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:
What did we all expect from The Hobbit movies given the realities of movie making and PJ's history?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Noria
Gondor

May 24 2015, 1:11pm

Post #1 of 37 (2261 views)
Shortcut
What did we all expect from The Hobbit movies given the realities of movie making and PJ's history? Can't Post

I wish I could find a post I wrote some time before AUJ came out; I can’t even remember if I even posted it here or only on another site I used to frequent.

Anyway, the gist of it was that I had certain expectations of The Hobbit movies based on the LotR movies and what I perceived to be studio and general audience expectations.

- Given the huge financial, critical and popular success of the epic LotR trilogy, the studio would want more of the same and Peter Jackson would be required to make epic Hobbit movies with plenty of action. The LotR movie-only audiences would want more of the same as well. Many people who had read the book once or twice in childhood and remembered it fondly would not remember much in the way of detail, my husband for example.

- Judging by LotR, we would see a beautifully realized Middle Earth with great design, cinematography, sound, music etc. There would be moments of pure beauty and subtle emotion and scenes that would break our hearts.

- Given PJ’s predilections as a film maker, there would also be long, complex and sometimes over-the-top action sequences using the latest in special effects, silly, juvenile and gross humour, unabashed movie clichés, and subplots and story points that deviated from book canon.

I figured that I would feel about The Hobbit movies the way I felt about LotR: overall I would love them passionately but there were aspects I would dislike, choices with which I would disagree, things that could have been done better IMO. I was right about that as well.

So I was not really surprised by The Hobbit movies. I was most wrong in my assumption that they would be similar in tone to LotR, with the same feeling of reality and history. After seeing AUJ, I came to the conclusion that PJ was striving to capture some of the absurd fairy tale feeling of The Hobbit novel instead of trying to duplicate that of LotR and that that approach was not wrong, even if it didn’t work for everyone.

I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to dislike and criticize the movies, not at all. I’m just surprised that, looking at the LotR trilogy and who PJ is, anyone had expectations that The Hobbit movies would be very different than they are.


Glorfindela
Valinor


May 24 2015, 1:54pm

Post #2 of 37 (2083 views)
Shortcut
For myself [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to say that I came in to see the films with few expectations, thinking that if they would be like the book they would not interest me very much. So I didn't really have any expectations, and only noticed the films when I went to see the first one.

Picking up on one of your statements: 'Given PJ’s predilections as a film maker, there would also be long, complex and sometimes over-the-top action sequences using the latest in special effects, silly, juvenile and gross humour, unabashed movie clichés, and subplots and story points that deviated from book canon.' In the Hobbit I found that these things were FAR more prevalent and extreme than they were in LotR. These were things that put me off immensely. It's as if PJ thought that because the LotR films were so successful, he could get away with featuring any grotesque and crude monstrosity in the interests of having 'fun' on his part (the more extreme the more 'fun' it was for him, probably). The fact that such things were featured at the expense of the basic plot (for instance when it comes to explanations/expansions concerning Beorn, Thranduil and Radagast) is completely beyond me. It seems almost as though someone lost the plot – as if they were unable to stand back and look at the film as a whole, and notice that there were crucial bits missing, and that the tone of certain parts of the films jarred with the story and showed a complete lack of respect for Tolkien's classic work. I'm fine with alterations to plots as long as they are logical and make sense to the story, and as long as viewers are not left with many questions at the end of a film – something that was plainly not the case at the end of film three, with many people posing a variety of speculations as to why certain things took place in the films, and turning to justifications issued by the film-makers, etc.

'Plenty of action' I have no objection to, since it was very well done in most cases, apart from in the instance of Legolas of course. Likewise, I thought that M-E was beautifully realised on the whole, and there were some incredibly emotional moments and scenes, notably those featuring Thorin. It's just a shame – for me – that the films were marred by the grossness and increasingly stupid, OTT Legolas action scenes.


