|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 15 2014, 1:55am
Post #1 of 57
(2548 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I need honest feedback from those who didn't like the movies
|
Can't Post
|
|
For those of you who are not fans of the movies, please answer a few questions for my Tolkien/Jackson research project if you would be so kind. Honesty (even if brutal) is greatly appreciated.
1. Who would you say portrayed their character the best in this series and why? (This is not to say their character was or was not nearest to the book, I simply want to know which actor you feel fit best into their role and why)
2. Play devil's advocate. Choose what you think Peter Jackson's biggest mistake was up to this point and defend his decision. Then tell me as an audience member, why you don't like it.
Finally, 3. Two of the most iconic scenes/conversations in the books were "Riddles in the Dark" and "Inside Information." Explain how Bilbo's conversations with Gollum and Smaug in the films enhanced (or didn't) the story and what these scenes did (or didn't do) for these characters.
Thank you for your time!
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
(This post was edited by entmaiden on Aug 15 2014, 2:05am)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 15 2014, 2:35am
Post #2 of 57
(1867 views)
Shortcut
|
would you mind saying what this research is for, and if the information is going to be published and where? It would be appreciated if those who answer know where their comments will be ending up.
Thanks.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 15 2014, 2:48am
Post #3 of 57
(1860 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For those not familiar with my Tolkien/Jackson posts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am writing a book (that yes, hopefully will be published either independently or commercially) that analyzes Tolkien's books and Jackson's films as separate forms of art, both capable of being appreciated by a wide audience. I am not taking names or information but I am interested in obtaining feedback from all three parts of my target audience: those who love the books and not the movies, those who love the movies and don't care about the books, and those who enjoy both for various reasons. As a writer who has studied film and is a current Master's student in Tolkien Studies, I am very interested in the opinions of the audiences of both the books and films, good and bad. I want my readers to go beyond "It was awful because it wasn't in the books," and look at what both mediums offer but in order to do that successfully I need the honest feedback of those who think differently from me. I hope this gives enough information on my project. Feel free to message me with further questions, everyone.
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 15 2014, 4:19am
Post #4 of 57
(1717 views)
Shortcut
|
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 15 2014, 6:29am
Post #5 of 57
(1752 views)
Shortcut
|
We do like and enjoy The Hobbit movies?
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Aug 15 2014, 9:10am
Post #6 of 57
(1706 views)
Shortcut
|
1: Martin Freeman
There's no point picking out McKellen or Serkis and many of the other second-tier dwarves (eg Dori) have been played extremely well, too, but Freeman's is the stand-out performance in this trilogy. His mannerisms, his ticks, his vocal performance and the utterly convincing arc he's taken Bilbo on have been exemplary. If anyone anywhere has ever said a bad word about Freeman in these movies, then I've missed it. He's been sensational.
2A: Biggest mistake: Over-use of digital effects
Jackson's choice, this time around, to have CG antagonists rather than actors in prosthetics, to have wholly digital sets (rather than physical ones merely augmented by CG), to film his actors time and time and time again in front of green screens rather than New Zealand's stunning landscapes, to settle for CG extras rather than flesh and blood actors and then to lay over all this a far deeper and more unnatural colour-grading than he ever used in the past has resulted in an undeniably beautiful yet utterly synthetic-looking world.
He'd say that he prefers, and perhaps depends upon, the reliability of the studio and CG over the potential issues of filming on location but, in my own view, it's more to do with the fact that he (a) has an effects studio to promote and (b) is just as much in love with the technology of film-making as the art of it.
2B: Biggest mistake: Infantile excess
Yes, Legolas did slide down a flight of stairs on a shield in "Two Towers"; yes, he did take down a mumakil in "King"; yes, that flight of stairs in "Fellowship" did fall rather conveniently forwards...but that's about it and, within the bounds of mainstream fantasy adventure, they're also just about within the realms of possibility.
