|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skaan
Lorien
Mar 6 2015, 1:38pm
Post #1 of 40
(3114 views)
Shortcut
|
|
AUJ feeling disconnected from DoS and BOFA?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Does anyone else feel like AUJ feels a bit disconnected to DoS and BOFA?
DoS and BOFA both had a similar tone, visuals and music. But with AUJ it feels like they were still not certain in what direction they were planning to go with these movies. I also feel like the music isn't consistent with the other 2 scores.
I still like the movie, though. But i just can't shake off that feeling that AUJ doesn't fit with the rest of the trilogy.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 6 2015, 1:54pm
Post #2 of 40
(2965 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No - feels like part of the same story to me...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...though on another level, the tone of the first part of the book is different from the end, so if they've captured that it's a plus for the adaptation.
And if, as you say, they weren't certain where they were heading to start with, then they have a lot in common with Tolkien and his style of storytelling.
Just a thought....
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Mar 6 2015, 1:59pm
Post #3 of 40
(2965 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's the other way round for me ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've recently re-watched BO5A having not watched it since December, and I can firmly say that the movie just doesn't work for me. So it is unsurprising that I feel BO5A is disconnected from AUJ and DOS. Some of the magic was lost between AUJ/DOS and BO5A.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Mar 6 2015, 2:01pm
Post #4 of 40
(2959 views)
Shortcut
|
AUJ is my favorite of the three Hobbit films, probably because it's the most faithful to the book. The scenes in Bag End were adapted near-perfectly, in my opinion.
You are right in saying it is a bit disconnected from DOS and BOFA, however I'd flip your reasoning around. I think they had a good idea what direction they were heading in with AUJ, and that changed with the second and especially third films. The narrative becomes more stretched as the trilogy goes on, with too many extra characters and subplots. The cinematography becomes noticeably more reliant on CGI too.
To me it felt like the filmmakers gave the most attention to AUJ as a whole. So in that respect, the rest of the trilogy doesn't fit with the first film.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Mar 6 2015, 2:09pm
Post #5 of 40
(2946 views)
Shortcut
|
It's the same but different. Much as the book is the same but different.
|
|
|
Never_Underestimate_A_Dwarf
Rivendell
Mar 6 2015, 2:13pm
Post #6 of 40
(2941 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree somewhat, but they still flow together well
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
AUJ is more light hearted and whimsical. As the journey gets increasingly perilous, the films get darker. But that's how the story goes....
I feel BotFA is more of the odd one out. The danger feels real, not exaggerated or comedic like in the other films (except when Legolas is involved, but I don't want to get into that). The focus is shifted away from the company.
AUJ is my personal favorite, although I'm not sure if the tone has anything to do with it. It might be because it's less "cluttered." And no one dies.
|
|
|
tattooed_dwarf
Rivendell
Mar 6 2015, 2:20pm
Post #7 of 40
(2928 views)
Shortcut
|
Yeah, I see where you are coming from. I think AUJ feels more in line with LOTR than DOS and BOFA. I think after first movie was out, something changed a bit how they approached the story, visuals and even music. Big pick- up shootings and many changes to Bolg etc kinda affirm it. Love all three nevertheless.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Mar 6 2015, 2:29pm
Post #8 of 40
(2916 views)
Shortcut
|
AUJ sticks mostly to what Tolkien wrote.
That aside, i think they all feel tonally different. The 2/3 of DoS that i did like felt different from AUJ, but they were in MIrkwood and Thranduil's kingdom and Dol Guldur and post-Smaug Erebor, so they should feel at least somewhat different. But LotR was the same. To me, TTT feels quite different from FotR, with RotK feeling somewhere in the middle, tonally, if that make any sense. But the actual story changes as well, so it feels like the tone of the films is just following the story. As it should, i think.
What i would agree on is that in DoS the overly cgi look started to kick in, with a gauzy sheen cast over outdoor shots, with the Lonely Mountain and it's surrounding areas getting it the most. This is what really mars the look of BotFA for me, visually. It's almost like they used that old Hollywood trick of coating the lens with Vaseline for close-ups of the leading lady, except they used it for almost every shot.
