|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
squiggle
Rivendell
Feb 9 2015, 10:35am
Post #26 of 58
(607 views)
Shortcut
|
& i don't generally read your posts in dis-agreement
I think there is a Big general consensus that likes this trilogy very much, it's nearing what, only 3 Billion dollars and counting!
At the same time it's reception has been alot more rocky and tough than what was for LoTRs.
Summing up i would say there is a very large quiet consensus that these are very much enjoyed & well crafted fantasy films, along with a reception that was in a different place to what was for the previous trilogy, which was of a different time.
To be boring, in summing up, perhaps it is just that a General Consensus is not really singular one to another but sometimes that is not the point  .
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 9 2015, 10:41am
Post #27 of 58
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You are quite right to look at large scale indicators
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The difficulty with looking at this forum or friends, family and acquaintances is that it doesn't actually tell us anything about the views of the rest of the 100 million ish folks who have seen each film.
To suggest we can say anything about the concensus of views of a group so large from a sample so small is very difficult, to say the least.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 9 2015, 12:06pm
Post #28 of 58
(580 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes. You said what I was trying to say....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Only much more clearly!
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 9 2015, 5:43pm
Post #30 of 58
(584 views)
Shortcut
|
DM The only view that matters to me, like you, is mine and I would not try to persuade anybody here that the films are generally anything. I just know I have not been offered a glowing opinion by any of my friends and family who are casual film goers.
Torn is different we all make an investment in these films and watch them multiple times.
Most of the discussion here is whether people like them 99.9% or 50% or somewhere in between. I would hope people who like them very little would not keep on saying that over and over again.
I am impressed that the majority of people who did not like AUJ on this forum back in early 2013 have not spent the next two years saying they do not like the next two. Instead they have moved on to something which they do mostly enjoy.
I am emotionally connected to the 1st and 3rd the most, but admire the 2nd EE for its richness of invention, focus and momentum the most.
Curiously the things I do not enjoy about each film (20%) are all quite different but they stem from the same problem, a failure to place the really important story telling elements, in the foreground and the what happened on the journey material in proportion.
A dispossessed Dwarven heir some crucial friends a wizard and a Hobbit were brought together by the wizard, who also had some other house work to do, to reclaim a precious stone and thereby a kingdom. Because a "lucky hobbit" who found a magic ring, irritated the pants out of a dragon the dragon went off got himself killed and three people wanted a slice of the loot left behind for quite different reasons Bard,Thranduil and Bolg.
Thats the story all those people should work in our minds and the rest is just atmosphere. There is a lot of atmosphere some cannot get to much of it others see it as boring and or a distraction.
If you take out atmosphere (unnecessary Dwarves, people who make no difference to the film adaption - Beorn) Tolkien fans get upset if you add characters back in (Legolas) or new ones (Tauriel and Alfrid) Tolkien fans get upset. Put them in leave them out, whatever you do make them part of the fabric of the story but do not put them in for random disconnected reasons as extraneous over extended sub plots they will not carry the essential story Thorin a few of his chums Bilbo and Gandalf do that.
Oh and if you are going to have a post Smaug/ Sauron withdrawn villain make him genuinely interesting mysterious and unique not justly right visually.
For me the best atmosphere in the 8 hours other than Gollum was the Master. He had a POV, you came to know him quickly through Alfrid, he reacted with Thorin and Bard behaved in a particular way and got the chop and the story moved on. Gollum and The Master brilliant.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Feb 10 2015, 1:22am
Post #31 of 58
(524 views)
Shortcut
|
Na 'Aear, na 'Aear! Mýl 'lain nallol, I sûl ribiel a i falf 'loss reviol...
To the sea, to the sea, the white gulls are crying, the wind is blowing and the white foam is flying...
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 9:46am
Post #32 of 58
(534 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree. This also nicely sums up what I mean when I say that I am frustrated with the movie more than I dislike it.
If I tried to really focus on the major points I dislike I would probably come up with this:
- incoherent, badly structured DG subplot with an anti-climax as its resolution
- a messy storyline surrounding Azog and Bolg
- a storyline surrounding an interesting character - Tauriel - that just turns totally bland in the end
- a badly structured final battle and climax (especially the use of Beorn and the Eagles, as well as the Ravenhill separation)
- most action scenes being a few minutes too long (with the most important ones being too short or without focus - destruction of Lake-town and the proper BotFA)
(- the harm done to Smaug's arc because of the three movie decision)
There are other little things - but everything else would be points I would probably not even recognize if the major points wouldn't annoy me so much. Also the last one in brackets - this is something I would probably be okay with had the rest of the third one grapped me more.