Jackson's mistake this time around has been to believe that the 'lighter tone' of "The Hobbit" derives from (or justifies) care-free, hazard-free, physics-defying action (it doesn't) and puerile humour (again, it doesn't). The result, so far, has been a series of films in which the protagonists have rarely, if ever, appeared under any kind of threat and have instead apparently exhibited supernatural powers of perseverance, agility, combat etc. And the result of that is that many audience members have felt rather less engaged in the plight of our heroes than they did last time.
3: Iconic conversations
I can't fault the Riddles in the Dark sequence, so I won't. Despite my comments above, these films do feature some wonderful sequences (much of the unexpected party, the flight of the eagles, Tauriel's Feast of Starlight monologue, the Laketown prophecy, the opening of the Hidden Door) and this is one of them. Beautifully performed by both actors, each of whom was still trying to (re-)find their characters. Great stuff.
As for Inside Information, whilst both Freeman (as ever) and Cumberbatch excel themselves, I'd argue that the sequence simply goes on too long. It starts wonderfully, with Freeman (accompanied by Shore's great theme) struggling to comprehend the sheer size of his adversary once the coins start tumbling but, by the end, has degenerated into, arguably, the most ludicrous sequence in all five films so far, thereby tarnishing the earlier dialogue. (However, I'm not sure if you're looking for any reactions to the balancing-on-Smaug's-snout, gold-surfing, giant-statue-fabrication, so I'll leave that.)
General
I think many of us who do have manifold and serious issues with these films would also gladly concede that they have strengths, too. The sequences I highlighted above, for example, are on a par with anything in the original trilogy ten years ago.
The problem this time, though, is simply that Jackson goes too far too often. The excesses in relation to the humour (snot, stick insects, smoke coming out of ears, food fights, naked dwarf bathing) is too frequently matched by the excesses in the action (somersaulting over trolls, surfing stone giants' knees, plummeting down 1000 feet ravines unscathed, tip-toeing on the heads of floating adversaries, balancing on dragon's snouts, manufacturing that statue that quickly etc).
If only someone had had the courage to say to Jackson "Come on, hang on a minute here..."
Thanks for your questions. Hope the write-up goes smoothly.
PS The decision to split the tale into three films is also a major bone of contention, one that has had an enormous impact on what we've been watching on screen. Do you plan to explore that issue, too?
"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 Aug 15 2014, 9:11am)
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 15 2014, 12:59pm
Post #7 of 57
(1565 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks Kendalf for your very helpful response.
DanielLB- You can absolutely respond as a fan but please limit your response to "negative" aspects of your opinion. I can find plenty of good things about these films and I'm currently focusing on what could have made them better. Thanks for your interest!
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 15 2014, 1:30pm
Post #8 of 57
(1563 views)
Shortcut
|
I think I have talked with you before about this, glad to see you're pursuing it. When you get ready to talk to someone who likes the movies better than the books, give me a shout-out.
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
Aug 15 2014, 2:14pm
Post #9 of 57
(1580 views)
Shortcut
|
Hate both films thus far with a passion. Horrid, heartless messes!
Richard Armitage is great as Thorin - but his look is just wrong.
Will not even watch bot5a.
|
|
|
Sildarion~Valenar
Bree
Aug 15 2014, 2:40pm
Post #10 of 57
(1550 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the TH films are above-average fantasy films but I think not much of them as adaptations.
Mind you, I have a similar stance for LotR as well, those movies not crossing the barrier of "Good" as adaptation for me.
So, do I qualify? 
As for your questions;
1. Ian Mckellen and Lukas Evans I think.
I adore Martin Freeman's Bilbo but his character really is not that close to the book one. That is not to say that the fault is Freeman's here. I think Freeman delivers the best hobbity portrayal but not the closest to what book-Bilbo could have been. Well, he still is a much better Bilbo than Ian Holm.
2. By and large the decision to split the films in three.
If I try to think, it seems that almost every problem I see in these films stems from this decision, made especially late in the time slot.
The effects are weaker than they could have been, some story segments that make no sense at all or are just poorly edited to make no sense. The re-hashing of ready-made music in AUJ. The extremely weak scriptwriting. A three film split also gave Jackson more time - which he used to devote to totally OTT sequences like Goblintown, Barrels, Smaug-chase, Laketown-attack. These likewise helped in diluting the role of Bilbo as a result of which Bilbo's screentime is quite shorter than Freeman's skills truly deserves.
