up to that does not directly concern Bilbo is no one else business but is own and just as mysterious as he is. It all adds to the fog of mystery that surrounds him in the book.

However having said that I fully agree if you decide to go down the route of including the WC and Dol Guldur and using the appendices to do so, then just making up a lot of nonsense about nazgul tombs and Morgul Blades that utterly contradict everything in the appendices is not the way to go about it.
And its probably not a good idea to make the WC the most boring thing in cinema- with some truly cringeworthy dialogue for poor old Chris Lee to churn out, drowned out by 'please let me slap her to wake her up' Galadriel talking only in slow motion. She is an elf, not a bloody ent! (Talking ents its Treebeard says of the song of the entwives that its light and quick is it not? because its an elvish song- quick! If he had got Galadriel to sing it the war would have been over before she got to the end!)

"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 23 2014, 5:08pm)


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 23 2014, 5:21pm

Post #131 of 195 (807 views)
Shortcut
That is a shame [In reply to] Can't Post

but of course who you choose to discuss the films with is entirely a matter for you and I will not press you further on it. But thank you for the discussion we have had.

"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


imin
Valinor


Jun 23 2014, 6:08pm

Post #132 of 195 (784 views)
Shortcut
Maybe PJ 'gets' Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post

But thinks it won't work well for a blockbuster and so ignores the more subtle side of Tolkien to focus on battles and attractive people which sell movies?

All posts are to be taken as my opinion.


Elthir
Grey Havens

Jun 23 2014, 6:25pm

Post #133 of 195 (765 views)
Shortcut
I dunno... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I mean I'm quite attractive and Jackson never focused on how I wanted these films made. Now I realize attractivity is subjective, so, if so, it's not stuck up of me to say so... I mean it seems the logical choice whether I'm objectively handsome or not [or subjectively mostly not unhandsome even -- again that makes more sense if subjectivity is the thing].

Did you see Orlando Bloom's part on Extras concering his atractiveness... that I liked Smile

I do not sell movies however.


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 23 2014, 6:32pm

Post #134 of 195 (774 views)
Shortcut
Quite possibly [In reply to] Can't Post

I did say he either did not understand it or did not care enough about it, I would file your suggestion under the latter. He did not care enough for the source matter for it to override his own preferences in cinema.

It is one of the great contradictions about PJ I will probably never understand.
We all know the colossal effort required, and the amount of his life consumed in getting Lotr's to the screen. To do all that for something he has never seemed all that taken with on a personal level- a book he had only read once and then in reaction to the Bakshi film (a film his own responds to as often as it does anything Tolkien wrote- such as the troll scene in Moria, where PJ recalls being very disappointed as a youth that they only got to see the trolls foot in Bakshi's.
PJ 'corrected' that by giving us a lengthy troll fight- that choice had nothing to do with Tolkien, or that Bakshi was closer to source with just a foot, or that a lengthy troll fight meant no time for the Beater of the Drums, or Gandalf being drained and exhausted of power before confronting the Balrog on the bridge)- why PJ made such an effort for something he seems to have no real deep passion for is a mystery to me.

And with TH he has been outright dishonest.Even worse than not caring for the source is to lie about it.
If he had come out at the start and said 'we have decided to make TH but not as an adaptation of the book. Instead we are taking the premise of the book and elaborating and expanding on it with our own material and characters'- that would have been honest.
Instead he told us they were adapting TH and adding in material adapted from 125 pages of appendices material.

Well the relevant material to TH story you would be lucky to fill more than a couple pages of text with. That's the first untruth.
The second is that all they took were names of people and places and some events- every last bit of the extra material is rewritten, abandoned all together, or changed out of recognition to what Tolkien actually wrote.
So in reality they were not using material from the appendix at all, they were just making up their own material and inserting it in.

Which is fine- if they had come clean about it at the start and not tried to spin a yarn to the Tolkien fan base that it was genuine Tolkien material.

"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 24 2014, 11:54am

Post #135 of 195 (740 views)
Shortcut
We’ll have to agree to disagree. [In reply to] Can't Post

All either of us can do now is repeat our same arguments because we see the books and the movies differently. I have loved the books for forty-five years and love the movies too. You love the books and don’t like the movies. Neither of us is going to change our minds in the slightest.

C’est la vie. Time to move on.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jun 24 2014, 4:19pm

Post #136 of 195 (756 views)
Shortcut
Instinct - and where it comes from. [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Noria I have read through the last few posts since my previous intervention and i am inclined to agree with you and here is why.