(This post was edited by Glorfindela on May 24 2015, 2:00pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 24 2015, 2:23pm

Post #3 of 37 (2058 views)
Shortcut
To sum up [In reply to] Can't Post

I expected (initially) a little more fidelity to the book-canon. I knew that Jackson was going to borrow from the Appendices and I was fine with that. I did not know that he was going to diverge so radically in places from Tolkien's legendarium.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 2:43pm

Post #4 of 37 (2047 views)
Shortcut
OL' Bom will just wait to see the EE because.. [In reply to] Can't Post

...in each case the longer versions gave
the First two, time to breath.&.filled in many gaps.

Each time, Bom was much more satisfied.
Each time, many, many complaints were aired.

EVEN, with LOTR.

SSOoo..this is nothing new, it's happened EACH time.

PJ did state "Beorn in Rage slaughtering ORCS" was cut
short for the Ratings...

The FINAL Funeral
should FILL out
the FINAL Film
quite nicely.

Mark my words, since he has quite a Bit of time Now,
that he didn't have, last summer in NZ.

The actors have all gone home, and a quiet peace has settled over Miramar..
No Crazy Parties, No Press interviews, No Three Ring
Circus...no distractions.

Which is a good thing.

Crazy

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

(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 24 2015, 2:45pm)


CathrineB
Rohan


May 24 2015, 2:49pm

Post #5 of 37 (2040 views)
Shortcut
I for one... [In reply to] Can't Post

... did NOT expect him to actually ruin a chance for the depth of the bond between Fili and Kili in favor of that hopelessly forced romance. Why? Because I for one think for the most they have been good with characters and the whole bond between them and so on? Merry and Pippin? Frodo and Sam? Legolas and Aragorn? So on so on? ADD to that the first movie and to some extend DoS we do have Fili and Kii side by side 95% of the time so I expected something heartbreaking and good for BotfA, but nope. That was all gone. In fact, not a single scene focused on the two of them. Crazy It's baffling to me.

I did expect Legolas' freak show Laugh
Slow motions Sly
And by then CGI too. Wasn't what bugged me the most though.


Avandel
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 2:55pm

Post #6 of 37 (2034 views)
Shortcut
Didn't consciously think about it re AUJ [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I wish I could find a post I wrote some time before AUJ came out; I can’t even remember if I even posted it here or only on another site I used to frequent.

Anyway, the gist of it was that I had certain expectations of The Hobbit movies based on the LotR movies and what I perceived to be studio and general audience expectations.

- Given the huge financial, critical and popular success of the epic LotR trilogy, the studio would want more of the same and Peter Jackson would be required to make epic Hobbit movies with plenty of action. The LotR movie-only audiences would want more of the same as well. Many people who had read the book once or twice in childhood and remembered it fondly would not remember much in the way of detail, my husband for example.

- Judging by LotR, we would see a beautifully realized Middle Earth with great design, cinematography, sound, music etc. There would be moments of pure beauty and subtle emotion and scenes that would break our hearts.

- Given PJ’s predilections as a film maker, there would also be long, complex and sometimes over-the-top action sequences using the latest in special effects, silly, juvenile and gross humour, unabashed movie clichés, and subplots and story points that deviated from book canon.

I figured that I would feel about The Hobbit movies the way I felt about LotR: overall I would love them passionately but there were aspects I would dislike, choices with which I would disagree, things that could have been done better IMO. I was right about that as well.

So I was not really surprised by The Hobbit movies. I was most wrong in my assumption that they would be similar in tone to LotR, with the same feeling of reality and history. After seeing AUJ, I came to the conclusion that PJ was striving to capture some of the absurd fairy tale feeling of The Hobbit novel instead of trying to duplicate that of LotR and that that approach was not wrong, even if it didn’t work for everyone.

I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to dislike and criticize the movies, not at all. I’m just surprised that, looking at the LotR trilogy and who PJ is, anyone had expectations that The Hobbit movies would be very different than they are.