3. I loved both of those sequences. (taking into account that by "Inside information" you only mean the conversation with Smaug and not the ruckus that follows after)
I do have a nit-pick with Riddles. I would have preferred to show only Gollum's devious side there. As the more hobbity - Smeagol side is supposed to have been lost and only brought out by Frodo's pity later on.
But that's a minor nitpick. These two are the best scenes so far, expectedly.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Aug 15 2014, 5:20pm
Post #11 of 57
(1512 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with much of what you say
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As you say, Legolas did slide down a flight of stairs on a shield in "Two Towers"; he did take down a mumakil in "King". However, though I didn't like these excesses (I found them stupid), they were mercifully drowned out by the things that I did like in LotR, and Legolas at least looked OK in that trilogy.
Again as you say, Jackson goes too far too often. The excesses in relation to the humour (snot, stick insects, smoke coming out of ears, food fights, naked dwarf bathing) is too frequently matched by the excesses in the action (see above).
I've been thinking why I find DoS in particular so 'alien' to the world portrayed in LotR. I think it is due to a combination of factors.
• Perhaps it has something to do with the film-makers wanting to make it more suitable for teenagers (since that is apparently how films make money these days). Perhaps the perception of the film-makers is that many in this age group are nowadays used to video games, Facebook and the like, and don't particularly want to see anything with depth?
• It could be to do with the massive use of CGI in these films. In contrast to LotR, very little appears to have been shot outdoors, which is a great pity given the beautiful scenery of New Zealand. The style of the Hobbit films appears to be very different visually compared with the LotR films. Some CGI is obviously essential, but it should have been balanced with more outdoor scenes, rather than with scenes that are obviously all shot indoors.
• Perhaps it is something to do with PJ wanting to please himself (hence the rather juvenile additions of crude burping, and so on), and this time around thinking that he is now well established enough to take such liberties with Tolkien's work?
• I think it was a mistake and completely unnecessary to try to link the Hobbit to LotR – both trilogies could have stood on their own very well without such links. As it is, attempting to make such links, via introduced characters that were not in Tolkien's work, has misfired in my view (in the case of Legolas, seriously).
• Perhaps stretching out the story to three films was a bad idea? Perhaps the three-film idea could have worked better with a better script that was more in tune with Tolkien?
Don't get me wrong, there are many aspects of AUJ in particular that I do like (and I was so much looking forward to DoS). The acting of several individuals is outstanding. I think Richard Armitage as Thorin, Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Ken Stott as Balin are superb, and the characters of Bard and Thranduil are also very well realised, though we haven't seen enough of them, in my view. I was also so looking forward to Beorn, who is very memorable from the book, but he was given far to little of a showing in the film. What I have found good in the films appears to have been drowned out by wholly unnecessary, fake-looking action sequences (for me, anyway) and other pointless scenes.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Aug 15 2014, 5:21pm)
|
|
|
Retro315
Rivendell
Aug 15 2014, 9:54pm
Post #12 of 57
(1454 views)
Shortcut
|
This'll be a little tricky, because I do rather "like" the films as films (I watch AUJ all the time!), and if I could divorce them from the source material there'd be nothing not to like. But I can't, and so I have ample negative criticisms for the translation, or adaptation.
1. I imagine there'll be a lot of consensus about Martin Freeman. Not only are his mannerisms perfect for our middle-aged, ill-prepared burglar, but the match with Ian Holm was really, really good, visually. Watch the movie "Alien" some time and it's impossible to deny the resemblance. I do wish the film deviated less from Bilbo's perspective - you can show that dwarves disregard elves, or that Lake-town has political problems, but do it from Bilbo's point of view, please ... which is why scenes featuring his point of view excel so much more than extended scenes featuring others.
