Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Food for thought for Hobbit bookfans
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

wizzardly
Rohan


Jun 10 2016, 12:00am

Post #126 of 147 (1181 views)
Shortcut
My reasons for my hatred of this adaptation are many... [In reply to] Can't Post

and I have stated many of these in previous posts, and don't always feel the need to reiterate said points, however, since you asked...

OveralI I feel that PJ handled his adaptation of The Hobbit, which is one of the great classics of children's literature as though he were making the World of Warcraft movie, or something else along those lines. Now I don't have a problem with that type of thing, in fact growing up I would read lots of the dungeon's & dragons novels and other cheesy fantasy type stuff, but always held Tolkien at a much higher level, as I imagine even most of these other authors would as well. I feel that the amount of liberties taken by PJ were way over the top and frankly in poor taste and very disrespectful considering this is Tolkien we're talking about. Like for example, the Shannara Chronicles tv show sucks, in much the same way that PJ's Hobbit sucks, the only difference being that Terry Brooks (and I enjoyed his books as a kid) doesn't hold a candle to J.R.R. Tolkien. Not even close. But PJ took Tolkien's book, and intentionally dumbed it down to this level.

Unrealistic over the top action sequences that seem to go on and on with never any feeling of tension...the pointless addition of a female character so that even the most hardened feminist extremists can happily purchase a ticket, beardless sexy dwarves and cheesy romance for the fan girl types, terrible and unfunny bathroom humor for the types of kids that keep kicking the back of your seat and running up and down the isles and talking and farting all through the movie...and even tongue in cheek drug references for the stoners. This is but a sampling of the many terrible things PJ has done.


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 10 2016, 12:06am

Post #127 of 147 (1174 views)
Shortcut
Maybe like was the wrong wording [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe focus is the better word. I don't know that Thorin needed it being a Bilbo story at heart and it altered casting and script decisions that changed to many story elements and required to many insertions.

With Dain, we really only get that he is this Dwarf you don't want to mess with and while that is true, his history among the Dwarves as a warrior is even more fabled than Thorin's.

Thorin's redemptive act is similar from book to movie but its conclusion and connection to Beorn in the book give it extra meaning. Beorn arrival is definitely mysterious and supernatural,
"In that last hour Beorn himself had appeared--no one knew how or from where. He came alone, and in bear's shape; and he seemed to have grown almost to giant-size in his wrath. The roar of his voice was like drums and guns; and he tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straws and feathers. He fell upon their rear, and broke like a clap of thunder through the ring."

After pausing to carry Throin from the battlefield,
"His wrath was redoubled, so that nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon him. He scattered the goblin bodyguard, and pulled down Bolg himself and crushed him."

His arrival was linked to Thorin's last stand. At this point he was clearly a one man army. If his role was that of Justicer, acting as the U-catastrophe in the story, whether it be as a personification of the raw power of nature or an agent of another power I think it speaks to Thorin's last act of selflessness.

I can't say whether an audience would have responded to the story more as it was written including some appendix material would have done better. History tends to repeat itself though. Many people thought that the narrative structure of Tolkien's LotR made it non publishable and were wrong. Peter Jackson found in LotR in most instances that they came back toward the book from divergences they were exploring, Tolkien and the original work ended up being the right way to go.

I still think they made a solid effort to adapt the book and the movies capture the magic of Middle Earth, I just can't see this as the penultimate version. IMHO, I believe there is one closer to the book that would probably only comprise of two movies yet to be made that would have greater acceptance and be as commercially successful.


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 10 2016, 12:13am

Post #128 of 147 (1169 views)
Shortcut
He still [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien still describes the battle and how it was won, so he doesn't rob Beorn of his impact. He just tells it in two parts, real time until Bilbo is knocked unconscious and part of it after the fact. Could that have worked in film, I have no idea and yes that would be bold.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 10 2016, 12:19am

Post #129 of 147 (1164 views)
Shortcut
And I disagree with that [In reply to] Can't Post

