|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell
Jun 8 2016, 2:05am
Post #76 of 147
(994 views)
Shortcut
|
I think this more than anything changed the arc of PJ's adaptation. Whenever it was decided to make him a co-protagonist with Bilbo and to cast a younger actor, it drove certain changes. The biggest deviation was Azog and carrying the conflict through all three movies. It crowded Bilbo's journey to a degree and required certain payoffs that changed key story points. It built a need for Thorin to play the decisive role in the BoFA which robbed the story of his fall and Kili and Fili defending him with body and shield. It required deviation from Dwarven history and transferring some of Dain's legacy to Thorin. It probably drove the conflict with Smaug inside of Erebor. Ultimately it necessitated an equal challenge for Thorin to progress through as Bilbo. Thorin needed to attempt reclaim his kingdom rather than it be a result of Bilbo's actions. It robbed Beorn playing the most influential role in the Battle. To a degree it felt like Thorin's story was an attempt to recreate the dynamic of having Aragorn's journey run alongside Frodo's.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 8 2016, 2:25am
Post #77 of 147
(994 views)
Shortcut
|
Or stabbed by my own butcher knife? I unthinkingly picked one of the most cinematic scenes I could think of, and foolishly didn't check its provenance. Let me look up the book, read the scene in question, and get back to you. I am skeptical that, however the murder scene is written, it can match what Hitchcock came up with. But I thank you for catching my error. (I tried to see if I could find a version online, but ironically, what I found appears to be a novelization of the film! According to Wikipedia, the victim's first name was Mary in the book, but it's Marion in the text to which Google led me. One quote of part of the book's shower scene in another book suggests to me that the film at least was not entirely faithful in its depiction of that part.)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 3:13am
Post #78 of 147
(980 views)
Shortcut
|
And the Hitchcock version absolutely killed that scene (in the best way). The novel itself is decent and interesting as you read it, but after about a week the text evaporates from the mind. Kind of like Peter Benchley's Jaws (another novel completely outdone by its cinematic companion). The views and opinions expressed in this post have been approved by The Only One Around with Any Sense and The Only One Around with Any Sense 2016 presidential campaign.
"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
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Jun 8 2016, 3:13am)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 3:19am
Post #79 of 147
(974 views)
Shortcut
|
both of P.J.'s films based on Tolkien's work are more successful in their respective medium than the source was, as well. So I come from an odd and alien standpoint on this issue. Love the books, too, though (well, LotR, at least). And not every scene was translated to film better than it appeared originally... just most of them.
"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
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Jun 8 2016, 3:20am)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 3:24am
Post #80 of 147
(968 views)
Shortcut
|
But when I read Frodo and Samwise's exchange on the slopes of Mount Doom, I always get teary eyed. However, when I view the same scene from the film (my living Lord, that acting, that music, the atmosphere and tension, those lines) I fully become that hysterical woman from Airplane! whom everyone's lines up to slap the daylights out of.
"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
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Jun 8 2016, 3:25am)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jun 8 2016, 3:31am
Post #81 of 147
(960 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't doubt that Hitch's version was the most visually impactful. Cold print often can't compete with the visceral nature of film.
"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"
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 3:45am
Post #82 of 147
(958 views)
Shortcut
|
True, but being a primarily visual and auditory (well mostly... after the 1920's) medium, that's a given
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it works the other way around, naturally. Film cannot compete with literature's ability to get inside the heads of characters and more often is better equipped at being relatable on more deeply personal level. To ground this in the soil of Middle-earth, this is why I feel the story works better on the screen than in print. Tolkien was often far too preoccupied with things of an external nature (history, architecture, language, etc. - understandable, as always, considering the great Professor's interests and impetus for writing) rather than digging into his character's psychological states that is liberating to the films because we are shown these places and beings and hear these histories and languages instantaneously, freeing up the movies to propel the plot and character struggles into the limelight, rendering the timeless qualities of these tales the focal point (which I feel they should have been in the novels). The views and opinions expressed... you get the idea. Vote The Only One Around with Any Sense for president in 2016! After all... would you rather one of those other fools win? Of course not! Be American and vote with Sense!
"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
|
|
|
weathertop
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 3:11pm
Post #83 of 147
(933 views)
Shortcut
|
when's enough going to be enough? we have all heard umpteen times how much you can't stand the hobbit films and how much of a fan of the Tolkien books you are (and i've only been back a month). why do you keep this frustration of yours alive? why are you not over in Reading Room? Just....why? my apologies to the admins for this 'personal' attack. i'm just tired of the hatred and negativity (don't we get enough of that out in the real world)?
