|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 4:06pm
Post #51 of 80
(438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gosh, it seems to me to be a perfectly simple thing to do
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not sure it's possible to achieve an objective conclusion...Your definitions of personal taste and dispassionate comparison are different from mine
Really? Really?
Is it really impossible or unreasonable to watch a Chapter of "Unexpected Journey" or "Desolation", pause it and ask, "Right. Let's see. Did that resemble what Tolkien wrote?" Not "Hmm. Can you think of any basis for any aspect of that from anywhere else in Tolkien's work?" Not "Did that feel like it was in the spirit of Tolkien to you?" Not "Did you like that?"
Just simply, straightforwardly and honestly "Did that resemble what Tolkien wrote?"
Because I don't. I think it's just about the most ordinary question you could ask.
And I don't even really know why fans of the films are so frightened of accepting this as a valid and interesting thing to do. There's no subjective judgement going on!!!  I'm not wanting to establish whether the sequence is bad, whether it's poorly constructed, superfluous or contradictory. Heck, I may even end up concluding (personally and subjectively) that it's useful, that it's exciting, that it's moving (see my signature below).
No, all I'm asking is if it's recognisably based on Tolkien's text and if I end up with only a few examples that aren't, then I can draw an objective conclusion about the fidelity of Jackson's adaptation. On the other hand, if I end up with a list as long as my arm of examples that aren't, then I can draw a different objective conclusion about the fidelity of Jackson's adaptation.
Anyway, I'm going to take a break now before I clog up poor Bomby's thread with this slightly off-topic discussion.
Sorry, Bomby! Back to the anticipation for BotFA 
"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."
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jul 15 2014, 4:14pm
Post #52 of 80
(438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
When youre a Tolkien geek, it must be pretty hard to stay away even if you dont like the movies so far.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the months before FotR was released I told myself that if the movie was critically panned and seemed like a dud, I wouldn't put myself through the torture of seeing it. Now I think that was just a way of keeping my hopes from getting too high and maybe I was fooling myself.
I have wondered why people who dislike the movies continue to discuss them on message boards (as they have a perfect right to do) instead of just moving on. Then I think, would I? I dont usually dwell on things I dislike but with these movies, maybe I wouldn't move on so easily.
But as I said in another thread, as long as people who dont like the movies continue to buy tickets (and later the DVD/Blu-ray), they have voted with their wallets because the studio doesn't really care how they actually feel about the movie.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 15 2014, 5:59pm
Post #53 of 80
(407 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sorry, I'm laughing quietly here....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And I don't even really know why fans of the films are so frightened of accepting this as a valid and interesting thing to do. There's no subjective judgement going on!!! I'm not wanting to establish whether the sequence is bad, whether it's poorly constructed, superfluous or contradictory. Heck, I may even end up concluding (personally and subjectively) that it's useful, that it's exciting, that it's moving (see my signature below).
It's just that nobody's frightened that I can see. At least, I can promise you I'm not, the others can speak for themselves. You say you can't understand why people who enjoy the films are frightened of accepting your definition of objectivity and fact when it comes to these films. Could it perhaps be that you're asking the wrong question? Maybe fear doesn't come into it - maybe we just don't agree. If it were something that is truly an objective fact like - oh, I don't know - 'we're all going to die one day.' And I had said 'no, we're not, I don't accept that,' you'd have good reason to feel that I was frightened of accepting an objective truth. But as for objective truths about these films and their relation to Tolkien, far as I can see they're few and far between. We're all judging by our own standards - your objectivity doesn't seem as objective to me, or mine to you.
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 7:20pm
Post #54 of 80
(376 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My notion of "objective" is wrong?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sorry, I'm laughing quietly here...It's just that nobody's frightened that I can see...We're all judging by our own standards - your objectivity doesn't seem as objective to me
Dormouse, please, let's not get hung up on semantics. Whether it's fear or reluctance or disagreement or whatever, the result is the same: a rejection of the notion that these films' fidelity to the source can be analysed objectively, a rejection that confounds me because the criteria seem to me to be blindingly obvious.
