|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 15 2015, 2:28pm
Post #26 of 31
(286 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I thought that I was fairly clear.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I did not state that the films did fail, I wrote that they failed in one respect if they could not stand by themselves, apart from Tolkien's book. If you do not see that to be the case then they succeeded in this, at least in your eyes.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 15 2015, 2:29pm)
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 15 2015, 2:33pm
Post #27 of 31
(283 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But is that the case? Many who saw the films never the read the book.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If they went back and saw all three again failure may be too strong.
I understand you point, maybe disappointment for many people is more of what they had experienced. Of course, for some failure is accurate, no doubt.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 15 2015, 2:47pm
Post #28 of 31
(278 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That is why my statement is (deliberately) debatable.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If a person could view the films, especially the last one, without being left with serious, unanswered questions then they did work, at least for that person.
This is not the case for me, largely because of the unresolved question of the Arkenstone in the films. As a reader of Tolkien's book I know what should have become of the gem and I can imagine that this occurs off-screen; however, we do not know for certain that this was the resolution chosen by Peter Jackson. The Arkenstone is the primary MacGuffin in the film trilogy. It isn't right to end things with the issue of this major plot-device left up-in-the-air. That is like ending The Maltese Falcon by leaving the epomynous object lying in the gutter forgotten.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 15 2015, 3:01pm
Post #29 of 31
(274 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree, at the least, showing the crowning of the new King would have been fitting..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
With all of the films...LOTR and The Hobbit...at least for me, the "real versions" are the EE editions. I am sure we will see the crowning of Dain.....if not, it will be a major error.
(This post was edited by Eruonen on May 15 2015, 3:02pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 15 2015, 3:35pm
Post #30 of 31
(267 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, the extended edition definitely should have more Dain. I would argue that there should have been at least one scene in the theatrical cut where we see Dain as King under the Mountain. Your mileage may vary.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
May 18 2015, 8:37pm
Post #31 of 31
(191 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you raise very interesting questions and while itīs true that the level of detail is very different between the two stories, itīs just a piece of the explanation and an explanation which is too easily resorted to.
Adapting the Hobbit for the screen requires some invention and additions, but the question is rather what you base these inventions and additions on. Do you use what is already in the text and the appendices of LoTR and shape the concrete inventions from those examples or do you prefer to just make something up based on what you find intriguing and exciting or things you missed in the original story, or do you take material from other stories in Tolkienīs legendarium and just insert the same kind of events into the Hobbit?
PJ & co use all the three approaches for the storyline of the same character and also when itīs not strictly needed to adapt from book to screen. This is also why the storylines of several secondary characters end up becoming so muddled. It is in these storylines that IMO both PJ & the scriptwriters lose their grip on the story.
Iīm sure the director and the scriptwriters mostly wanted to a)increase the scope and drama of the story and b)merge the films even more with LoTR (provide backstory/links) by writing new material and individual storylines for secondary characters like Bard, Tauriel, Legolas and Thranduil. Unfortunately it seems like they forgot that itīs quite limited how many angles and aspects you can add to the films if you want to give the individual storylines a satisfying depth and coherence and if you want to work with a particular storyline you need to be consistent in how you approach it.
In terms of consistency in the stories DoS and BoTFA differ quite visibly from LoTR.
The storylines which actually work throughout are the ones connected to the primary story like Bilboīs relation to Thorin, Bilboīs development as a character, the backstory and motivation of the dwarves for going on the quest and creating distinctive characters out of the company of dwarves, especially Balin and Dwalinīs roles as respectively Thorinīs advisor and Thorinīs supporter/ally. Here the additional elements are clearly based on the needs of adapting the story, only specific and relevant parts of the appendices of LoTR are used for backstory and the approach is consistent throughout all the three films.
|
|
|
|
|
