|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
May 24 2015, 3:05pm
Post #51 of 132
(1618 views)
Shortcut
|
Legolas did kill Wormtongue in ROTK so it is not the first time Legolas kill someone in the films that he doesn't do in the book.
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 24 2015, 3:24pm
Post #52 of 132
(1614 views)
Shortcut
|
"I could write a book on the idiotic requests I have received," sighs Christopher Tolkien. He is trying to protect the literary work from the three-ring circus that has developed around it. In general, the Tolkien Estate refuses almost all requests. "Normally, the executors of the estate want to promote a work as much as they can," notes Adam Tolkien, the son of Christopher and Baillie. "But we are just the opposite. We want to put the spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings."
Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."
http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.VWHrtUbi-8D
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 24 2015, 4:14pm
Post #53 of 132
(1586 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have a feeling Christopher Tolkien....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
.. would be horrified to see himself described as a 'fan', even a true one.
By the way, that's not an attack on his desire to protect his father's work, which I respect. I simply think that the word 'fan' would appal him, being in essence a part of that culture that he rejects.
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 24 2015, 4:26pm
Post #54 of 132
(1576 views)
Shortcut
|
But I think he would understand the way it was used in this particular instance. Purely tongue in cheek. I have nothing but respect for Christopher Tolkien. Also, I wouldn't think it's the literary "fandom" he objects to.
(This post was edited by lonelymountainhermit on May 24 2015, 4:30pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
May 24 2015, 6:02pm
Post #55 of 132
(1521 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've made it into this thread too later, perhaps...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And I haven't had time to read everyone else's opinions yet.
I commend the effort of Peter Jackson and everyone involved in the production of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. The two trilogies could not have been made with anymore love, devotion or dedication than those who worked on the films in the last decade. Regardless of my opinion of each of the six films, I praise and applause the fact that these movies have continued on Tolkien's legacy - they have opened up Tolkien's legendarium and mythology to a whole group of people, spread across 6 continents, that may never have found it otherwise. Regardless of the good and the bad, these movies have provided an avenue and a direct route into Tolkien's Middle-earth.
In terms of how I view both trilogies, a lot of my opinion has changed and continues to change each time I watch them. Both trilogies contain cinema history, and some of the most beloved scenes (namely the lighting of the Beacons, and the Feast of Starlight conversation in The Desolation of Smaug). Many of these scenes are the best scenes that Tolkien never wrote. Let's not forget that both trilogies also contain some not-so-good scenes (I'm looking at you Alfrid and Denethor).
In my opinion (excluding The Battle of the Five Armites), The Hobbit is a better adaptation, but The Lord of the Rings are a better set of films. For me, and I've tried to think this through, they tried too hard with The Hobbit. And I think that's why it isn't as popular (in my case, at least). With The Lord of the Rings everything was unknown - they had no idea how successful it would be and the script changed every day. They were simply making an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Everything was different for The Hobbit.They tried too hard too please fans; it didn't pay off. The tried too hard too please critics; it didn't pay off. The tried too hard to include new technological advancements; it didn't pay off. They tried too hard to distinguish all the Dwarves; it didn't pay off. They tried to hard to fill in the book gaps; it didn't pay off.The tried too hard too link the two trilogies together; it didn't pay off. They simply tried too hard to adapt Tolkien's book, and it didn't pay off in the end.
For me, hidden within these three films is a spectacular adaptation of Tolkien's The Hobbit. If you strip away at these three films, there is potential for a breathtaking adaption which is on par with the original trilogy. You just have to look a little harder for it. It doesn't quite shine through. A little nip here, a little tuck there, and from the existing material, I can see a much loved and enjoyed adaptation of The Hobbit.
Yes, these two trilogies are very different but I enjoy and love them very much. Yes, I don't like anything. Yes, the movies will never be as good or on the same levels as the books. I'm just grateful that there is now a new way for me to enjoy Middle-earth. I am proud to say that all six Middle-earth movies make for an enjoyable watch.
(This post was edited by DanielLB on May 24 2015, 6:09pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 24 2015, 11:00pm
Post #56 of 132
(1468 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't agree on a lot of points but it couldn't matter less. This is one of the fairest minded posts I've seen - the mouse is cheering!
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
May 24 2015, 11:17pm
Post #57 of 132
(1470 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I just want to bring up a point to see if people agree...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd say that The Lord of the Rings is such a large and complex book that changes had to be made in order to adapt it into a film, you simply couldn't do it any other way. So audiences were more forgiving.