(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Mar 6 2015, 2:34pm)
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Mar 6 2015, 2:37pm
Post #9 of 40
(2901 views)
Shortcut
|
I feel that was sort of the point. DoS eases the watcher into the growing danger with Beornm Spiders and a not-so-nice Elven ruler which then lead to the struggle of these people on the Lake eking out a living under a despot.
After which the company is split and they enter into Ereborr where Bilbo encounters Smaug (the best movie dragon ever made, bar none) and the danger is palpable throughout the entire exchange culminating in a climactic ending (I still don't know why people are upset that Smaug is not invincible, chasing down 9 (at this point) skilled Dwarves (and one wily Hobbit) in a vast place with lots of hiding spaces would not be an easy task for a dragon compared to an ambush on a less than prepared people.
Battle of Five Armies presents danger from the start both without and from within all throughout the film.
My least favorite is AUJ, but that in no way makes it a bad movie, I just think people who have blinded themselves to the others because "they're not like the book" are missing out. I found AUJ to be a little bit too meandering at points and if people want to complain about Azog and the like, the constant pursuit was the only thing to make the film feel like a proper movie, rather than a walking trip. (Which is admittedly what much of the first part of The Hobbit book feels like as well)
DoS gets around this with its atmosphere, the foreboding Mirkwood, the delightful but decrepit Laketown and of course Erebor itself.
BotFA isn't a trip but is all set in small areas, whether it be the mountain sides, or Dol Guldur which gives it a completely different feel from the other Middle Earth movies.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Mar 6 2015, 2:48pm
Post #10 of 40
(2891 views)
Shortcut
|
I think AUJ feels more in line with LOTR than DOS and BOFA. I think after first movie was out, something changed a bit how they approached the story, visuals and even music.
it really does seem that something changed in Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's relation to the story after they started filming that didn't seem to affect AUJ so much (as it was probably too late to change) as it did DoS and BotFA-- much to their detriment, in my opinion. And it led to the ill fated decision to go from two to three films, which then led to boring or ridiculous (or even absurd) additions to the story, and, with location shooting not logistically possible for pick-up shooting, and inadequate time for design of new characters or re-design of existing ones, an over-reliance on cgi.
|
|
|
cats16
Half-elven
Mar 6 2015, 4:05pm
Post #12 of 40
(2826 views)
Shortcut
|
As time goes on, AUJ feels more and more like an old friend whom I most enjoy to come back to. Not that the others don't--it's just that that film (right now) for me feels the most...cohesive with the text and previous trilogy.
Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!
|
|
|
banaili
Bree
Mar 6 2015, 4:10pm
Post #13 of 40
(2827 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is a disconnect between each film, though I'd say the disconnect is bigger between DOS and BO5A...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I feel that there is a disconnect between all three Hobbit films, though the difference between AUJ and DOS is far smaller than the difference between DOS and BO5A.
I loved AUJ because of the way it reintroduced us into the screen world of Middle Earth. I loved the random (yet PERFECT) addition of songs actually sung as part of the scene (I will never forget the surprise and sheer joy I experienced when I witnessed "Blunt the Knives" in all its glory for the first time).
I thought the light-heartedness of that first film both captured Tolkien's story well and managed to suit the big screen perfectly. Desolation struck me as more serious, along the same vein as the LotR series--I think it was simply that heightened level of seriousness that made it differ from AUJ.
Meanwhile, although I ultimately enjoyed BO5A, I felt like it was the odd one out. The disconnect between it and DOS was bigger than the one between DOS and AUJ, and I felt like BO5A didn't quite convey the same world that we had experienced in the other two films. There are lot of reasons for that, some of which are more technical (for example, the run time), but for that different feeling, I felt like it didn't always feel like part of the same series (we don't even focus on the Company anymore, too).
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 6 2015, 6:34pm
Post #14 of 40
(2735 views)
Shortcut
|
Sir Peter has said he was attempting to make one very long film cut into three sections. In order to achieve this you have to have a very strong sense of interconnectedness the movies have to feel symphonic.
The heart of AUJ is Bilbo/Thorin's uneasy relationship and Gandalfs "meddling". Both of these elements disappear from the company and the plot is a road movie until late on when they begin to set up BOFA for Bard/Smaug, Tauriel/Kili and Legolas/Bolg.