The genius is still there.
In the last one alone there are wonders of film-making in there: people fleeing Lake-town, the Exodus of the Lake-towners, the negotiations between Gandalf/Bard/Thranduil/Bilbo, the goodbye between Bilbo and the dwarves, the return journey and the beautiful scenes back home in Hobbiton. The BRILLIANT scenes between Bilbo and Gandalf, most of all the one after the battle with the pipe and the "little fellow" scene back in the Shire (which might be one of the best scenes of all six movies).
All these scenes are the reason why I do hope the Extended Cut - though unable to solve the deeper issues I have - might offer more scenes that I can watch with this kind of wonder and atmosphere. A longer and more atmospheric DG cut, as well as the battle's aftermath are strong candidates for this.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Feb 10 2015, 9:49am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 10 2015, 5:49pm
Post #33 of 58
(494 views)
Shortcut
|
[I would just add two matters from two different perspectives :-
1) By drawing a character Tauriel, whom I like, into Kili right at the end and then go further and extend it into Bolg/Legolas you create a sub plot which comes dangerously close to being on a par with the plot. Thats why the general audience who attend just once, who have spoken to me, can barely remember who the characters are.
2) For myself as I see the film more times I suddenly start to notice plot holes what happened to Dwalin. This
fantastic warrior who entered Bag End 7 movie hours ago and has been with us throughout out just …..)
When I think of Sparticus or Lawrence of Arabia or El Cid great sweeping epics from the 1960's, which PJ and Co would have been brought up on like me, you have fantastic portrayals great characters that remain with you for years but there is no sense of them subverting each other you know the entire story of the main characters and putting the Arkenstone back on Thorins cadaver is the zenith, when all emotional and character arcs come together and ALL hail this restored hero not some CGI Dwarf dots on Ice. It should be the equivalent of "I'm Sparticus, I'm Sparticus"
This is a three film thread and remembering three films were needed to tell tne story filmed in the three blocks its worth remembering that Bolg/Legolas as portrayed did not even exist in July 2012 so why not take the opportunity to tell Thorin's full story, one of the three principles, rather than add another character feud.
_____________________________________________
I agree. This also nicely sums up what I mean when I say that I am frustrated with the movie more than I dislike it.
If I tried to really focus on the major points I dislike I would probably come up with this:
- incoherent, badly structured DG subplot with an anti-climax as its resolution
- a messy storyline surrounding Azog and Bolg
- a storyline surrounding an interesting character - Tauriel - that just turns totally bland in the end
- a badly structured final battle and climax (especially the use of Beorn and the Eagles, as well as the Ravenhill separation)
- most action scenes being a few minutes too long (with the most important ones being too short or without focus - destruction of Lake-town and the proper BotFA)
(- the harm done to Smaug's arc because of the three movie decision)
There are other little things - but everything else would be points I would probably not even recognize if the major points wouldn't annoy me so much. Also the last one in brackets - this is something I would probably be okay with had the rest of the third one grapped me more.
The genius is still there.
In the last one alone there are wonders of film-making in there: people fleeing Lake-town, the Exodus of the Lake-towners, the negotiations between Gandalf/Bard/Thranduil/Bilbo, the goodbye between Bilbo and the dwarves, the return journey and the beautiful scenes back home in Hobbiton. The BRILLIANT scenes between Bilbo and Gandalf, most of all the one after the battle with the pipe and the "little fellow" scene back in the Shire (which might be one of the best scenes of all six movies).
All these scenes are the reason why I do hope the Extended Cut - though unable to solve the deeper issues I have - might offer more scenes that I can watch with this kind of wonder and atmosphere. A longer and more atmospheric DG cut, as well as the battle's aftermath are strong candidates for this.
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 Feb 10 2015, 5:53pm)
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 10 2015, 7:47pm
Post #34 of 58
(483 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Honestly to me this is more how the Hobbit films could have gone wrong...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
That is what PJ wrote back then.