It had nothing to do with PJ "not having faith in the source material or the audience," and it had everything to do with his vision of the movie. Obviously they wanted the "hero scenes," they wanted to present a Thorin that was a capable fighter and, as I said earlier, they wanted an actor that could look much younger for the pre-Smaug Erebor scenes, which neither Cox nor McShane could pull off. I like Brian Cox just fine, but they would have had to get a 2nd actor to play the younger Thorin. And then there's Richard's voice - Phillipa said that when they heard him speak, they knew that was it. It's entirely possible that they re-wrote some of those scenes to accommodate a younger actor, not the other way around. I doubt very seriously that they ever thought a younger Thorin "required" Azog. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they came to a decision that they really needed two Orc antagonists because they were using two Orc armies. I can see how they could have pulled off the movie without Azog, and that wouldn't have required an older Thorin to do. Btw, that conflict with Smaug in Erebor was actually about 10 minutes - probably feels like 25 because they kept cutting back to Legolas v. Bolg (another thing the movie could have easily done without that had nothing to do with a younger Thorin, and everything to do with giving Leggy a bigger part).

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


ange1e4e5
Gondor

Jun 10 2016, 12:32am

Post #130 of 147 (1153 views)
Shortcut
It probably has made a better Warcraft movie than the one in theaters right now. [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I always follow my job through.


Morthoron
Gondor


Jun 10 2016, 12:37am

Post #131 of 147 (1154 views)
Shortcut
Confutatio... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
- 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.


I will refrain from SHOUTING out ill-considered OPINIONS as if doing so has any IMPACT in a DISCUSSION, and merely point out that making the inference that I am "thick-headed" (and you did in the paragraph above), as well as referring to someone who doesn't share your obsequious view of the films as "lazy", reinforces the point I made in my first post, which you largely ignored - as KW so kindly pointed out. And by the way, it is spelled "ad nauseam". If one wishes to spout Latin phrases to dramatize their point, it's best to use spell check. After all, abundans cautela non nocet.

Again, to offer a thread that specifically asks "book fans" their opinion, uses the caveat "Well I'm not really trying to stir up a hornet's nest" (when the opposite is more than likely true), and then to refer to posters who reply as "annoying", "lazy" and "thick-headed", even though they earnestly offer their opinion, albeit negative and contrary to what you hold in godlike reverence, is denigrating, self-defeating and usually degenerates into circumlocutious argumentation that brings none of the honest debate the thread was allegedly intended to stimulate.

One more thing, when you make the statement "when the writing of much of the random happenings of the source weren't 'necessary' for the PLOT and THEMES to work", which random happenings are you referring to specifically? I am not aware of Tolkien using anything in a haphazard manner, particularly in the use of words and the folkloric motifs he scattered throughout The Hobbit.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 10 2016, 12:43am

Post #132 of 147 (1143 views)
Shortcut
As pointed out [In reply to] Can't Post

As another poster pointed out to me, PJ and Phillapa in the appendices stated they believed the audience would have a hard time connecting to an aged king who would not rule long and if he reclaimed Erebor would be perceived as King Under the Mountain in name only. It is what drove their decision to cast a younger actor. If that truly was the reason and they stated it honestly, isn't that an admittance of lacking faith?


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 1:05am

Post #133 of 147 (1128 views)
Shortcut
I need chocolate.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Beards or "beards" I think....



Quote

"Bearding the lion”, as in “to confront danger head on” from I Samuel 17:35, when David rescues a lamb from a lion by holding the lion by his beard and slaying the lion.
The Hebrew does not use some hypothetical verb form of “beard” (zakan), but rather uses the Hebrew “to hold tightly”, so this English idiom is not from translating out of the Hebrew. From where does “beard” have the verbal sense of “to hold by the beard”?



or

The OED describes the sense this way: “3. To oppose openly and resolutely, with daring or with effrontery; to set at defiance, thwart, affront. Esp. in fig. phr. to beard the lion in his den or lair. [Partly from the idea of taking a lion by the beard, partly from the use of beard as = face; see BEARD n. 1e.]”
The first citation (1525) refers to bearding Frenchmen; bearding lions doesn’t show up until 1749.
The reference to the noun lists various phrases such as ”in spite of or maugre any one’s beard: in defiance of or direct opposition to his purpose. to one’s beard: to one’s face, openly. to be, meet, or run in any one’s beard: to oppose him openly and resolutely”.

http://www.wordorigins.org/...rums/viewthread/100/


I had to think about it with a furrowed brow, like Bilbo. Didn't see it. One learns a lot on TORn. One way or the other....Cool


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jun 10 2016, 1:41am

Post #134 of 147 (1116 views)
Shortcut
Warcraft vs. Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It probably has made a better Warcraft movie than the one in theaters right now.