2A. Devil's advocate ... this is a variation on over-reliance on CGI. Rather, it's the other side of that - UNDER-reliance on practical effects. I've been surprised to learn from the SEE just what was actually a practical effect and what wasn't - the CGI desensitizes you so you just assume small bits here and there aren't practical. He's defended his decision quite clearly, stating that you can get better dynamic performances with CG characters, crazier camera angles, less human anatomies, and it's cheaper. But I'll counter right now with "Look at the positive reaction people are having to J.J. Abrams decision to shoot Star Wars VII as practical as possible. Look at the worst-case-scenario; the reactions to the loss of practical effects in Indiana Jones IV. Heck, compare the new awful looking Ninja Turtles movie with the 1990 Jim Henson masterpiece of puppeteering. (In fact, Goblin-town felt so much like a Jim Henson locale that I forgave it a lot of its faults - but I won't forgive the fact that the Great Goblin wasn't Barry Humphries in a fat, grotesque costume. I could stomach the mix of CG and practical goblins if the "big boy" was a full practical effect (perhaps with a CG face, like Treebeard).
2B: Why as an audience member don't I like it? I'm a fine artist. It's not that I don't appreciate what computers are able to do, but I don't think film especially should lose that hand-crafted quality. Watching the behind the scenes of LOTR is literally one of the driving forces for why I went back to school, to art school. If this version of The Hobbit had come out back then, I can't say the same thing would have happened, which means theoretically, fewer people are going to be inspired by the amazing movie magic behind the scenes.
3. I do have a complaint with both of those. They're staged beautifully (although less dark, and with more clarity than the novel describes), acted admirably. But Jackson foolishly INTERCUT both of them, effectively neutering the dramatic tension, the pacing, the build-up. This is part and parcel of the story needing to be more from Bilbo's point of view - it's the Gollum and Smaug conversations - nobody cares where the dwarves are at the moment, or what non-book stuff is happening back in Lake-town. I look forward to the inevitable fan-cuts of the film that excise or shift those problems and give complete, extensive, unbroken versions of those scenes.
As a caveat to the anti-CGI hardline, though - Gollum and Smaug could not look any better, and I'm not in the camp that believes Smaug should have been practical.
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 15 2014, 10:02pm
Post #13 of 57
(1414 views)
Shortcut
|
For all the wonderful feedback, everyone. This is great!
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
NamoMandos
The Shire
Aug 15 2014, 10:11pm
Post #14 of 57
(1461 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Best portrayal: Ian McKellen as Gandalf, without a doubt.
Watching him onscreen, I never feel that "this is Ian McKellen playing Gandalf" - rather, "this IS Gandalf." He nails his role every time. Personally, I have been unimpressed with RA's Thorin, finding him uninteresting and flat. Martin Freeman does a stellar job of course, but personally I find his facial/vocal 'tics' distracting rather than endearing lots of the time.
2. PJ's biggest mistake: making 3 films instead of 2.
To defend him, I would say that with three films, he has the chance to flesh out the story and bring to life aspects of Middle Earth that would have otherwise never seen the light of film. However, my true feelings are that with 3 films, he has gotten over-indulgent and lazy in terms of tight editing and cutting. His great blessing in disguise with LotR was that he had to be ruthless in including only the most important bits of story, due to the time constraints of condensing huge source material. With The Hobbit, he has had the opposite problem - having to expand source material. IMO, he has done this poorly by wasting screen time on boring, derivative, silliness (stone giants, CGI fights, etc.).
I'll leave out number 3 for now, as I have to run!
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Aug 16 2014, 12:04am
Post #16 of 57
(1419 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would say I'm a fan of the movies but I am not so dazzled by PJ I can't be objective.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. So far I think Richard Armitage is doing a great job as Thorin. He does the part justice. My second favorites would be Bilbo and Tauriel. Martin Freeman captures the humor of Bilbo really well and Taurile feels a part of the story despite being an addition.
2. His biggest mistake? The cgi. He was trying to modernize a i think a nd give us an even more spectacular view of Middle Earth creating what can not be created in real life very easily on the computer.
That said, I can't stand it because it looks like a video game.
3. The Riddles in the dark part was definitely a highlight because it stuck to the book really well. Andy and Martin do great. Smaug is also really impressive! Benedict does a good job and it feels the way the book felt.
