|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 19 2015, 9:16am
Post #1 of 26
(2431 views)
Shortcut
|
A Few Reasons these 2 Trilogies are SSOo..Different?
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. Richard said it quite succinctly.. LOTR ends in weddings.. TH ends in funerals... OKAY, 1. Aragorn marries Arwen 2. Faramir marries Eowyn...even though we didn't see it it is Implied in the "Houses of Healing" & the Coronation scene & Finally.. 3. Samwise marries Rosie Cotton. ALL very Happy endings. The Top Three Dwarves are buried @ the Funeral. Ending the direct Line of Durin. Leaving us to BE...very Un-Happy. ALSO, Frodo comes home {In the Movie} to the same old Shire & savors some years in BagEND. Bilbo comes home to Find BagEND emptied & wrecked. In the Prologue of LOTR, we see the Battle of the Last Alliance! which is a Victory since Sauron loses his Ring. In the Prologue of the Hobbit, we see The Greatest Kingdom thrown down by Smaug! with practically No Resistance; abandoned by the Elves. {No Alliance there} The upward Struggle in the LOTR is by 2 tiny little Hobbits supported by Vast Armies trying to Hold on.. long enough to allow them the time to get to a Volcano?. The Upward Struggle in the The Hobbit is to survive barriers in their way to Reach the Lonely Mountain {ANOTHER Mountain.?} Interesting? since Bom is Convinced the Lonely Mountain is a Extinct Volcano on the same Longitude as Orodruin, only about 1000 miles North? The Hobbit is a Tragedy. The Lord of the Rings is a Triumph. SSOoo glad we got the Tragedy.. out of our way? SSOoo that the Triumph can happen.
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
May 19 2015, 10:59am
Post #2 of 26
(2282 views)
Shortcut
|
You're certainly right about The Hobbit films being a tragedy...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The shire is a constant for both Bilbo and Frodo. Frodos return is actually way more tragic, seeing as he knows he has to leave sooner or later.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind" ^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.
(This post was edited by jtarkey on May 19 2015, 11:01am)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 19 2015, 2:20pm
Post #3 of 26
(2194 views)
Shortcut
|
I always thought the ship to the Grey Havens was kind of a funeral - they were leaving forever But that will be nothing to how hard I'll cry during the three Funerals
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 19 2015, 8:07pm
Post #5 of 26
(2054 views)
Shortcut
|
AN.. your Video does bring up some Interesting points
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But Old Bom would like to add: LOTR started a Series of Epic Fantasy Films Therefore What we get with the The Hobbit does sound, & look like a bit "OLD HAT" ..after 15 years. The Industry has gone places it NEVER would have gone without LOTR so, we... who DO love Tolkien's Books as well as Fantasy in General are enriched.. BUT that makes the Hobbit Harder to love. WE will likely understand this Trilogy better as the years go down that long & winding ROAD... ESPECIALLY when he SEE & Hear the comments made by the MASTER himself in the Commentaries this NOVEMBER. WHY? he is sitting their producing it, BUT also is sitting there NAKED in the DARK... ...While people worldwide analyze & criticize what we've we have seen so FAR? Bom is convinced we have REALLY not seen the Movie he was Destined to Make.
