|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
May 27 2015, 4:26pm
Post #26 of 75
(1167 views)
Shortcut
|
|
When he said he wanted the hobbit first, in the times of LOTR or now?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
May 27 2015, 4:29pm
Post #27 of 75
(1177 views)
Shortcut
|
That all of the characters I listed could have been removed entirely from the three movies with no detrimental impact on the final product. Yes, you raise many good points on why Beorn and The Master are required, and on the purpose of Alfrid, but these ideas/themes/reasons/characterisations are all poorly executed. In the case of Beorn and in the version of the movie we are given (whereby Beorn turns up with no major role in the Battle), we (the audience) don't really need to seem them replenishing their supplies or provisions in DOS. The Company could have headed straight to Mirkwood. The purpose of all these characters might be to contrast the main characters, or to provide a different perspective, or provide a voice, but they just do not work. At the end of the day, none of that is needed. These characters are all superfluous, akin to Ghan or Bombadil in The Lord of the Rings.
- Dain: Really, Daniel? Dain? We need a dwarven army. Dain leads a dwarven army. And he is (relatively) nearby. What? Is Thorin supposed to mold an army out of clay and ask Aule and Iluvatar to bring it to life? Case closed.
The case is never closed. I don't like Dain's characterisation - I would have given him a much larger role in the trilogy with flashbacks/sideways in both AUJ and DOS, and removed the comedy from the role. He (not the Army) doesn't advance the plot and is a rather random new character in an already very busy movie. Dain needed introducing well before the final act. In the version of the movie we are given, he is superfluous. The Dwarven army could have turned up without Dain and the film would be the same.
(This post was edited by DanielLB on May 27 2015, 4:36pm)
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
May 27 2015, 4:30pm
Post #28 of 75
(1165 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the movie was made with better effects, but maybe the studio wanted to PJ to cut the film down to a shorter lenght so many scenes could have been rearanged to match this need. Being done, maybe, in the last minute.
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 27 2015, 4:31pm
Post #29 of 75
(1167 views)
Shortcut
|
It's a matter of public record that Jacskson tried to pitch a movie adaptation of The Hobbit well before he made the LotR movies.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 27 2015, 4:36pm
Post #30 of 75
(1164 views)
Shortcut
|
All I can say is that if the Master of Lake-town and Dain are superfluous in the films then they are equally unnecessary in the book; the same would apply to Beorn if not for his role in the Battle of Five Armies. I mean, anyone could have led Dain's army, right?
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
May 27 2015, 4:41pm
Post #31 of 75
(1154 views)
Shortcut
|
thanks for the info
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
May 27 2015, 4:41pm
Post #32 of 75
(1148 views)
Shortcut
|
I mean, anyone could have led Dain's army, right?
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 27 2015, 4:48pm
Post #33 of 75
(1144 views)
Shortcut
|
But sometimes I just don't know about you!
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 27 2015, 5:17pm
Post #34 of 75
(1133 views)
Shortcut
|
I hadn't seen that interview and you're right, that's exactly what he said.
But if you're suggesting that there's something wrong in what he's explaining there, I'd still find myself disagreeing. It's the difference between commissioning an artist to paint a portrait of someone and commissioning an artist to complete a portrait another artist has started. Maybe some could do that happily but I'm not surprised that there are others who couldn't. Surely it's reasonable for anyone creating an important piece of work to want to be in on it from the start, making the important decisions about how to shape it? That's all he's saying. Not that there was anything wrong with the existing script, just that it was framed around someone else's ideas.
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
May 27 2015, 5:42pm
Post #35 of 75
(1111 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks - and I'm not saying categorically there's anything wrong with it...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but it cannot have helped matters, given the limited pre-production time to make such changes. Of course no one would expect Jackson to make del Toro's film but Jackson, Boyens and Walsh had all worked on that script with GdT, it's not as if he had to take up a completely unknown screenplay to work with... 
One can't help thinking that we might have got more coherence if they had stuck to at least the outline they'd come up with between themselves and GdT, and made more minor changes than creating a whole new, extra film and re-writing alternative endings after they'd already shot principal photography. Perhaps as screenwriters and directors/producers the team are just too close to the whole thing? An outsider might have offered a fresher perspective, perhaps...who knows!
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 27 2015, 6:17pm
Post #36 of 75
(1099 views)
Shortcut
|
I do think time has been a very big problem with these films - the most significant one, to my mind, apart from the general perception that the project was jinxed. It's just that I reckon that most of the time pressures happened for reasons no one could help. The circumstances in which Peter Jackson took over were hardly ideal: I'm sure that if he had felt he could follow GdT's outline he would have done it. Same with the late decision to change to three films. I can't believe he would have pushed for that unless he was really finding it impossible to make what he had work as two films. No one makes things harder for themselves deliberately (accidentally, of course, it happens all the time!) And from the little we know, things like a female elf guard with her own love story were part of the original outline too.
