Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
"Because the world is a stupid, stupid place" or "When directors shoot movies back-to-back, who wins?"

BlackFox
Half-elven


Apr 30 2015, 8:25pm

Post #1 of 17 (2030 views)
Shortcut
"Because the world is a stupid, stupid place" or "When directors shoot movies back-to-back, who wins?" Can't Post

The Guardian's Luke Holland has written a short article on "Hollywood's obsession with stockpile film-making", which, among other films, touches upon The Hobbit movies.


Quote
Peter Jackson's problems only began when he tried to repeat his commendable feat with The Hobbit. Like flabby grey cakes, they succumbed to the same pratfalls as The Matrix and Pirates: enough narrative plot-points for one film, spread out like service stations across the featureless motorways of several. The Hobbit films, to date, have grossed over $2.9bn. Because the world is a stupid, stupid place.


What do you think? Who "won" with The Hobbit?



Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Apr 30 2015, 8:38pm

Post #2 of 17 (1899 views)
Shortcut
*sigh* [In reply to] Can't Post

As much as I hate the world "elitism", it kind of applies here. PJ makes films for the joy of making them, and for us - the audience. People will disagree about the manner of the adaptation (3 film structure included), but there is nothing that justifies calling those who went to see the films and enjoyed them (or didn't) "stupid".

The author kind of needs to get over himself (and his opinions).

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Shagrat
Gondor

Apr 30 2015, 8:57pm

Post #3 of 17 (1884 views)
Shortcut
The world is indeed a stupid, stupid place [In reply to] Can't Post

Hence why this no-mark is writing bile for The Guardian


Avandel
Half-elven


Apr 30 2015, 9:17pm

Post #4 of 17 (1861 views)
Shortcut
ROFLOL!!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Too true. And for this Mr. Holland - that's SIR Peter to you, thanks so much.Cool


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Apr 30 2015, 11:14pm

Post #5 of 17 (1795 views)
Shortcut
The yrch loses... [In reply to] Can't Post

$2.9 Billion WINS! NEENER, Neener, neener!

TongueTongue

"LIFE IS HARD. IT'S EVEN HARDER WHEN YOUR A STUPID REPORTER!"
-John Wayne (Sorta)



BlackFox
Half-elven


May 1 2015, 9:06am

Post #6 of 17 (1641 views)
Shortcut
Hehehe! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 



smtfhw
Lorien

May 1 2015, 9:39am

Post #7 of 17 (1635 views)
Shortcut
Oh Yes [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile


QuackingTroll
Valinor


May 1 2015, 11:16am

Post #8 of 17 (1620 views)
Shortcut
"All of this bodes fairly poorly for Avengers" except... [In reply to] Can't Post

Except for the point you made about The Lord of the Rings winning a billion Oscars and the fact that all of these examples were huge box office successes. But you rather hastily conveyed those points hoping no-one would see them because they didn't support your ridiculous theory.

This journalist is using every trick in the book to write a biased and opinionated article with no valid argument or reliable evidence. This is a non-article. I guess it was a slow news day so they had to make something up. I really hate these types of articles, they're getting much too popular because they serve as click-bait for the publisher. But they're starting to drown out the real news.
Mad

The world is a stupid, stupid place.


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on May 1 2015, 11:18am)


dormouse
Half-elven


May 1 2015, 1:15pm

Post #9 of 17 (1573 views)
Shortcut
Who won with The Hobbit? [In reply to] Can't Post

Easy! We did! Cool


BlackFox
Half-elven


May 1 2015, 2:50pm

Post #10 of 17 (1536 views)
Shortcut
I was waiting for someone to say that! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm with you, dormouse. I can't say how glad I am to have been able to share in on this wonderful experience. Smile



oliphaunt
Lorien

May 1 2015, 3:36pm

Post #11 of 17 (1515 views)
Shortcut
We have won indeed! [In reply to] Can't Post

If there were 9 movies each 9 hours long I'd still want more!


