|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jul 14 2014, 3:31pm
Post #26 of 80
(537 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't actually have any checklists because it is a long time since I read the book – I just know what I like and don't like when I see it. For me it is important that these films stay in the spirit (not necessarily the letter) of Tolkien, which DoS patently did not do as far as I am concerned. Barring the odd grossness, AUJ did do it for me, though, primarily because of the excellent performances by the likes of Richard Armitage, Martin Freeman, Ken Stott and Sir Ian McKellen, and the focus on their characters, as well as some amazing visual work. Unfortunately, these excellent performances were drowned out by the dross of the added storyline in DoS, which did much to turn me off the film (even though I thought Smaug was brilliantly realised).
As for checklists, seems to me that a lot of people here do have them, figuratively if not actually. I did myself for Fellowship - things I wanted to see, things I thought were important. It completely blinded me to the film I was actually seeing.
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Jul 14 2014, 3:47pm
Post #27 of 80
(525 views)
Shortcut
|
That is what i am getting at, if it is how he see's it, then he can just say that is how he interprets it, even if it has nothing at all to do with the book?
Also just because you had a mental checklist and that stopped you viewing the film as it was, does not mean everyone else does the same if they dislike a film which may not be what you exactly said but it is how it is coming across.
For myself i have never done that for a film, i just watch it, then reflect after. There are things i may hope for before hand but at the time of watching the film this is not on my mind.
For me it seems there are some who PJ could do anything and it would be excused on the grounds of his vision.
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 14 2014, 5:01pm
Post #28 of 80
(510 views)
Shortcut
|
We all have limits to what we can accept, but those limits are not universal. Different people have differing tolerances, but that should not inhibit discussion, nor should it taint anyone's personal enjoyment or dislike. If, for example, I am willing to accept the most divergent telling of the story, how does that affect your response? We both have our thresholds of conformity to the books, but my threshold has no effect on anyone else.
How can anyone know whether one person's interpretation conforms with the book? I can only judge Peter's interpretation in light of my own personal reaction, but I can't evaluate whether his interpretation is correct or not. That's for him to decide - I can only decide whether I like it or not.
|
|
|
Eruvandi
Tol Eressea
Jul 14 2014, 5:23pm
Post #29 of 80
(496 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I plan to enjoy every last second!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'll enjoy the waiting, I'll enjoy the trailers, I'll enjoy any special events, I'll enjoy the ride to the movie theater, and I'll enjoy the movie and the wait for the EE after that. Ain't nobody/nothing going to crush my enthusiasm! If it's the last ME movie in the foreseeable future then I'm making the most of it!
"Love woke me up this morning
With a memory
Love came and whispered a story
That awakened a dream,
I am a dreamer, take me higher
Open the sky up, start a fire
I believe even if it's just a dream"
~"Dreamer" by Bethany Dillon
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Jul 14 2014, 6:14pm
Post #30 of 80
(483 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with all that and feel that is essentially what i am saying.
I just wanted to know how far PJ would have to go before the majority thinks he went too far. Obviously there are some, myself included who feel he went too far. There are others who i get the impression, anything could be on screen and it would be considered ok as its PJ's adaptation, it is people more that way who i would like to know, when is too much for them individually? In no way am i saying this effects my enjoyment of a film.
I just didn't like how people think the film gets criticism because people's expectations are too high or they go in with a checklist of things they are wanting to see and if there is more misses than hits, then its a flop or something to that effect.
Sometimes a film can just be a bad film, some films are close adaptations and are good, others i have known to be bad, the same goes for films which are only loosely based on the books, as ultimately they have to stand as films alone. Something i don't think the newer films haven't achieved.
I will go again though, don't want to inhibit discussion...
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Jul 14 2014, 6:33pm
Post #31 of 80
(475 views)
Shortcut
|
PUT YOUR Mind?
in Neutral...
Coast on your Bicycle...
Expecting thizz
"Un-Expected Journey"?
TOOooo Complete your LIFE....
isn't the Job..
of PJ...?
PLAN to Be Pleased?
For Bombyzzz sake...
GET a Grip on your Seats
ONE MORE RollerCoaster ?
in our Collective
FUTURES... brought to YOU?
FRESHly
Fryed in
Molten GOLD?
from
New Zealand!
("What can you see on the Horizon?"
What can you see..from THAT Far, Green Country?)
(Take ALOT of Kleenex TOO?)
FromBOZO?