Enginerd
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jun 8 2016, 3:55pm
Post #84 of 147
(912 views)
Shortcut
|
IMO that's interesting too re elevating Thorin
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Full disclosure that this Thorin is my favorite character...still, he was my favorite book character long before LOTR was even an idea on film. Some things - well, a lot of things, I guess, we are never going to know. We know RA was the youngest of those auditioned; but to me that implies there were other, older actors who well could have been this Thorin. Perhaps not as old as some would wish, but definitely older - although there were going to be some heavy physical demands made on whoever was chosen. But with PJ's rather organic way of filming, and RA says, I think in the Chronicles books, that it was a compliment that once Thorin was better understood, they began writing FOR the character - his [this Thorin's] voice - that in the end, we see a lot of Thorin because PJ & co. looked through a camera lens once things were rolling and liked what he saw, and made use of it. Thorin was always going to be a lead role, but how much of a lead role I suspect may have evolved over the filming - although I don't KNOW that. And overall, we don't know how the films evolved - for better or worse - once actors were on set. Because it seems that as the filmmakers discovered what they had on set re the actors, they made use of it...Ryan Gage's "shoulder slump"; Jimmy Nesbitt's musical ability, and so on. Things they couldn't have known when the actors were cast. That kind of thing I think goes as far back as Gollum - as I recall the story, originally they were just using the actor for movement, but then realized that Andy Serkis' facial movements were so good, all of that facial acting was incorporated into this new technology. It's hard for me to guess about something that never happened - but, [in deviating from Dwarven history], with Thorin being on screen as a character that the audience was supposed to feel positively about, IMO that may have been unavoidable. E.g., if the screen Thorin were someone that in general was viewed negatively by the audience, IMO that opens up a host of problems - everything from the audience wondering why anyone would follow this guy across Middle Earth to being enormously cheered when he died to outright resenting Fili and Kili's actions "over some jerk". That IMO would have been hard to sit through 2-3 movies, because, I imagine, the audience would be wondering why Bilbo doesn't just shove Thorin over a cliff, because he's a pain... I think Thorin was always going to have an arc of sorts, as IMO that happens in the original material. Sadly I think the lesser amount of Beorn that we saw was, for me, one of PJ's baffling choices. I agree that in the face of that requisite end stand-off battle, we lost Beorn's role, from that aspect. But Beorn could have come for Thorin, as a nod to that, IMO. We could have had more Beorn. I mean, it still "haunts me" hearing PJ comment re the BOFA EE something to the effect that "there's more Beorn, because some folks wanted that". Or something like that. For me I was startled because I'd imagine that any director would have been drooling at the prospect of depicting a gigantic bear-creature like Beorn, but PJ to me sounded a bit tepid, as though he didn't understand that *baffled*. Re Dain, I have to admire his careful handling in the films - not only is he IMO a wonderful character AND heroic, his depiction and Dain and Thorin's relationship neatly IMO overstep Dain's not backing up Thorin in the first place, and the resentment of "just showing up and getting handed a kingdom". Genius IMO.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jun 8 2016, 4:38pm
Post #85 of 147
(901 views)
Shortcut
|
This:
If you have three minutes, and you don't mind having the ending of a great movie spoiled, watch this clip from the Japanese film Late Spring (1949). In some ways this finale is very Tolkienian. I will, thank you. Although I may well watch the entire film, as [oddly and randomly] over the past few days I have been idly thinking, off and on, of how many of the older, great B & W films will never be equaled (probably) - I was thinking of 1939's Wuthering Heights among others... Or even just older films, like Hitchcock's "The Birds" (even tho this is quite different from the original story, which is also superb IMO).