But The Hobbit is so much more straight forward, that the changes seem less necessary. The book has decent enough pacing and a good enough story to translate to film with fairly minimal alterations, so the changes that PJ made stand out as more controversial.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on May 24 2015, 11:18pm)
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 25 2015, 12:29am
Post #58 of 132
(1461 views)
Shortcut
|
There is really no reason why this couldn't have been done in one 3 hour movie without leaving anything out. The decision to stretch the story into 3 films bloated with embellishments and uncharacteristic alterations was done solely for the purpose of greed and nothing more.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
May 25 2015, 12:36am
Post #59 of 132
(1457 views)
Shortcut
|
Is how anything was left out with almost 9 hours of film time. Things are even left out of the EEs. That is just mind boggling.
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 25 2015, 12:50am
Post #60 of 132
(1449 views)
Shortcut
|
It's extremely unsettling having your brain boggled for a 9 hour stretch.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 7:56am
Post #61 of 132
(1830 views)
Shortcut
|
With Lord of the Rings there had to be cuts and changes. Also, because there was so much more complexity and detail in the story they found themselves being drawn back to it when changes they tried weren't working so well - Arwen is the classic example. On the face of it LotR is a more difficult book to adapt and I think that helped them. People were more willing to be impressed that they managed it at all, and knocked sideways that managed it so well - remember that nothing like it had been done before and Peter Jackson and Weta had to invent their own techniques to make it happen. But I don't agree that The Hobbit is more straightforward - at least, not for this particular team. I thought from the start that they were going to have much bigger problems with it.
Why? Well, first of all, the book is written in such a different way, and addressed to such a different audience. Another director and crew could have adapted straight from the book as a children's film without reference to LotR but with this film, even when Guillermo del Toro was directing, that was never an option. This film was being made because Jackson's first trilogy was such a success. The studios wanted more of the same. So that forced a lot of fundamental changes to the book - which in themselves were too much for some readers. Take out the whimsy, the fairy-tale elements and The Hobbit is no longer The Hobbit. Tolkien himself never found an answer to that conundrum so I don't think anyone should really be surprised that Peter Jackson struggled with it too.
The second problem sounds contradictory, but it isn't. The style and tone of the two books are very different but a lot of the basic story is very similar. Hobbit leaves Bag End on a dangerous journey east, prompted by Gandalf. Goes to Rivendell, foiled in an attempt to go over mountains goes under them, encountering goblins. There are elves living in woodland, rescuing eagles, a big battle. So for anyone writing the adaptation as a follow-on to Lord of the Rings there would have been a lot of very basic questions. How to blend tone and style without making something that would look too much like the same film... how many returning characters to have... how much change to introduce without it becoming too much. And unlike Lord of the Rings there was less original Tolkien material to draw them back if they were unsure. Again, obvious example, Gandalf. Would it be acceptable in a film to have him simply push off at the eaves of Mirkwood and then turn up later for the battle? If not, the film would have to explain where he went, but Tolkien provides no blueprint for Dol Guldur beyond the barest outline.
I think The Hobbit was far more difficult for this team to adapt. Ironically, I also think they stuck more faithfully to Tolkien's story than our fictitious other director - the one making only The Hobbit - would probably have done. As a single film, or even as two, there would have been cuts to the story. Some of the thirteen dwarves would probably have been first for the chop - fourteen main character - fifteen with Gandalf - is a lot of people to have onscreen all the time. Would the film really need Beorn? Or the eagles? Or the Arkenstone? Lots of people thought that even PJ would have cut that. But he preserved all those things, shot through with inventions of his own (many of which took inspiration from something in Tolkien.)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 8:06am
Post #62 of 132
(1824 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bomby will agree w/ ASHNAG but not with "HERMIT"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Last thing on PJ's Mind was GREED.
"Greed" is the Lesson Tolkien, was trying TEACH his kids about?
when he wrote the Book, SSOoo..Bom
seriously doesn't think there was any Greed involved
on PJ's part..?
AGREE to Disagree..AGREED?
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 25 2015, 8:10am)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 8:47am
Post #63 of 132
(1818 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Solely for the purpose of greed"????????
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And you know this - how?
Fair enough, you don't like the films, but you have no business flinging personal accustations like this around. I'd say that any fair-minded person reviewing everything we know about the lead-up to these films would see that in the summer before the first film came out Peter Jackson was finding it impossible to arrive at a satisfactory two-film edit of the material he'd filmed. Nobody makes a change that fundamental so late in the day unless they can see no other alternative.