It would certainly be easier in some ways to have a separate screenwriter - though in a sense they do with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens not playing any major part in the directing. But they're still all very close. I suppose if that's the way he likes to work, that's his choice, and there is an outside input from the actors - he seems to listen to their ideas and incorporate them quite often. Maybe he ends up listening to too many alternative story lines!
|
|
|
squiggle
Rivendell
May 27 2015, 6:55pm
Post #37 of 75
(1088 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I Think the Hobbit films have been immensely successful
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In a general sense they were not as main stream as LoTRs relative to their time.
But i don't think that means alot, other than how well done they were to be on a similar plane of financial success.
The best theatrical was AUJ, the others had cons & pros relative to AUJs.
The two ees thus far are superb.
'Problems' like for example, characters like Alfrid are more problamatic in the sense of lack of lateral intrepretation, it seems obvious to me the way the character story of Alfrid works in the larger picture & is totally valid - it was executed better in DOS than BoTFA but we have DOS ee & all the same, is a character arc type not utilised alot in modern films and works well within Hobbit story and Middle Earth cinema contexts also.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 27 2015, 7:25pm
Post #38 of 75
(1071 views)
Shortcut
|
IIRC, the original plan was to make The Hobbit first and then a two movie version of LotR. But the film rights to The Hobbit were impossible to sort out and obtain while those to LotR were only difficult to get, not unattainable.
|
|
|
Ilmatar
Rohan
May 27 2015, 8:18pm
Post #39 of 75
(1052 views)
Shortcut
|
Just a random comment on the basis on this:
There's other shots too, where I swear that in the elf army, it's the same face over and over again - CGI elf face. Too much repetition in the armies - everyone in the SAME position - even the best dancers in the world can't manage that degree of accuracy. 
Supposedly the elves' physical abilities so greatly surpass any human efforts that their movement in unison could almost be believable... And they have had hundreds or thousands of years' time to practice staying in the same position in relation to each other, looking elegant even in battle conditions. 
I remember having seen too many identical elf faces at some point, but it just doesn't make sense when we have behind-the-scenes like this elf training:
Why hire, clothe and train dozens and dozens of (tall, athletic) actors and then just replace them with a clone army? Would it not make more sense to hire two or three, and then just multiply them as needed. Or why it would make sense in some scenes to clone a face, if there were indeed many actors involved and not just CGI images? I'm not looking for definite answers, just wondering...
(Now that I look at the picture in larger scale I'm willing to believe that many of them actually have quite similar features - high foreheads, straight noses etc. I must be imagining things...)
Edit: The picture seems to be from DOS - of course, there are no armor etc., I was careless - which leads to another question: Why have individual elf actors for DOS but supposedly an army of clones for BO5A? Of course the battle needed more elves. Maybe they had a dozen or so, and then just cloned them...
(This post was edited by Ilmatar on May 27 2015, 8:22pm)
|
|
|
Ilmatar
Rohan
May 27 2015, 9:17pm
Post #41 of 75
(1024 views)
Shortcut
|
There's no explanation for "too similar faces", but then again it never bothered me that much - just a detail that stuck in my mind that I would rather not have noticed. After having seen the army (although smaller than in the film, of course) I will just "unstuck" the detail and concentrate on other things... :)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 27 2015, 10:55pm
Post #42 of 75
(1022 views)
Shortcut
|
At last someone takes the question seriously...
So, am I reading you right in saying that your objection to the scene isn't so much the quality of the CGI as the fact that you don't like the scene itself and find it unrealistic. Is that right? It's a fair point, although I have to admit that scene is one I actually do like. It reminds me of two images from Two Towers which I find visually exciting and always look out for. One is a few seconds after the Rohirrim catch up witht he orcs holding Merry and Pippin. There's a momentary glimpse of a rider turning in the saddle to fire an arrow which is captured just perfectly. the other comes near the end, when Gandalf leads the charge down that impossibly steep slope. Just as the two forces clash the riders leap the front rank of orcs and there's one particular one I always notice. The image of Thranduil's elves jumping over the dwarves in the shield wall remind me of those - it's a heart-stirring moment and I have to confess I love it. As for the elves being repeated, after I read that comment from someone else I tried at first not to notice it (I hate picking up other people's negativity!). But when I really looked I found that I can see lots of distinct individuals, so it doesn't bother me. And looking alike and moving in unison is part of being an army. Even in LotR days their computer programmes were devised to make the CGI armies individual - I can't believe they've abandoned that now.
I do realise, of course, that the armies are extended digitally just as they were in LotR. But that's what makes filming the battle possible, isn't it?
As for the bats, you do get a brief glimpse of them swooping down to attack the dwarves. Just a couple of seconds, but I think that's what they were for.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 27 2015, 11:06pm
Post #43 of 75
(1006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Awesome Elf Helmets hid Most Everything
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
except their Eyes & Mouths...
SSOoo..of course they All looked the Same.
Everyone cast as an Elf needed to Tall, TOO!
They were also probably TOLD to SHOW No expression?
therefore, they did like Clones of each other.
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 28 2015, 1:04am
Post #44 of 75
(997 views)
Shortcut
|
"So, am I reading you right in saying that your objection to the scene isn't so much the quality of the CGI as the fact that you don't like the scene itself and find it unrealistic."