And that includes the fact that this sequence is, as you describe British period-pieces, "tight in locations". In book form, The Lord of the Rings especially, in my view, has a lot of set-pieces in small settings. Most of the second chapter, for instance, is a discussion between Gandalf and Frodo in a sitting room, and I daresay something similar could be observed of at least one-third of the book's chapters. Certainly there is more to the book than that, an expansiveness as you describe, but the intimacy of LOTR gets less appreciation than it should. We really ought to have a good discussion on these forums in which we consider specific passages from The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings (and maybe some other books for comparison) and how they might have been differently filmed than they were. It's hard to say how good or bad the choices of Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson were without knowing what else they might have done. At least for me - while I am quite fond of IMO well-done action scenes - in the Hobbit for me the warg chase, pine tree, barrels, Smaug, Ravenhill, and so forth - as well as the work in LOTR - of course, for me, many of the very best scenes ARE the more intimate, quiet scenes - or scenes where there are no words at all (Thorin/gold room, Bilbo/Smaug, Eowyn looking into the distance, acorn scene, lighting of the beacons, Aragorn explaining the Nazgul, Theoden "and who would come...."). Yet there are comments such as one that sticks in my mind re AUJ "I thought they'd never leave that house". Argh. Whoever posted that there were always going to be complaints, no matter what PJ did, I think was accurate *meh* (e.g., for me there are three "perfect jewel" scenes in a row - Bilbo/Gandalf, Thorin/Balin, song - and someone's complaining???!!!!) I suppose overall I regret that IMO that it seems at times the Hobbit doesn't get the credit it deserves; yet frustratingly for me, I concede that IMO the tight editing re DOS and BOFA I think didn't lend itself to the intimacy and breathing space and even scenes that might have been, that I think would have enhanced BOFA in particular - those longed-for (by some including me) character moments. Yet. IMO, there are true jewels in the Hobbit (mithril shirt scene, T&T scene, Bilbo/Ring...) So I think what you suggest could be an enjoyable discussion as well as knowledge of other books, by way of comparison.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Jun 8 2016, 4:58pm
Post #86 of 147
(903 views)
Shortcut
|
Andy Serkis was originally asked to only do the voice, since the plan at the time was to completely key-frame animate Gollum. But then they saw his audition video, where he did all the awesome facial expression and body movements to get into the voice. Andy said that he had considered saying no to even auditioning, because he didn't really care for doing a voice-only job. Makes me wonder how it would've gone if he had said no... As to your point about the audience needing to have a positive reaction to Thorin... I've thought some of those thing you mentioned with the Thorin we have now But while I don't like him as a person, I still like him as a character, and he is positive enough to not hate him and to be invested in him. I think if he didn't have the amount of character developing time that he did, I wouldn't have liked him. Someone above compared it to giving him an Aragorn-like role by elevating him. I have no problem with that. I like that it means that both trilogies are about the hero Hobbit and the lost King.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jun 8 2016, 5:54pm
Post #87 of 147
(887 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, Zimmerman's treatment was done by filmmakers. The Rankin Bass version of The Hobbit was made by filmmakers. Or in general, bad films are made all the time... ... by filmmakers In letters I think Tolkien shows that he is thinking about film, time constraints, and his book obviously. But in any case, this post too is very general. We would have to look at specific changes to discuss what is "better" for film, or what would have been arguably better, and so on... ... and yes it gets very subjective at that point. Moreover, changes that can be "explained" in some way still do not necessarily mean much... not that you said otherwise. It's not often that I see a change that actually occurred in the films as all agreed upon "necessary"... because film is film. For example (if an overcooked example by now), I can understand Jackson not wanting to introduce Glorfindel "as a character" at the point in the film he is introduced... ... but that doesn't bring me anywhere near to agreeing with what Jackson chose to do as an alternative. Or liking his 'sneaky Arwen' introduction for example. As said, it's in the execution. But anyway
|
|
|
MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell
Jun 8 2016, 6:03pm
Post #88 of 147