As for the one three-hour movie without leaving anything out, I'd say that was impossible. The unabridged reading of The Hobbit takes 10 hours. A single film adaptation would have involved cuts to the story - it could be done and make a very good film, but it wouldn't be the whole story.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 12:00pm
Post #64 of 132
(1810 views)
Shortcut
|
Hired John Howe & Alan Lee...TOP Experts on Tolkien.
Hired David Solo to get all the Elvish accurate.
Hired Additional artists like the Chinese Lady who specializes in Dragons..
Hired the Best Candidates for the principle Actors,
from NZ, Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales, Canada & only One American {Lee Pace}
Hired NZ retired actor talent for very small cameos like, Mister Worrywort &
Mister Grubb {The Auctioneer}
Hired the NZ military to build roads to places where there were no Roads,
Then erased any indication of work there.
Hired an incredible assortment of Background Actors from every Race
we Know of, for the people of Laketown.
Likely tripled the number of Computer Experts, 3D Cameramen..ETC.
Something in the neighborhood of 3000 people were PAID to work on it..
EVERYONE ALWAYS praises Peter for how KIND & GENEROUS
he is.
GREEDY? What..?
He recently pumped a TON of money into the ANZAC
exhibition, as a Way to give Back.. to the people of New Zealand..
How many people are employed even NOW to keep "The Shire" Set & "The Green Dragon" going?
It's
Endless the
Effect PJ has had on their
Economy? &...
bomby hasn't even Mentioned Tour Operators, Souvenir Shops?
from the Northern Tip to the Southern Tip of
...this, Kind & Generous Country
The word, "GREEDY" is likely the LAST adjective anyone?
would attach to the Name, Sir Peter Jackson...
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 25 2015, 12:02pm)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 12:22pm
Post #65 of 132
(1801 views)
Shortcut
|
Bomby would like to tell a Short Story?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To show how generous PJ is with his time...
An expatriate from the USA who lives in Auckland
was hired for a Non-Speaking Role & was only needed
for two days on Set @ the Most...
Well, when he showed up in the Cafeteria, Not knowing anyone...
& sat down alone...BUT? once PJ & Phillipa spotted him..
They came over & ate Lunch with him, wanting to get to know him, & trying to help
him feel INCLUDED?
He wrote about it here a couple years ago
& said "he FELT GOLDEN
while working on this film".
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 2:36pm
Post #67 of 132
(1763 views)
Shortcut
|
...to the late decision to split The Hobbit into three films rather than two? Or why would you suppose that a film director working in New Zealand has any input into the menu of an American restaurant chain?
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 25 2015, 2:49pm
Post #68 of 132
(1756 views)
Shortcut
|
Perhaps you're right, maybe it wasn't a money driven decision to create a 9 hour trilogy from a 300 page novel. Maybe all the alterations to the original story was the filmmakers way of showing respect to Tolkien by fixing problems in the story that he never had a chance to in his lifetime.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 5:03pm
Post #69 of 132
(1718 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You know what they say about sarcasm...... //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 25 2015, 6:48pm
Post #70 of 132
(1693 views)
Shortcut
|
I also don't agree on a number of points ...but I will offer too, and I think it gets forgotten a lot, IMO , is the time difference between LOTR and the Hobbit.
Not with your post, which was beautifully and thoughtfully detailed IMO, but "in general" I wonder if some of the bemoaning outside of TORn is simply the "rose colored glasses" phenomenon re LOTR. E.g the richness of Middle Earth, the soaring music - if that was a new treatment re LOTR - it wasn't re the Hobbit. We knew Peter Jackson's style by the Hobbit.
As tho some of the writers/critics wanted to relive LOTR all over again . It's even a source of frustration on my part - as I think it's a careful balancing act for any fillmmaker making films that are connected (prequel, sequel, spinoffs) to either not, as was posted "try too hard" or, on the other hand, forget what you did before.
IMO what Peter Jackson succeeded with wonderfully with the Hobbit IMO is preserving the whimsy of the book, while bringing through the underlying darkness simultaneously with the love and heart of Bilbo, the dwarves, Gandalf, Galadriel.
(I disagree with you re the dwarf characterizations - I think PJ has successfully, as discussed in the Appendices, re-elevated the dwarven race, as opposed to Gimli incessantly being coming relief in LOTR. Even watching "Snow White and the Huntsman" - dwarves are comic there too, but also figures of dignity - and I do think future treatments of dwarves in films will be, in the future, with thanks to PJ - a race of pride, craftsmen, fierce, warriors. Not Disney cuteness.
And I certainly think the Hobbit personalities were successful - if there is a fail here IMO, it was in not giving the dwarves the character moments they deserved - so much of what we know only comes from the WETA books and Appendices. Where is the footage of Bifur and his eagle toy, or Nori using those fleshing knives????)
