|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 29 2016, 3:33am
Post #26 of 117
(1134 views)
Shortcut
|
Telling, that being less faithful
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Still resulted in almost every moment from the novel making its way on-screen. "LotR" may have followed the spirit (however we want to define that) and general plot trajectory of the books more closely, but a ton of content still had to be outright dropped.
"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'" - Captain America: Civil War
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 29 2016, 1:52pm
Post #27 of 117
(1105 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, I'd say you're on 'matter of opinion' territory even here....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
However, it's not a matter of opinion that The Hobbit trilogy made more substantial and significant changes to the story than The LOTR trilogy. Irrespective of whether any of us likes or dislikes any particular change - or the whole package of changes - I reckon that if we were to tot up all the various changes to the story in one adapation and set them against the other we'd find them about equal in number. [Again, please note that I'm not distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable changes, since that is, as you say, a matter of opinion]. We might even find that there were more changes to the story in the Lord of the Rings films. Think about it for a moment - just a few examples, here, of many: No Fatty Bolger, Crickhollow, conversation between the Nazgul and the Gaffer - the film Nazgul didn't seem the sort who would ask for information from anyone. No deviation into the Old Forest. Barrow Wights, Bombadil. No 'There is an Inn' song in Bree - just one symptom of the fact that in the film Barliman's inn is a very different place Arwen gallops round the countryside looking for Strider and the hobbits - no Glorfindel... And so on. I could carry on in this vein but there's no point - everyone who knows the book knows how long the list would be. But just to highlight a few of the more noticeable - or notorious changes, Aragorn cutting off the head of the Mouth of Sauron - Faramir standing by in approval while his men beat up Gollum - Faramir almost giving way to the temptation of the Ring and dragging Frodo to Osgiliath - the Witchking unseating Gandalf - Arwen is dying - Denethor's death - the unscoured Shire. The task of adapting the two stories was very different and each posed different challenges. Lord of the Rings is so much longer and more detailed that most (but certainly not all) of the changes were made to condense the story to film length. But in The Hobbit there are very few characters beyond the central nucleus. Elrond but no Rivendell elves; the Elvenking but no Mirkwood elves; Bard and the Master the sole named inhabitants of Laketown. To adapt the book as a companion piece to Lord of the Rings - which was always the intention; I'd lay odds that it was what the studio actually wanted and paid for - some expansion was necessary and expansion will always be more conspicuous and more contentious than omission. If we don't see Bombadil it's easy to accept that he is still there, we're just not seeing him. If we do see a Tauriel or an Alfrid - who? they're not in the book.... And so it goes. So may I suggest to you - and I think your post actually proves it - that what you're saying is that you personally find the changes in The Hobbit more objectionable than the changes in Lord of the Rings. That's a fair and reasonable point to make. But it certainly doesn't prove that more substantial and significant changes were made to The Hobbit. I submit that that is still a matter of opinion.
For still there are so many things that I have never seen: in every wood and every spring there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 29 2016, 3:01pm
Post #28 of 117
(1092 views)
Shortcut
|
Changes: Some worked, others didn't.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is still not explained how these alterations made the movies worse (as cinematic works). Just a prolonged way of saying "This trilogy had more changes to the source than the old trilogy." And yeah. Yep. Sure did. And? Some changes worked just fine. Others, did nothing to make the story more cinematic and were completely unnecessary. - The tombs at the High Fells. The Nazgûl could have already been scattered (as in Tolkien's canon) throughout Middle-earth to be gathered at Dol Guldur under the Necromancer. The tombs were an invention of Peter Jackson that was not needed. - Bringing Azog into the 'present'. Bolg could have functioned just as well as Azog. Another Orc could have been the second general, perhaps even by giving Bolg a son. - Tauriel. Good: a Wood-elf character with a different perspective than that of Thranduil. Bad: a distracting and unnecessary love story. - I thought that Stephen Fry was fine as the Master of Lake-town, but I would have rather had someone else play him if that means that the character could have survived Smaug's attack rather than giving us Alfrid's silly death scene.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 29 2016, 3:04pm
Post #29 of 117
(1090 views)
Shortcut
|