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 1 2015, 3:48pm

Post #12 of 17 (1505 views)
Shortcut
TRY sitting though a Marathon..? [In reply to] Can't Post

One WEEK before, AUJ came out
ONE theater did a EE LOTR MARATHON...
started @ 11 AM {with 20 minute breaks}

Bom left @ Midnight, just after Aragorn said
"You bow to no one" to the four Hobbits...

SSOoo if bom had STAYED to the Final Credits?
IT would have been about 1:30 am...

SAME w/ a Marathon of The Hobbit, but they started earlier..
SSOoo.. Bomby got to see BOT5A..about 4 days before the
REST of the USA release.

THAT was cool, since PJ came on Screen, just before BOT5A
to congratulate us on getting "First Views"

The Theater only had about 20 people in it...SSOoo..it
seemed pretty Personal.
Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


BlackFox
Half-elven


May 1 2015, 4:24pm

Post #13 of 17 (1483 views)
Shortcut
True that! [In reply to] Can't Post

BTW, welcome to TORn! Smile



Elarie
Grey Havens

May 1 2015, 11:40pm

Post #14 of 17 (1410 views)
Shortcut
Sounds like the same old song [In reply to] Can't Post

"Someone made a movie that I didn't like, therefore everybody else who liked it is stupid." Nothing new here.

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


Bumblingidiot
Rohan

May 3 2015, 3:24pm

Post #15 of 17 (1270 views)
Shortcut
Quite. [In reply to] Can't Post

Bear in mind that The Guardian, which used to be a proper paper, has an online presence dedicated to clickbait; they don't always bother to employ proper, quality journalists for their online stuff - presumably to save money; also because the more idiotic their articles are, the more clicks and comments they get.

What I'd like to know is who was the idiot that decided that there is a particular set formula for adapting a book into film. The Bible is about a thousand pages - a fairly big book, like LOTR. The New Testament is a small part of it - less than 300 pages I think, and contains several accounts of the same events. So, according to the film critic geniuses out there, we should get a maximum of three films out of the whole Bible and one out of the NT itself. A quick check reveals

Exodus: Gods and Kings - based on a single section from the Bible
Jesus of Nazareth, King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told - versions of the small, New Testament section of the book
The last temptation of Christ - a small portion of the small NT part
The Ten Commandments - a few verses from the OT
The Nativity - a tiny part of the NT story
Samson and Delilah - a few lines in the OT
The Passion of the Christ - another small section of the NT part of the book
Noah - a few verses in the book.
The Big Fisherman - the bits in the NT concerning Peter
Salome - a tiny part of the OT story made into an 'epic'
Sodom and Gomorrah - a few lines in the Bible??
Slave of Dreams - based on a small part of the story of Joseph
The Book of Esther - based on a tiny section in the Bible
King David - another small bit of the Bible
Abraham - ditto
Jacob - ditto
David and Bathsheba - ditto
Young Abraham - not even the whole of Abraham's story this time!
Lot in Sodom - at least this one's a short film - based on a tiny part of the book
The Bible - In the Beginning - which covers the first part of Genesis

Then we have films like Sleepy Hollow - an entire long narrative based on a shortish poem, not to mention the reams of superhero films based on comics with hardly any writing in them at all.

The 'Three films out of one book' complaint really is pretty daft - certainly in the context of film history. Many films cover the events of a single day; others condense a hundred years into a couple of hours. The Hobbit covers a year's events, but also introduces a new world an culture to the audience and flashes back to the distant past on occasion. There are plenty of narrative points for three films - even without PJ's inventions.

"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 3 2015, 5:46pm

Post #16 of 17 (1249 views)
Shortcut
Nice post [In reply to] Can't Post

I completely agree that the "page counting formula" idea that keeps re-appearing in people's complaints makes no sense. It's what's in the book that matters, combined with the vision of the director and the scriptwriters. The possibilities and variations are endless, and it's all part of the creativity of the art of moviemaking.

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


Elessar
Valinor


May 4 2015, 1:00pm

Post #17 of 17 (1166 views)
Shortcut
What an (insert nasty word here) [In reply to] Can't Post

 


 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.