Oh, and also...please refrain from telling posters you're laughing at their comment; it implies an arrogance that is neither true, I presume, nor conducive to cordial and constructive debate. Thank you.
Now, on to my reply proper What is it about my definition of "objective" that doesn't seem objective to you?
"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."
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 15 2014, 7:24pm
Post #55 of 80
(366 views)
Shortcut
|
Sorry, Bomby! I know I said I'd take a break but it'd have been rude not to reply to dormouse, right?
Maybe one or two more posts 
"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."
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 15 2014, 7:45pm
Post #56 of 80
(370 views)
Shortcut
|
Either it's included in the book/appendices, or it isn't. There really isn't any two ways around it. I don't at all understand how some people can make the argument that it's all just a matter of interpretation, because in many instances it clearly is not. I don't get why people are arguing this point with you, it seems pretty clear cut to me.
For example, there is no way one could objectively interpret the Trolls hiding behind trees and stuffing the Dwarves in sack as the Dwarves attacking the Trolls and the Trolls making the Trolls drop their weapons by almost killing Bilbo. Seeing the stone giants off in the distance beyond the mist cannot objectively be interpreted as the company riding on a stone giant's leg. It's not a matter of interpretation that Azog was killed at the Gates of Moria 141 years before Bilbo set out on his quest, because Tolkien makes it pretty clear that it happened. If one likes the changes, fine. But you're right, there seems to be a lot of "Well, Tolkien nicknamed Smaug "The Golden", so therefore it makes perfect sense to have him nearly drowned in a river of gold from a melted statue" and other things to that effect.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 15 2014, 8:43pm
Post #57 of 80
(341 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Your notion of objective seems inflexible.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There is no widely-accepted definition of "faithful" agreement between movies and books. You have your standards, but it's not realistic to expect everyone else to agree with you.
For example, someone might compare the dialogue between movies and books and derive a "faithfulness percent". Does that require the same character to say the same words, or can the words be spoken by different characters to qualify? How about costuming - how exact does it need to be to be considered "faithful"? What happens when a character isn't fully described - at what point do the differences cause the character to be "unfaithful"?
Someone else might consider an adaptation faithful if it captures the spirit of a book, even if details are changed. Who can say their definition isn't accurate? Who are the Authorities that make that determination?
I think you'll find yourself frustrated if you expect everyone to agree with your definition of a faithful adaptation. Instead, what I try to do is learn why someone might disagree so I can get a better understanding of their perspective. There is no right or wrong way to evaluate the faithfulness between book and movie.
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Jul 15 2014, 9:15pm
Post #58 of 80
(337 views)
Shortcut
|
So, say that I create a story about a child who plays in a beach and makes a castle out of sand.
Then, you decide to create a movie out of my story, but in this movie, instead of a child, there is a teen, and instead of playing on a beach, he plays on a river.
However, they both end up making a sand castle.
How would people measure the fidelity to the book in the movie?
Maybe you would say that your movie is nothing like my book, that the whole point of it was that the child had to be in a beach.
But others would argue something else, donīt you think?
Maybe a group of people would think that, to express my book on-screen, it isnīt necessary to portray a child in a beach. They might think that the underlying "message" I was trying to send to my readers can be depicted in various ways, even though on the surface some of them may look completely different from the source.
Then, of course, others would be fine with the teen, but not with the river; they would prefer a beach. And so on...
Now lets translate this to Middle-earthy terms. shall we?
You think that movies can be considered disrespectful to the source material in an objective fashion, and on that I agree on. But I donīt think the Hobbit movies are included in this category. I believe that Tolkienīs little story tells us more than when did Azog die, or if Legolas did or did not participate in those events.
That they change some events from the book? Absolutely.