Hope that helped you in what you're looking for.
(This post was edited by DaughterofLaketown on Aug 16 2014, 12:05am)
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Aug 16 2014, 12:06am
Post #17 of 57
(1399 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Best portrayal: Ian McKellen as Gandalf, without a doubt.
Watching him onscreen, I never feel that "this is Ian McKellen playing Gandalf" - rather, "this IS Gandalf." He nails his role every time. Personally, I have been unimpressed with RA's Thorin, finding him uninteresting and flat. Martin Freeman does a stellar job of course, but personally I find his facial/vocal 'tics' distracting rather than endearing lots of the time.
2. PJ's biggest mistake: making 3 films instead of 2.
To defend him, I would say that with three films, he has the chance to flesh out the story and bring to life aspects of Middle Earth that would have otherwise never seen the light of film. However, my true feelings are that with 3 films, he has gotten over-indulgent and lazy in terms of tight editing and cutting. His great blessing in disguise with LotR was that he had to be ruthless in including only the most important bits of story, due to the time constraints of condensing huge source material. With The Hobbit, he has had the opposite problem - having to expand source material. IMO, he has done this poorly by wasting screen time on boring, derivative, silliness (stone giants, CGI fights, etc.).
I'll leave out number 3 for now, as I have to run!
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 12:37am
Post #19 of 57
(1385 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How are you planning to use the information?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are you planning to do some kind of statistical analysis? Or do you plan to quote people's comments, anonymously or with citation? Either way, I'm confused as to how you are thinking you will use this information in your book.
Also, I'm curious to know if you have read any of the previous books that have been published on Jackson's film adaptations of Tolkien, particularly Tolkien on Film: Essays on Peter Jackson's the Lord of the Rings and http://Picturing Tolkien: Essays on Peter Jackson's the Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy, both of which have essays that range from critical of the films as adaptations to praising them.
When you say you are a current Master's student in Tolkien Studies, would I be correct in thinking that that is at the Mythgard Institute?
'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
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 16 2014, 12:46am
Post #20 of 57
(1384 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is a comment above discussing how the info will be used
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am obtaining this information for my own benefit, not to directly quote people's private opinions. And yes, I'm a student at Mythgard. I've looked into other film-related books but I am trying a new approach, less from a statistical standpoint and more from an aesthetic perspective.
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 12:49am
Post #21 of 57
(1384 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I read the comments above, but I still am not seeing how you plan to use the information
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Still, I'll be interested to see what you come up with, when your book gets published!
'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
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Aug 16 2014, 1:06am
Post #22 of 57
(1392 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If Bomby has Nothing Good to say?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bomby says
Nothing at all...
www.charlie-art.biz
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 1:25am
Post #23 of 57
(1383 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No criticism is meant to be implied
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As a published author myself, I am interested in how other authors approach their topic, particularly when discussing a subject that I care so much about. However, if Miriel does not care to share more about her methodology, I can accept that..
'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
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 16 2014, 2:12am
Post #24 of 57
(1385 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Voronwe you would understand then
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that I am trying to see other people's perspective. I've spent a lot of time defending these films and while there are a few things I dislike, I am a devout fan of these films. Sometimes my judgement is clouded in seeing other people's opinions and I want to hear the negative comments for myself in order to sharpen my arguments. I also want others to critically analyze why they don't like particular parts of the films. Maybe somewhere along the lines, some will be persuaded that there is some good in these films as I can probably be persuaded that there are things that could have made them better. I appreciate any and all opinions on this thread :)
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 2:32am
Post #25 of 57
(1371 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand that from a messageboard context
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Indeed, that is the type of discussion that I have seen and appreciated at multiple messageboards over the past 13 years. What I am not comprehending is how that translates into book form. But that is probably my failing, not yours. The type of books that I am used to build on the thoughts of others, but with fairly stringent attribution, or engage in some kind of analysis. It sounds like you are talking about something different than that. I am interested in understanding how that will work, but I am happy to wait until the book is published, and find out then.
I'm sorry if you took offense at my comments. It was not meant as a criticism.
'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
|
|
|
|
|
1