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 19 2015, 8:10pm)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
May 19 2015, 9:30pm
Post #6 of 26
(2006 views)
Shortcut
|
We have seen the movie he was destined to make...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Unlike a film such as Once Upon a Time in New York which was savagely edited down to a point that it was unwatchable in its original cinematic version, and was only deemed great when it was offered again in an uncut version several years later, The Battle of the Five Armies (which added in an excessive extra definite article to its title to make it longer, not to mention throwing an extra 6th army into the movie for the hell of it) does not suffer from deletions, but rather superfluous additions and fan-fiction addenda already present in the original film version. It all boils down to whether or not you still like the trilogy ironically titled "The Hobbit" after seeing the three cinema versions. If you liked it, you most likely will enjoy a 1/2 hour or more of additional Jacksonian minutiae. If you didn't care for it, adding an additional 1/2 hour of drivel is not going to make you dish out $40-some-dollars to wade through the excess.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on May 19 2015, 9:31pm)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 19 2015, 10:05pm
Post #7 of 26
(1975 views)
Shortcut
|
Nice Opinion? Have anything more to ADD?//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 19 2015, 10:05pm)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
May 19 2015, 10:13pm
Post #8 of 26
(1975 views)
Shortcut
|
No, nothing further presently, however...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I do thank you for not adding several lines of "Bomby-speak" in your reply.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
squiggle
Rivendell
May 19 2015, 11:43pm
Post #9 of 26
(1942 views)
Shortcut
|
One Trilogy was more epochal for it's time, the other is more for it's Genre
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is my guess. They were both very succesful financially. The EE sets of the Hobbit may in a way be abit like David Lynch's Dune except on alot bigger range as time roles on for people digging into this type of cinema & in that way i think the hobbit trilogy will re-cycle itself well for a following. The differences of the trilogies will only serve to keep this movie verse of middle earth more alive in different people taking the time out to watch all six, especially the EEs, as it is more of a 'dive in' proposition.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 20 2015, 12:30am
Post #10 of 26
(1911 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, "Thang YOU Berry BUCH..?"//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 20 2015, 3:05am
Post #11 of 26
(1876 views)
Shortcut
|
In a way? PJ invented? the GENRE...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
SPOCK would state..."INTERESTING!" ............................. Now, we could go DOWN that rabbit-HOLE LARGER ISSUE.. .{maybe, sorta, kinda} interestin' TANGENT . . . . . . . .genre
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Istaris'staffs
Rivendell
May 20 2015, 5:49am
Post #12 of 26
(1872 views)
Shortcut
|
that the reason TH is considered the lesser trilogy is because of the story written by Tolkien. It has been a common narrative among some to blame the "lacking" story of the TH, and its "simple" "one dimensional" characters as the reason the movies did not work as well. I think that's just plain wrong. The story is fine. The execution of the story by PJ and the choices he made with his portrayal is what was lacking.
"Are you mad? You'll never out run them, those are Gundabad warns!" "And these are RHOSGOBEL rabbits! I'd like to see them try."
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 20 2015, 4:54pm
Post #13 of 26
(1758 views)
Shortcut
|
Along that that lline, The Hobbit is a single book and not a trilogy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
so telling the tale over three films, something I was quite pleased with, requires bringing in some additional content. I was very happy with the appendices content, and wanted more of the Dol Guldur mission. Obviously, there is quite a split in opinion over the relative success or failure of certain additional material. The LOTR had some changes as well, particularly the arrival of the elves at Helm's Deep. But, upon hearing the rationale for including them, I at least understood where that decision came from. For me, the biggest issues are not created characters, but the over the top action scenes. Those always take me out of Middle Earth. Other changes in plot, like the Ravenshill fight etc. are at least understandable from a movie perspective. The other decision would have been to follow the book and have the characters fighting amongst the swirling, falling, screaming hordes. It is hard to focus on the key characters, though not impossible. I was most disappointed with Radagast. Not Sylvester McCoy per se, just the character as wacky, hippy wizard.
