|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 23 2015, 8:25am
Post #1 of 132
(2984 views)
Shortcut
|
How do you view the Hobbit trilogy next to the LOTR trilogy?
|
Can't Post
|
|
So now that the TE of the final Hobbit film has been out on DVD & Blu-ray for a while, how would you place the Hobbit films next to the LOTR films? There are, obviously, some big inconsistencies between the two, that seem to take you out of the universe too much. They've gone too far with certain things, by adding content that in no way fits into the already established Middle-earth movie universe. Not just the unfitting jokes, ridiculous action scenes and overuse of CGI orcs, but also the lack of 'magic' that the LOTR films did have. Some may not mind these things, but I know that I among many others do. So enough about the book inaccuracies already, let's see how people put these two trilogies next to one another now that the journey is (almost) over. Would you just happily view them back-to-back, or do you feel that they're too different from one another as trilogies to even be able to do that? Would it take something away from the overall experience for you? Do you disregard the Hobbit films and write them off as being non-canon to you in the ME movie universe? Or perhaps you even view them as parodies here and there. I myself prefer to see it as a vague recollection of memories, collected by Bilbo, some kept intact and some exaggerated, and thus not at all what really happened in most cases. You'll have the Bilbo scenes that will probably be close to what really happened, but then when the other characters pop up, it will just be how Bilbo might've imagined those things - or perhaps, as mentioned before, he made exaggerated versions of some of these memories, and thus it became a way for me to put the trilogies next to one another, but not very much so at the same time. The reason I did this is that The Hobbit doesn't feel like the world the way it felt in LOTR, doesn't look like the world we see in LOTR, but rather seems like a similar world with some people and locations that look the same, design-wise. At other times I like to disregard the Hobbit films as non-canon altogether - don't get me wrong, I like and enjoy them as films, but sadly they fail to keep consistency with the already established ME movieverse, as has been said before. It doesn't work for me at all, so I judge the LOTR films to be the only fully accurate parts of the movieverse. There are probably a lot of other ways to view these two when put next to one another, and I might still change my view, but nonetheless I'd like to hear how you folks here would prefer to experience these films.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 23 2015, 8:29am)
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
May 23 2015, 8:40am
Post #2 of 132
(2687 views)
Shortcut
|
Sure I would view the movies after one another. I mean I don't think The Hobbit needed all the winks towards LotR all the time, but despite some issues I have with the Hobbit - it doesn't change how much I love LotR. Certainly hasn't made anything worse. If anything, better in my case. The question for me is if I'd be able to sit still for so many hours
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 23 2015, 8:49am
Post #3 of 132
(2696 views)
Shortcut
|
Unfitting exposition of the movie
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some reviewers keep on repeating that the Hobbit movies carry unfitting jokes, unfitting cgi, unfitting characters, as if they believe there should be an authority claiming all this. What is this fight all about ? Setting Tolkien's books as a canon for a real world ? Complaining about a movie-maker adding some fiction to a book fiction ? One more time, Tolkien's world is NOT A REAL WORLD. It is a FICTION. Confusing a fiction with the real world and acting/speaking as if a fiction has to be treated the same way as the history of a real world is a one-way to religious sectarism. Nobody asks if The Avengers characters are or are not 'fitting' characters. If the cgi of the Avengers are fitting or unfitting. If the jokes of the Avengers movies are fitting or unfitting.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
May 23 2015, 10:50am
Post #4 of 132
(2666 views)
Shortcut
|
"Nobody asks if The Avengers characters are or are not 'fitting' characters. If the cgi of the Avengers are fitting or unfitting. If the jokes of the Avengers movies are fitting or unfitting. " People absolutely do discuss this, all of the time. Far more so than for The Hobbit. Adaptations are expected to show respect to their source material and fans of said material, and when changes are made people will always discuss those changes whether good or bad. It happens with every franchise out there. How would you feel if Bilbo suddenly pulled out a laser gun and shot Smaug? It's only fiction, right? In adaptations like this, especially a prequel, where an entire world and aesthetic and atmosphere has already been laid down and cemented in audience's minds, there are so many expectations to reach by replicating certain looks and themes, so as not to disappoint the expectations of the audience. - If you pay to see a horror you expect to get scared, and would be disappointed otherwise, and this is a similar scenario. By changing key elements (whether subtly, like 1951's Scrooge or drastically like 1988's Scrooged) you can completely alter the audience's perception and enjoyment of the story.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on May 23 2015, 10:59am)