(882 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know that liking a character is necessary for a compelling story. Given that it was primarily a Bilbo story, developing some kind of bond with audience to engender sympathy is a much more nuanced way to handle the Thorin/Bilbo relationship. As an example, Michael Fassbender as Magneto in the X-Men franchise is not a very redeeming or likable character. However, I can feel sympathy and thus an emotional connection for the character. These are great movies and I re-watch them regularly but I am not satisfied enough to not want a future adaptation that is more Bilbo driven and to give the characters actually in the book their full due, i.e. Beorn, Dain. And less focus on invented characters like Tauriel, Alfrid or overuse of Legolas. The White Council and Dol Guldor plots made sense as well as the flashbacks chronicling the Dwarf/Orc wars and I glad they were included minus the Thorin/Azog arc. I was also eager to see GDT's design and visual interpretations of several elements of the story. When it is adapted again, he likely won't be the choice but I think at some point it would be nice to see an overview of the two movie scripts and his 18 months of pre-production work. Even though I loved these movies, I don't think they were the penultimate ones and I believe a version I would love more is still out there.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 8 2016, 6:16pm
Post #89 of 147
(886 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, "enemy" is more than a bit harsh, but speaking as someone who strongly dislikes Peter Jackson's Tolkien films but loves Tolkien's work, I post in this forum (in spurts) in order to keep Tolkien's spirit alive among fans of this adaptation and to better understand what merits others find in these films. Everyone should try, at least occasionally, to know what appeals to people about things she dislikes. Not just in art!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 7:02pm
Post #90 of 147
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
I like that it means that both trilogies are about the hero Hobbit and the lost King. "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
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jun 8 2016, 7:47pm
Post #91 of 147
(857 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for clarifying re Serkis
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Re:
Andy Serkis was originally asked to only do the voice, since the plan at the time was to completely key-frame animate Gollum. But then they saw his audition video, where he did all the awesome facial expression and body movements to get into the voice. Andy said that he had considered saying no to even auditioning, because he didn't really care for doing a voice-only job. Makes me wonder how it would've gone if he had said no... I couldn't quite remember what the tale was - and I wonder if at times AS idly wonders about how much his life changed - e.g., his Gollum is a cultural icon. And IMO in the Hobbit the interaction between Bilbo and Gollum is stunning - amazing actors. Re:
I've thought some of those thing you mentioned with the Thorin we have now LOL. I will never understand the occasional meme of Thorin being a jerk and such, tho. And not from a Fang-gir-iell, love-that-epic-hair perspective. Since I love these characters I think about them - and in Thorin's case, if I think about it, I cringe at what, in theory, this character went through after Erebor's fall. In my imagination as de facto leader, putting up with *stuff* in the villages of men, burying children and old people who didn't make it as the dwarves wandered, leading the dwarves carving some sort of life out in Ered Luin. So IMO he'd be a hard guy. I'd cut him a lot of slack. He must have lead well, because Thorin & co. - the richer dwarves - they're beautifully clothed at Bag End with handsome weapons. But this Thorin can still feel, and care. He's intelligent. He's a complicated guy. And Thorin was my book favorite too. As such, Thorin being a different race and having suffered a great deal, I will always find the sensitive and IMO beautiful handling of Thorin and Bilbo's relationship to be amazing in the Hobbit films. For me, there is a "rare purity" in this depiction, IMO in no small part to RA and MF's skills. (I'm also pleased at the film handling of the interaction between Bard and Thorin - because it DOES make the point that the dwarves were under a lot of duress at Laketown, all things considered; love that Bard has the decency to drop his eyes a bit at Thorin's words). I don't relate as well to the concept of Aragorn as to Thorin, as for me what comes across in the films is that Thorin was indisputably royalty, enthroned or not, and comfortable being so. Aragorn in the films, not so much. So for that aspect I found Thorin's "ease" at being king (because that's what he was, and would always be, sooner or later) to be relaxing, for lack of a better word. Tho I feel the book Aragorn to be more comfortable with the concept of inherently knowing his destiny. It's not that I can't handle a leader having moments of reflection and self-doubt (Theoden). It's just I never saw Aragorn in the book like the film Aragorn - well, that's true of Thorin too, but the book Thorin for sure knew he was king.