Avandel
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 3:19pm

Post #7 of 37 (2016 views)
Shortcut
Argh - gotta PS my own post.... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to dislike and criticize the movies, not at all. I’m just surprised that, looking at the LotR trilogy and who PJ is, anyone had expectations that The Hobbit movies would be very different than they are.



Well, yes and no, for me. On the one hand, when I sat down to watch AUJ, there was a feeling of TRUST - that Middle Earth was in good hands. I didn't think otherwise than seeing a Middle Earth that was lavish, and rich.

In hindsight re the IMO Arwen overload and the treatment of Faramir - re large canon changes - well, in spite of that - no, I didn't expect the huge presence of Legolas/Tauriel/Alfrid.

So I didn't expect the OTT Legolas stuff, as I didn't expect him to be there that much.

On a more positive note, I wasn't expecting such superb casting and performances, so that I would end up liking the Hobbit films better than LOTR.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 24 2015, 3:41pm

Post #8 of 37 (2015 views)
Shortcut
What did I expect after three cinematic masterpieces? [In reply to] Can't Post

In three words: a couple more.

It's easy in retrospect to be cynical about the films, but in the years following The Return of the King, I and many others never had reason to doubt the 'Trust PJ' mantra. Sure, I'm sure there are those of you who have issues with the films due to book changes and other such things. But on a cinematic level, the Lord of the Rings trilogy were - and are - for many of us, priceless jewels.

Every year from 2001 - 2003, I feared being let down. And each year, I was rewarded with - pardon a much overused cliche - an instant classic. I still hold those films in the highest regard, and they are the standard by which every movie I have seen since has been judged.

Was it fair to expect as much from The Hobbit? Maybe. Maybe not. But I'd never doubted PJ before, and so I anticipated his Hobbit duology without the least bit of cynicism. When I go back and watch the earliest production diaries and that original Teaser Trailer, I feel the emotion and passion that I felt in those Lord of the Rings days.

Where did it go astray? Honestly, I believe it started with the 3 film split. Then, of course, there's lean on digital technologies (both in terms of cinematography and vfx). The Lord of the Rings took advantage of digital technology, sure, but all in moderation. There was plenty of old school filmmaking on display as well. Not so much on The Hobbit.

Did I object to the departures from Tolkien? I will say yes - but only to a point. The Lord of the Rings had departures from Tolkien - but they all felt in service to a greater cinematic vision. Those departures didn't result cardboard villains (Azog) or Hollywood action climaxes that flew in the face of everything Tolkien tried to convey (Dwarves vs. Smaug and the Erebor Forges).

But I'd be able to overlook a lot of things if the movies just made me feel the way I felt in the previous films. Like I'd been whisked away on a journey that forever changed me body and soul. Too much to expect? Well, it had happened before. You can't blame me for wanting it to happen again.

I like the films. I do. Especially in their extended forms (which is why I feel like I still haven't really seen The Battle of the Five Armies). But given PJ's history and, yes, even the realities of movie making, I truly and honestly expected greatness.

"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

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on May 24 2015, 3:43pm)


AshNazg
Gondor


May 24 2015, 4:09pm

Post #9 of 37 (1995 views)
Shortcut
The second I saw the first designs for the dwarves I had doubts... [In reply to] Can't Post

The first character reveals were Ori, Dori and Nori. I remember it well "why does he have a star for a head?!"

Other than Oin and Gloin the designs repulsed me (I remember thinking Kili was Bard the first time I saw him!) Once all the reveals were done and PJ released his banner of them all together I looked at it and my excitement for the films just plummeted. Before that moment I had expected The Hobbit to really deliver like LotR did. But after that moment I just hoped PJ could prove me wrong. These were NOT the dwarves from the book. Almost every piece of info, picture or trailer from then on left me wanting something better.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 24 2015, 4:15pm

Post #10 of 37 (1988 views)
Shortcut
Yes, that certainly instilled some doubt... [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember now. I was indeed let down by the dwarf designs. That said, I think I moved on from that after seeing the first production diaries and the teaser trailer - which I loved.