Many of these scenes are the best scenes that Tolkien never wrote. Let's not forget that both trilogies also contain some not-so-good scenes (I'm looking at you Alfrid and Denethor).
I need an applause .gif here - love this.
Finally - tho your post doesn't allude to it, tho others do - in no way, shape, or form, have I ever believed that PJ went from two movies to three movies for money. I don't get that, or why it would be thought or assumed.
Because if an author or filmmaker starts to create, and in that creation process - as it sounds like it happened with PJ - that they feel they can't create within the original boundaries they themselves set - I am so grateful that PJ both chose to make three films, and WB allowed him to do that.
Cynically I suppose it might be said that WB was practically salivating at the prospect of a sure-fire hit, but nothing is certain. Not when studios are wary of investing the funds, and bankrolling films has gotten much harder. WB could just as easily have hedged its bets and made another comic book movie instead.
Even then, WETA has alluded to some sort of daily budget *wistful* I can only imagine that some of the disliked CGI shots would have been improved, with more funds available. But then again, I watch Smaug, and every frame of him IMO is perfection.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 25 2015, 9:07pm
Post #71 of 132
(1642 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
May 25 2015, 9:55pm
Post #72 of 132
(1635 views)
Shortcut
|
Why would they make the movies so long if they were only interested in making money? Shorter movies generally cost less and allow for more showtimes per day. PJ wanted three movies to flesh out parts of the story. In the end I think that kind of ended up being a waste because I don't feel they focused on the right parts of the story to warrant the extra time. The studios of course were up for the idea because that meant an extra movie to profit from, but that doesn't mean greed and EVIL were the only things behind the change.
There's enough to criticize about the movies without having to grasp as straws and pick on the Denny's menu of all things...
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
May 27 2015, 4:41am
Post #73 of 132
(1544 views)
Shortcut
|
Showing a dwarf beheaded in the middle of a battle isn't shocking to young audiences?
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 27 2015, 7:00am
Post #74 of 132
(1534 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Or course Thror's beheading is shocking, but much less than it could have been
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
PJ used every artifact to minimize the impact :
1) The beheading itself is not shown
2) Azog is shown with a head in his hand from a relatively far distance
3) Instead of parading with the head, Azog throws it like a billiard ball, so the show is very short and in movement : children eyes don't have a beheaded face to stare at
4) Balin is talking, Thorin is watching, so it makes it a dwarf affair, not something young children can easily identify with themselves
Compare all this with horror movies shown as soon as the rule is PG-18, you'll understand how far is it from being shocking
Now come to Beorn vs/Bolg :
None of the previously said could be done.
- no fast and 'clean' beheading
- a gore display of brute violence
- a body dismembered and shattered
- all that done by a 'sympathetic' animal for children, which is a bear. How many children spend their youth cherishing a Teddy Bear ? It would be frightening for them
- and what about Beorn/Bear form doing the same again and again with an entire Orc army ? Much better suggesting it from a short view or a far position, which PJ's team both did : the heroes are far away from Beorn on Raven Hill and eagles are coming.
Maybe in the EE we will see Beorn finding his rest while seing Azog and Bolg dead by dwarves' hands, so he could like dwarves a little more.
But there is no regret to have, IMO, with the change the movie did of Tolkien's canon on that subject.
And of course there is NO disrespect of the audiences, contrary to what some here persist to proclaim - against every evidence.
|
|
|
Grand Bob
The Shire
May 27 2015, 1:50pm
Post #75 of 132
(1476 views)
Shortcut
|
I have stayed out of the Hobbit movie discussion for the most part, but I like viewing the differing opinions of people who are obviously emotionally charged by the topic. On the one hand I see people who don't have much attachment to the book, such as gamers, fans of PJ, and those who were involved in the movie production. These people are pleased and amused by the over-the-top sensationalism contained in the films, and rightly so. In contrast there are the "traditionalists" who have a much deeper involvement with Tolkien's works and enjoy that world to the extent that they re-read the books every year. I am one of those people. I have now seen all of the Hobbit movies several times and I have tried very hard to like them. In particular, I did like seeing the Middle-earth scenery and enjoyed several of the characters and certain sequences of the films. But, as I said to my son as we were leaving the theater after each theatrical viewing, "That's not what happened". No matter what your opinions are of whether or not an adaption satisfies a dictionary definition, these movies did not have anything close to the "feel" of the book, and despite all of the drama and spectacular effects, on that level (IMO) they were a failure. I thought your post was a good summary of this aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
ABSOLUTELY Right, dmouse...
[