(This post was edited by Avandel on Jun 8 2016, 7:48pm)
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jun 8 2016, 8:02pm
Post #92 of 147
(850 views)
Shortcut
|
on:
I don't know that liking a character is necessary for a compelling story. Given that it was primarily a Bilbo story, developing some kind of bond with audience to engender sympathy is a much more nuanced way to handle the Thorin/Bilbo relationship. As an example, Michael Fassbender as Magneto in the X-Men franchise is not a very redeeming or likable character. However, I can feel sympathy and thus an emotional connection for the character. These are great movies and I re-watch them regularly but I am not satisfied enough to not want a future adaptation that is more Bilbo driven and to give the characters actually in the book their full due, i.e. Beorn, Dain. And less focus on invented characters like Tauriel, Alfrid or overuse of Legolas. The White Council and Dol Guldor plots made sense as well as the flashbacks chronicling the Dwarf/Orc wars and I glad they were included minus the Thorin/Azog arc. Probably why I still yearn for the mythical "mega-director-cut". For myself, while I don't have an issue with the focus - or lack of? on Bilbo, as I see him as the core throughout three films - even to the very last scene - and was even elevated past the book treatment IMO in BOFA - I would have to agree that IMO there were some very real imbalances. And yet, after the fact, it seems to be impossible to really gauge, with a worldwide audience, if having more Legolas, Tauriel, Alfrid, less Beorn, etc. achieved the response the filmmakers wanted. A response from an audience who may have never read the original material. Or was it simply a matter of PJ "making the movie he wanted to make?" Philippa Boyens had said Tauriel was very popular - is she? How does anyone know? In any case, I am certain, somewhere out there is a director who took note of the doors PJ left open.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 8 2016, 10:32pm
Post #93 of 147
(838 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, "enemy" is more than a bit harsh, but speaking as someone who strongly dislikes Peter Jackson's Tolkien films but loves Tolkien's work, I post in this forum (in spurts) in order to keep Tolkien's spirit alive among fans of this adaptation and to better understand what merits others find in these films. Everyone should try, at least occasionally, to know what appeals to people about things she dislikes. Not just in art! And I've done that myself, try to better understand why some really hate these movies - but I think there's a difference between trying to understand why someone likes what you don't, and just constantly harping on how much you hate the film without offering anything else. It's more than a little annoying when all someone can offer is the same criticism over an over again. I realize the purpose of TORN is to give everyone an equal opportunity to express themselves, but sometimes you just gotta wonder why?
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Jun 8 2016, 11:01pm
Post #94 of 147
(823 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, I seriously despise PJ's Hobbit...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but there's no need to get all up close and personal about it. I mean I disagree with about 95% of the opinions on these forums, and feel that PJ's Hobbit is the equivalent of wiping a booger on the Mona Lisa, and while I would like to see more people who feel Tolkien's story deserved better than it got, I accept that everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how much I disagree with it.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Jun 9 2016, 1:49am
Post #95 of 147
(798 views)
Shortcut
|
And I've done that myself, try to better understand why some really hate these movies - but I think there's a difference between trying to understand why someone likes what you don't, and just constantly harping on how much you hate the film without offering anything else. It's more than a little annoying when all someone can offer is the same criticism over an over again. I realize the purpose of TORN is to give everyone an equal opportunity to express themselves, but sometimes you just gotta wonder why? You have posted at least two threads recently, this one entitled "Food for thought for Hobbit bookfans" and a previous one, "Do the Hobbit movies capture the "spirit" of the book?", in which you start off by saying, "So, how 'bout another hornet's nest?" In a sense, you are asking to revisit and reintroduce negativity already stated in previous posts, and then you're going to denigrate those who prefer the books, or despise the movies, or both, when they reply? You may think the negativity is "annoying" and people "offer...the same criticism over and over again", but there have been many specific and intelligently stated reasons for finding fault with the movies (actually it's quite easy, like shooting Dwarves in a barrel). In contrast, I am quite sick of hearing about how Thorin's hair glints in the moonlight or how it made total sense to have a love affair between Tauriel and Kili. There is plenty of annoying and empty praise for the movies. But when you ask for responses and then complain about what you get, I am wondering if you did so merely to get a rise out of people. If I am wrong, I apologize. It's just rather odd.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Jun 9 2016, 1:56am
Post #96 of 147
(787 views)
Shortcut
|
And then there are some thorny issues like
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The length of the Dwarves' beards. That's a big hornet's nest 'round here, for some reason.
I always follow my job through.