|
|
|
lionoferebor
Rohan
May 23 2015, 12:37pm
Post #5 of 132
(2629 views)
Shortcut
|
Well said AshNazg! I applaud you.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Nobody asks if The Avengers characters are or are not 'fitting' characters. If the cgi of the Avengers are fitting or unfitting. If the jokes of the Avengers movies are fitting or unfitting. " People absolutely do discuss this, all of the time. Far more so than for The Hobbit. Adaptations are expected to show respect to their source material and fans of said material, and when changes are made people will always discuss those changes whether good or bad. It happens with every franchise out there. How would you feel if Bilbo suddenly pulled out a laser gun and shot Smaug? It's only fiction, right? In adaptations like this, especially a prequel, where an entire world and aesthetic and atmosphere has already been laid down and cemented in audience's minds, there are so many expectations to reach by replicating certain looks and themes, so as not to disappoint the expectations of the audience. - If you pay to see a horror you expect to get scared, and would be disappointed otherwise, and this is a similar scenario. By changing key elements (whether subtly, like 1951's Scrooge or drastically like 1988's Scrooged) you can completely alter the audience's perception and enjoyment of the story.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 23 2015, 1:25pm
Post #6 of 132
(2612 views)
Shortcut
|
I second that. That summed it up perfectly.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 23 2015, 1:53pm
Post #7 of 132
(2598 views)
Shortcut
|
Nah! It is Told with OLD Bilbo's Fuzzy memory....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
60 years later. Frodo began writing right after he got home...in an Attempt to make some sense of it & leave a legacy for Sam to finish. Bilbo is known as a bit of Poet, more so than Frodo. SSOoo.. bilbo used some poetic licence. Just like PJ did. And Bom has watched them all the way through already over a period days. Enjoyed it. If you sit there & think this is an accurate version, of course you might be disappointed. Same as if, you looked back @ what YOU WERE.. say, 20 years ago. You might sit there & say..."Boy, was I stupid" AS an illustrator, Bom has many pictures in my head, & am Always the HERO of my own life. Bilbo's personal EGO might have gotten involved in the Telling. As well, Bilbo was Not present for Smaug's death. Bilbo was Not awake when The Durin's died..he only woke up long enough to Watch Thorin die, but did he know how Azog died? Bomby likes to think any scenes like that were made-up by BILBO.
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 23 2015, 2:19pm
Post #8 of 132
(2585 views)
Shortcut
|
The absurdity of your statements shows
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When you are claiming for 'respect for the original material' about the Avengers while simply forgetting which 'respect for the original material' the Avengers Comics did show at the first place. Was legendary Thor intended to fly over US megacities ? Where & when was He, before Kirby pushed him into The Marvel Comics ? " Kirby said (*) " I knew the Thor legends very well, but I wanted to modernize them. I felt that might be a new thing for comics, taking the old legends and modernizing them.". ((*) Search wikipedia article 'Thor') If someday some modern Kirby says "I love Gandalf Legend and I want to modernize it and put him into our modern world", the same pseudo-canon process would be at work. JRR Tolkien, being a child, was fond of legendary tales, and HE wanted to make them his own. HE decided his dwarfs would be called 'dwarves', his Elfs (german origin and german word : Elfen) would be called 'Elves', and so on. Is it 'respect for the original material', or was it a disturbance of a daring magnitude ? What came between, AshNazg, are copyrights. Original legends never thought about copyrights, they were shared by everybody just like the air we breathe. So, tell me : which respect for the 'original material' show people who says : "Legends are mine", cashing in the process ? I maintain what I say : this is putting fiction upon fiction, and P Jackson is far less disrespectful 'to the original material' than Tolkien himself was. Tell me, basically, which difference you make between JRR Tolkien's work and a 'fan-fiction' freely based on common legendary tales ?