I cannot help but feel a bit fooled looking at the three movies we got.
Three movies, yet, there was no room for Beorn in the TEs... the Dol Guldur stuff was heavily edited... there was no room to tell the story of what happened to the North after the Battle of the Five Armies. There was no room to give a little more on the White Council's history, or Sauron's history. No room to finally explain a little on the Eagles. No time to create a Sauron/Nazgul plot that wasn't completely made up and all over the place. No room for resolution or even small information on most secondary characters. No room for Dain in general. And - maybe worst of all - very little room to give the Dwarves a real group dynamic (I do not even ask for full characterizations).
All of this would imho have been obvious things to tell in a trilogy adaptation of TH.
Instead we got a lot of Legolas... a lot of a great female character that ended up being a love-interest in the end, after all... a lot time used to create some kind of dynmaic between two Orc leaders that even switch their roles at one point. A lot of a comic sidekick who does serve a storytelling purpose (Alfrid) but who - in the end - makes the same point about his character over and over again. It goes on.
Of course, I am sure I would have missed a lot of great stuff in a two-movie version (but hey, noone would have minded really long EEs). And some of the extended stuff is beautiful (Bard's character). But looking back at what PJ originally said, one cannot really be blamed to be at least suprised of what material he meant when he was talking about " the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins".
I still disagree with people who say that TH's story (and its potential embellished version) was simply spread like butter over too much bread. Imho, it was the story they came up with that was and that left so many possibilities and plotpoints untouched and untold.
There were moments in the Hobbit films that felt excessive unneeded for me but really I felt they were generally quite short in terms of actual runtime.
What you mention here for me was more what I felt the real danger was when Jackson expanded the Hobbit to 2-3 films with the extra material from the appendices. That is you take Bilbo's adventure with a decent character arc and weigh it down with a lot of excessive fan service.
What we got obviously still moved away from an entirely Bilbo focused story BUT that expansion mostly took the form of adding depth to the roles of existing characters(Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Bard, thranduil, etc) as well as Tauriel. In was IMHO a case of a lot of material people wanted to see being included BUT only if it was effective in serving the development of these characters.
I think you really saw again the benefit of Jackson being a bit of an "outsider", that is he likes Tolkien but he doesn't worship him and is looking more for the films he can make from his works rather than how he can get his works onscreen.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Feb 10 2015, 7:48pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 7:58pm
Post #35 of 58
(474 views)
Shortcut
|
Is quite the opposite of what I have wanted, though.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 8:08pm
Post #36 of 58
(460 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't have an issue with the subplot as a whole. I do think they went a bit heavy handed with the love stuff in the third film. I really could have done without the kiss or the take love away line. Those were a bit too much. Keep it like film two with that great scene in the dungeons and I think it works perfectly. I don't think though that is on the level of Bilbo/Thorin/Gandalf. It rides under that I think as a whole but I can agree certain aspects are a bit thick. I have no issues with the Bolg/Legolas stuff. It is the perfect amount of stuff. I do wish it was Dain who killed him but with what they did. I guess I don't even see that those two together equal the main guys. What they did with Bilbo/Thorin especially was some darn good stuff.
I find Dwalin in it the right amount. He pops up when needed and not too much. If he had folks would have been upset that he was in the limelight too much thus taking away from Thorin. We needed to go down that rabbit hole hard with Thorin and boy did we.
Of course some will move on but I have to say what Thorin/Bilbo/Gandalf/Smaug went through will stick with me for years. Each character had some amazing moments that for me just resinate quite well.Thorin's decent into the dragon sickness from the first film to the last is done so well. You get a more likeable Thorin to start with and by the time he goes full on it is quite hard to like him. Yet, I found myself feeling bad for him since you know this isn't really him inside.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 8:09pm
Post #37 of 58
(456 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What's your issue with the DG stuff?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 8:25pm
Post #38 of 58
(456 views)
Shortcut
|
I made a thread some time ago about how I would have structured a two movie version and my ideal version of DG was described there.
LINK
But that was a pretty fundamental change... if you only mean BotFA I thought it all felt too anti-cimactic, the ring-verse (a brilliant idea) done too quickly without much gravitas, Galadriel taking the center stage in a form that was originally her as the "Dark Queen" also felt off for me... I would have much preferred the three rings and Saruman's power united to force Sauron out of DG (I know that would have meant abandoning the idea of them being hidden).