I am 59 years old and when I see a play, hear a new piece of music or watch a movie I go by my instinct. I am no longer bound by peer pressure the desire to confirm - I know what I like and why I like it.

I am happy to describe to people the pay off but in the end there is the recorded truth on the screen and then there are a multitude of perceptions.

I probably have about eight instinctive reactions to these Hobbit Films:-

1) The sense of return even the opening notes of AUJ. Sting/Gollum etc.

2) The nuanced playing within the invented environment Bag End/Bilbo on the theme of why and home. The release of the barrels and his comic reaction.

3) The painterly CGI invoking the fairy story and otherworldliness of place - The approach to Lake Town was for me exquisite and the creature creation Smaug!

4) The heavily orchestrated actions sequences aimed at the teenage audience, some of which I buy into 'barrels" and some I do not "stone giants".

5) The sub creation and realisation of characters by PJ and Co Radagast the decaying senile Istari, The Master the perfect politician and Thorin changed from the forgettable 2D book version into someone we can travel with and know.

6) The humanisation of the story the doll in the prologue the bachelor sitting to table having made supper.

7) The Tolkienesque refraction of Maidros/The head strong Elf Maiden and Thingols Menegorth.

8) The crude humour which reminds me so much of modern life "You can take the Dwarf out of the pub but you can not take the pub out of the Dwarf".

These are my reactions, these are why I enjoy the movies and its instinctive built on my sensory perceptions built up over a lifetime that is me and no amount of counter perception is going to change that. In addition what I enjoy is you and DM and others see what I see. I would rather focus on that than those whom to chose to know what sort of movie PJ should have made I am not a potential movie 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 24 2014, 4:24pm)


Noria
Gondor

Jun 24 2014, 5:04pm

Post #137 of 195 (735 views)
Shortcut
Your perceptions resonate with me too, [In reply to] Can't Post

though I liked the stone giants as well as the barrels scene. Sometime I just enjoy the ridiculous. But at 60, I too know what I like. Occasionally, it's action.

I went into AUJ expecting to see a big movie with hobbits, dwarves and wizards, lots of action, Jackson’s humour, wonderful music, great cinematography and special effects, some beautiful moments and a few cringe-worthy ones. I figured that there would be changes from the book in plot, character and theme, some of which would work for me and some which would not. I knew all that just from seeing the LotR movies.

Having loved the LotR movies, I expected to at least like AUJ, so I was open to what appeared on the screen before me. I was delighted and still am with both AUJ and DoS, despite my quibbles with some of the choices made. I see no reason why I shouldn’t feel the same about THOTFA.

In the end it is about how we feel watching these movies. I feel good.


Elessar
Valinor


Jun 24 2014, 6:12pm

Post #138 of 195 (733 views)
Shortcut
Nailed it Michelle :) [In reply to] Can't Post

I love how you break it down and I thank you for that. I have gotten to that point that I like what I like and it's a pretty great feeling. One of the things I love about all these movies as the stories and music work it stirs some amazing emotions. I'm with you on focusing on things with like minded people. It adds to the enjoyment.



Elessar
Valinor


Jun 24 2014, 6:22pm

Post #139 of 195 (735 views)
Shortcut
Feeling good [In reply to] Can't Post

That's something that I love so very much about these films. Is just how good they make me feel while watching them.



pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 24 2014, 6:43pm

Post #140 of 195 (741 views)
Shortcut
If you have been reading through the posts since your last contribution [In reply to] Can't Post

I am puzzled as to where any notion of peer pressure comes into the debate?

Regards how the films make people feel, I said above somewhere that it is not something open to debate.

There is no point debating how the films make people feel as there are only two real positions- I like them and I don't like them- both entirely subjective and personal to the individual and therefore not open to question.

But there are many areas of debate open in more objective areas.
PJ made some very bold changes to the source, and those are surely open to debate and to being called into question on a forum about the films?

Sadly however rather than engaging in debate on such matters the usual ToRN response, for which the forum is rightly famous, seems to have kicked in- circle the wagons, and if someone is saying something you don't like about PJ's work don't engage in debate and instead fill the thread with a string of posts which are basically different ways of saying - 'PJ is the Greatest'- without ever addressing or answering any of the points raised in contrast to that position.

That is not debating, or defending or arguing a reasoned position, it is closing down debate.

"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 24 2014, 6:44pm)


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jun 24 2014, 7:44pm

Post #141 of 195 (722 views)
Shortcut
A quick answer on peer pressure and some more [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no peer pressure on TORN I was alluding to when I was a teenager and felt under pressure to respond in a particular way to be cool and making the distinction with now, where I do not mind if everyone in the room disagrees with me, I know who I am and what I like.

