|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jan 21 2016, 3:19pm
Post #51 of 68
(1000 views)
Shortcut
|
In Reply To
Alfrid is a good source of comic relief
Without him, the movie would have, according to Laketowners, nothing else to focus than on their slaughter, men, women and children included, by the orcs.
Alfrid is very evocative of the effects the horrors of war reflect on some peoples' minds. His character is as repulsive as those reflections are, but while they are sad and sinister when they occur in real life, in his case they end laughable, which is a relief indeed.
I find his inclusion very thoughtful. Alfrid would miss if he'd be cut off.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Jan 21 2016, 3:20pm)
|
|
|
Jeffrodo
Bree
Jan 25 2016, 4:17pm
Post #52 of 68
(832 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with you 100%!
I don't understand the "bloated" complaint of The Hobbit. I wanted MORE, not less.
Honestly, I think some people got stuck on the fact that the Hobbit is one book, so it should've been one (or two) films at most. I totally see (and support) why PJ expanded the story.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 25 2016, 8:23pm
Post #53 of 68
(815 views)
Shortcut
|
It isn't just that new material was added. A problem for some (including myself) was when the changes and additions were not derived from what Tolkien wrote and the story and background was altered to fit the new material instead of the alterations being tailored to fit Tolkien's legendarium.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jan 26 2016, 9:40am
Post #54 of 68
(787 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My kids will be raised with LotR,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and be left to discover TH films on their own.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 26 2016, 3:04pm
Post #55 of 68
(775 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't completely dislike the Hobbit movies we got. And I'm not so arrogant to say that I could write a better script. What I know about screenwriting probably wouldn't fill a thimble. However, I am confident that I could have improved on the general outline for the films without diverging so far from Tolkien's canon.
For starters, backtrack to the LotR films and get the gorramn year right for Bilbo's birthday/farewell party. One change in dialogue in the extended edition of FotR. Fixed.
I'm not going to go through the films point-by-point here, though; this post would be far too long.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Jan 28 2016, 3:43am
Post #56 of 68
(711 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Publication/release order for me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think the bookending with old Bilbo just makes more sense when you view the films in the order in which they were released but I will neither dissuade my children (if I ever have any) from watching The Hobbit films nor force them to watch LOTR before The Hobbit if they choose to view them in chronological order. There's a lot I dislike about The Hobbit trilogy but it's still better than most of the garbage out there (especially the Twilight or Hunger Games stuff). It's still a stupendous effort by a team with a creative vision and I can appreciate it while disagreeing with it.
There's a lot more to worry about for future generations than the order in which they view movies.
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Jan 30 2016, 7:22am
Post #58 of 68
(637 views)
Shortcut
|
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I do have to wonder if you dislike the films that much why do you bother to post in this section of the boards.
(This post was edited by KingTurgon on Jan 30 2016, 7:26am)
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Jan 30 2016, 7:27am
Post #59 of 68
(636 views)
Shortcut
|
I almost always prefer chronological order. I just love seeing large epics unfold from beginning to end. It makes for a richer and more immersive experience with me. Star Wars, Tolkien, you name it, chronological order is the way to go :D
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Jan 30 2016, 9:49am
Post #60 of 68
(627 views)
Shortcut
|
If you "see" and "support" why PJ expanded the story the way he did, then maybe you're either a PJ apologist or don't understand why they actually did it.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Jan 30 2016, 9:50am)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jan 31 2016, 10:18pm
Post #61 of 68
(586 views)
Shortcut
|
They thought they were good films? That could apply to some.
Bilbo: These are dark days.
Bofur: Dark days indeed.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 1 2016, 8:49am
Post #62 of 68
(565 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Or maybe they just enjoyed the films....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... and don't share your cynicism about them or about their makers.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 1 2016, 1:45pm
Post #63 of 68
(550 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What dormouse and TheOnlyOne said
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't agree with every choice that Peter Jackson made in adapting the book but I love TH movies anyway for the things that work and are so well done.