From the reviews I've been seeing, Warcraft isn't that bad as far as game-based movies go--perhaps lacking a strong narrative through-story.

The only folks who I think are too harsh with PJ's Hobbit movies are the ones who treat the book like holy writ. Even Tolkien admitted that the book had weaknesses that he would have liked to address if he gave it a more thorough re-write. The 1960 revision might have dealt with all of that if it had been completed. That said, I do think that some of Peter Jackson's changes went too far, but I never expected to agree with all of his decisions.

"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"


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 2:04am

Post #135 of 147 (1112 views)
Shortcut
The younger Thorin may ultimately have been a somewhat prosaic decison.. [In reply to] Can't Post

IMO it's reasonable to assume that however things were shaping up for the part, PJ & co. knew it was going to be physically demandingShocked - Philippa says as much in the Appendices, and delicately comments on the difficulties an older actor may have encountered with the part. And RA seems to have alluded in the past (no, I don't have a citation, but remember him commenting, and it stayed with me as to me at the time he sounded a 'wee cranky which is unusual for him - something about either "everyone" or a "lot of folks" read for the part of Thorin) - anyway, that RA wasn't the only actor tested. Then, from what RA said in articles, there was a gap of 3 weeks or so when he hadn't heard anything.

So, I can imagine PJ, Philippa, others, weighing a whole lot of things from whoever was tested over a month or so - from what PJ has said, he "likes to hire nice people" as this was going to be a long shoot. It sounds like a number of factors were weighed before the final decision. Who can say? Perhaps someone else might have been cast, but refused the move to New Zealand for so long. Maybe someone was demanding too much money or perks or billingUnsure. Probably very wisely that kind of thing is kept confidential in the acting business. If you have, say, five people in front of you who have the acting ability, physical ability, and "inner strength" that Philippa mentions, how do you pick?

And too, I suppose they could have kept the "older, craggier" make-up on Thorin. IMO it's kind of cool. Tami Lane says flat-out that "it wasn't sexy" but on the other hand, if the filmmakers were that concerned about the lead being "hot", why test him in that "older" makeup at all? Besides, they knew they'd have the young dwarf princes. Perhaps a part of all of that was, like Jimmy Nesbitt, PJ & co. felt too much of RA's face was getting buried under silicon and hair, in aging him up. We've only seen seconds of all the screen tests that went on re costumes and makeup, but from what I have scene, I think wise decisions were made re appearance.

E.g., until the casting was complete, I'm not sure how much, age-wise, was actually truly planned except for the most broad ideas. I don't know that there was a lack of faith in the audience, but I imagine that PJ & co. had a very real knowledge of filming - on location, under hot lights, heavy weapons - as well as somehow, inevitably - because there are distinct scenes with Gandalf, Bard, Thranduil - however the script shapes up, this was an actor who was going to drive various scenes - e.g, the clash with Thranduil, for example. Maybe not someone the audience necessarily liked, but someone distinct that the audience could relate to.

So I wouldn't say there was a lack of faith, as PJ & co. were dealing with age issues and how that would work - and I think, some of it was practicalities, as well as other considerations - including where a younger Thorin would be shown, hopefully as the same actor. Otherwise - RA being the youngest, apparently, that read for the part, seems to me as though there wouldn't have been much point in actors who were older (we don't know how much older, maybe there is one of the casting call sheets? online someplace?) reading for the part, at all.