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 8:33pm
Post #39 of 58
(443 views)
Shortcut
|
I just meant in BOFTA.
I guess it played out pretty close to perfect for me. I love that Galadriel was center stage as she is one of the most powerful in Middle-earth. The Ring-verse was a great idea that part I agree. It worked quite well with the tone of that part of the movie I found. How they all battled the Ringwraiths and Sauron sending him to Mordor was pretty cool as well with all of them showing some of their fantastic power. I know the rings weren't used but I think you got the idea none the less and I found Saruman a big part of that. I will say I could have done with a little toned down version of the dark queen bit. I will say though I think it really adds to the FOTR moment when she shows what could be to Frodo.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 10 2015, 9:31pm
Post #40 of 58
(445 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You mention quite a few areas that I think would be verging on that...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is quite the opposite of what I have wanted, though.
You mention a desire to see more of the white council, the eagles, whats happening in the north, etc which I do think has the danger of becoming fan service without some kind of drama to tie it to.
Honestly my overall feeling is that Jackson was actually quite restrained when moving away from the book, when he did it needed to be quite clearly in service of the plot/characters. If anything I felt it was actually a few of the book scenes that became a bit excessive.
When it comes to adding in extra Tolkien material as well I would argue Jackson and co were doing more than covering specific events/locations he mentions in other works. I suspect various bits of extra material we get are actually looking to create locations/characters/atmosphere with a similar feel to Tolkiens other works. MIrkwood for example for me is pretty clearly an attempt to return to LOTR and create the atmosphere of the Old Forrest section that wasn't adapted.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Feb 10 2015, 9:49pm
Post #41 of 58
(434 views)
Shortcut
|
You mention a desire to see more of the white council, the eagles, whats happening in the north, etc which I do think has the danger of becoming fan service without some kind of drama to tie it to.
Actually, I thought a lot of what was added in the movies we got was just that. So I guess we have a different perception there of what is fanservice and what isn't. 
Mind you, I didn't want any information from the appendicies just cramped into the movie. Just those that would - imho - enhanced the central plot of the tale: Bilbo helping a group of dwarves regaining their homeland and killing the dragon and then dealing with the consequences, while following Gandalf and showing the ties to bigger events and beings in the world.
That is what they did so brilliantly in LotR - saying that the essential story is getting the Ring to Mt. Doom and building their tale around that - with some added stuff, some changed stuff, some pure book stuff.
In TH they imho cramped in too much seemingly just for the sake of it without it adding to or strengthening the main story, sometimes even taking away from it.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Feb 10 2015, 9:56pm)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 11 2015, 12:27am
Post #42 of 58
(413 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What we actually received as a result of moving from two to three
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The corruption of the Eraidor history by bringing the main villain to Weather Top which ruined the sense of increasing danger envisaged originally and made the High Fells redundant as a revelation and placed it after the Sauron revelation by Bolg as a clumsy switch back.
An excellent prologue which was needed for a third film.
The clumsy switch of Azog and Bolg and needless narrative explanation.
The loss of Beorn to the Dol Gulder plot.
The introduction of the love triangle between Kili/Tauriel and Legolas.
The replacement of Fimbul the scout who would shadow the company with a real sense of danger by Bolg and his platoon of Orcs who still failed and then reported to DG.
The distracting Legolas/Bolg feud at Lake Town and then in a horrible contrivance dashing across the causeway to a pursuit that petered out because they couldn't be there when the drake arrived.
The Forges scene which is generic block buster film making but more importantly squashes the 2nd most important point of the book that BIlbo generated the events that lead to the Dragons death.
The survival of Alfrid and his unnecessary sub plot.
The loss of the Master and his clean finish ashore.
The contrived dash to Gunderbad by Legolas and Tauriel (just send out scouts to the North East ridge to check for a further army).
The Bolg/Legolas stand off after Tauriel and Kili have had their moment which was pure CGI fiction in to which you could not have an emotional investment because we knew Legolas survived anyway.
The introduction of the rich and full blown account of Thrain which was then chopped for the TE.