(This post was edited by Eruonen on May 20 2015, 4:57pm)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 20 2015, 9:26pm
Post #14 of 26
(1706 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ does have his excesses, to be sure - but not everyone loved the book. It was an underdeveloped story. Yeah, it was a children's book, but so was Harry Potter, and yet it had much more world-development, character development, and story than The Hobbit. And a film that made as much money, and has been seen by as many people as The Hobbt trilogy, cannot be called a "failure." All you can really honestly say is some people didn't like it - that's hardly the same thing.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
May 21 2015, 12:19am
Post #15 of 26
(1680 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess you are completely unaware...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That the book The Hobbit has been loved by generations since it was published in 1937? That it is considered not only a children's classic, but one of the greatest fantasy classics of all time? As it was in my family and millions of others in the last 75 years, it is one of the first "real" books that are read to children, or that they read themselves. I'm sorry your mom or dad didn't read it to you, but perhaps when you grow up you'll read it to your children. One can hope. To say it is an "underdeveloped story" is missing the point of the story so completely that it is bizarre to see it mentioned. Underdeveloped for whom, the pre-WWII British adolescent audience for whom it was originally intended? Perhaps someone in need of beheadings and exploding things to stay focused? Maybe cats who like sudden movements and jerky motions to keep their attention when playing with string fails to amuse? Or teenage fan-fiction writers who will have Tauriel carry Kili's love child and birth a Dwelf, who will then ride off to Erebor on a little pink pony? Oh, excuse me, a little pink ram. Equally out of context is comparing The Hobbit to the Harry Potter series, because if you are referring to world-building, The Hobbit plot is a small instance in a single year of a complex world with thousands of years of chronology, cosmology and history, and yet The Lord of the Rings would not exist without The Hobbit, and more than likely neither would Harry Potter. Yes, the films have made money, but then so have The Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Twilight and Fast & Furious franchises. Are you saying that these are on par with The Hobbit? If that is a mark of distinction then Miley Cyrus trumps Wolfgang Mozart.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on May 21 2015, 12:22am)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 21 2015, 1:00am
Post #16 of 26
(1659 views)
Shortcut
|
Sometimes Bom doesn't get your sarcasm... BUT Certainly DID this TIME! *snicker* ..*snicker* Right ON! Morty!
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
squiggle
Rivendell
May 21 2015, 1:40am
Post #17 of 26
(1652 views)
Shortcut
|
Looking at an object purely via the lens of another, is it more useful 'what is' rather than 'what is not'?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as little distinction between a book from 1930s and major film production 2012s-15s seems to be taking place. Then if the 'what is's are ooutweighed by the 'what isnt's in enjoyability, just perhaps one of those things of luck of the draw? This is in some degree, subjectively, what the situation is always going to be when there is more than one work of the same specific object. When looking at the what is and what isn'ts, there is often depending on how fortunately made something is, also the 'what is' giving different forms to the what isn'ts in relatability to each other. I dont' know if this approach would give someone's disappointment over the Hobbit trilogy films relative to the 1930s book alone, a different outlook that is useful in enjoying the films, but it is an option.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
May 21 2015, 1:55am
Post #18 of 26
(1646 views)
Shortcut
|
I would imagine complaints about "development"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are not about the lack of OTT action but about, well, the character development in the book. AS a 6 year old reading this classic for the first time I did not care; as a 45 looking back on nearly 4 decades of loving Tolkien's Middle Earth, I think there is a reason I so much prefer LotR (while still liking TH, naturally!). And the characters in the latter are an important part of that. Aside from Bilbo there is no other character than made a big impression. (LotR on the other hand has lots of characters that did). For me the films handled this aspect well. I find several of the film characters vivid and interesting and appealing in their various ways. And it was done in part by expanding and/or changing things from the book. They also address a niggle that bothers me about the two books, namely what strikes me as a rather different Gandalf. Some of the additions,plot changes, and explanations of backstory make LotR Gandalf's interest in Thorin's quest more reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 21 2015, 11:52pm
Post #19 of 26
(1516 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't appreciate it - and don't say "when you grow up" to me like I'm a teenager; I am 55 years old and have a really good idea of what I do and do not like. I simply disagreed with you, I don't think I said ANYTHING about your character or taste, only expressing my own. Let me be clear: I DID NOT like the book, okay? This has nothing to do with the movie, I am talking about the book. Tolkein mentions the Necromancer and then does nothing with that. Gandalf leaves for no reason and just shows up unexpectedly. We have a bunch of barely distinguishable Dwarves with different colored hoods. Yes, I felt it was underdeveloped, and I didn't like that Tolkein killed off both nephews. I am ENTITLED to my opinion, and who the HECK do you think you are, running me down for it? I don't have to be a teenage fanfic writer or a cat that can't pay attention to like the movies. I'm not saying they were perfect, only that I approve of MOST of the additional material PJ & Co added because it did fill out the story, and from what I can gather (being no Tolkein expert) they did do a great deal of research into the canon before writing these additions. No, I did not read the book to my daughters, they were advanced readers at an early age, reading books like "The Oddesy", Steinbeck, and even LoTR all by themselves - and yet they loved Harry Potter. I guess you will think less of me for that, too.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 21 2015, 11:54pm
Post #20 of 26
(1503 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm glad SOMEBODY gets that!