I find it much more fascinating and powerful to know there are complete strangers who see what I see. I love that kind of magnification.

These movies have been going for 18 months now and i think we have all got to roughly where we see ourselves on them.

We have had the debate about :-

1) Those who wanted the 7 years old book brought to screen (I did not)

2) The Room 101 dialogue, the Mary Sue insertions (I have no idea what either of these mean).

3) The CGI v Models. I loved the LOTR then I love the Hobbit now.

4) The cash grab 2 to 3. I am concerned and react to some of the clunky changes.

5) It should have been done Games of Thrones (which for me looked ten years out of date and had the values of LOTR). I also could not care less about the characters which tells me to stop watching it.

For me the really fertile area is to accept the movies
and turn over whats there and whats to come but every so often I respond, probably wrongly if i am honest, to the type of question posed.

You offer detailed and persuasive arguments which are well thought out but I do not start from the same point as you on a range of issues so we agree to disagree.

I make a judgement as to whether there is fertile ground to cover and if i do not I stop, but do not take that as defensive or PJ is god soppiness (I think its a real shame he did not see the three movies coming from the start).

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 24 2014, 7:52pm)


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 24 2014, 8:17pm

Post #142 of 195 (719 views)
Shortcut
Thankyou for the reply Michelle [In reply to] Can't Post

I was concerned you felt some form of peer pressure was being exerted in the discussion, which was not my intention of course.

Many of the points you list I do not have quite the same view of as you might think.

I do not think Tauriel is a Mary Sue character, as I have never been sure what one of those is, people seem to use the term to support a variety of complaints.

My main complaint is that I do not feel she is necessary and there are points where she takes time from Bilbo - such as in the Elven Kings Halls where a scene that appears to be a Bilbo scene turns out in fact just to be an excuse to overhear a Tauriel scene.

And I am uncomfortable with Boyens 'feminine energy' comments as well as her Galadriel comments, which is further compounded by having the only female romantically involved and defined by the males around her.
I do not see what Tauriel is supposed to be achieving or what about her warrants her inclusion or replacing book material. No Tauriel there is time for more Beorn, the white stag and enchanted river, elves feasting in the woods and disappearing etc To warrant giving her time at the expense of book material she has to justify that. And I don't feel she does.

I don't have an issue with cgi in film, my issue here was that the choice of cutting edge tech made the decisions for them- there is no model work, not because there can not still be a place for it in the modern cinema world (especially supplemented with cgi for extra detail and animation) or as an artistic choice but because the tech can't do it.

I did not want the book word for word either, but I did want a film for children and adults- which the book is, working on more than one level at once.
PJ seems to veer wildly in tone from children's tale to adult in a manner I find jarring (within fifteen minutes of singing songs and juggling plates in comic manner we are watching decapitated heads been held up for show on battlefields)

Appealing to adults and children without wild switches in tone is something PIXAR have shown can be very effectively achieved in a children's film. And my favourite tv show, Doctor Who has been doing just this, entertaining adults and at turns delighting and terrifying children for fifty years. So I believe its possible to entertain both age groups for different reasons, as the original does, without doing to the story what PJ has done or having the sudden shifts in tone.

I do find much off the dialogue difficult to bear however, in part because it is the language of Tolkien which is a huge part of his draw for me, so to see it interspersed and butchered with modern phrasing and wording takes me immediately out of the moment.
And I struggle to understand the sense in some of the dialogue choices- 'burrahobbit' to 'burglarhobbit' being a good case in point.

I never saw the film split as a cash grab, I said above I do not think PJ has ever been mainly motived by money, not when he started and still not now.
I actually believe him when he says he just had shot enough material for three, it fits with his rather haphazard seeming film making style and his habit of creating the script in the editing room.

I don't watch Game of Thrones so could not comment. I tried, got two episodes in and gave out of boredom, it seemed to me to be like a fantasy version of the real War of the Roses, and I preferred and found the real thing more interesting and engaging.

"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 24 2014, 8:29pm)


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jun 24 2014, 9:16pm

Post #143 of 195 (699 views)
Shortcut
Tauriel & Galadriel [In reply to] Can't Post

Tauriel

The logic of splitting up the reaction to the incoming of the Dwarves for me provides bandwidth for the Wood Elves. Thranduil's isolationism is nicely counterpointed by Tauriel's "it is our fight". For her to react to Kili also gives the D/WE interaction more bandwidth. However we then come back to this issue of choices would not the left out material be a better substitute.