I didn't begin to feel true unease until the 3 film announcement. I remember brushing off the rumors that surfaced shortly beforehand, because I thought the very notion was ludicrous.

Famous last words...

"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

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on May 24 2015, 4:17pm)


lonelymountainhermit
Lorien


May 24 2015, 5:20pm

Post #11 of 37 (1938 views)
Shortcut
agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

I felt something was not right early on when they couldn't decide on who was going to direct the thing. Then the 3 film announcement left me very worried. Then the rumors of a dwarf elf love triangle sent shivers down my spine. But I told myself, "nahh they would never do something that ridiculous"


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 5:25pm

Post #12 of 37 (1927 views)
Shortcut
Bomby has learned to "Expect the Unexpected" from PJ&Co./// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

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


Bishop
Gondor


May 24 2015, 5:29pm

Post #13 of 37 (1929 views)
Shortcut
Great post [In reply to] Can't Post

This is very much how I felt then and how I now feel about the whole endeavor.

I hold Jackson in very high regard as a director, and I will always be grateful for LOTR. They will hold a place in film history and for that the man should be forever commended. He gets a pass no matter what.

Looking back I had a very interesting journey in terms of expectation. The first time I saw TH trailer it actually brought tears to my eyes. My girlfriend made fun of me for that. Smile The idea that Peter Jackson himself was bringing Middle Earth back to the screen was cause for celebration, and I found myself becoming an apologist for every decision that was being made. The Dwarves looked "perfect". Three movies? Great, more time with Bilbo! High frame rate and 3d? Looks weird, but go for it! Trust.

In the end I thought the films were hugely entertaining, and I own every possible version of them. They are grand spectacle. But there was a point when I was sitting in the theater and I thought "uh oh", and that feeling never left.


Eruonen
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 6:46pm

Post #14 of 37 (1882 views)
Shortcut
This topic has been discussed many times under similar headings, however, it is [In reply to] Can't Post

interesting that these films have generated, at least to my memory, more of these discussions than LOTR. The range of opinions goes from Love Them to Unforgivable and everything in between. For me, though I enjoyed them, they don't come up to LOTR satisfaction (and it would be unfair to expect them too given the stories). If I am reaching for a trilogy to sit and watch, 7 times out of 10 it would be LOTR. Now, that might change a bit with the final BOFA EE.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


May 24 2015, 10:30pm

Post #15 of 37 (1818 views)
Shortcut
Noria I have a lot of respect for you so I will jump in here [In reply to] Can't Post

Your argument is that given the director we should not be surprised at our reaction to what we received. if we don't like burping here well so what we got it there.

Much of the criticism here is levelled at the different aesthetic used so there are technical differences.

However I think you have a good point one can argue endlessly about the nature of the LOTR adaption and the Hobbit adaption which gets you nowhere as they start from entirely different places. But there is something else something more absolute. Execution.

Forget comparisons with the Lotr or their ability as adaptions. How good a set of films are they in absolute terms.

My sense is that most believe criticism of the these films is a matter of taste but I think you can apply objective measures to a film or set of films and say "That is not a well made film" or "That storyline lacks cohesion" or 'Within the imagined world that does not make sense or have an inner coherence' .

My view is that taken on their own merits and taking into account the story the film makers wished to tell and applying their own judgements of what makes a good film these films are flawed and much more so than the LOTR.

What I think makes people feel frustrated is some elements of the Hobbit films are in absolute terms better than the LOTR.

To answer your question I expected Peter Jacksons performance as a director to be of the same standard as the LOTR and given the failures of execution in the films those failures lie with him.

What do you mean failure cry the defenders of the faith. Well let me just try this one. When a director begins making a film he has his own technique for working out the length of the film he is making. GDT mentioned his card system showed him how two films would emerge out of the planned filming. What system did Sir Peter have for judging the outcome.