(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on Jun 9 2016, 2:00am)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Jun 9 2016, 2:20am
Post #97 of 147
(780 views)
Shortcut
|
Or the tried and true fallback for every apologist: It's a different medium than the book!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hence, the reason it was necessary to film troll snot, bunny sleds, gravity defying architectural collapses, reanimated orcses, molten-gold Olympic bobsled runs, rock Transformers culled from the cutting room floor of "Dark of the Moon", Sandworms from Arrakis, and demographically-marketed extraneous characters pandering to a certain subset of movie-goers.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 9 2016, 3:53am
Post #98 of 147
(769 views)
Shortcut
|
I think this deserves a response
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I said, I think there IS a difference between having a discussion with people who don't share my view, often having to agree to disagree, and just posting the same ol' complaint (probably should have said "complaint" instead of "criticism", but I was answering another question anyway), usually in the form of "these movies are crap." I mean, what can you do with a statement like that? Where is the intelligently stated reason behind "these movies are crap?" Yes, I realize some of my posts are provocative, and will likely generate some passionate responses. But it is always my hope that those passionate responses will be civil, and not devolve into flame wars. In my mind, "get a rise out of people" equals "flame wars," so no, that's not what I'm after. I get that some TORNers don't like the movies as much as I do, and some like the book far better than I do (wouldn't be hard), and most of this just comes down to personal taste, which isn't actually "wrong." I would NEVER denigrate someone who prefers the book to the movies. (Besides, I actually learn alot about Tolkien's writing through discussions with people who know the books much better than I do, which can only be a good thing!) The "spirit of the book" was a genuine question I asked about a common complaint I keep reading, so I wanted some clarification - and I got PLENTY, I admit. I had to take a break from it for awhile. This post wanted to look at the challenges of adapting a book to a movie, the article that inspired this was actually about "Outlander," but I thought it would be equally applicable to the Hobbit. And finally, posts about Thorin's hair are written by fangirls for fangirls (yeah, I confess, I've written a few), so it's perfectly okay if you find them annoying.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 9 2016, 4:02am
Post #99 of 147
(758 views)
Shortcut
|
That's how I felt about book Thorin, hehe
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"E.g., if the screen Thorin were someone that in general was viewed negatively by the audience, IMO that opens up a host of problems - everything from the audience wondering why anyone would follow this guy across Middle Earth to being enormously cheered when he died to outright resenting Fili and Kili's actions "over some jerk". That IMO would have been hard to sit through 2-3 movies, because, I imagine, the audience would be wondering why Bilbo doesn't just shove Thorin over a cliff, because he's a pain..." Yep, that there's a big reason why I like the movies better. Oh, and this: "Re Dain, I have to admire his careful handling in the films - not only is he IMO a wonderful character AND heroic, his depiction and Dain and Thorin's relationship neatly IMO overstep Dain's not backing up Thorin in the first place, and the resentment of "just showing up and getting handed a kingdom"." And that is a complaint I've made many a time, some random dude just showing up at the last minute and getting everything - GRRR!!! The movies make me like Dain alot better, too.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 9 2016, 4:48am
Post #100 of 147
(768 views)
Shortcut
|
- I'm annoyed with choice phrases on both sides of this issue, from the offering of largely the same lazy criticisms ad nauseum (yes, nearly all are quite simply potshots born out of thick-headed 'bookie did it differently' rationale - proven by your understanding of sequences not in the novel as being automatically slapped with an "unnecesary" signpost, when the writing of much of the random happenings of the source weren't 'necessary' for the PLOT and THEMES to work on a strict storytelling level either) of the opposition to the idol worship Thorin's hair inspires (as if an actor or character's physical beauty makes a film worthwhile) from my side of the equation. - There have been many (all similar, save a handful from a person missing two fingers) specific criticisms stated, yes. But no, most lack intelligence unless we all can agree as film/book connoisseurs that artists are not allowed to leave their own unique fingerprints all over their art whenever it suits them even if the material at hand was once in the same creatively free hands of another prior. Some would agree to that out of 'utmost respect for the source.' To that I say, to hell with slavish respect. Make new things, don't rehash what's been done. Sometimes that means sleds driven by huge rabbits. Hate them on a visceral level or dismiss them as silly, but don't write them off because they were 'unnecessary.' Talking purses are also unnecessary (AND silly, like a ton of Tolkien's first novel). - There isn't plenty of praise for these movies on the internet by and large, empty or otherwise. Even most positive professional reviews come complete with the same slothful jabs as those negative. - As far as specific, INTELLIGENT (as in, the films on their own terms alone, because all else is ignorance) fault finding, it is indeed easy. Because there's like two dwarves in that barrel. - That film is a different medium than literature is an absolute artistic truth, not a fallback. It's actually the foundation for adaptation discussion (hence why operating too far away from it sacrifices intellegence). What's NECESSARY is establishing main protagonists and antagonists, establishing conflict, chronicling the journey to overcome the obstacles the conflict manifests and presenting the climax and conclusion. ALL ELSE in between is technically unnecessary, but... you'll probably need those things to get audiences (or readers) involved and excited. And when the artist is a different person, the 'all else' is allowed to be different. If not, why do it? The alternative is boring, safe, carbon-copy, and impossible to complete while retaining one's own artistic honesty and integrity.
"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
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Jun 9 2016, 4:59am)
|
|
|
|
|