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 14 2014, 6:53pm
Post #32 of 80
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
Thing is, (judging whether Jackson has gone too far is) so subjective. Each of us engages with the book...in a different way. My version of The Hobbit...won't be your version...Who gets to decide how far is 'too far'?
Yes, there most certainly is a degree of subjectivity involved in reaching such a judgement (as Entmaiden, for example, discusses above this post). That's inevitable. But I'd argue there's also a degree of objectivity that's entirely achievable and entirely reasonable, too.
Here are the words. Here are the images. Do they correspond or not?
And, as I stated in my previous post, no, I'm not talking about slavishly, down to the most pedantic of minutiae  I'm just talking generally.
And the clear, demonstrable, unarguable, utterly certain fact is that, for "huge swathes", as one Staffer recently put it, of the running time, they don't.
Now, to my mind, this is where the subjectivity should and does comes in. Do you like those sequences or not? Do you appreciate the role they play? Do you think they're well-judged and constructed? Do you think they suit Middle-earth (whether Tolkien's or Jackson's)? The answers to these questions will always be personal and varied.
But the objective judgement will always have to be that they bear no resemblance whatsoever to anything Tolkien wrote. Anywhere. At any point.
And, again to me, if there are found to be repeated, substantial and extended examples of just such baseless deviations from the source throughout the running time of the films then Jackson can, quite reasonably and quite fairly, be said to have gone too far in "retelling the story as he sees it". Whether you like his deviations is another question entirely.
Hmm. Am I making any sense? 
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 14 2014, 7:38pm
Post #34 of 80
(454 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, yes you are (making sense, that is)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I'm still going to throw a huge, galumphing great question mark over this...
And the clear, demonstrable, unarguable, utterly certain fact is that, for "huge swathes", as one Staffer recently put it, of the running time, they don't.
and this...
But the objective judgement will always have to be that they bear no resemblance whatsoever to anything Tolkien wrote. Anywhere. At any point.
... and say, are you sure? Because I'm willing to bet that your unnamed staffer and I are going to disagree hugely about how huge those swathes are. I can see so many resemblances to things Tolkien wrote at many points, particularly in DoS, that I watched for the first time in sheer delight at finding the film loaded with unexpected Tolkien references. Now, I may of course be barking mad - or at least, squeaking mad - after all, what else can you expect of a dormouse who lives in a teapot - but I'm not the only one here who has said this.
So perhaps the objective judgement isn't quite so objective, or the utterly certain fact quite so factual as they might appear.....
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Jul 14 2014, 7:57pm
Post #35 of 80
(428 views)
Shortcut
|
dormouse, Bomby loves your PretzelLOGIC????
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jul 14 2014, 8:14pm
Post #36 of 80
(418 views)
Shortcut
|
I loved The Lord of the Rings movies they're three of the best movies I've ever seen and I love the books every bit as much. I have enjoyed and love these Hobbit movies so very much. Again, I love the book every bit as much. I think these Hobbit films have been in the spirit of Tolkien and have created the same emotions I get from the book and in some ways (an improved Thorin) even more. Jackson of course has done things I've not cared for and I have mentioned those in various posts. However, I think he's done a damn good job with these films and neither has left me wanting to the toon if having seen them a total combination of 9 times in theaters. As well as having every statue that Weta has made so far for the films. I would easily give these films a 9/10 and it has nothing to do with being easy to please, softer because its Middle-earth, for PJ, etc. These are excellent films IMO and balance keeping the spirit of Tolkien strong, adding new stuff, etc. So I am looking forward and sad that its all getting closer to end. I also can't wait to camp out to see the panel at SDCC. So in the end my expectations are quite high as I go into film 3. Can't wait. 
|
|
|
ltnjmy
Rivendell
Jul 14 2014, 9:17pm
Post #37 of 80
(389 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I plan to enjoy it heartily, just as I did its two predecessors
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I also plan to bring plenty of tissues to help me over the death scenes of Thorin and his nephews...
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 14 2014, 9:22pm
Post #38 of 80
(404 views)
Shortcut
|
I can see so many resemblances to things Tolkien wrote at many points, particularly in DoS, that I watched...in sheer delight at finding the film loaded with unexpected Tolkien references
Hmm. I'm completely prepared to accept that you do and I'm also sure that, for you, those "references" are enough to validate the sequences.
But, for me, too often, they're not. I simply don't think it's justifiable to say, for example, as some have here, that the smelting, pouring and moulding of 1,000 tonnes of gold in three minutes flat does have some foundation in Tolkien's works because he mentions "rivers of gold" in one of the songs. I simply don't think it's justifiable to say, for example, that Thorin's ability to surf molten gold in an iron wheelbarrow and the dwarves' ability to plummet 1,000 feet down a ravine unharmed do have some foundation in Tolkien's works because he mentions dwarves are "hardy".