He spent 40 minutes developing the personalities of each of the Dwarves. Did he not know that 5 of them would have a total of five lines in the DOS and 8 of them no more than one line in the BOFA.

He went with two nephews for Thorin. In DOS EE which is 163 minutes long FIli has five lines of dialogue which are all connected with Kili's wound. Over 460 minutes Fili's character does not grow in our minds nor do we become attached to him in any meaningful way and yet he is one of three characters that will die.

These outcomes show poor planning and a lack of anticipation. It is not about whether I like Fili or 13 dwarves. it about where he started and where he ended up and the gap between the two in terms of dramatic investment and return.

Sir Peter is a nice guy where did all this thinking come from, trying to hard and trying to please to many different groups of people and then having got the first film released to a blizzard of criticism deciding he will make the films he wants to make. Given his preoccupations in the 2nd and 3rd film and the hierarchy of priorities he chose I would say he exercised poor judgement in absolute terms. Consider what was included (Alfrid/Tauriel/Legolas (non of which are part of the Quest For Erebor)/An over complicated incomprehensible series of battle sequences and then consider what has been left out (Thranduils necklace/Dain/Dwalin the rest of the Dwarves and the zenith of the 460 minutes Thorins redemptive symbolic funeral which sweeps up alI the geo political strands) I do not see that as a matter of taste I see it is a failure to understand the essentials of his own story telling. Note I have left out Beorn, Radagast Staff and the Morgul Blade because they are not crucial to the story of the Quest For Erebor they are nice to have.

To finish on the finish some say yes but we did focus on Bilbo that really was non negotiable and Bilbo will hopefully be crucial with both the necklace and Thorins funeral so could have been even more in the centre of the finish. .

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 May 24 2015, 10:38pm)


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 10:40pm

Post #16 of 37 (1797 views)
Shortcut
Here is Something to think about...? [In reply to] Can't Post

The LOTR was Shot mostly outdoors
The Hobbit was NOT...SSOoo.some People complain about that?

What existed in Miramar was an Old Paint factory @
the Turn of this PAST CENTURY..

Flash-forward to 2010, & you have the Largest Sound STAGE
in NZ, built for "King Kong"..

Park Road Post has been built...& many other offices
like their AWESOME STATE-of-ART sound recording Studios
etc.,etc.,etc.

SSOoo..stop complaining! Do you really think that is
More efficient to take 400 people in 2 crews {often in Helicopters}
all over the 2 Islands?

The Accountants, the Staff, the many Departments
KNOW what they are doing..

Yet? thatzzzz..not GOOD enough
for SOME
customers of these Films.

That ol' BackStageHand"
Bomby..

Crazy

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


dormouse
Half-elven


May 24 2015, 10:48pm

Post #17 of 37 (1791 views)
Shortcut
Siimple, really, and not unlike your own reaction.... [In reply to] Can't Post

I expected more of the visual magic which drew me to see the very first film - with very few expectations at that time. I had so looked forward to the Bakshi film and felt so disappointed in it that I was within a whisker of not going to see LotR at all. What drew me was knowing the Alan Lee and John Howe were involved. That told me it would look good - I also gave a large stash of Brownie points to Peter Jackson (whoever he was) for having the nous to commission them to design his film.

So I was expecting to see wonders - and I wasn't disappointed. When Guillermo del Toro was directing I was unsure - not that I wouldn't have happily watched any other film by him, but I wanted Peter Jackson's take on Middle Earth. Because for all the things he does that don't appeal to me so much, there is something - something - that he gets so right. That was my first expectation - I wanted to see it unfold on screen. I expected the new film to be a moving picture book, and it is.

I expected those little flashes of brilliance in the storytelling - the moments when, for me at least, Peter Jackson and his team strike the perfect note - often with an interaction between two characters which isn't in the book. Once again, for me the Hobbit films have them, just as the first trilogy does.

I expected great things of the music too, and once again, it doesn't disappoint.