For the audience the sub plot changes from being Gandalf finding answers set up in AUJ to simply watching Sauron
realise his plans through Azog and Bolg.
I was surpassed by Daniel mentioning the disconnect between DOS and BOFA but I see what he means you switch from a road movie to a three plot film Thorin/Bard/Legolas with Bard playing off Alfrid and Legolas playing off Tauriel and Thranduil. the latter triangle is particularly interesting because it draws Kili into the Elf story rather than the other way round which is why Tauriels scene with Thranduil appears co equivalent with Thorin/Bilbo.
So because none of the Elves or Men appear in AUJ and the Dwarves, with just occasional flashes from Thorin with a Dwarf or Bilbo, are reduced to minor interjections of dialogue or crowd scenes we seem for much of the film along way from the original film which was about 13 Dwarves a Hobbit and a wizard.
Thats why for me from Bilbo and Thorin until the end it feels like we have suddenly rediscovered the original story and it finishes sublimely and beautifully.
If you are going to have multiple plot lines they need to reinforce each other whereas a good deal of these films were filmed cell like and so they compete rather than coalesce. Just one example it would have helped enormously if we had seen some cooperation between Dain/Bard and Legolas giving them dramatic context with each other as well as providing a hint at the entire purpose of Gandalf's meddling and seeking out Thorin and introducing him to Bilbo.
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 6 2015, 6:36pm)
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Mar 6 2015, 7:58pm
Post #15 of 40
(2681 views)
Shortcut
|
i think people have different opinions on what works what doesnt and what they like the most, the important thing to note is that everyone has mixed feelings.
for me this trilogy is a bit muddied, bofa particularly feels like it shouldnt be a film, thorins death is really quite cheesy and bad imo, iand the almost complete use of green screen just makes it feel cheap or dated. as time gos on i barely have much desire to sit through all the films. though i really like parts of them.
there will be some that will jump to these films defence on very post and good for them, fandom is a powefull thing, especially whne you add 'famous' people to a story, but i think its justified to be critical, we are trying to spread the hobbit to the world and anything other than perfect is no good for me lol
bring on th next tolkine adaption i say..
(This post was edited by balbo biggins on Mar 6 2015, 8:01pm)
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Mar 6 2015, 8:10pm
Post #16 of 40
(2664 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree with much of this Banaili
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I feel that there is a disconnect between all three Hobbit films, though the difference between AUJ and DOS is far smaller than the difference between DOS and BO5A.
I loved AUJ because of the way it reintroduced us into the screen world of Middle Earth. I loved the random (yet PERFECT) addition of songs actually sung as part of the scene (I will never forget the surprise and sheer joy I experienced when I witnessed "Blunt the Knives" in all its glory for the first time).
I thought the light-heartedness of that first film both captured Tolkien's story well and managed to suit the big screen perfectly. Desolation struck me as more serious, along the same vein as the LotR series--I think it was simply that heightened level of seriousness that made it differ from AUJ.
Meanwhile, although I ultimately enjoyed BO5A, I felt like it was the odd one out. The disconnect between it and DOS was bigger than the one between DOS and AUJ, and I felt like BO5A didn't quite convey the same world that we had experienced in the other two films. There are lot of reasons for that, some of which are more technical (for example, the run time), but for that different feeling, I felt like it didn't always feel like part of the same series (we don't even focus on the Company anymore, too).
And I am thrilled that they got Bilbo's story so utterly perfect - because I believe they did, in every way - I almost wonder if some of my perceived shortcomings of the film revolve around the shorter run time. I feel like when SPJ had a freer hand time-wise (per what I have read: no inside information here) as in AUJ, more back-story and more richness seem to be shown to us. But that gives me hope, that in EE with some more glimpses the reeling of completeness will be achieved for me. With so many characters that we care about, I want to see them!
A shot of Beorn, carrying Thorin...a funeral scene...maybe some more detail of the Company during the battle and around Erebor in the buildup phase: all of that would do it for me to give me that real "Middle-earth" feel.
|
|
|
Dipling
Lorien
Mar 6 2015, 9:42pm
Post #17 of 40
(2621 views)
Shortcut
|
AUJ feels more like home. I love the movie. There are not many problems with it.