I am not interested in deep Tolkien material just a well made set of movies that keep the original spirit alive. Many great ideas emerged in the original three blocks (Bag End, The White Council leading to the High Fells, Beorn, The Master and Alfrid at Lake Town there escape, Bilbo Smaug Bard Smaug and the confrontation with Sauron Gandalfs rescue and the dash north by Gandalf. Taureil and Legolas by the Lake but for me most of the additional material filmed in the 10 week slot in 2013 did not match it.
I find it interesting that you thought PJ was quite restrained in his reinvention (Scene 88 ?, Transformer Stone Giants the post Goblin King chase ) I would say he wasn't even restrained in altering his own reinvention in 2013 let alone Tolkien.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is quite the opposite of what I have wanted, though.
You mention a desire to see more of the white council, the eagles, whats happening in the north, etc which I do think has the danger of becoming fan service without some kind of drama to tie it to.
Honestly my overall feeling is that Jackson was actually quite restrained when moving away from the book, when he did it needed to be quite clearly in service of the plot/characters. If anything I felt it was actually a few of the book scenes that became a bit excessive.
When it comes to adding in extra Tolkien material as well I would argue Jackson and co were doing more than covering specific events/locations he mentions in other works. I suspect various bits of extra material we get are actually looking to create locations/characters/atmosphere with a similar feel to Tolkiens other works. MIrkwood for example for me is pretty clearly an attempt to return to LOTR and create the atmosphere of the Old Forrest section that wasn't adapted.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 11 2015, 4:11am
Post #43 of 58
(403 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There seems to a be a good deal of assumption there but..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The corruption of the Eraidor history by bringing the main villain to Weather Top which ruined the sense of increasing danger envisaged originally and made the High Fells redundant as a revelation and placed it after the Sauron revelation by Bolg as a clumsy switch back.
An excellent prologue which was needed for a third film.
The clumsy switch of Azog and Bolg and needless narrative explanation.
The loss of Beorn to the Dol Gulder plot.
The introduction of the love triangle between Kili/Tauriel and Legolas.
The replacement of Fimbul the scout who would shadow the company with a real sense of danger by Bolg and his platoon of Orcs who still failed and then reported to DG.
The distracting Legolas/Bolg feud at Lake Town and then in a horrible contrivance dashing across the causeway to a pursuit that petered out because they couldn't be there when the drake arrived.
The Forges scene which is generic block buster film making but more importantly squashes the 2nd most important point of the book that BIlbo generated the events that lead to the Dragons death.
The survival of Alfrid and his unnecessary sub plot.
The loss of the Master and his clean finish ashore.
The contrived dash to Gunderbad by Legolas and Tauriel (just send out scouts to the North East ridge to check for a further army).
The Bolg/Legolas stand off after Tauriel and Kili have had their moment which was pure CGI fiction in to which you could not have an emotional investment because we knew Legolas survived anyway.
The introduction of the rich and full blown account of Thrain which was then chopped for the TE.
I am not interested in deep Tolkien material just a well made set of movies that keep the original spirit alive. Many great ideas emerged in the original three blocks (Bag End, The White Council leading to the High Fells, Beorn, The Master and Alfrid at Lake Town there escape, Bilbo Smaug Bard Smaug and the confrontation with Sauron Gandalfs rescue and the dash north by Gandalf. Taureil and Legolas by the Lake but for me most of the additional material filmed in the 10 week slot in 2013 did not match it.
I find it interesting that you thought PJ was quite restrained in his reinvention (Scene 88 ?, Transformer Stone Giants the post Goblin King chase ) I would say he wasn't even restrained in altering his own reinvention in 2013 let alone Tolkien.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is quite the opposite of what I have wanted, though.
You mention a desire to see more of the white council, the eagles, whats happening in the north, etc which I do think has the danger of becoming fan service without some kind of drama to tie it to.
Honestly my overall feeling is that Jackson was actually quite restrained when moving away from the book, when he did it needed to be quite clearly in service of the plot/characters. If anything I felt it was actually a few of the book scenes that became a bit excessive.
When it comes to adding in extra Tolkien material as well I would argue Jackson and co were doing more than covering specific events/locations he mentions in other works. I suspect various bits of extra material we get are actually looking to create locations/characters/atmosphere with a similar feel to Tolkiens other works. MIrkwood for example for me is pretty clearly an attempt to return to LOTR and create the atmosphere of the Old Forrest section that wasn't adapted.