As far as the actual adaptation went, I thought they might have problems. The book is so different in tone and style from Lord of the Rings, and yet it has so many clear similarities. It would never have been my first choice of another Tolkien film for those reasons - I'd much rather have seen something from The Silmarillion - the Fall of Gondolin or Beren and Luthien - or failing that, Smith of Wootton Major. But as none of those things was up for grabs, The Hobbit it was, and I was just curious to see what they would make of it.

And yes, I also expected that there would be times when the language would be to modern for my taste, or an attitude or action wouldn't fit, or wouldn't appeal to me. I got those too. But with some notable exceptions, in both trilogies, I find I view them with affection rather than indignation - in the way that I accept a friend's annoying habits and hope they do the same for me. One reason for this, I think, beyond the fact that I will always try to look for the good in things - it makes life so much more enjoyable - one reason is that in these films we've been given an extra and equally compelling story in the background material. We've seen the people behind the films, got to know them, learned at least something of all the triumphs and traumas that happen off camera. I can see how hard they work and how much they care, and how much they put into it, and I find that however 'wrong' they may get something (meaning, of course, that it doesn't appeal to me) I can't heap scorn on them the way some people do. And with these films particularly I suspect they've had a great many more difficulties than the ones we know about - and goodness knows, the ones we know about were bad enough.


squiggle
Rivendell

May 24 2015, 10:54pm

Post #18 of 37 (1788 views)
Shortcut
I was totally open minded with a tad of trepidation [In reply to] Can't Post

Totally went gaga with the theatrical experience of FoTR & then following ee, had a more bumpy experience with rest of LoTR, but FoTR remains best theatrical experience and probably would be fav theatrical cut out of six if watched those. I also like the King Kong ee alot as a fine movie.

As it turned out, was very happy that i could watch AUJ Journey the way i did, & saw it 3 or four times mostly with my main movie pal who is a middle earth fan, so was a great cinema experience.

It was with the extended edition of AUJ that i came to that this was one of the best ever (to me) of these type of movies in a general sense beyond ME and that happily is how i feel about DOS ee also Evil


CathrineB
Rohan


May 24 2015, 11:43pm

Post #19 of 37 (1777 views)
Shortcut
the expectations [In reply to] Can't Post

... they were high. Not going to lie about that so the fall would be high. Its just that my expectations didnt get gutted until the last movie and it is so frustrating!
To know how good Botfa could have been and instead so many unbelievable choices were made. I have NEVER been so let down by a movie before because of the expectations and it almost kind of hurt you know?

And I dont think people were wrong to have such high hopes if they loved LotR. Naive? Sure and I wish I hadnt been because it was hard to watch what they did to certain BOOK characters.

So my main issue lies with Botfa. It was in a place to repair things ignored in the previous movies but only made them worse.


(This post was edited by CathrineB on May 24 2015, 11:45pm)


AshNazg
Gondor


May 25 2015, 12:09am

Post #20 of 37 (1767 views)
Shortcut
Your last sentence is particularly interesting... [In reply to] Can't Post

"So my main issue lies with Botfa. It was in a place to repair things ignored in the previous movies but only made them worse."

I found that, waiting for BoFA I was hoping that all the questions (like why is Azog kept alive, why is Legolas featured so much, what's up with Thranduil's face, what is Taruiel's character REALLY about? etc.) would be answered by the last film. So I tolerated the problems in DoS and AUJ a lot more and looked past them thinking "it'll be fine, and will make sense when the story is complete".

But when BoFA came out and offered no answers to any of the questions, I realised my expectations for the film had been way too high. I wanted it to not only fix all these problems, but to be so good that it made the, rather mediocre, build-up of the last two films all worth the wait. I thought that PJ had some secret master plan up his sleeve with all these changes, that when finally revealed would make me look at the films in a different and more positive way.

But it just doesn't do that and now I can't watch any of the films without constantly asking myself thousands of questions about the story. There are so many aspects to it that are just left wide open, story threads that are irrelevant or unresolved. It's just a bizarre mess of characters with way too much invented background and no reconciliation.