I would say the same about The LotR trilogy except that there are changes from the book in those movies that are, to my mind, bigger and more significant, particularly in the characterizations. I love those films too.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 1 2016, 2:43pm
Post #64 of 68
(543 views)
Shortcut
|
I can see and support why PJ made certain creative decisions as a filmmaker without approving of them overall. Both the medium he is using and limitations of current audiences (short attention spans!) argues for a compression of the story. In other areas, he chose to expand on the story because of the visual medium he was dealing with (BoFA) and the desire of fans to see more than the brief recap provided in Tolkien's writings. He chose to do this in certain ways, some of which I understand and some of which I don't. Where I don't understand the necessity of changing the story (like introducing a Dwarf-Elf unrequited love story), I object.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 1 2016, 3:45pm
Post #65 of 68
(535 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Do you always object to things you don't understand?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I find making an effort to understand them is much more worthwhile - and more enjoyable.
But maybe that's just me...
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 1 2016, 4:00pm
Post #66 of 68
(530 views)
Shortcut
|
I generally object only after I feel I fully understand the argument. I understand the rationalization in this case, I just don't agree with it. Not having the Hobbit Appendices available, it appears to me they rationalized Smaug sensing the Ring in order to depict the scene the way they wanted to artistically but there's nothing to suggest in the text that Smaug could do anything of the kind and in fact, the text quite contrarily suggests Smaug couldn't see the ring wearer any more than anyone else.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 1 2016, 4:24pm
Post #67 of 68
(524 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Returning to the screening order,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Remember that PJ's team first intended to shoot the Hobbit first in the nineties.
I would say that what might have been ideal would have been filming The Hobbit as if no LOTR had been shot first, then film LOTR second. But that ideal was unattainable, because some introduction stuff in LOTR is coming from The Hobbit story, and it couldn't be undone.
What the team decided to do is to connect the ending scenes of the Hobbit to the beginning scenes of LOTR as pieces of the same puzzle. So there is what is happening first, and what is happening next, and nothing much else, which is a low-key approach more fitting than hurting.
What they did very right in the Hobbit is to fast-rewind to the Erebor story in the very beginning of The Hobbit.
So, people who know nothing about LOTR won't have to wonder long what this introduction stuff with Frodo is about.
....They are just left in expectations, and will have to look at The Fellowship of the Ring to get their answers, about the guy Frodo, about the Ring and even about Gandalf.
I think I may now try some rally to check my impressions about that.
For that's now a while since I didn't look again at LOTR : I looked for nothing else than The Hobbit for the last 4 years.
And what we have is a great Hobbit.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Feb 1 2016, 4:26pm)
|
|
|
verdealex79
Registered User
Feb 10 2016, 10:05am
Post #68 of 68
(427 views)
Shortcut
|
I think these Hobbit are wonderful films, and worthy addiction to the LOTR saga.
- Are the Hobbit films at the same level of LOTR films? Not at all. BOTFA had some problems in the cut that are not addressed, even in EE. Besides, LOTR films are much more epic: the same can be said about the book comparison. Books are MUCH more distant than films are, though: Peter Jackson made a GIGANTIC effort to bridge these films with LOTR, and the result is quite good IMHO.
- Is it correct having 17 Oscars that separate LOTR and Hobbit? Not at all. I cant get all the hate for these Hobbit films: I cant recall other films where "mature fantasy" is treated with this care, apart from LOTR itself. Score, costumes, special effects: maybe not 17 like LOTR, but some Oscars HAD to be awarded. I really cant get what judges drank before voting for the Awards.
I will personally see these films always starting from AUJ and ending with ROTK. Thats how the story flows, and its better if the films get better while watching... just to end with a "Grand Finale".
In fact, its actually the story which gets better, like good books... the better part is at the end but the start is good enough to grab you and keep you reading...
|
|
|
|
|
