|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Mar 7 2015, 7:38am
Post #26 of 40
(1325 views)
Shortcut
|
But to me BotfA feels disconnected and not entirely for good reasons.
I think AUJ is painfully easily the best movie. I feel like much of the charm goes out the window in BotfA (possibly because I found a lot of the charm in the Company which the book is about...)
|
|
|
Legolas_Shoehorn
Bree
Mar 7 2015, 10:00am
Post #27 of 40
(1315 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is definitely a certain disconnect between AUJ and DoS/Bot5A
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That was one of the reasons i started a thread a few weeks ago that questioned if we really need AUJ all along.
The biggest disconnect in my opinion is the switching of the protagonists. AUJ as a stand alone movie ia a nice book adaption (well one third of it) with Bilbo as the protagonist. Unfortunately right from the beginning of DoS Bilbo becomes a supporting character.
Of course there are also some audio-visual disconnections:
- The Color Timing
- The awesome Misty Mountains Theme (never to return in DOS & BOFTA)
- The overall tone
After all the last two movies should have a different titles:
The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey
The Quest for Erebor I - The Desolation of Smaug
The Quest for Erebor II - The Battle of the Five Armies
My English is not that good, my Elvish is better ;-)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 7 2015, 11:07am
Post #28 of 40
(1304 views)
Shortcut
|
Absolutely - so do I!
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Mar 7 2015, 5:48pm
Post #29 of 40
(1275 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Tolkien has one foot in both worlds personally..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1) The Beowulf tradition of investing magic and symbolic and political significance in artefacts and icons.
2) The recurring theme that the all powerful and mighty are overturned by the seemingly small and humble.
Let me give you two examples of each which were buried or lost in these films :-
1) The Jewels of Lasgalen and the Arkenstone could have been invested with the significance of the Nauglamir and the Silmarils.
2) The combination of the Ring Of Power the One Ring in the hands of the humble and meek Bilbo directly lead to the death of Smaug. Bilbo's line "What Have We Done" should have been directed at the ring. That was a moment when the fates of Arda where at work. Smaug dies because Bilbo was meant to have the enemies ring. Sauron is banished for ever because Frodo was meant to have the enemies ring. Bilbo takes ship a the end of the third age because uniquely he has conquered two temptations that of the Arkenstone which he uses for the greater good and freely letting go of the ring.
Whilst its true that Tolkien does clearly draw on this " Beowulf" tradition his artefacts are also linked into a reasonably modern morality tale.
In that respect I think Jackson does actually expand the Arkenstone in a very Tolkien like fashion, it becomes the symbol of Dwarven power but also a driver of greed and hubris akin to the Ring, albeit focused more specifically on the Thorin.
Honestly though I feel the key issue with the Hobbit is that there dealing with a story told in a very different fashion to LOTR. The latter for all its complexity had its core a very film like narrative where as with the Hobbit your dealing more with a "bedtime story" linear narrative where a lot of the draw is the charm of the narration heavy prose.
The reality for me is simply that the repeated adventures on the way to the Lonely Mountain driven only by Bilbo's growing courage is not nearly as strong a plot as the early travels of Frodo driven by the need to keep the ring from Sauron. Equally Smaug being killed by a relatively minor character and then a battle coming out of leftfield is simply not good plotting for building dramatic tension onscreen.
So much of what Jackson did in terms of additions was about trying to craft this plot that simply wasn't as well suited for cinema at LOTR into films that that some dramatic power. Azog and Sauron exist to give drive to AUJ, to explain Gandalf's absence and most importantly to give weight to the battle at the end of the story.
Honestly if Jackson wanted to try and create a film/films on the level of LOTR I think he really needed to take the Hobbit story as a very loose framework and rework the plot quiet heavily. I'm guessing this would have resulted in apocalyptic rage from much of the fanbase though.