If by some miracle the EE gives closure on at least a few of these problems I will be much happier with the trilogy.


Eruonen
Half-elven


May 25 2015, 12:14am

Post #21 of 37 (1764 views)
Shortcut
I just got back from The Avengers - Age of Ultron and was impressed with the character [In reply to] Can't Post

minutes allocated for each of the Avengers all within a very action oriented film with plenty of CGI (that within the Marvel universe is not over the top). Hawkeye gets a nice long story line with his family,
Hulk and Natasha explore their relationship, Stark minus Pepper Potts has more of a character exploration, Captain America has flashbacks - as they all do via a mind dream sequence etc. etc. The point is that compared to The Hobbit, as mentioned above, the dwarves were largely undeveloped. Both had similar run times...Avengers 2:21 and BOFA 2:24..


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 25 2015, 4:44am

Post #22 of 37 (1705 views)
Shortcut
About the Dwarves [In reply to] Can't Post

I swear I replied to this post already, but my reply is nowhere to be found, oh well. So, about the Dwarves. I actually put this down as something I was NOT expecting, being that 1. I am an American and not familiar with Richard, Ken, James or Aidan. (I really didn't know who Martin was, but that was covered in the post that disappeared - with Dwalin, I guessTongue) You say he spent 40 minutes developing the Dwarf personalities (I assume you mean on film), then failed to give them any lines. Well, I have a hard time with that word "Fail," I guess I'm one of the Defenders of the Faith you referred to, but yes I would have liked to see more of the 13 Dwarves. However, PJ has said in interviews that his big hesitation with the Hobbit was actually the 13 Dwarves, how to bring them out of the book and onto the screen. I have to agree with him that 13 Gimlis weren't going to work, nor would nearly indistinguishable Dwarves with different colored hoods. It might sound funny in a book, but on a screen it's confusing and dull. And as for lines, well in the book most of the 13 Dwarves didn't even get to be background characters. There was no way that an ensemble of 13 would get equal time in any movie, and I believe even if you pared the numbers down (really horrible suggestion, IMO) to say, 8 or 9, you will STILL have a few getting more lines/fight scenes than others. I would agree with anyone that there should have been less "non-canon" characters and more Dwarves; having said that I can honestly say that I think he did pretty well with the Dwarves, and that I enjoy the movies as much (and in some cases more than) the original LoTR movies.

And I really don't get the complaints about "too much studio/not enough location" filming. I thought there were gorgeous location shots in AUJ and DOS, I can't complain about that at all! This doesn't address the original topic at all, sorry 'bout that!Blush

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


May 25 2015, 10:27am

Post #23 of 37 (1651 views)
Shortcut
This! [In reply to] Can't Post

When I saw the horrible dwarf designs I knew these films were doomed... They didn't even look like dwarves!

Mad


lonelymountainhermit
Lorien


May 25 2015, 1:31pm

Post #24 of 37 (1611 views)
Shortcut
yup [In reply to] Can't Post

And watching it, I would sometimes even forget they were dwarves unless they were standing next to Gandalf or something.


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 25 2015, 1:38pm

Post #25 of 37 (1607 views)
Shortcut
Another magical trip to Middle Earth [In reply to] Can't Post

And, for me, that's what I got. I was very excited about the movies, but before any of them were released I never had any particular thing or detail that I specifically "expected" except for a really great Smaug (my favorite book character), and I certainly got that. And in a more vague way I guess I was looking forward to all the iconic scenes in the book - trolls, Rivendell, spiders, barrels etc. and they were all there plus more, so it was all good.

What I did NOT expect was for Peter Jackson to call me up and ask me exactly how I wanted him to make the movie, which is good, because he didn't ,so I'm perfectly happy to watch his vision of Middle Earth and The Hobbit and just enjoy it the way it is.

__________________

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

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.