Lots of changes in the LotR adaptation too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Many of the characters were changed in the adaptation to screen, most notably Aragorn but also Merry, Pippin, Faramir, Denethor, Theoden, Gimli. The Ents were made into buffoons and refused to help in the war until manipulated into it by Pippin. Frodo sent Sam away at Cirith Ungol. There were questionable visuals like the giant eyeball on Barad Dur and flaming Denethor running something like the length of a football field to throw himself off the precipice in Gondor. Humour? Belching/farting by Gimli and Pippin, Gimli tiptoeing through the bones on the Paths of the Dead, the cameo filled scene with the Corsairs on the Anduin? Stunts: Legolas and the Mumakil? The avalanche of skulls? Those are just a very few examples off the top of my head of differences from the LotR book, of greater and lesser significance. Major or minor, enjoyable or not, they are still changes. The essential story of The Hobbit, that of a humble everyman and reluctant adventurer who wins the esteem of his companions and becomes a hero, is the centre of the Hobbit movies. Almost every incident and plot turn in the novel also appear in the movies. A lot has been added to that central story, mostly to service it but also to expand the world of TH to fit better with that of LotR. So I see TH and LotR and movies as being quite alike in a lot of ways, with similar flaws and faults and the same greatness.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 30 2016, 2:41am
Post #30 of 117
(1023 views)
Shortcut
|
I often feel like I'm speaking another language with others who view adaptations differently than myself and I don't say this to be nasty or to be taken as a gibe; it just feels that way. For instance, I am in full agreement over the facts surrounding the tombs at the High Fells - they were an invention of Peter Jackson and it was not necessarily needed. But, from where I stand, these facts do not facilitate a flaw in the work, since I would view the choice of following the text in the same light: namely, that the Ringwraiths being scattered all around M-e was an invention of J.R.R. Tolkien (for his novel only) and does not necessarily need to be shown this way in the film. Whether they were dispersed throughout the land or had broken free of the High Fells is irrelevant, I believe. Execution is all. I understand that this sequence does not work for everyone, but boy howdy, it did for me. Did I really say boy howdy? I like the scene so much, it transports me to the early 1900s, apparently. Anyway, I found it impressively spooky and enjoyed how it was used to further the mystery taking place deep within Dol Goldur (as opposed to merely hearing the rumor from Radagast and then going straight into the hidden fortress stuff at a later point). I also think Gandalf's discussion with Radagast here is an appropriate echo to the conversation between Legolas and Tauriel, wherein both parties take the risk of abandoning their predetermined groups and duties to go deal with a threat that may prove far worse for everyone, which is kind of the secondary theme of DoS. But most of all, I love that it allows for the flashback in the EE where we see the burial of the Witch King. It all just feels so ancient, mythic and otherworldly to me. Love that. I hear you much better on the Azog addition, but that's mostly because I don't really care which two orcs lead the armies into the final battle. That's also why the fact that it is Azog doesn't bother me at all. As it is, it's more iconic (having him be the one white orc and all) and Tolkien did indeed name Azog and Bolg as father and son (did Bolg have a son in Tolkien's canon?), which seems like a perfect case of both invention (the timeline) and faithfulness (keeping the two 'great' orcs given names by the Professor). It is in this very synthesis of invention and adherence that I feel both trilogies get so much of their power - what is timeless and deeply universal in Tolkien's work has been preserved and displayed along with Jackson's breathless creativity and epic cinematic passion, making it all seem both as old as a myth and as urgent as right now, simultaneously. It probably would have worked differently, but it works well this way, too. I have no problem with the love story, though once again, I agree it isn't necessarily needed. But it's not distracting to me. I find it an enhancement of the common ground the dwarves and elves could (and sometimes do - albeit rarely) reach when a little empathy is spread around. Plus, I'm a romantic so I'm a sucker for this kind of thing to begin with, and even more so when it's done with wonderful acting, a heartbreaking musical score and the kind of circumstances and visual backdrops The Hobbit allows for. Even Alfrid's death scene I don't mind, but of everything else you mentioned, this is the one that would first get the boot from me (if I had to and were in such a position). It sure is silly, but it's also oddly poetic. I enjoyed the humor in witnessing Gandalf struggle with his new staff and I appreciate that this little menace meets his demise directly due to the wealth he so badly desires, but had I been the director, I would have let his story finish the same way it did in the TE: wandering away from Dale, maybe a little richer, but a fool, alone and unlikely to fit in anywhere else.