I love Tolkien as much as the next fan and enjoy the Hobbit for what it is but what it is isn't a ready made film/films akin to LOTR. I just think many fans are unable to accept that because they take it as some criticism of Tolkien but the idea that there was some easy great film here that Jackson missed is simply not something I see as realistic.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Mar 7 2015, 5:52pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 7 2015, 6:36pm
Post #30 of 40
(1255 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think this is an excellent analysis of the problems they faced...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...in adapting The Hobbit. It's a very different sort of story.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 7 2015, 7:16pm
Post #31 of 40
(1249 views)
Shortcut
|
You say that you think Peter Jackson had no confidence in the original story, implying that this is responsible for the things you see as shortcomings in the film, but from where I'm standing it seems to me that he placed more confidence in the book and stuck to it far more closely than your ideas do. The story of The Hobbit is, to a great extent, present in the films, with additions. Your ideas would involve much more sweeping changes. The removal of all of the fairytale elements, for example, and the excision of the lighter tone which marks the early part of the book and the first film. Peter Jackson tried to honour that change of mood, albeit in a way that didn't please either those who wanted a more fairytale film or those who wanted a more adult tone. I'd say that was one divide he was never going to bridge.
Then take this:
2) The combination of the Ring Of Power the One Ring in the hands of the humble and meek Bilbo directly lead to the death of Smaug. Bilbo's line "What Have We Done" should have been directed at the ring. That was a moment when the fates of Arda where at work. Smaug dies because Bilbo was meant to have the enemies ring. Sauron is banished for ever because Frodo was meant to have the enemies ring. Bilbo takes ship a the end of the third age because uniquely he has conquered two temptations that of the Arkenstone which he uses for the greater good and freely letting go of the ring.
To my mind you're advocating a far more sweeping change to Tolkien's story here than anything Peter Jackson attempted. What you're suggesting is a complete rewrite of the story in which the elements Tolkien created are given a completely new significance. Smaug did not die because Bilbo found a magic ring. Bilbo's ring plays no part in his downfall whatever. The dwarves' quest was responsible for rousing Smaug in the first place; Bilbo's slip in naming himself as 'Barrel-rider' gives Smaug his target, and in the end it is Smaug's own pride and sense of invulnerability that leads to his death; that and Bard's courage.
In the film Bilbo's "What have we done" links directly back to the scene on the steps of the Town Hall of Laketown, when Bard tried to put the dwarves off their quest - "If you awaken that best it will destroy us all" (or words to that effect). As Bilbo watches the dragon fly towards Laketown he is acknowledging the dwarves' responsibility and his own. This is completely in keeping with Tolkien's story. How could he possibly address those words to his ring without knowing what it is, and that he was 'meant' to find it, and what its subsequent history will be? And if he knows so much, so soon, doesn't that make a nonsense of everything that follows?
It isn't the original story you're asking for here, it's a completely new story.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 7 2015, 8:31pm
Post #32 of 40
(1230 views)
Shortcut
|
I am investing the existing narrative in the book with the kind of philosophical significance that Tolkien mulled over and considered toward the end of his life for many elements of his writing (Galadriel leaving Aman) .
Bilbo is meant to receive the ring, one of the consequences of receiving the ring is he can appear invisible in front of the Dragon take a cup and enter into a riddle game. Without the ring he would have failed but because he has the ring the of power of Sauron he succeeds. The Dragon is disturbed rattled and leaves his lair which leads ultimately to his death. With out the ring that would not have happened I am simply investing the story with the kind of philosophical gravitas that the LOTR had by design the Hobbit by accident.
This DM is why i am against the forges it dilutes the simple beauty of the original story (That theme again the humble shake the council of the mighty). Sir Peter over this section in his commentary said they had quite a challenge with the dialogue to bring the story back to the barrel rider "it was tricky" were his words. Personally if i had been the dragon I would have gone back inside at that point and burned the dwarfs alive.
So to clarify no change to the narrative of the book just a change of significance.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 7 2015, 10:14pm
Post #33 of 40
(1213 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR with its multiple story lines is the real challenge
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I fundamentally disagree with you on the challenge to a film maker. The LOTR is the difficult one it really should be a TV mini series there is so much material there and so many characters to follow but I thought they made a very good fist of them.