At the moment my view is the entire Bolg Legolas feud looks like an uneasy add-on which I would have left out and instead kept in other Tolkien material and of course my particular axe to grind Thrain.

The idea that the company were shadowed and reported on would have provided the right amount of tension and made it clear that Dol Gulder were following .

Galadriel

As to Galadriel the essays in Unfinished Tales make it clear that Tolkien thought she was the most important Elf in Middle Earth in the second age but that was to emphasise her role as a mover of deeds and that I think is what Phillippa was trying to say not that she (G) was at a mythological level was the most powerful being, as we all know, she was born in the years of bliss in Aman whereas the Istari are before world spirits.

Spinning plates and removing heads that is what i like about Tolkien that something much less cozy than the bourgeois world in which we live is really close a t hand. It informs so much of the dialogue in the early pages of the LOTR and some how makes the world outside the shire more real and more dangerous to be juxtaposed against the seemingly comfortable which was the experience of many young men 100 years when they crossed the channel and went up to the front lines.

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Jun 24 2014, 9:59pm

Post #144 of 195 (705 views)
Shortcut
For me [In reply to] Can't Post

Tauriel , counterpointing the survivalist and isolationist attitudes of Thraduil is for me not enough when set against the personal situation they place her in, which is cheap and clichéd.

And I feel the isolationism could be juxtaposed by Bilbo, being himself the only one free at that point and the very embodiment of a naturally isolationist personality having its eyes opened to the wider world.
I would prefer if they wished to emphasise this aspect for them to use the tools at hand, rather than invent their own for the purpose.

I am not saying there are not different apsects of tone in TH book or LotR's for that matter, but that they are handled much better by a better writer.

The films seem to swing rather erratically in tone and style, no doubt in part to there never being it seems a coherent overall plan in the first place.

I feel Tolkien, other films aimed at dual age groups, and Who all handle these tonal changes and shifts between audiences with much more grace and care than TH films do.

"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 24 2014, 10:00pm)


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

Jun 24 2014, 10:07pm

Post #145 of 195 (693 views)
Shortcut
Boyens & Galadriel [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
As to Galadriel the essays in Unfinished Tales make it clear that Tolkien thought she was the most important Elf in Middle Earth in the second age but that was to emphasise her role as a mover of deeds and that I think is what Phillippa was trying to say not that she (G) was at a mythological level was the most powerful being, as we all know, she was born in the years of bliss in Aman whereas the Istari are before world spirits.


No, I truly believe Boyens meant what she said at face value. Galadriel is the most powerful being in Middle-earth at the time, she said. I think that is Boyens bias - her agenda - speaking out. The need for your spin on her comment should bring some awareness of why it concerns some of us.

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


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

Jun 24 2014, 10:16pm

Post #146 of 195 (698 views)
Shortcut
FYI [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
2) The Room 101 dialogue, the Mary Sue insertions (I have no idea what either of these mean).


The "Room 101" sounds a lot like complaints that Boyens is amateurish at times, using simple concepts learned in Introduction To Writing courses. For example, her defense of Frodo's "Go home, Sam" because the film needed a "dramatic reversal." Well, that was a Room 101 concept applied to a complex story at the cost of being true to the story.

For your benefit and rant's, here's the skinny on Mary Sue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Mary Sue is about an author's own wish fulfillment artificially leading a character in the story by putting themselves into it.

Unlike rant, I tend to believe Tauriel is potentially Boyen's Mary Sue because of her comments about feminine energy and Galadriel. She is certainly tuned in to the misguided notion of wanting the movies not to be just for boys - as if women can't like movies that have a predominantly male cast. Boyens has demonstrated to be an activist over being true to the story.

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 24 2014, 10:21pm)


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

Jun 24 2014, 10:35pm

Post #147 of 195 (690 views)
Shortcut
Selected Topics [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I do not see what Tauriel is supposed to be achieving or what about her warrants her inclusion or replacing book material.

...I don't have an issue with cgi in film, my issue here was that the choice of cutting edge tech made the decisions for them- there is no model work, not because there can not still be a place for it in the modern cinema world (especially supplemented with cgi for extra detail and animation) or as an artistic choice but because the tech can't do it.

...I never saw the film split as a cash grab, I said above I do not think PJ has ever been mainly motived by money, not when he started and still not now. I actually believe him when he says he just had shot enough material for three, it fits with his rather haphazard seeming film making style and his habit of creating the script in the editing room.


1. The rationale for Tauriel is because of the Captain of the Guard character in the book. So Tauriel does in fact have a place. It's just that the writers have her in a bigger roll for all the reasons Boyens has infamously described. But Tauriel didn't need a name and anything much more than a bit part. It doesn't matter whether she's male or female because the gender wasn't given in the book. She was divined as female by the writers for their own ends.