"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'" - Captain America: Civil War
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 30 2016, 8:47am
Post #31 of 117
(1008 views)
Shortcut
|
Odd thing about Alfrid's death scene
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was one of the many who said 'no thanks' to Alfrid's death scene before the EE came out. I've never been as fiercely anti-Alfrid as a lot of people here. I can see that they needed to have someone in DoS for the Master to talk to, and the chemistry between Ryan Gage and Stephen Fry was very good. I can see why the survivor of the pair had to be Alfrid, to make it easier to bring Bard forward as leader and to highlight Bard's qualities in that role. But he did stand out much more against Bard - contrast rather than compliment. He seemed more exaggerated against Bard and I thought - still do think - it would have been a good idea if they'd toned him down a bit. Or perhaps done something a bit more interesting with him - like showing him trying to fight alongside the others. Anyway, I reckoned we'd had enough of him and the death scene sounded rather silly. Oddly enough, when I did see it I found I didn't dislike it as I feared I would because Gandalf was part of it. Alfrid dies inadvertently saving Gandalf (which is, in an anarchic and typically Peter Jackson kind of way, what I'd wished they had tried to do with the character!)
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
May 30 2016, 12:31pm
Post #32 of 117
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with both TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense and dormouse.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To my mind PJ is operating in the movieverse of his own creation in which characters, events, history and geography sometimes differ from those of novels to varying degrees. So no changes are unnecessary as such; it’s all a question of whether or not they work on the screen. Sometimes I think they do, sometimes not, and sometimes it is just the little tiny strain of purist in me that objects for no good reason other than because it’s not like that in the book. IMO Alfrid was great in DOS, where the character was more restrained and subtle. Ryan Gage was excellent all through and Alfrid had a useful and significant role to play in TBOTFA. But in that movie I found him too much – too comical, too loud as it were. The stuff with Gandalf and the staff was fine; I just didn’t care for Alfrid’s death by troll. I love Tauriel and actually like the love story too, which I found touching in DOS and poignant in TBOTFA. But it rankles a bit that you can’t have a female character, it seems, without a romance. I do get that if you are going to have one eligible female character and want/need a love story, the two are going to go together. It doesn’t bother me a bit that Azog is still alive in these movies, any more that the invention of Lurtz in FotR did; it’s much the same thing. The switch from Azog to Bolg in the middle of DOS as pursuer of Thorin does seem a little awkward to me. However I lack the imagination to envision another way to establish Azog as the biggest bad and Thorin’s nemesis as well as Sauron’s commander, and also set up the animosity between Bolg and Legolas, and I like both those stories. It seems to me that the fundamental difference between those who wanted a very faithful in every respect adaptation and those, like me, who enjoyed seeing a different version of the same story can’t really be bridged. Neither position is superior but what happened happened and nothing can change it. I consider myself very lucky that I thoroughly enjoy what we got in TH movies
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 30 2016, 12:45pm
Post #33 of 117
(983 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't expect universal agreement...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Certainly, your mileage may vary and I fully expect that some (if not most) things that bother me will be fine with somebody else. The other thing about the addition of Azog (and, again, this might not bother you at all) is that having him survive into the story's 'present' marginalizes Dáin's role in the Battle of Azanulbizar/Moria. This doesn't affect the main story of The Hobbit other than to emphasis the heroism of young Thorin, but I don't like its larger impact on Middle-earth. Likewise, the manner of Alfrid's death is to make it a silly gag that's played for comedy relief. It could have been spooky and dramatic by having Alfrid flee the Battle of Five Armies only to die alone in Wilderland, perhaps slain by Gollum seeking his 'Precious' or by a Warg or goblin also fleeing the battle. I didn't mind the addition of Radagast (he is mentioned in the book, after all, and the character was used to good effect to warn Gandalf of what was happening in the Forest); I didn't even mind the bunny-sled and bird droppings. What was over-the-top was smoke coming out of his ears. This is not a Loony Tunes cartoon.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 30 2016, 1:27pm
Post #34 of 117
(981 views)
Shortcut
|
It seems to me that the fundamental difference between those who wanted a very faithful in every respect adaptation and those, like me, who enjoyed seeing a different version of the same story can’t really be bridged. Neither position is superior but what happened happened and nothing can change it. I consider myself very lucky that I thoroughly enjoy what we got in TH movies I inhabit a middle-ground. I expected that Jackson (or any competent filmmaker) would need to make some changes and additions to make Tolkien's story work better cinematically. However, I thought that any or all of those alterations could have been kept within the confines of Tolkien's legendarium with the reasonable exception of inventing some minor supporting characters. And I disagree that all of Jackson's additions filled some vital purpose (except perhaps in his own mind). I don't think that audiences needed a romance--even a doomed one. I don't think we needed such heavy-handed comedy relief or so many sight-gags. I don't think that we needed to add action sequences for their own sake rather than to advance the story (the catwalk chase in Goblin Town comes immediately to mind). I am certain that if Jackson had not rushed into production after becoming director that we would not have needed three films in order to tell the story, even after added the elements taken from LotR and the Appendices.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 30 2016, 2:37pm
