|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 2 2015, 11:16am
Post #26 of 37
(1469 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree but the question here is about replacement and competency
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think suspension of disbelief is about choosing to engage with belief in the story, emotions and characters despite the fact that we know they aren't real. A film should help us to do that, I agree, but I don't think that's the same thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This covers my view entirely and particularly as regards to theatre.
The question here is about how technology has moved on so far we are actually simulating real people which is different from the long tradition of stunt doubles. There is a kind of person who is going to hunt that down and say "naugh that does not work" If you go to the cinema with that view point you have lost before you start.
In 2012 Billy came over to NZ and acted opposite Lee Pace, who he said looked like an angel, and referred to turning up on the ram/hog or whatever you want to call it.
There is a close up where he utters a Khazad oath which appears to show the shadows of a real face whereas the head and shoulder scenes look perfect. I also suspect the scene where he joined with Thorin is a double I cannot recall seeing the front of him in that scene with the helmet off. However thats a bit of fun speculation which I did not think about at all at any of my viewings because for me the ADR was superb and for me Billy was Dain. What I think is missing is the second half of Dain's story which Billy alludes to in an interview when joking he survives the movie, hopefully that will be in the EE.
Finishing off our conversation from a closed thread. The revelation that Thorin has a price on his head and passing of the Orc scribble between Gandalf and Thorin in DOS is not intended to convey a separate and isolated example of casual ruffians after him. It is the first indication that someone (Azog) is hunting him down and so any subsequent surprise that Thorins company is being followed is contradictory. The source is a guy called Peter Jackson he makes the point in the directors commentary of The EE of DOS and if thats what PJ says I am happy to accept his version of how we should interpret that scene.
As it was filmed in May 2013 it was to late to change the AUJ "You are being hunted "remarks by Gandalf. Gandalf already knew Thorin was being hunted and PJ began the Azog manhunt in the later script at the PP.
Finishing with Billy like Ian Holm he suffers from Parkinsons and it would be typical of Sir Peter's big heartedness to do all he could to reinforce their performances and keep them in even if it is a stretch.
One of the off screen themes of the making of the films is the sense of engaging with old friends and making new ones and that I am sure will stay with the actors for ever as Orlando Bloom says in the wonderful homage to NZ video shown at the head of BOFA in NZ theatres.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2015, 2:54pm
Post #27 of 37
(1452 views)
Shortcut
|
I think on the point from the prior thread, I didn't mean to imply that there was no connection between the two events but to draw what, to my mind, is a distinction between them.
You describe the "bounty" note as prior evidence of them being "hunted"*. I don't think that is really the same same thing.
Now both are evidence of an intent but there seems to me to be a distinction in method and effectiveness.
On the one hand we have the equivalent of the criminal wanted poster, on the other the law turning up on the horizon with tracker dogs.
In Bree all they have seen is the wanted poster. I don't see any particular issue with the separate dismay that the orcs have found them in the wilderness and are indeed "hunting" them - hot on their heels.
* It is worth saying that I am taking the word "hunting" in the sense of "tracking" rather than the more general "seeking", if that distinction is in any way helpful!
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Mar 2 2015, 3:29pm
Post #28 of 37
(1450 views)
Shortcut
|
I could tell the battle stuff was CGI but the upclose stuff I do believe was him in his suit. I've read the stuff from the Chronicles in why they did some CGI with him and if I recall there was an article someplace that talked about his health having an impact.
|
|
|
sycorax82
Rohan
Mar 2 2015, 5:13pm
Post #29 of 37
(1435 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The only time he's not CGI is when he meets Thorin on the battlefield
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The costume and prosthetics look fine in that moment as well. What I'm guessing is they still had most of Billy's stuff to shoot for Bo5A but they couldn't get him back for the reshoots (whether because of his health or otherwise), so they had to go CGI, either that or recast.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 2 2015, 5:46pm
Post #30 of 37
(1429 views)
Shortcut
|
I entirely understand your interpretation I am simply saying thats not what Peter is intending to convey to the audience . He is the one in the commentary saying this is the beginning of the Azog story line and should convey that Thorin is being hunted yet when he was directing Sir Ian on location in 2011 he was saying this is the revelation moment when they knew they were being hunted, in that commentary its Philippa that makes that point.
I just wanted to clarify what Sir Peter and Phillippa intended, the more important point is the effect of drawing the point of evil west right to the boarders of the shire and all that subsequently lead to, Azog at Weathertop, robs the continuing Necromancer story of any dramatic tension. Certainly by the time Azog and Bolg have had their progress meeting with Sauron of the shadows the story is all over and Gandalf hasn't even been hiking up the High Fells at that point.