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 22 2015, 12:31am
Post #21 of 26
(1498 views)
Shortcut
|
You think it's great that he ran me down so badly?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sarcasm can rub people the wrong way.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 22 2015, 4:25am
Post #22 of 26
(1479 views)
Shortcut
|
Honestly, I never suspected that you were about the same age as myself (I turn 55 in August). I had the impression that you were, maybe, in your twenties.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 22 2015, 8:10am
Post #23 of 26
(1471 views)
Shortcut
|
to be courteous in your disagreement with others. People here will have wildly divergent opinions, but just because someone's point of view is very far separated from your own is not a reason to accuse them of having all other qualities you dislike. For the record, I'm pretty lukewarm on The Hobbit book too, certainly by comparison to Lord of the Rings. When I heard how the films were to be expanded, my reaction was "That'll be interesting. Maybe I'll like them more than the book". In the end, it probably comes out about even - I have affection for much about the book, but I also quite enjoyed much of what they put in the film, despite some quibbles. By contrast, I deeply love LOTR and adored the movies, despite a few quibbles. For me, the style of The Hobbit does indeed mean that any movie, no matter how faithful, was unlikely to match LOTR. Because I just like the second story better. Always have, always will. Had LOTR not existed, I would not have become a dedicated Tolkien fan on the strength of The Hobbit alone. But that doesn't mean that I need despise those who love the "younger" story best. I read both TH and LOTR in quick succession when I was in my teens, a quarter century ago, and have read them both many times since. And also for the record, I am not at all a fan of beheadings and exploding things, I have a quite long attention span, I don't read teenage fan-fiction (and rarely any fan-fiction at all). But I do not love the "children's book" tone that the Hobbit is written in, and it certainly does not go into the sort of depth and detail that draws me in to The Lord of the Rings. I am, however, reading The Hobbit to my niece and nephew who are at the right age to be excited by it. Who knows, maybe when they grow up they'll still love it as passionately as you do - or maybe they'll be like me and prefer LOTR. That will be up to them and their own tastes.
Silverlode Roads go ever ever on Under cloud and under star Yet feet that wandering have gone Turn at last to home afar. Eyes that fire and sword have seen And horror in the halls of stone Look at last on meadows green And trees and hills they long have known.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 22 2015, 6:42pm
Post #24 of 26
(1388 views)
Shortcut
|
For the record, I'm pretty lukewarm on The Hobbit book too, certainly by comparison to Lord of the Rings. When I heard how the films were to be expanded, my reaction was "That'll be interesting. Maybe I'll like them more than the book". In the end, it probably comes out about even - I have affection for much about the book, but I also quite enjoyed much of what they put in the film, despite some quibbles. By contrast, I deeply love LOTR and adored the movies, despite a few quibbles. For me, the style of The Hobbit does indeed mean that any movie, no matter how faithful, was unlikely to match LOTR. Because I just like the second story better. Always have, always will. Had LOTR not existed, I would not have become a dedicated Tolkien fan on the strength of The Hobbit alone. But that doesn't mean that I need despise those who love the "younger" story best. I read both TH and LOTR in quick succession when I was in my teens, a quarter century ago, and have read them both many times since. And also for the record, I am not at all a fan of beheadings and exploding things, I have a quite long attention span, I don't read teenage fan-fiction (and rarely any fan-fiction at all). But I do not love the "children's book" tone that the Hobbit is written in, and it certainly does not go into the sort of depth and detail that draws me in to The Lord of the Rings. Except that I first read LotR and then TH almost fifty years ago and I've lost count of how many time's I've read these books, The Silmarillion and the rest since. Also, I never read any sort of fan fiction, and I'll readily admit that occasionally I enjoy seeing things explode.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 22 2015, 9:49pm
Post #25 of 26
(1367 views)
Shortcut
|
Hm, not sure what to think of that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Under normal circumstances it would be quite a compliment Peace out!
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
|
|