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on May 23 2015, 2:20pm)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
May 23 2015, 2:39pm
Post #9 of 132
(2570 views)
Shortcut
|
What on Earth are you talking about?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You're comparing adaptation to re-translation and reimagining. They're completely separate things. Nobody read the Thor comic expecting an accurate retelling of the Thor legend. They (correctly) expected a Marvel superhero, and as such were not disappointed - However, people DID go to see the Thor movie expecting an accurate representation of the comic character. Do you see the difference? If the film had nothing to do with the comicbook and instead represented the classic Thor from Norse mythology, Marvel fans would have been confused and angry. Even if the change was more subtle, like giving Thor a pink cape, it would be going against what fans want to see. You have to meet people's expectations in order to fulfil their interests. If someone wanted to modernise Gandalf then that would be fine, as long as that is their specific vision and their audience understands and wants that (kinda like my Scrooged example or that modern Romeo and Juliet) It can be successful. But if Kirby wrote a modernised version of The Hobbit and called it a "faithful adaptation" of the book AND a prequel to The Lord of the Rings movies - well, that would be his business, but I can guarantee audiences would not be interested.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on May 23 2015, 2:41pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 23 2015, 2:49pm
Post #10 of 132
(2561 views)
Shortcut
|
that are NOT interested in P Jackson's adaptation ? Are you explaining us that The Hobbit trilogy is a box-office failure ? That it doesn't meet expectations ? Which expectations from the public would you be talking about before that one-book book turned into a three-movies movie ?
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 23 2015, 3:58pm
Post #11 of 132
(2528 views)
Shortcut
|
Lotr was far from perfect, but it at least resembled the story I've loved since I was a kid so I see it as sort of a visual accompaniment to the books...though by no means a replacement. PJ's hobbit on the other hand is a horrible mess of over the top cgi action sequences, moronic invented subplots, and a complete disregard of the beloved source material. So I am basically just trying to forget it exists altogether. If I need a Hobbit movie fix, I'll take the far superior Rankin Bass animated version from 1977.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
May 23 2015, 4:54pm
Post #12 of 132
(2489 views)
Shortcut
|
I didn't say that it was a box office failure...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm simply stating that when key elements of an adaptation are altered, it can result in the adaptation not meeting the interests of the wider audience. Some people will be fine with certain changes and some won't, but the important factor here is that the writers/director should always be conscious of the expectations of their audience. To make dramatic changes in an adaptation, or sequel, purely on the basis of "it's fiction and doesn't matter" is insulting to the integrity of the original material and the expectations of the fans. It displays a lack of respect to the material, and most importantly, it can result in the loss of the very thing that made the original so popular in the first place. In my opinion The Hobbit does all of this. The audience had big expectations, either from reading the book, or seeing The Lord of the Rings movies. But Peter Jackson intentionally altered the world created in both of these texts and tried to imagine something very different. The result is a trilogy that not only lacks the simple character, humour and charm of the book, but also lacks the detail, depth and epicness of The Lord of the Rings films. That's not to say The Hobbit failed entirely and are bad films, but because these changes were made, it makes perfect sense for fans to express disappointment. And to argue that "it's only fiction" is not good enough. -People wanted to see Beorn kill Bolg on screen. This expectation was created by reading the book. When it doesn't happen in the film people become disappointed. It's that simple. If you start creating elements that don't exist in the books or the previous films, people are going to react to that. Some will find additions unfitting within that universe and some people will be more bothered by it than others. But the fact remains that the more changes you make the more risks you're taking. In my opinion, Peter Jackson took too many risks with The Hobbit. It seems he tried to improve on a book that was already a massive success and tried to alter a cinematic universe that was also incredibly popular. And I personally found that those alterations detracted from what made the book and previous films such phenomenal achievements.
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 23 2015, 5:52pm
Post #13 of 132
(2473 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure why people find this so hard to understand...my guess is that those who defend the egregious alterations from the book to film are people who weren't fans before the movies came out. To fans of Tolkien, it is upsetting to see his story being put through the ringer and cheapened with the hollywood treatment. Also it is a fact that Christopher Tolkien was not happy about his father's work being treated in this manner...I would have hoped that the filmmakers would have at least tried to keep it as close to the original vision as possible.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 23 2015, 6:12pm
Post #14 of 132
(2463 views)
Shortcut
|
It's no useful talking about generalities that could be true about any movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Apparently what you can't achieve is pointing specifically inept plots in that peculiar movie. You believe it would be better to have Beorn destroying Azog (or Bolg ) ? Just think further : Bolg being scattered by an angry bear would have been shocking for young audiences. If that is what you want on screen, ask for videos where bears go on a prey and scatter it, and show them to children with a camera close to it. Then ask for a PG-13 if you dare. Anytime P Jackson took a step out of the book, they had first to think about stepping into the book, and they chose not to do it. That's not ""it's fiction and doesn't matter" stuff, which is your own fantasy about this movie. If you keep asking for 'respecting the original material', why can't you begin with respecting the movie material you watched ?