The hobbit is much more straight forward. There are only two challenges to making the Hobbit a great film sequence. You have with the Necromancer sub plot all you need. You flesh out Thranduil and Bard and just deal with the :-
Beginning
1) As a faithful prequel the journey to Rivendell would be a non event so you film the Bag End Sequence for the EE and flash forward to Rivendell placing all the politics there. The Map and Key are in Rivendell for safe keeping and Bag End is meet the Dwarves have a great night and decide whether to set out. Hated by critics loved by us = EE material.
2) You reduce the Dwarves to the number of characters that appeared in the film and leave out the extras and make a dynamic interactive group who speak to each other and come forward at different times to show the courage ingenuity and talent of the company.
End
You create a really interesting multi faceted adversary to prosecute the War on behalf of Sauron.
There are all sorts of hierarchy issues, over extended sub plots and empty action set pieces poor choices of humour the latter of which Sir Peter alludes to in his commentary as being aware of and defends as his taste and his choice.
For me those choices have nothing to do with the short comings of the book but a great deal to do with the film makers choices and what they considered right for these films.
Put simply the idea that a difficult book is where the problem lies doesn't stack up for me the challenges are resolvable. Whats wrong with the films, if indeed you see things wrong with the films some do not, is due to the film makers.
I would really stress at this point that all one really needs to do is listen to the directors commentaries as they explain choices and defend matters they know have drawn criticism . All the answers as to how we received what we did are clearly spelled out and I am completely satisfied that their intention was not to make films aimed at me. As they defend the forges scene Phillippa to her great credit says with an air of reluctance these films are not for Tolkien fans there is a wider audience to please.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 7 2015, 11:42pm
Post #34 of 40
(1198 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes - but I'm disagreeing with your philosophy...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think you're wrong. For Bilbo to turn to the ring at that point and say "What have we done", meaning himself and the ring, gives him a knowledge he should not have and introduces huge narrative problems later on.
You might well have gone back and roasted the dwarves but then, you're not Smaug. His motivations are very clear in the film. He's rattled and angry. The dwarves have just outwitted him but it's Bilbo who set the thing in motion - and he's cunning enough to realise that taking his cue from Bilbo's 'barrel rider' and going off to burn Laketown is a far better way of punishing Bilbo than burning him on the spot. In his mind I'm sure Bilbo and the dwarves will be easy enough to deal with later on. It isn't really about what you would have done - this is Tolkien's Smaug.
It may have been tricky, but I think they pulled it off extremely well.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 8 2015, 6:53am
Post #35 of 40
(1171 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sorry DM neither argument textually holds up
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bilbo has already entered into a relationship with the ring in the films in that remarkable scene where he retrieves it during the spider episode. His sense of connectedness is already set up. You know very well the ring makes a fast psychological connection with its owner in both the books think Sam and the films think Deagol and Smeagol. Bilbo wouldn't have understood the "We" at a conscious level but remember this is a prequel we have foreknowledge of the ring. I happen to think that in that context the screen writers dealt with that challenge very adroitly my idea is a natural organic extension of what one can do in a prequel. Only 2 1/2 hours later in the next film he will lie to Gandalf over the ring no "We" would be appropriate at this stage in his developing relationship.
You are also getting confused about whose Smaug this is at this point it is PJ's Smaug not Tolkien's. Tolkiens dragons are never placed in the position of an SAS style type attack. They are always destroyed in either a highly symbolic and heroic way way by an "ordained" man, the ultimate one being Earendil, both ordained and sanctified, or when the Gods come forth and reveal themselves in might and splendour.
Smaug has just been attacked repeatedly with water then dynamite and humiliated, there is so much angst and anger coming from the Dwarves at this point that Smaug's instinct would be to retaliate in the same manner. The attack on him is a base one, though clever, and so would his response be.
Have you never been in a situation where you are in an argument and a certain momentum builds up and an irrational instinct takes over and the argument just escalates, that is what I am suggesting of PJ's Dragon.