Too often, to my mind, the justifications for some of the extraneous sequences are taken to extreme lengths. Given the enormous size of the Professor's corpus, I'm sure it must be possible to unearth a validification for just about anything!
No. To me, the test is far simpler: Does what's on screen resemble what Tolkien described?
And I'm afraid, objectively  , I'd struggle to answer "Yes" to that a little too frequently.
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
|
|
|
bungobaggins
Lorien
Jul 14 2014, 10:42pm
Post #39 of 80
(389 views)
Shortcut
|
Let's suspend all critical thought and eat whatever junk gets put on the plate.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 14 2014, 10:54pm
Post #40 of 80
(383 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If that's how you feel about it....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... why bother to go at all? Just curious - I wouldn't watch it, if I thought it was junk.
(Though of course you have a perfect right to watch or eat junk if you want to.)
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 8:45am
Post #41 of 80
(331 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If an adaptation for you means
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A direct page to screen translation then you're going to be very disappointed in life generally. Might as we'll stop reading books altogether to spare yourself misery and disappointment.
What dormouse is saying is completely spot on IMO. There are so many Tolkien moments in DOS. It's the thematic material and tone of Tolkien's work that PJ brings so masterfully to screen. Even though PJ has deviated in the Hobbit adaptations I still feel the movies complement the books because I can visualise PJ's imagery while reading the books. There is a strong connection between these 5 movies and their source material from an imagistic perspective.
Unlike countless other adaptations I never felt that these movies were separate from the books. The two very much complement each other.
And you know what? I think the Hobbit movies complement the book very well! Even though there is expanded material, I still feel as if i can go back the book and visualise the same imagery.
So I don't quite agree with how you judge adaptations, specifically these ones. It's not an effective method, regardless of your personal preferences since there has never been a faithful adaptation under that criteria.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member.
Really? Alright...
Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 9:36am
Post #42 of 80
(321 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, that's not my stance at all
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Annatar598: "If an adaptation for you means a direct page to screen translation then you're going to be very disappointed in life generally. Might as we'll stop reading books altogether to spare yourself misery and disappointment."
Yeeeeeeah  No, it doesn't and I've said so repeatedly in this thread.
Look, you and I and dormouse and everyone else on this Forum could go round and round in circles for months discussing whether they're "good" adaptations because such a conclusion is a valuative conclusion and valuative conclusions are always subjective.
My point is that it is entirely reasonable and fair to attempt to reach an objective conclusion, too, one that eschews personal taste in favour of dispassionate comparison.
And under that approach, Jackson's Hobbit films frequently don't come out too well.
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
(This post was edited by Kendalf on Jul 15 2014, 9:36am)
|
|
|
KeenObserver
Lorien
Jul 15 2014, 12:01pm
Post #43 of 80
(303 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll be that guy until Tissue Time arrives.
Either one of many or one of a few.
We shall find out come December.
”The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer…” - Jose Bergamin
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 15 2014, 1:53pm
Post #44 of 80
(292 views)
Shortcut
|
to achieve an objective conclusion because there are no universally agreed benchmarks to make the evaluation. Your definitions of personal taste and dispassionate comparison are different from mine, and for many people, it's impossible to separate their feelings for the movies into those two buckets.
Adaptations have multiple layers. There's the absolute comparison of matching the words and scenes with the book, then there's the atmospheric look and feel, which is entirely subjective. Until there's an agreed definition of adaptation that takes in all aspects of the book and film, there's no way to have a fact-based discussion.
Plus there's the fact that some people might not care about the degree of faithfulness in the adaptation. They will like or dislike the movie or book based on their own criteria.