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 23 2015, 7:14pm
Post #15 of 132
(2427 views)
Shortcut
|
I view them as a continuous sequence of films....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One story developed over several years - something that is true of the books as it is of the films. And just as with the books, so with the films, the tale grew in the re-telling and there are some differences in style. Inevitably there are also differences in some of the returning characters, who couldn't help growing older in the years that elapsed between the two trilogies. But - and please note, for me this is an important but - I disassociate myself completely from the sweeping assumptions you make in your post. There is nothing in The Hobbit that takes me out of the filmed universe of Middle Earth - or at least, nothing more than there was in the first trilogy. Both contain the occasional slips into the modern idiomatic language and attitudes which for me is the biggest mood breaker. But I don't agree that they have 'gone too far with certain things' or that the action scenes are 'ridiculous' or that they have overused CGI. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how you could make Middle Earth come alive on screen without CGI - funnily enough, no one every does! And as for the supposed 'lack of magic' that above everything makes me think we're discussing different films. I see wonders when I see The Hobbit and would happily watch even if it were in a language I didn't understand. Just last night I was watching Smaug's attack on Laketown and I would defy anyone to better those scenes. So you see, all of those things that you take as fact are nothing more than one subjective opinion. Some share it, some don't. But don't assume that we all agree about these things, it's just that some people don't mind them - because in doing that you're actually misjudging a lot of people. There are problems with The Hobbit that I see and acknowledge, but they're not the ones you're assuming at all. I'd say most of them stem from Peter Jackson and his team having to take over an established project very late in the day, without sufficient time to think how they wanted to shape it. They've had to do an awful lot of thinking on their feet. And given all the other problems they faced, I think that what they achieved is pretty near miraculous. So I view The Hobbit with pleasure as it is and in time, when the EE is released, will happily view all six as one developing story. There are scenes I absolutely love, scenes I accept as part of the story and a few I don't care for so much in all of them. Ironically, much as I love the first trilogy it also contains the scene I like least in the whole sequence, because it's too far removed from Tolkien's writing or his ideas for me to find any way to rationalise it. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 23 2015, 7:39pm
Post #16 of 132
(2406 views)
Shortcut
|
Bomby will Go with our Lovely "Half-Elven" dormouse..anytime..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
HIP, HIP, Hooray for the tiniest poster Here! MAJOR Thinking coming from her tiny TeaPOT...
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
May 23 2015, 8:35pm
Post #17 of 132
(1913 views)
Shortcut
|
The tone and detail of TH book are not entirely contiguous with the text LOTR. Just so the films. It ends up being being a rather accurate representation of the relationship, oddly enough.
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
May 23 2015, 8:45pm
Post #18 of 132
(1899 views)
Shortcut
|
I just watched them and forgot them. Lotrs was excellent. These films were trash. PJ was incredibly lazy when he made them...
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 23 2015, 9:15pm
Post #19 of 132
(1888 views)
Shortcut
|
What dormouse said, every word.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One story developed over several years - something that is true of the books as it is of the films. And just as with the books, so with the films, the tale grew in the re-telling and there are some differences in style. Inevitably there are also differences in some of the returning characters, who couldn't help growing older in the years that elapsed between the two trilogies. But - and please note, for me this is an important but - I disassociate myself completely from the sweeping assumptions you make in your post. There is nothing in The Hobbit that takes me out of the filmed universe of Middle Earth - or at least, nothing more than there was in the first trilogy. Both contain the occasional slips into the modern idiomatic language and attitudes which for me is the biggest mood breaker. But I don't agree that they have 'gone too far with certain things' or that the action scenes are 'ridiculous' or that they have overused CGI. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how you could make Middle Earth come alive on screen without CGI - funnily enough, no one every does! And as for the supposed 'lack of magic' that above everything makes me think we're discussing different films. I see wonders when I see The Hobbit and would happily watch even if it were in a language I didn't understand. Just last night I was watching Smaug's attack on Laketown and I would defy anyone to better those scenes. So you see, all of those things that you take as fact are nothing more than one subjective opinion. Some share it, some don't. But don't assume that we all agree about these things, it's just that some people don't mind them - because in doing that you're actually misjudging a lot of people. There are problems with The Hobbit that I see and acknowledge, but they're not the ones you're assuming at all. I'd say most of