No One in Particular
Lorien


Jun 10 2016, 3:17am

Post #136 of 147 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Thorin was not the first... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I agree that it was a deliberate decision and disagree only that IMHO they in the instance didn't have faith in the source material or the audience on Thorin. Whether it was Brian Cox or Ian McShane, they could have delivered an aged Thorin that had power and presence without all the hero scenes. It wouldn't have required the the arc with Azog, the elaborate fight scenes whether it be out of the frying pan, barrels out of bondage, escaping the Goblin king or the duel to the death with Azog who was made into the main antagonist of the movies. In the book, pride and greed were truly the main antagonist and while on display they became secondary. Since the story was about Bilbo anyway, I don't know that it mattered if the perception of Thorin was capable of being King under the Mountain in name only.


Character relatability seems to be a big point of contention with PJ and crew. The largest problem I had with PJ's LoTR adaptation were the changes made to the character of folks like Aragorn and Faramir. He seems to think that the majority of the audience will not be able to relate to the characters JRRT wrote. In some cases, he might be correct; how many times have we seen criticisms about Luke Skywalker, stating he was "too bland" or "lacking in depth"? I think people might have said the same thing about Aragorn and Faramir. (I don't agree, but I think the aspersions would have been cast.)

Anyway, point is, I completely see why they thought book-Thorin might have been un-relatable, if they thought book-Aragorn was un-relatable.

While you live, shine
Have no grief at all
Life exists only for a short while
And time demands an end.
Seikilos Epitaph

(This post was edited by No One in Particular on Jun 10 2016, 3:18am)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 10 2016, 4:11am

Post #137 of 147 (1093 views)
Shortcut
Did you read my reply??? [In reply to] Can't Post

"Again, to offer a thread that specifically asks "book fans" their opinion, uses the caveat "Well I'm not really trying to stir up a hornet's nest" (when the opposite is more than likely true), and then to refer to posters who reply as "annoying", "lazy" and "thick-headed", even though they earnestly offer their opinion, albeit negative and contrary to what you hold in godlike reverence, is denigrating, self-defeating and usually degenerates into circumlocutious argumentation that brings none of the honest debate the thread was allegedly intended to stimulate."

First of all, I wrote a reply which I can only assume you didn't read, but nowhere in that reply or anywhere have I called anyone "lazy" or "thick-headed." As for my intentions, I explained it in my first reply and either you didn't read it, or you read it and don't believe me. Well if you don't believe me then there is nothing I can do about that, but I am not lying when I say no, I wasn't trying to stir up a hornet's nest. I just seem to be very good at it. Despite that, I've had some conversations on this very thread with others who really don't care for the movies, and those conversations never got nasty, which is what I wanted all along. Further, I don't hold these movies in godlike reverence, I simply enjoy them. If you truly believe I'm lying about wanting an honest debate about the issues of adapting a book to a movie, then perhaps you should look elsewhere.


Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 11:35am

Post #138 of 147 (1081 views)
Shortcut
The source material tells us.... [In reply to] Can't Post

...that Thorin is a dwarf and he's 195 years old so this isn't a question of faith in the source material. Anyone making a film would have had to depart from that particular piece of source material and find their own solutions in writing Thorin for the screen. Peter Jackson & co made a set of decisions about their interpretation of Thorin which weren't inevitable, they were choices. And I think they worked within this film, though someone else would probably have made different choices which might (or might not) also have worked. I agree that Brian Cox might have carried off an older Thorin with power and presence - but he certainly couldn't have played the younger Thorin of the prologue and Azanulbizar, and as I appreciate both of those scenes I approve the casting that made them possible.

As for Ian McShane, I think he would have been an unmitigated disaster as Thorin. He's good at 'dodgy old reprobate' parts just as he used to be good at 'shifty antique dealer.'

The films are about Bilbo - but they did have to give him a few other characters to interact with. After all, Tolkien did!

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 3:54pm

Post #139 of 147 (1046 views)
Shortcut
LOL - well, IMO, that does sum things up... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Thorin is a dwarf and he's 195 years old...


When you REALLY start thinking about it - re different races, who is to say how a dwarf ages, or an Istari? For all we know, they kind of age like elves and unlike people, it doesn't show in their skin and bodies. CoolCrazy

IMO however one might feel about this "middle-aged" Thorin - IMO since I went into AUJ pretty unspoiled - when this Thorin walked through the door at Bag End, for me he was instantly believable, with a potent charisma. OMG. No wonder the #Majestic memes hit the 'netCool. IMO this Thorin, for this set of movies, was everything he needed to be, and more, including that "voice that could command an army".