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 1:56pm
Post #45 of 80
(281 views)
Shortcut
|
Adaption's root is adapt. And part of adapting is to change. Now the amount of change is probably what people will disagree over.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Jul 15 2014, 2:26pm
Post #46 of 80
(294 views)
Shortcut
|
This is particularly true for The Hobbit, which holds such a peculiar place in Tolkien's legendarium. For some people, "faithful" means strictly faithful to the text of the book itself, without regard to other sources, particularly the LOTR appendices, which would otherwise strongly influence how the characters should be presented (certainly Thorin in particular and the other Dwarves are seen in a very different light when that material is taken into account than just how he and they are presented in TH). On the other side of the spectrum (where I tend to fall), or those that consider Tolkien's full legendarium in judging whether the adaptation is faithful to the author's vision. The resulting differences are very striking. Scenes that people who fall in the former category consider very unfaithful to the book, I consider quite faithful to Tolkien's spirit, including Tauriel's "feast of starlight" conversation with Kili, Gandalf's confrontation with Sauron, the disorientation of Mirkwood and yes, the fantastic Golden Statue and even Thorin and the Dwarves confronting Smaug rather than just leaving it to Bilbo. The fact that this judgment is based on my full reading of Tolkien's work and not just the book The Hobbit, does not make my judgment any less "objective" than someone else's.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jul 15 2014, 2:51pm
Post #47 of 80
(270 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think PJ, Boyens and Walsh are great
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when they stick to the material. The more they deviate, the worse it gets. And when they deviate as much as they did in the last half hour or so of Dos, ugh, it's pretty dire.
Sure, there were deviations and alterations and amalgamations with LotR, but they had a much lighter touch with that material, and seemed much more respectful of the text back then. Also, LotR is much more detailed in it's storytelling, so there wasn't as much room to just make stuff up. But even when they did, it was a little touch here and there, not usually whole scenes. And when they did take it too far, like when Aragorn falls over a cliff, it's usually the worst stuff in the trilogy.
This time around, i suppose due to the more episodic, impressionistic nature of the storytelling of The Hobbit, they seem to feel much freer to do what they want with the story and characters, much to the detriment of the films in my opinion. And some of it almost feels like a chicken and egg kind of thing. They (ostensibly) expanded to three films to fit more stuff from the books (The Hobbit and the Appendices) in, but now have all this time to fill, so they end up making a lot of stuff up.
|
|
|
MechaGodzilla
Rivendell
Jul 15 2014, 3:03pm
Post #48 of 80
(267 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have absolutely no way of knowing at this time
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I will go see the movie, keeping an open mind, and see where it takes me. Judging from the past though, having enjoyed all five movies so far, I'd be surprised if I disliked this one.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 3:40pm
Post #49 of 80
(253 views)
Shortcut
|
What one person considers to be a good adaptation, or even an adaptation at all, is probably quite subjective. Still it's possible to consider in concrete terms what kind of criteria or principles which decide whether you think an adaptation actually can be viewed as an adaptation rather than a more separate work, or whether it seems like it's actually based on the source material. Of course this depends if one thinks this is worthwhile, or if it's something one wants to discuss, and many people might not care about it all.
While there are certainly many different approaches, I do see a tendency on the board among quite a few posters which have some quite central views in common. One is what I would call "the more Middle Earth, the better"- approach, where the posters really just go along with the adaptation as long as it's based on material from one of Tolkien's Middle Earth works, or Christopher Tolkien's various editorial publications (I exclude the Silmarillion from the latter, although I know that CT edited it, since it's very different from the other works in its form and its content). The film makers are relatively free to pick and mix from various works, as long as it's Middle Earth related, seems to be like something Tolkien could have written or it references versions of Tolkien's stories which seem at least tangentially related to the Hobbit. And you have more moderate versions of the same basic approach..
Personally I knew well in advance that the Hobbit films would take an expanded view of the story and Bilbo's quest, provide more backstorye and show us more of Gandalf's part of the story. I don't think this is a bad or unacceptable approach to an adaptation, given
a) that the original and the core story remains the main focus and source of the adaptation and
b) the material that is used from the appendices is clearly linked to the main story and main characters.
What I don't see as an adaptation of the Hobbit is to use elements from Unfinished Tales, to pick elements from the Silmarillion not referenced in the original work, or use elements from the Silmarillion which cannot be clearly linked to the individual or the events they want to describe, but actually belongs to other characters which are not a part of the Hobbit. When the film makers do this, I find their approach very speculative and think they lose sight of the core story or the main focus and source of the film. It's not difficult to understand why they made the choices they made (they do what they do to tell the story they want to tell), but I think it's questionable whether you can call it an actual adaption of the Hobbit.
|
|
|
bungobaggins
Lorien
Jul 15 2014, 3:47pm
Post #50 of 80
(262 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe I won't go. Peter Jackson has enough money as it is. I didn't see Revenge of the Sith in theaters, I do have willpower, and am not just a glutton for punishment as most of the people who dislike these movies are made out to be. "Oh, you say you hate it but you'll see the movie anyway. Blah blah blah."
|
|
|
|
|
WHEN you Buy Some POPCORN?
[