them stem from Peter Jackson and his team having to take over an established project very late in the day, without sufficient time to think how they wanted to shape it. They've had to do an awful lot of thinking on their feet. And given all the other problems they faced, I think that what they achieved is pretty near miraculous. So I view The Hobbit with pleasure as it is and in time, when the EE is released, will happily view all six as one developing story. There are scenes I absolutely love, scenes I accept as part of the story and a few I don't care for so much in all of them. Ironically, much as I love the first trilogy it also contains the scene I like least in the whole sequence, because it's too far removed from Tolkien's writing or his ideas for me to find any way to rationalise it. But that's just me. While I would never in real life spend that many hours at once watching movies, theoretically I would have no trouble watching these six films from AUJ to RotK as one narrative. AUJ starts out with a lighter tone for a lighter adventure as befits the novel. Gradually the movies transition into something darker until the end of BOTFA is tragic and bittersweet and also a bit funny. For me that will segue fine into FotR. I can’t see that TH trilogy is that different from LotR, except in its tone that starts out rather like a fairy tale and darkens into something more like a legend while LotR is more like a history. LotR contains plenty of long and over-the-top action sequences, silly and juvenile humour, nonsensical but cool visual images, transformed characters, plot changes and so on. Both trilogies used cutting edge technology and special effects. The stories themselves are different in scope and gravitas, and that is reflected in the movies. Dormouse, is that one scene you most dislike the beheading of the Mouth of Sauron by Aragorn? That’s mine.
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
May 23 2015, 9:35pm
Post #20 of 132
(1870 views)
Shortcut
|
I really don't understand your argument for them not having Beorn kill Bolg. How is a bear killing an orc more unsettling for children than all of the decapitations in the movies? And the movie WAS PG-13. But honestly I can't really tell if you were implying it wasn't. Your argument is all over the place...
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 23 2015, 10:22pm
Post #21 of 132
(1844 views)
Shortcut
|
It would not be only a flash-beheading, like the ones in the movie
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just let your imagination follow the idea of a huge bear scattering an orc. Children would fear bears afterwards. Not that children shouldn't fear bears, but nightmares come like that, especially when children go to zoos having that kind of pictures in mind. That's just what PG-13 is about. Other scenes not as gore as such one have been cut.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 23 2015, 10:38pm
Post #22 of 132
(1846 views)
Shortcut
|
That's my second most disliked scene, and for the same reason....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My first - the scene that repelled me from the first time I saw it and still does - is Faramir watching while his men beat up Gollum. It's so out of keeping with the values Tolkien wrote into Faramir and all of his hero characters - as is the beheading of the Mouth of Sauron. Aragorn would no more have done that than Faramir would have allowed his men to ill-treat a prisoner That's orc behaviour and the idea that it's alright for good characters to do it too belongs to a more cynical age. For me it doesn't fit into Tolkien's story. And like you, from the point of view of time I'm never likely to watch all six films without a break. What I will do - because it's what I do already - is to watch them in episodes over however many days it takes to complete the sequence.
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
May 23 2015, 11:12pm
Post #23 of 132
(1829 views)
Shortcut
|
I really doubt they abandoned the original Beorn plot they'd written just because they were suddenly concerned about making children afraid of bears... Children that are that easily scared shouldn't be seeing a PG-13 movie to begin with. I think the real reason they cut back on Beorn was because they felt the need to give Legolas something to do. Even though his rivalry with Bolg ended up being rather bland and pointless. But based on your argument, we shouldn't ever criticize or question any of the creative decisions in these movies just because they're fiction. We should just accept every decision they made no matter what, right?
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
May 23 2015, 11:26pm
Post #24 of 132
(1819 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that Conan Stevens Bolg diden´t leave Dol goldur and Beorn was capture in Dol goldur and killed Bolg when he did break free or Galadriel killed him as in the film.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 23 2015, 11:28pm
Post #25 of 132
(1827 views)
Shortcut
|
But criticize for the sake of the right to criticize feels pointless. Beorn shattering Bolg would have been more brutal than anything else that has been shown in the three movies, that's my point. Free to you to imagine a 'smooth' way to shoot it, but I can't imagine one, and I wouldn't buy the cliché of other actors staring at the scene in horror. Legolas antics on this subject may have been the best thing they could imagine, and I guess they asked themselves hard to find a proper end to Bolg. One the other hand, one thing I would have liked not to see in the movie is Stephen Fry obliged to eat buttocks, for I think the actor really hated it and the story didn't need it at all.
|
|
|
|
|