I expected each movie to be better (DOS and BOFA). But that wasn't what i saw. DOS EE is good and i expect the same for BOFA EE.
Disconnection is also presented with the music. Not much from AUJ is in DOS or BOFA. No epicness.
PJ wanted smooth transition from the Hobbit to LOTR. But BOFA really feels different. Smooth would be from AUJ to LOTR. :-)
I still don't understand how can green screen scenes look so bad as in BOFA - many of the Bard closeup, when this technique is used for over 20 years. Or in DOS - PJ said we won't tell the difference what is location shooting and what is green screen, when dwarfs meet with Bard. But you can see the difference in the first scene already.
So yes. AUJ feels different. Feels good - for me.
But there is still hope for BOFA - EE.
|
|
|
sycorax82
Rohan
Mar 6 2015, 10:26pm
Post #18 of 40
(2605 views)
Shortcut
|
|
All three feel disconnected from each other...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I had high hopes for Bo5A after seeing the DoS EE but it turned out we had already seen the best moments of the trilogy and Bo5A couldn't deliver.
The three movies are all over the place in terms of pace and feel. Bo5A has one or two great scenes (I think everyone will agree that the Bilbo/Thorin acorn scene is one of them) but the rest is mostly flawed craziness thrown together. If you take into consideration the lack of Radagast, Beorn and the supporting Dwarf cast, it hardly even feels like a continuation from AUJ!
|
|
|
Dwarewien
Rohan
Mar 6 2015, 10:58pm
Post #19 of 40
(2577 views)
Shortcut
|
though AUJ isn't my favorite (it's a close second to DoS, which is my favorite, since I could practically live on the middle chapter), I find it a fun movie, with the only thing depressing about it is Thorin nearly getting killed at the end (which also makes me cry, but it isn't as bad as BoFA, not by a long shot, which is why I list AUJ before BoFA). Though I do enjoy BoFA, I don't count it as my favorite anymore, due to the fact that it's too emotionally draining to list as my favorite in the trilogy, but it all feels like the same story to me. Since AUJ is the first in the trilogy, of course it's going to be lighter than the other two, just like FotR, but that doesn't mean there isn't darker aspects (Smaug's attack in the prologue, the Orc chase, Gollum, The Goblin King, etc.), it's just not as dark as the other two. I've forgotten how fun AUJ is, so I should watch it more often.
"Will you follow me... one last time?"
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Mar 6 2015, 11:07pm
Post #20 of 40
(2568 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I thought you were going to say...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
RE: "...AUJ feels a bit disconnected to DoS and BOFA"
"It's the other way round for me...
BoFA feels disconnected from AUJ and DoS"
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Mar 6 2015, 11:19pm
Post #21 of 40
(2555 views)
Shortcut
|
The focus should have been on Bilbo and the Dwarves. I'm fine with Bard Legolas and Tauriel getting more material, but it should have been in service to the main plot. Bard is an example of the filmmakers inventing material and building up a character that works on his own and services the main plot. Bard is a good foil against Thorin.
Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy Legolas and Tauriel, their plot goes from being about the dwarves (imprisoning them) to something else entirely (Romance, etc.). From what I understand, their original smaller roles in the 2-part version of the films would have serviced the main story much better, as it was to focus around Thranduils isolationism, and Tauriel attempting to force his hand to finally do something about the orcs. Sadly, by adding the romance, they distracted from the main plot set up in AUJ resulting in a convoluted story that doesn't feel like it's really about anyone, most criminally not Bilbo. The focus should have never left him, when they switched to three films they should have immediately mapped out a clear arc for him for films 2 and 3. The pushing back of the dwarves is also odd, this is their film, and yet PJ pretty much abandons them in film 2.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 6 2015, 11:30pm
Post #22 of 40
(2554 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't have mixed feelings, so it is NOT everyone.
It seems to me that the changing mood from AUJ through the other two films was a) deliberate (I remember Guillermo del Toro talking about this way back at the beginning) and b) a fair reflection of the way the mood of the book changes.