There seems to be a good deal of assumption there about what a two film Hobbit would have entailed and to reply to it I'm going to have to make some assumptions myself..
By having the chase with the Dwarves climax at the end of AUJ and Bolg replace Azog early in DOS I suspect the focus of the whole Mirkwood section was shifted back towards its original intension. The escape from the Wargs at the end of AUJ is IMHO a much more natural point for a climax between Thorin and Azog where as the section with the Woodelves is really more about building up Thorin's faults and the part they have to play in future events.
As I said in the OP generally my feeling is that having the Azog chase and Bilbo trying to prove himself to Thorin extend all the way to Mirkwood there was a danger in overplaying it. By bringing this storyline to a head in AUJ the focus of DOS can shift to building towards Thorins faults.
Not sure I like the sound of Beorn at Dol Guldor, whilst nice to see I felt that Thrain in the EE was already pushing it for trying to cram a lot into that section. As it is I like the Dol Guldor sections because there actually quite lean and focused, Beorn doing some more Orc smashing would not really add much there for me although I would like to see more of him at the end of BOT5A.
I know my opinion differs from your here but honestly I felt the Dwarves/Smaug section at the end of DOS was a lot less generic than Bard/Smaug in BOT5A and actually the more interesting. The action itself is a bit more original but moreso than that I think the interplay between Thorin and Smaug has a lot more depth to it where as Bard is just your standard hero. Honestly my opinion is this scene is a classic case of viewers being unwilling to ascribe depth to a Jackson invention, similar to the dislike of the Faramir section at the end of TTT.
Really though all of this comes back to the point I make in the original post, that is the effect of the shift to three films on the over arching plot and character developments. The problem with listing individual gripes and you do is that it largely ignores this.
I can certainly see the case that the shift ment the introduction of the odd bit of clunky plotting but my best guess is that it created a dramatically more successful series of films. DOS effectively becomes one long build-up of Thorin's conflicted nature, the good of his heroism, the bad of his sense of entitlement and grudge holding. BOT5A benefits from this build up and also I would say from the fact that Thorins rising madness and the effect this has on Bilbo and other character dwelt on more fully.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Feb 11 2015, 4:14am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 11 2015, 7:08am
Post #44 of 58
(384 views)
Shortcut
|
We can of course all agree to disagree but my comments are based on :-
1) Sir Peter's comments in the directors commentary in the AUJ and DOS Extended Editions. e.g. Bolg as Legolas's fight buddy.
2) Phillippa Boyens interviews. e.g. Alfrid surviving the Dragon and playing his comic scenes against Bard. The Tauriel love triangle.
3) Sir Peter's interviews with Empire particularly in regard to the forges.
4) The wonderful chronicles series which not only indicate how much was changed but how much was discarded. The Palantir/Beorn Dol Gulder/ The two armed Azog.
5) Extra's feedback from Lake Pukaki.
6) The non appearance of certain actors in the big pick up. e.g. Stephen Fry and Mikeal.
Just one comment if Bilbo and Thorin had the rapprochement as originally filmed post barrels we would have seen Thorin react to Bilbo pre and post ring so Bilbo had changed but Thorin had not. I have said it elsewhere but Martins dialogue count in DOS is on a par with Bard why, because a good deal of his dialogue was lost between Gollum and The Barrels now that is a guess.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 11 2015, 7:20am
Post #45 of 58
(384 views)
Shortcut
|
Incidentally they are not personal gripes they are facts. I only expressed my opinion on a few of them:-
1) The "excellent" prologue.
2) The "Clumsy" switch of Azog and Bolg.
3) The "cartoon action" between Bolg and Legolas.
Those are personal opinions the rest are FACTS expressed in the main by the film makers.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 11 2015, 7:31am
Post #46 of 58
(385 views)
Shortcut
|
I recall a discussion where you indicated the benefit of Alfrid was crucial because he provided Bard with context which showed his heroic stature verses Alfrids petty avarice.
Last week when I watched the film for the final time as promised I kept that in my mind for my final viewing. What I saw on the screen was Bard slay the dragon, care for his people and in an overwhelming show of gracious stature persuade Thranduil to hold off whilst he went into a noble negotiation with Thorin.The idea that Alfrid was required to add to that doesn't work for me.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 11 2015, 7:38am
Post #47 of 58
(382 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The point was really that I think there quite limited in their outlook
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Incidentally they are not personal gripes they are facts. I only expressed my opinion on a few of them:-
1) The "excellent" prologue.