You are of course quite right the way to hurt Bilbo is to go off and attack Lake Town and that is a nice extension of those lines in the book ….."On thinking things over he was now regretting some of the rings he had said to the Dragon" But I agree with PJ this was a tricky moment and of course in my view a hole that, unlike Bag End, was dug unnecessarily.
You are welcome to respond but I also understand from our earlier exchanges where this is coming from and I am going to let this thread go now.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 8 2015, 9:20am
Post #36 of 40
(1158 views)
Shortcut
|
When Bilbo kills the giant insect to retrieve the ring, and is then aghast by what he has done, his response is not "What have we done" but "What have I done." He sees at that moment that he is becoming too possessive about the ring but he takes the responsibility on himself. He doesn't blame the ring because he doesn't know what it is, or the terrible power that it has. We could suppose that this might give him a deeper understanding of Thorin's desire to possess the Arkenstone but there is no explicit suggestion in the film that it does.
The circumstances at the end of DoS are entirely different. In the film the ring's magic doesn't play as big a part in Bilbo's meeting with Smaug as it does in the book : for most of the time Bilbo is in full view of the dragon - and why on earth would he associate the ring in his pocket with Smaug's rage and the impending attack on Laketown? He and the dwarves have just attempted to kill the dragon and driven it mad with rage - "What have we done" is a natural response to that situation. For him to address the ring with the same remark at that moment would make no sense at all.
As to your final remark, I'm free to respond because TORn allows it - and how could there be any discussion if members weren't welcome to express different views? But I have no idea what you think you understand about me or what you mean by "where this is coming from" and I'm sorry you should feel the need to dismiss someone else in that way. I'm not "coming from" anywhere - I just see things rather differently from you.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 8 2015, 12:46pm
Post #37 of 40
(1132 views)
Shortcut
|
I don’t have time these days to get into these discussions but I just wanted to say to dormouse that I see this in the same way.
As for the subject of the thread, for me there is a progression from AUJ to BOTFA that works perfectly. When those two films are placed side by side, so to speak, the differences are evident, but with DOS connecting them they form the beginning and end of a continuum. No disconnect for me.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Mar 8 2015, 1:17pm
Post #38 of 40
(1131 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You seem to actually be rather in agreement with me...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
LOTR of course is a challenge of scale but I think at the heart of the story you have an excellent plot for a series of films. The threat of the Ring and Sauron draws everything together nicely and ties into Aragorn's reclaiming the kingship. The Hobbit lacks the same kind of over arching narrative to draw everything together as effectively.
In terms of altering the Hobbit I think you seem to actually be agreeing with me that to create the very best film/films Jackson needed to make very significant alterations not just additions to the plot. In terms of the film makers motivation via commentary I think one thing you have to deal with is that Jackson is a very down to earth person who does not like talking in a manner that could be viewed as pretentious leading to him giving rather mundane explanations for decisions that he likely made hoping for significant emotional weight from.
As to what changes should have been made I still don't really agree with removing the bag end scenes and for me that's just such a good way of introducing Bilbo's character. What follows on the journey to Erebor is really what I think Jackson should perhaps have been more flexable with, maybe mining the book for ideas but looking to shift events to have Bilbo's earning Thorin's respect be the centre of the plot for the first film.
As far as what follows I felt Jackson did do a pretty good job of giving these sections more emotional drive but perhaps Bard and the company could have been linked together more fully? maybe Smaug's death somehow made the conclusion of the story?
Honestly I do think Jackson did a good job crafting the book's plot into 3 blockbusters that are above your average Hollywood fare but I think he was always fighting an uphill battle by not being willing to greatly alter its plot in a way he wasn't with LOTR.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Mar 8 2015, 1:19pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Mar 9 2015, 8:44am
Post #39 of 40
(1068 views)
Shortcut
|
However, the big difference occurs between DoS and BotFA, leaving the latter seem like an over-long aftermath of the former.
The trilogy does not work as such, imho.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
