|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crunchable Birdses
Rohan
Aug 14 2015, 3:37pm
Post #26 of 37
(902 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Mega budget films are for the masses
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
People need to accept that what the masses want will always win over what a (relatively small) group of Tolkien fans want.
The masses want to see "that arrow guy" doing cool stunts, snappy pacing (without boring dinner party scenes) and uhhh, more of "that arrow guy killing those ork things or whatever they're called".
New Line was run by a Tolkien fan. That's why LotR was so good.
Warners is run by people who just want maximum cash. That's why the Hobbit films are the way they are.
* crunch *
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 3:55pm
Post #27 of 37
(888 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Being appealing to the masses does not equal being bad
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...just saying. Films being appealing to Tolkien fans does not necessarily mean they are good films either for that matter.
Just wanted to get that off my chest. 
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Aug 14 2015, 3:57pm
Post #28 of 37
(885 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And 10 years of technology with an explosion in home viewing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Any more, films that do as well as the Hobbit movies did are impressive - BOFA being one of the films last year being credited as giving a slow box office a badly-needed boost at the end of the year - it's incredibly convenient, unless you really care about a film, to just sit around and wait for it, which I don't think was true of LOTR at the time.
Which makes the number of tickets sold for this theater EE interesting - but again, it's the kind of thing where I can see folks - depending on the "degree of fandom" might be on the fence - e.g. it's only 20 minutes more, it's on a weeknight, and I can sit at home at watch in comfort, it's supposed to rain/snow that day, etc and besides I have this lovely 72, 92, 110 inch home theater system with 3D and surround sound (I personally don't, but some people do even with movie theater chairs and popcorn machines and so on).
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Aug 14 2015, 4:16pm
Post #29 of 37
(872 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think that anyone is lamenting the lack of scenes with Beorn or Fili outside of the hardcore Tolkien fandom. Or the lack of a funeral scene or the whereabouts of the Arkenstone which have already played out its (important) role in the film.
*Grins* I've read comments from comic book fans frustrated with the lack of detail in a film, or a wrong detail - and comments from SW fans as well (the one I remember is the furor over the cross-guard light saber) and since I don't know what they are talking about, or why it's a problem, what really registers with me is whether I like the film or not. Or whether a weapon, say, looks cool whether it is "canon" in that universe or not.
Tho that said, it wouldn't surprise me if it had vaguely crossed the minds of at least some critics and audience members as to why all these dwarves aren't saying anything (e.g., for me, if characters aren't engaging with each other, it's hard to understand or feel grief or moved as when the dwarves kneel before Thorin or say goodbye to Bilbo) or why there is this sudden strain between Legolas and his father, and so on. And some audience members might have wanted to see more of a giant bear tearing up a battlefield.
But yes, if I were completely unfamiliar with the material, and just at the films to enjoy myself - my perspective is going to be different. But my money counts, just the same, to a studio.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Aug 14 2015, 6:13pm
Post #30 of 37
(836 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It did fine at the box office...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...however, it did not do very well with critics. And most of the negative criticisms I read had to do with the critics feeling that this movie did not work as a stand-alone film, not that it was too rushed or left too many plots open. This movie was most likely damned in the critics' eyes the moment three films were announced (the fact that Jackson invented so much stuff to stretch things out didn't help matters).
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Aug 14 2015, 6:31pm
Post #31 of 37
(824 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The simple fact that all the crew (including PJ)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
are not allowed by contract to criticize the work says it all.
How could the Director have free-minded returns from the insiders in such a deal landscape ?
The Warner has dragon-sided the movie. Quite amazing that it is still so good.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 14 2015, 9:02pm
Post #33 of 37
(769 views)
Shortcut
|
Bar the brackets, of course.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Aug 16 2015, 1:56pm
Post #34 of 37
(678 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A case maybe that Jackson got the Hobbit TE's a bit backwards?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Looking back at the TE's and the length of the EE's I wonder if there isn't a case that Jackson got things a bit backwards?