I like mystery and intrigue in my story telling not telegraphing whats going on. But i fully accept Phillipa's more general point in the DOS commentary during the forges scene the films were not made for Tolkien book fans but for a more general audience.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2015, 7:11pm
Post #31 of 37
(1417 views)
Shortcut
|
But doesn't that hinge on the same distinction of "being hunted" vs bounty notes?
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 2 2015, 10:23pm
Post #32 of 37
(1404 views)
Shortcut
|
One is an intent and the other is action but the dramatic point underlying both is that up until the moment Gandalf speaks to Thorin in the PP and up until the Wargs attack the narrative is innocent. Both convey a loss of innocence which of course can only happen once.
If I can out it another way when they strole through the countryside talking about the 5 wizards and they set up a camp on the promontory where they discuss Moria there is a sense of innocent easy journeying but given what they experienced and discussed in the PP they should be and have set a guard that night. IN AUJ we fear for them when the Orcs look down on them because they have no idea they could be in danger whereas based on the PP they rather like Aragorn and the hobbits should be expecting pursuit and be extremely wary.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2015, 11:01pm
Post #33 of 37
(1397 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think I see the narrative as innocent - just some of the characters.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think I woukd characterise the narrative in the same way - as a switch from innocence to experience. Instead we have contrasts between characters and a graduated increase in tension.
We don't see Thorin as "innocent" from the moments of his introductions (cinematic or chronological). He is grim and wary from the moment he enters Bag End and the first moment in Bree. He understands his world is a dangerous place to begin with (as do the viewers in his presence) and his journey is of increasing awareness of the focus and nature of the threat.
Similarly the look exchanged between Gandalf and Balin in the plateau in AUJ is very portentous - they do not believe as Thorin claims that Azog is certainly dead.
Of course this is in stark contrast to the genuinely innocent characters such as Fili and Kili - but the film makes this point explicitly.
So I don't see either as a reveal that there is danger in the world - simply reveals of different stages in that danger closing on them (for the characters old enough to understand).
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 2 2015, 11:45pm
Post #34 of 37
(1388 views)
Shortcut
|
We are talking about changes in atmosphere of the narrative not characters.
This is one of the key tenants of Tolkien's mode of story telling. We start somewhere innocent and without danger, the shire and gradually move in to less civilised more dangerous/exotic parts. This approach goes all the way back to Eriol and the Book of Lost Tales. In AUJ they were traveling across and through that innocence all the way to the Trolls. Indeed the trolls represent a transition from innocence to a gentle kind of danger but the minute the Wargs turn up and Kili shoots one we have switched into the grim sombre mode of the LOTR. Thats why Gandalfs tension ridden dialogue is so appropriate. but as soon as I watched the DOS prologue with its clear LOTR association it felt like they had brought that kind of feel to before the story of AUJ begins. I love the atmosphere of the DOS prologue but it brings the sense of imminent danger much further West than the AUJ narrative implies which of course is correct in the real world that entire section of the movie was made before Manu Azog had been thought of. In AUJ they are safe until they reach the Trolls. DOS is telling us they were never safe.
What is fascinating is the real point of the prologue is to start the story again and refocus more on the arkenstone there really was no need to thread Azog back into it and we could have been left with your interpretations that the intervention with the ruffians meant nothing but Gandalf and Sir Peter invests the scribble and the ruffians with significance rather than it being mere texture.
Once again I am characterising these shifts/movements as Peter and Phillippa do which you seem to be ignoring.
Put simply these are not my observations they are Peter and Philippa's and if you do not see that then OK lets leave it there..
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2015, 12:22am
Post #35 of 37
(1385 views)
Shortcut
|
I think I'm describing that I wouldn't characterise the narrative atmosphere as a wholesale shift as you do. Instead I see it as a graduated transition including moments from the prologue, some from Bag End, certainly the Moria discussion, Radagast and the spiders etc.
I don't agree that the atmosphere is wholly innocent until after the Trolls (indeed in the post above you mentioned that you think the audience feels fear as the Orc scouts look across to the company).
If you would like to post some exact quotes from the filmmakers then I'll happily discuss them.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 3 2015, 7:14am
Post #36 of 37
(1369 views)
Shortcut
|
Goodness me this started off with me letting you know I had chanced upon the answers to a previous question of interpretation, which the film makers clarified in the directors commentaries, that are contained in the EE editions of the AUJ and DOS and I have now been asked to provide evidence.
I was trying to be helpful about a point of ambiguity just listen to those commentaries and you will have your answer.
That is the end of the matter I am out of here.
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 Mar 3 2015, 7:15am)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Mar 3 2015, 8:04am
Post #37 of 37
(1365 views)
Shortcut
|
Scratching my head slightly at the reaction - I was simply saying that unless we have the actual quotes it is hard to discuss them. You had mentioned you felt I was ignoring them but hadn't actually saud what they were.
|
|
|
|
|