That they told Tolkienīs story in their own way, expressing their own vision of it? Yes.
But, that the spirit and heart of Tolkienīs work doesnīt translate on-screen? I cannot agree with that, Iīm sorry.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I canīt understand why you say that there is a simple line that divides what is faithful than what is not. Faithful is a complex word; after all both the book and the movie have a castle made out of sand.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 15 2014, 9:38pm
Post #59 of 80
(334 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sorry, I didn't mean the laughter in any derogative sense...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was laughing at myself, not at you or anyone else here. Certainly not at your post or your opinions. Not something I would do, ever. The comment was actually meant to soften the tone of my post and clearly it backfired - I'm very sorry about that.
But actually, doesn't that in itself underline the way these conversations can spin around on themselves and get nowhere? You were offended by something I had neither said nor meant, but you believed I had. So often here the thing that seems blindingly obvious to one person baffles another. I'm baffled - and if I'm honest, rather frustrated - by being told that I'm frightened to accept something that I simply don't agree with. And so it goes.
With The Hobbit more than any other of Tolkien's books it's hard to debate fidelity to the source because we have first to agree on which source we're discussing. The original story as it appeared in the first edition - as it would appear to us if Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, and all the background material had never been published? The story in later editions? The story seen in context with Lord of the Rings? Or re-interpreted through the perspective of The Tale of Years and other information with in the LotR appendix? Or with the added background of the Silmarillion, as part of a developing legend? Different sources, but all valid.
Then our standards are different, our personal understanding of what is and isn't 'in the spirit of the book'. So to look for some 'objective' standard to which everyone simply must subscribe is doomed to frustration and failure. We're different, our reactions are different.
(This post was edited by dormouse on Jul 15 2014, 9:45pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jul 15 2014, 11:20pm
Post #60 of 80
(314 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My favorite is when some suggest
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that the golden statue bit is somehow 'in the spirit of' Tolkien, or expresses Tolkien's themes. Says who? Talk about bending over backwards. Same thing with the Tauriel/Kili googly eyes. They are just ham-fisted attempts at expressing (read: rehashing) ideas that Tolkien expressed elsewhere in the books (TH and LotR), to much greater dramatic and thematic effect.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 16 2014, 12:09am
Post #61 of 80
(305 views)
Shortcut
|
that the golden statue bit is somehow 'in the spirit of' Tolkien, or expresses Tolkien's themes. Says who? Talk about bending over backwards. Same thing with the Tauriel/Kili googly eyes. They are just ham-fisted attempts at expressing (read: rehashing) ideas that Tolkien expressed elsewhere in the books (TH and LotR), to much greater dramatic and thematic effect.
One could argue that the giant, golden statue of Thror represents the overweening Pride of the Dwarves. And, there is the obvious reference to the avarice of Smaug.
On the other hand, there is (unintentional?) irony in the fact that Tauriel (the more wild and less wise Wood-elf) displays more wisdom and compassion than either Thranduil or Legolas (both Sindar).
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jul 16 2014, 12:48am
Post #62 of 80
(299 views)
Shortcut
|
but my point was that it's just a clumsy device to awkwardly represent a theme that's already been stated in other, much more elegant ways, by Tolkien, and is already present in the movies. We already knew the dwarves were prideful and materialistic. And just because you can force a bit of meaning into a bizarre (to me), made-up scenario doesn't mean that it's in the spirit of Tolkien.
And the theme of Tauriel breaking with the other elves in showing compassion and empathy for others is in Legolas' relationship with the Fellowship, and with Gimli in particular, and his growth as a character, in LotR. Why do we need it now in the Hobbit movies?