I feel about the second trilogy exactly the way I felt about the first. It is an amazing achievement. There are things in all six films which I would have done differently; that goes without saying. Perfection in anything is not achievable - if it were, we would stop trying.
As for "we are trying to spread the hobbit to the world" - are we? Who is 'we' and what are you talking about? The films? No one here is involved with those at all. The book? That's gone round the world already on its own merits. I first read it fifty years ago and there are a few here who can top that. And as for fandom and 'famous' people, for me that has nothing to do with it - I'm admiring six first-class films.
(and ps - it's Tolkien)
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Mar 7 2015, 4:14am
Post #24 of 40
(2454 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think you have the Legolas/Tauriel relationship backwards...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You say Tauriel exists for Legolas to play off of but I would argue actually the reverse is true, he's brought back into Jacksons films party to give her someone to play off of(also partly for some action). If you look at their scenes together the majority of them are clearly driven by dramatic tension coming from her not from him. When you look at it that way the interconnectedness you ask for does obviously exist with her relationship to Kili.
Honestly I think the main factor that makes the Hobbit films a little clunkier than LOTR is simply that Jackson does actually stick to the plot of the book quite closely. He adds in material of course but I think a lot of that extra material exists to try and make the existing story work on screen, a story that for me simply isn't as good or at suitable for a film adaptation as LOTR.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Mar 7 2015, 4:14am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 7 2015, 6:10am
Post #25 of 40
(2448 views)
Shortcut
|
I could have expressed it as Thorin/Bard/Elves to make my point.
I accept Tauriel is driving the story and Legolas is reacting but when I wrote that I had in my mind the crescendo which is Thorin/Azog, Bard/Alfrid and finally Legolas/Bolg.
But my major point is the final film whilst providing strong rip your heart heart endings operates as a series of unrelated co equivalent independent stories rather than a glorious whole and only when some of those independent stories drop out do you feel continuity with the original story and the first film.
I think your spot on about the Hobbit from Peter Jackson's perspective. I do not think he had confidence in the original story. Certainly once he had completed the scheduled filming to make it more epic in his mind he made even more changes.
I do not agree with him. The strength of Tolkien lies in a number of qualities but to transform the Hobbit you need to have two in particular in your mind :-
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.
These four elements have huge story telling potential and if fully explored and in some cases not dislodged by predictable hollywood action would have aided the transformation of the charming childrens book into an exciting two part film adaption full of significance and gravitas. He had Sir Ian Mckellen and the necromancer up his sleeve and a location Dol Gulder with its pits and its demented witless prisoner ready to be healed and tell the real story of Dol Gulder. The only other transformation he needed to achieve was to shine a spot light on this strange unique protagonist who was uniquely the son of another personality orc.
If you listen to the two directors commentary his view of how to make a film for global consumption is rather different and the result are overlong action sequences, gags (his word) and a lot of post 60's emotion speak where key motifs and characters are discarded or consigned to the E,E. Listening to him talking about his attitude toward the Thrain sub plot (its modular) I almost wanted to throw something at the screen. It is not a modular disconnected piece of story telling it is the crucial link between the plot and sub plot and should have provided the revelation of whom the necromancer was. Indeed its the perfect example of how to cross relate story lines and give the films a more symphonic cohesive feel. Besides which Thrain is unique in Tolkien's middle earth as being the only member of the free peoples to survive long enough to explain his intimate experience of Sauron.
The reason the fan base is split on this kind of analysis is because some will point to the Gollum/Bilbo chamber piece or Martin in Bag End at the end or the Eagles or the fantastic realisation of the Dragon and the wonderful work done on the fabric of the movie to create such beautiful real costumes and the like. I am aware of all those qualities and thats what makes the fact that these films could have been a whole lot better if more thought had gone into the use of the basic material so frustrating.
Just one final thought he also doesn't have much faith in his audience to keep up. One of the reasons he gives for down playing the importance of the Dwarf Ring and its significance on both Thrors and Thrains behaviour is because it would be to confusing on the audience with Bilbo also having a ring. hmmm
I really am looking forward to the commentary to BOFA where he explains why the Morgul Blade, Radgasts Staff and the funeral would have made it more confusing for the global audience for these films whereas the few seconds burst of Beorn and Radagast did not.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
|
|
1