Yes, the question was about too much CGI, not poor-quality CGI. There are other complaints, that one is just the most blatant to me - and the bats. I think, in the book, that the bats helped block the sun for the orcs, but instead they give Legolas a ride to the tower. And then there's the aforementioned Legolas running up the falling stones, clearly a CGI stunt that I don't even think you cared for. Back to the battle, well yes I'm glad the Elves joined the fight but I wish PJ had come up with a less showy, fake way for them to do it. I KNOW they PJ can come up with good fight scenes, I think in this instance he couldn't resist the urge to one-up himself.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 28 2015, 7:00am
Post #45 of 75
(971 views)
Shortcut
|
In the book the bats did block the sun, making a cloud 'so dense that no light could be seen between their wings.' I s'pose that's something much easier to write about than to visualise on screen. Like Gandalf having eyebrows that project beyond the brim of his hat.
I don't mind about Legolas hitching a ride on a bat - he has to get up to the tower quickly and it's a good visual image. I do wonder how he suddenly comes to be upside-down, though....
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 28 2015, 4:24pm
Post #46 of 75
(921 views)
Shortcut
|
At least for me, specifically - one moment if I remember right - was when Thranduil and Bard approach Erebor, and another is when the dwarf army is approaching; and I think another is when the dwarf army is all standing rigid.
I remember thinking - "hey, that's the same guy/thing duplicated!". I may have to put up a new thread w. caps.
But I do know there were "real" elves - I mention this small stuff because if a viewer can "catch" stuff like that, I am surprised - re the Appendices I know WETA has those programs that can morph two designs and make lots of variants of a character, all different - like hundreds of little goblins.
But I wasn't thinking at all of the elves coming over the dwarves, which I actually enjoy - I probably shouldn't have mentioned dancers - and one of my favorite battle scenes - and powerful for me, is the dwarves running up and locking shields - the sound, music, that one dwarf with the battle cries - all very stirring and for me , and an excellent and aesthetic start to this battle - IMO impressive.
And I love when the dwarves lift their shields and the orcs plow into their spears - just wish I knew what has been the battle cry in dwarvish. And Dain charging through with his pig, laying orcs out with his war hammer *grins*.
Now if we can just get some battle rams.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
May 29 2015, 5:36am
Post #47 of 75
(859 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it very much could have been done!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In ROTK (the film) Galdalf and Pippin witness cloud cover rolling towards Gondor from Mordor for expressly that purpose. And it's epic. Something similar could have absolutely happened in BOTFA.
I think Jackson was in tricky territory with The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a shorter, leaner tale than LOTR but it has its fair share of outrageous fantasy elements. CGI was always going to be a big part of the films. But I find the question of "how much is too much" utterly valid. I would say too many 100% CGI shots and an over abundance of green screen indoor sets for "outdoor" movieverse locations is a sore point for me. I often think of Mortenson's quote on The Hobbit and CGI.
Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.
All that said I think ROTK is one of the ballsiest, arty blockbusters ever made.
(This post was edited by Bishop on May 29 2015, 5:45am)
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
May 29 2015, 8:05am
Post #48 of 75
(840 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The use of that Viggo quote...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...When afterwards he said he was horribly misquoted seems a bit odd...
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 8:36am
Post #49 of 75
(834 views)
Shortcut
|
...for one thing, re the Hobbit - as Richard Taylor alludes to re set and costume manufacturing - are skyrocketing costs forgotten? I have no doubt that PJ loves cutting edge technology, but there is a production schedule and costs to consider as well - as well as, evidently, New Zealand's changeable weather - re a location shoot.
The other thing tho, for me - even tho I have pinged on the Hobbit CGI myself when I thought it was careless - I've never been comfortable with VM' s comment, partly because it was unbecoming of him (to put it mildly) and partly because when I think about it in the context of what happens in the films, it doesn't make sense re the characters or locations.
E.g., the Hobbit has re mythological characters which include trolls, stone giants, many large spiders, bats, wereworms, Gollum, giant eagles, Beorn, and most of all a singular dragon that were all going to be on screen in front of an audience who is used to sophisticated special effects. All of which were beautifully rendered.
VM seriously can't think that PJ was actually going to build Erebor Into the side of a mountain? And from the looks of it, quite a lot of Bag End, Rivendell, Laketown, Dale, Mirkwood, Beorn' s house were actually constructed. And obviously various locations were utilized.
E.g., both the Hobbit and LOTR start out in the Shire, and move characters through Middle Earth, to different locations and great kingdoms and battles - that has to be depicted somehow. If what VM means by "subtle" are characters at Rivendell talking, or hiking through mountain snow - these films are all building towards a grand end. They couldn't all stop and revolve around Aragorn and Arwen discussing fate.
And certainly in the face of the IMO stellar performances in the Hobbit, and truly beautiful moments, it was an unwise way of phrasing things - especially in that in watching the Appendices, to me, a gifted actor doesn't need a location set to turn in a stunning performance. And VM would know that - anyway, evidently he has spoken with PJ since that comment. Myself, VM's comments will always have a tinge of a "left out" actor grousing.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 8:39am
Post #50 of 75
(832 views)
Shortcut
|
I only ever read that VM had talked to PJ afterward at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