Post #35 of 117
(964 views)
Shortcut
|
Rankin/Bass didn't adhere to every line of the text, yet produced a far superior adaptation.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
imo
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 30 2016, 2:46pm
Post #36 of 117
(959 views)
Shortcut
|
Rankin/Bass didn't adhere to every line of the text, yet produced a far superior adaptation. I don't know about that, but it was more faithful to the text. Still, the t.v. movie was heavily abridged, completely cutting out Beorn (creating a plot hole that leaves the company woefully underprepared for Mirkwood) and the entire subplot about the Arkenstone. And I'm sure that you had some objections to some of the character designs--particularly those for the Wood-elves who ended up looking like the progeny of Elves and Ents. An adaptation that had more room to breathe could have certainly done a better job with the Battle of Five Armies.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 30 2016, 2:47pm)
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 30 2016, 3:08pm
Post #37 of 117
(953 views)
Shortcut
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 30 2016, 3:31pm
Post #39 of 117
(937 views)
Shortcut
|
well then, just to blow your mind
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was talking about the PJ Hobbit movies with a friend of mine, and HE said he liked the Hobbit movies BETTER than the LoTR movies! He said it was because he'd read the Hobbit, but the movie made enough changes to where he didn't feel like he was watching the same thing - it was different enough to feel like a different story, and he really liked that story! That's pretty much how I feel, too!
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 30 2016, 3:32pm
Post #40 of 117
(929 views)
Shortcut
|
and there's no crying in baseball, either
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I dunno, that just popped into my head when I read that.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 30 2016, 3:35pm
Post #41 of 117
(923 views)
Shortcut
|
your friend is correct, it is a completely different story. And I too didn't feel like I was watching the same thing either. But in my case that's not a good thing as I love Tolkien's story.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 30 2016, 3:35pm
Post #42 of 117
(927 views)
Shortcut
|
I was talking about the PJ Hobbit movies with a friend of mine, and HE said he liked the Hobbit movies BETTER than the LoTR movies! He said it was because he'd read the Hobbit, but the movie made enough changes to where he didn't feel like he was watching the same thing - it was different enough to feel like a different story, and he really liked that story! That's pretty much how I feel, too! That is a perfectly reasonable point-of-view. The question here is whether the film(s) still work well on their own. I don't think that they do, entirely, but I may well be too biased to render an impartial judgement. On the other hand, I also find it hard to ignore holes created by ignoring such issues as time and distance--matters that might not bother you or your friend as much.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 30 2016, 3:39pm)
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 30 2016, 3:43pm
Post #43 of 117
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
Whoops, I was talking about Bahkshi's The Lord of the Rings. How much do you like that one?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That being said, I don't like the part in the Rankin/Bass The Hobbit when people who get killed (like the Great Goblin) whirl away into nothingness. Looks weird that way
I always follow my job through.
(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on May 30 2016, 3:44pm)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 30 2016, 3:47pm
Post #44 of 117
(919 views)
Shortcut
|
What I appreciate about the Rankin/Bass adaptation...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is that even though they changed some things, the adaptation never strays too far from its source. The story is centered around Bilbo (like the book) and its message isn't buried beneath mounds of unnecessary action sequences. It maintains the children's bedtime story quality of the book, and most importantly of all, the dwarves all have beards.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 30 2016, 3:50pm
Post #45 of 117
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
To me, it just looked weird. For one, wood-elves needn't look like huge frogs.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 30 2016, 3:55pm
Post #46 of 117
(913 views)
Shortcut
|
Most people seem to hate on Bakshi's LotR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bakshi's adaptation was far from perfect, but it did some things better than PJ's, like the Flight to the Ford sequence for example.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 30 2016, 3:56pm
Post #47 of 117
(910 views)
Shortcut
|
...because the beards are all-important! But, it's nice that you enjoyed it. I have a DVD copy of the movie myself.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 30 2016, 3:56pm
Post #48 of 117
(911 views)
Shortcut
|
You're bringing that up again?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 30 2016, 4:00pm
Post #49 of 117
(905 views)
Shortcut
|
If it's a choice between vaguely frog-like wood elves and cringey love stories that have no business being in the story in the first place, I have to go with the frogs.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 30 2016, 4:01pm
Post #50 of 117
(905 views)
Shortcut
|
I wouldn't say that's accurate to Tolkien's story either.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
|
|