2) The "Clumsy" switch of Azog and Bolg.
3) The "cartoon action" between Bolg and Legolas.
Those are personal opinions the rest are FACTS expressed in the main by the film makers.
Its not that I think these aspects aren't worth of criticism but just that I don't think there really what a film stands or falls by, that is its success in its over arching story and character developments.
As I said in my opening post I suspect the key reason for a switch to three films is that Jackson believed that would help in these areas. If he had to shoehorn a bit of clunky plotting in here and there he would do it for the end although again some of the stuff that was dropped looks equally clunky to me.
As far as "Cartoon" like action goes my feeling is that whilst some action was excessive( Legolas vs Bolg, Barrel escape, Goblin Town) it wasn't really the tone of the scenes but there length that was a weakness. Basically action pushed for longer than there was drama to sustain it. The general tone of the entire Hobbit story was "cartoonish" although "larger than life" would perhaps ben more telling when compared to LOTR.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 11 2015, 8:55am
Post #48 of 58
(378 views)
Shortcut
|
I recall a discussion where you indicated the benefit of Alfrid was crucial because he provided Bard with context which showed his heroic stature verses Alfrids petty avarice.
Last week when I watched the film for the final time as promised I kept that in my mind for my final viewing. What I saw on the screen was Bard slay the dragon, care for his people and in an overwhelming show of gracious stature persuade Thranduil to hold off whilst he went into a noble negotiation with Thorin.The idea that Alfrid was required to add to that doesn't work for me.
Whether Alfrid was needed is questionable I spose but I do think that's really clearly why he was featured as much as he was.
My view would be that Alfrid worked well with Bard in that he highlighted how down to earth he was. That's really the main thing that sets him apart from Aragorn and provides such a strong contrast to Thorin. It wasn't just Alfrid being greedy or selfish and Bard being otherwise, it was Alfird specifically trying to tempt Bard into taking up the masters mantle.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Feb 11 2015, 2:04pm
Post #49 of 58
(369 views)
Shortcut
|
a bunch of made-up, big budget fan fiction. Now that all the films are out, i'm completely convinced that it would have been much better to have two long Hobbit films instead of three shorter (by LotR standards) ones. There was just way too much bloat.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 11 2015, 4:57pm
Post #50 of 58
(359 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Theatrical Cut For Two Films
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You are quite right about this. They had about 6 1/2 hours of material envisaged for a two film cut.
Instead of going three what do you cut in the T E to get it down to 160 each and what damage do you do to the story telling.
It is 110 minutes before the entire exposition completes at the end of the White Council. Many complete films today only hit that mark in their entirety.
The technical answer is you begin the film with the Thorin/Gandalf flash back giving the Quest of Erebor its tighter explanation and then flash forward to Rivendell introducing the company/the map and key and the story there and leave Bag End as E E material explaining why Bilbo changed his mind and came on the quest for deep Tolkien fans. (Sting would be given to Bilbo as a very personal aside by Gandalf at Rivendell).
You would then reach the door/Smaugs eye and Gandalf caged by the end of Film 1 and Film 2 would begin with Bilbo's encounter with Smaug after a prologue of "The Quest For Erebor" from Thorins meeting with the Dwarven heads of family perspective.
Obviously deep fans would go apoplectic that you do not get Bag End in the TE and then be delighted it is restored for their watching delight in the future.
For me the benefits of starting the story at Rivendell and the story following its original order with Inside Erebor all in one film and Bolg the torturer of Beorn/Thrain jailor of Gandalf and Fimbul/Azog dealing discretely with all the Northern Mirkwood action and the assault on Erebor, but sponsored by Sauron and known through the Palantir, is much more deft richer and more interesting than what we received. Most importantly the gathering sense of the catastrophic return of Sauron and his involvement with Azog would be handled much more subtly and with greater drama.
As for Legolas, who is in a really early publicity shot with Bard post Smaug from Block 2 I would be interested to know how he was conceived to close out before his involvement in the 2013 filming. With Azog coming from Gunderbad rather than DG and no Bolg Mark 2 he doesn't appear to have much to do.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
|
|