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Jul 16 2014, 1:35am
Post #63 of 80
(287 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I just thought it was overdone
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
On both accounts. I'm not in the camp of "it's not Tolkien". But I am in the camp that something can be overdone and too much and the way the statue set of sequences (with the long drawn out run through Erebor, the whole swinging from ropes and surfing on gold, was just way too much and way overdone and to me served to mute the story between Bilbo and Smaug. A little bit I could have taken. If if the golden statue somehow had already been there (yes it wouldn't have been molten but still) it would have been okay to me. It was just too much and too overdone for my tastes. I admit that they are others that liked it and that's fine. I don't see it in the context of Tolkien or not but moreso in terms of the film and the story.
Same with Tauriel. A little? fine. But the over done, hit you over the head with the starlit kiss blah blah was over the top and I felt Thranduil's story suffered a bit as a result.
I never felt it was "un Tolkien". I just felt it wasn't the best moviemaking nor storytelling. I didn't care for both sets of scenes to be honest.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Jul 16 2014, 2:20am
Post #64 of 80
(289 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not a matter of interpretation. That makes it sound like the story is vague and has to be figured out. It's how the story is adapted, and therfore changed. To "adapt" is to change to fit an environment. Now, once again, the ideal amount of change can be argued about forever.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jul 16 2014, 4:57am
Post #65 of 80
(278 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the statue moment speaks with things Tolkien has said. So I think it in the spirit of Tolkien. So I guess says me for me. If it works for others that's fantastic if not that's ok as well. I think you're bending over backwards is a little rude to be honest. I think that moment captures the greed of the Dwarves and also Smaug's greed/desire to have every last bit of gold (IMO it takes the place of the cup from the book). I don't feel I'm bending over backwards to make that connection it hit me the first time I saw the movie. I'm sorry you don't feel this way but I hope you understand that people aren't reaching just not agreeing with how you feel. :)
As far as Tauriel and Kili. I think that conversation they have in the Elven Hall feels so much like in the Spirit of Tolkien. I admit I'm not sure how to explain how I feel that with this one. It again hit me upon seeing the movie. It just felt like Tolkien and felt right. For me anyways.
(This post was edited by Elessar on Jul 16 2014, 5:02am)
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Jul 16 2014, 9:49am
Post #66 of 80
(253 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm pretty sure I will enjoy it very much!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Despite my misgivings about DoS, I'm quite sure that there will be much more to enjoy than dislike about the last film.
First of all I think there will be several very emotional highs and a good mix of fine character moments, spectacular scenes as well as a bit of comedy at the end. I think the mix of material for the last film will be very good.
Secondly, though we're bound to have some surprises, I think the main parts of PJ's creative side-tracking are done with at this point and I'm confident the remaining main points of the original story will be handled very well.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 16 2014, 7:12pm
Post #67 of 80
(233 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's kind of the argument I was making...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I argued that it really isn't about interpretation at all. My comment was more a reaction to the argument that "everyone has a different vision of the story in their head", being used as justification for some of PJ's excesses. It is true to an extent that everyone has a different vision in their heads, but I don't really feel that that argument applies to things that Jackson outright changes.
Let me just put it in these words - my disappointment with these films has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't how I pictured it when reading the book and the supplemental appendix material. I'm disappointed because I think there have been too many instances where Jackson has completely contradicted the text when he didn't need to (also I feel some of his own additions, like Tauriel/Kili, seem to be cheap LotR knockoffs). Of course, I realize I may be opening a can of worms by saying things like "didn't need to", but it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 16 2014, 11:20pm
Post #68 of 80
(202 views)
Shortcut
|
|
People are blurring the lines between objective and subjective
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your notion of objective seems inflexible...I think you'll find yourself frustrated if you expect everyone to agree with your definition of a faithful adaptation...
But, you see, I don't and I haven't insisted that they do. Not once. Not at any point.
All I've done is dare to suggest that one way in which to analyse and discuss Jackson's adaptations would be to compare to them directly to what Tolkien wrote. You know, the words he typed. The text. The pages you and I read when we were younger.
