|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 30 2015, 8:34pm
Post #1 of 8
(2346 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Watching TTT appendices and it reinforces the reason for certain
|
Can't Post
|
|
differences between book and film. Once you understand the why of the change and the pacing / plotting differences for film audiences, many of the changes make sense (whether or not we are disappointed ). The same will hold true for most of The Hobbit films. There are reasons for deviations, and I think we have to keep in mind the general audience vs those of us far more invested. Yes, some of those changes are not as appreciated as others, but there is a rhyme and reason behind them.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 31 2015, 8:23am
Post #2 of 8
(2272 views)
Shortcut
|
Whether or not we or any of us come out liking the changes there is always a good reason for them - and it's worth listening to it before deciding whether to cheer or boo.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Jun 1 2015, 7:24pm
Post #3 of 8
(2177 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, the Tauriel & Kili romance was very necessary and so were all the supposedly comedic Alfrid scenes, truly.
This way, you can justify just about everything that went wrong.
"Well, they needed all that filler so they could make three films, y'know! Real importantsies!"
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Jun 1 2015, 7:28pm
Post #4 of 8
(2176 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The only point made was that the film makers had reasons for such material
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
, sometimes for considerations we may not initially realize. I did not say they all worked, but that one can see how such changes come about with the intention discussed in the extra material.
For example, in TTT, we have elves at Helm's Deep....in the theater I am thinking, what? Then in the appendices, at least I understand the reason behind them showing up.
Re Kili and Tauriel, I am sure it resonated with some of the audience. I can understand the use of Alfrid (though I understand why some disliked the character).
(This post was edited by Eruonen on Jun 1 2015, 7:34pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jun 3 2015, 8:36am
Post #5 of 8
(2068 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that it is very important and interesting to listen to the reasons given.
With their LotR commentaries they won me over on several things (for example the Osgiliath plotline and Faramir's character).
However, it wasn't the same for me with AUJ and DoS.
I did listen, very carefully, actually, especially because I knew how much I benefited from their opinions via the LotR commentaries. But I found the ones for AUJ and DoS to be far more superficial... even ignoring some of the major changes and discussion points.
In the end a movie has to stand on its own feet... a commentary can give you more insight and even more enjoyment and understanding... but if the movies itself left you unimpressed, the commentaries help little, imho.
Though I do hope for the BotFA EE and the commentary of it... it is not about negativity or cynism for me. I just somehow want to understand where it all went so wrong for me (personally) and whether it might somehow be fixed by either some more scenes or some explanation that I didn't understand, yet. Maybe the BotFA and its commentary will help.
In general I salute PJ and Co for doing them, by the way. It is something I wished more directors would do.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 3 2015, 7:41pm
Post #6 of 8
(2021 views)
Shortcut
|
Posts have been removed for being critical to board members.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A warning about this was only recently posted on the Hobbit forum and I'm disappointed to have to do it here too. So a reminder to board members to make your points without being critical towards each other or making board members feel unwelcome.
For those who aren't aware: We run a 'three strikes' warning here before giving temporary or permanent bans to repeat offenders against the Terms of Service. To avoid getting an official warning, please re-read the TOS and make an effort to operate within them.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
jessica900
Registered User
Jun 19 2015, 12:17pm
Post #7 of 8
(1762 views)
Shortcut
|
|
TTT appendices and it reinforces the reason for certain
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
No movie protrayal can match a good book, but Jackson's attempt is the best ever effort in the history of movies. His team's enormous amount of research, attention to detail and love of the original literary work comes through 
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jun 19 2015, 2:58pm
Post #8 of 8
(1753 views)
Shortcut
|
Once you understand the why of the change and the pacing / plotting differences for film audiences, many of the changes make sense (whether or not we are disappointed ). The same will hold true for most of The Hobbit films. There are reasons for deviations, and I think we have to keep in mind the general audience vs those of us far more invested. Yes, some of those changes are not as appreciated as others, but there is a rhyme and reason behind them.
No movie protrayal can match a good book, but Jackson's attempt is the best ever effort in the history of movies. His team's enormous amount of research, attention to detail and love of the original literary work comes through
I think that this is more true in the case of The Lord of the Rings than for The Hobbit. The latter received many more changes and additions; in my opinion, some of those did not work either in the spirit of Tolkien's Middle-earth or because they did not maintain an internal logic within the films themselves.
The worst offenders, to my mind, were: 1) making Sauron inactive throughout most of the Third Age; and 2) the alterations to the story of the fall of Angmar, including the addition of the tombs in the High Fells. The Wood-elves seem to have been battling the giant spiders for many months. How is it that Radagast, who is located much nearer to Dol Guldur, so late in discovering that something is wrong with the Greenwood?
If the Nazgul have been entombed in the High Fells for the past 400 years, who has been managing their territories in the East and South? Who, if anyone, has been acting as the active agents of Sauron during this time? What was the effect of the Kingdom of Angmar apparently surviving for an additional 500+ years?
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jun 19 2015, 3:00pm)
|
|
|
|
|