2. The determinant for using CGI over models and other practical tricks was all about 3D - not a wish for CGI per se.

3. I think you have it right about Jackson, but do not forget that the studios can still be motivated by the cash grab, and they are happy to use Jackson's less cynical motivations to fulfill their own.

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 24 2014, 10:37pm)


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jun 25 2014, 4:44am

Post #148 of 195 (681 views)
Shortcut
Dialogue & Tone [In reply to] Can't Post

Dialogue

For me a film operates on a different hierarchy of sensory responses to a book. If what I see and hear the sound of feels like Balin or Bilbo but the dialogue is written in a more modern idiom I do not "notice". Martin for me IS Bilbo so what he says automatically has a ring to it and the really big lines in the films about home/help/courage and the like can not be compared with the book they are far more nuanced than the charming book Bilbo. But if I really found the dialogue as off putting as you indicate i would not watch the films.

Tone

I have no problem with tone the Hobbit films offers me a kaleidoscope of emotional responses warmth/reverence intrigue/disgust/irritation/horror one could go on, just real life.

Summary

Indeed on both these points I think Peter Jacksons talent with these films is to make mythology real to me. He places ordinary folk (Hobbits) uncouth and flawed men (Dwarves) into a time when the Gods and their followers were closer and more directly involved (Eagles/Istari/Maiar/High Elves).

Whereas for me the book Hobbit is a charming "fairy story" I read for interest after the LOTR had become my great passion. I never saw Thorin. The Master or Bard as real characters with whom I am engaged as i do in the film.

His vision is less high and intellectual less subtle than the beautiful elegance of the Silmarillion and The Lord of The Rings but then I suspect most Tolkien lovers have the greatest love and reverence for the authors work.

This is were we part company because I am comfortable with say most of the dialogue and the changing of gears and if it I wasn't there would not be much point for me in watching the films.

Where I am not comfortable, and I remain hopeful I will receive resolution in November and December, in that so much has been set up but left un answered and over very long film time spans.

1) The Witch King and the blade.

2) Thrain.

3) Beorns relationship with D G.

4) The White Council.

I mention the latter because I think once all the material is in front of us Film 2 and Film 3 will feel like one film split into two parts. There is much left hanging in film 2 that we will begin to get resolution on December 14th, or whatever the precise day, almost from the get go and it will appear continuous as the movie moves forward.

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 25 2014, 4:48am)


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Jun 25 2014, 5:18am

Post #149 of 195 (665 views)
Shortcut
Motivation [In reply to] Can't Post

Lets assume you are correct P B is engaged in gender politics.

How is this affecting Galadriel's behaviour and others response to her within Tolkien's world? Well so far Galadriel has done nothing more than appear at the White Ccuncil as Gandalf's supporter and co ring bearer.

Some feel Gandalf's humble acknowledgement of her and her breath taking beauty, which i saw as a gallant elderly gentlemen's response, was out of step but really the jury is out as to the nature of her promise.

Tolkien, like Rider Haggard, was born in to a different age and they viewed woman in a more detached way you could argue they were more reverential of woman in their books far removed from the kind of up close portrayal of a flawed career woman like the D. I . in Prime Suspect or the riveting portrayal of the Bi Polar Carrie in Homeland.

Ayesha, Luthien and Galadriel were conceived by men who grew up toward the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century before woman had been emancipated Tauriel is a post 60's woman and it would be odd to make a huge film in the 21 century which did not acknowledge that, look how Bond has changed over 50 years.

To me her attitude of rebellion is the more important change displayed, after all Eowyn was an acknowledgement that warrior woman have always been a part of anglo saxon history.

Take a look at Ava Gardner in 55 Days in Peking and it speaks volumes for how woman's portrayal has moved on to there and from there.

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.


J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell

Jun 25 2014, 5:36am

Post #150 of 195 (669 views)
Shortcut
Remedy [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think any of the citations in your critical analysis defends Boyens' practice as being the right thing to do, under your stipulation, just because things are different today. It appears you are at least documenting that Boyens is providing a remedy for what Tolkien is lacking in relevance to a more modern story. The Hobbit is not a modern story as you point out. Some have suggested providing such remedies on stage where experimental productions are more accepted. Let's do that on stage instead of the one chance we get at film and consider The Hobbit a period piece in another age. Historical nostalgia was Tolkien's conceit for the series after all. Modern sensibilities are an anachronism in depictions of the past.

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

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.