And yet, to my compete astonishment, this suggestion has been utterly rejected by a number of TORn members as impossible or troublesome or, now, inflexible.
People are free to decide subjectively that they like the giant gold statue. They're free to claim subjectively that they feel it's an apposite metaphor for Thror's greed. They're free to claim subjectively that its ludicrously swift fabrication is tolerable because it means we get to the "rivers of gold" Tolkien mentioned in one of the songs...
But, I'm afraid, objectively, there ain't no giant gold statue in the text.
Sorry, but it really is that simple.
"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."
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 16 2014, 11:28pm
Post #69 of 80
(206 views)
Shortcut
|
A) So, say that I create a story about a child who plays in a beach and makes a castle out of sand...Then, you decide...instead of a child, there is a teen, and instead of playing on a beach, he plays on a river...How would people measure the fidelity to the book in the movie?
B) You think that movies can be considered disrespectful to the source material in an objective fashion, and on that I agree on.
C) But, that the spirit and heart of Tolkienīs work doesnīt translate on-screen? I cannot agree with that, Iīm sorry.
D) I canīt understand why you say that there is a simple line that divides what is faithful than what is not.
A) That's why, a number of times now, I've said "resemble" rather than, say, "match" or "replicate"
B) Thank you
C) I haven't said that at any point
D) I haven't said that at any point
"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."
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 16 2014, 11:41pm
Post #71 of 80
(202 views)
Shortcut
|
I am in agreement...I don't at all understand how some people can make the argument that it's all just a matter of interpretation...I don't get why people are arguing this point with you, it seems pretty clear cut to me.
Phew! Thanks, Salmacis! I was beginning to feel outnumbered! 
you're right, there seems to be a lot of "Well, Tolkien nicknamed Smaug "The Golden", so therefore it makes perfect sense to have him nearly drowned in a river of gold from a melted statue" and other things to that effect.
Yes, there's a lot of that goes on and, of course, people are free to search for, and to champion, whatever "themes" or "sprits" or "references" they want in Jackson's invented sequences...
...but to claim that such features therefore negate the possibility of comparing the films directly with the books seems specious to me.
"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."
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 16 2014, 11:48pm
Post #72 of 80
(200 views)
Shortcut
|
just because you can force a bit of meaning into a bizarre (to me), made-up scenario doesn't mean that it's in the spirit of Tolkien.
Exactly. Such claims are entirely subjective.
"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."
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 17 2014, 12:35am
Post #73 of 80
(211 views)
Shortcut
|
that your opinion is valid, but a differing opinion is "justification for some of PJ's excesses" and some of the movie elements "seem to be cheap LotR knockoffs". You're attributing intent in the opinions that isn't valid, and you are denigrating other people's opinions.
It's fine if you don't agree with what happened in the movies, but it's a violation of our TOS to use those types of statements and as Silverlode said here:
2. Treat others with respect. Just as you would like others to listen to what you say and respond to your ideas politely, you must also listen to others and be polite in return, even when you disagree. Yes, even if you think their ideas are stupid. Discuss issues, not personalities, and do not attempt to tell others what they do think or how they should think.
(This post was edited by entmaiden on Jul 17 2014, 12:36am)
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jul 17 2014, 1:22am
Post #74 of 80
(197 views)
Shortcut
|
It may not make perfect sense but I thought it was a very cool visual nod to the title that so many of us know Smaug for.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 17 2014, 12:48pm
Post #75 of 80
(166 views)
Shortcut
|
.. and to be honest, I haven't seen anyone here express the idea in the way that was suggested. Film is a visual medium. We saw Smaug the Golden. Not crusted underneath with gems and fragments of gold as he is in the book - I suspect that might have been difficult to pull off convincingly on film - but rising from a river of gold. Smaug the Golden - it was a really strong image and some of us liked it. It's that simple, really. I think the shot of him rising into the night sky shedding gold is breathtaking - pure visual magic.
|
|
|
|
|