AUJ only added an extra 13 mins of footage to the EE and honestly I think quite a lot of what we saw in the TE felt "EE like". The main complaint against the film from the general public seemed to be that it dragged on rather too long so perhaps cutting out 10 mins or so could have helped?
DOS and BOT5A TE's seemed like they were a bit a reaction to this if you ask me but IMHO went a bit too far in the other direction. The start of both of these films feels a bit rushed to me when a good few mins could have been added without slowing them down to the pace of AUJ.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Aug 16 2015, 1:56pm)
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Aug 16 2015, 2:40pm
Post #35 of 37
(652 views)
Shortcut
|
To get back to the point I think the embellishments of DOS and BOTFA came from a less interesting place than those in AUJ. AUJ really felt like it came from the filmmakers behind LOTR, who respected the material and wanted to PROVE their worthiness to adapt it. The changes made for DOS and BOTFA suggest a different attitude, they don't feel like they quite come from the same filmmakers. It started feeling, at least for me and people I've had long debates with, like they were above the material in a weird way, where they were happy to throw in overblown superhero style duels and take huge diversions from the text. LOTR made huge changes, but they always felt like they came from a place that sat comfortably next to the books. Some of the changes in DOS and BOTFA feel like their elbowing the book out of the way.
I think this is the key point of difference; their/your opinion as to what "the" material is, to which they should adhere. Based on the concluding statement of the quoted paragraph, for you that is the single book, "The Hobbit". But the filmmakers have always indicated these are not the movies they were making (their reasons for making this a trilogy cite the need to include material from LotR/Appendices). The story they are telling includes as two threads, Bilbo's unexpected adventure, and the Dwarves' homecoming. But it is also the story of Sauron's quest for world domination and Gandalf's opposition to it (which of course is lifted from elsewhere in the legendarium), including the effects this had on the peoples Sauron targeted (the Men, Elves, and Dwarves living in the region near Erebor).
This "taints" (if you would have it so) even AUJ, slightly through showing us Radagast, Dol Guldur, and the deliberations of the White Council, and perhaps more so through the involvement, from before the moment Gandalf and Bilbo first meet, of Azog in the story. These are all "invented", but based on the bones of a story Tolkien never fully fleshed out (not with details of incident and dialogue). But incidents and dialogue are the stuff movies are made of, so giving weight to this aspect of the story, required "invention".
And gets "worse" in the later films as we actually begin to meet these other peoples that are a part of the telling of the larger (geopolitical, if you will) story, culminating in a battle which focuses, not on the Dwarves/Bilbo alone, but instead shows us the impact on leaders and representatives of the three armies of the Free Peoples involved.
Re: the "superhero" moments - are these really different, qualitatively, from the Moria stairs sequence of FotR, the very first film adaptation of Tolkien's work by this team? This is a completely invented, improbable series of events requiring lots of special effects to realize. (Also, for me, one of the most stunning/ memorable moments of both series, still! I see its kinship with the movie barrel sequence and the completely invented "forges" sequences of DoS, both things I also happen to enjoy...)
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Aug 17 2015, 5:56pm
Post #36 of 37
(599 views)
Shortcut
|
Your box office figure for the Fellowship of the Ring is incorrect...you only included US gross. The film actually made $871 million worldwide.
So in total, the LOTR trilogy made about $2.92 billion worldwide, just short of the Hobbit trilogy. When adjusted for inflation, an expanding international box office, higher ticket prices AND the premium 3D/HFR/IMAX ticket costs, it's fairly obvious that LOTR sold far more tickets overall.
|
|
|
1924
Bree
Nov 6 2015, 7:35pm
Post #37 of 37
(486 views)
Shortcut
|
after watching EE I do think if they had released it in theaters it might have resulted in better word of mouth. The EE was filled with moments that cause audiences to laugh and cheer (the dwarves all getting their moments, Alfrid's death)
|
|
|
|
|