IMO, this is the right ThorinHeart, for this set of films. For me it's become frightening to think of anyone else in the partShocked. Ian McShane has been mentioned along with others - I don't know enough of his work, but I thought he'd chew up the screen as Blackbeard - well, don't know if he was directed to tone it down, but based on that role - er, for me, noShocked, I'm too used to the fiery Thorin and powerful Theoden and even the icy Thranduil...kings with PRESENCE.Cool The ones you want to follow with your eyes, even when they're not saying anything.

PJ has spoiled me with his casting, often. Never mind having Sir Ian and Sir Christopher and Hugo Weaving and Benedict Cumberbatch!!!!Cool


Anubis
Rivendell


Jun 10 2016, 4:12pm

Post #140 of 147 (1041 views)
Shortcut
... [In reply to] Can't Post

To be clear, I don´t want to degenerate this into a "circumlocutious argumentation that brings none of the honest debate the thread was allegedly intended to stimulate". I merely want to share my thoughts on your comment.

Ok, what I got from your previous post is this:

You argue that there´s no connection between the difference in medium and the added scenes that were not in the book. As in, the fact that a book is being adapted into a film doesn´t justify the addition of, in your opinion, low quality or unneedy stuff or changes to original stuff. If this isn´t what you meant, please correct me.

If it is, then I agree with you. However, I fail to see how that is the "fallback for every apologist." Are all of the "apologists" arguing that?
Besides, your choice of words seems inappropriate to me. Talking about denigrant stuff, isn´t it a bit denigrating to call someone an apologist?

Also on your previous post, it seems like a lot of things you deem as low quality or unnecessary in the movies were not on the books. That seems like "godlike reverence" to the books, imo (something that, by the way, I don´t believe that the poster you were addressing to has for the movies). I mean, it´s inevitable to watch the movies in a different way if you have previously read the book. But it really is evident, at least to me, that you don´t accept much deviation from the book. Examples:

Troll snot might not be necessary to move the plot forward, but not only does it offer some fun to the audience, it also perfectly keeps in line with the troll´s personality. Trolls are nasty, savage beings. It´s not too far-fetched for one of them to sneeze, right? And it is just as necessary as the talking purse for the plot; they both are the cause of Bilbo being caught by the trolls.

Same with the bunny sled, imo it is perfectly coherent for an animal lover such as Radagast to be carried by animals. Yes, it´s not in the books, but it gives some much needed "visual personality" to the character, like his own flavour, if you will, to better differentiate himself from the other wizards. Something that his book counterpart doesn´t need, because he has a much smaller role, and appears in a different book. I mean, do you really think it is such a drastic change?

Btw, please don´t take this as an attack against you or something personal. That´s far from my intention, and I wouldn´t like for this to degenerate even more.
Tongue


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 4:17pm

Post #141 of 147 (1039 views)
Shortcut
Agree with [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Character relatability seems to be a big point of contention with PJ and crew. The largest problem I had with PJ's LoTR adaptation were the changes made to the character of folks like Aragorn and Faramir. He seems to think that the majority of the audience will not be able to relate to the characters JRRT wrote.

Anyway, point is, I completely see why they thought book-Thorin might have been un-relatable, if they thought book-Aragorn was un-relatable.


Happily, for me, book Thorin and movie Thorin are favorites. So IMO movie Thorin worked, and as a character is even more interesting than book Thorin - given that the Hobbit isn't "designed" to have deep character explorations. So IMO a multi-dimensional Thorin worked quite well, if I were going to be following this character over 2-3 films.

For me, tho, am less tolerant of re my perception of book Aragorn and Faramir vs. movie versions. Especially Faramir, as to me, he is one of the most interesting and "subtle" characters in LOTR, complex and interesting, as I see him. As was Denethor.

Well, re LOTR, that's another threadCool, but I try to think with these alterations that it's more than director choice (really wanting a fighting female elf!!!) but also just knowledge of telling a coherent story, without having main characters who have similar personalities (everyone is a charismatic badass! who happens to be royalty too and always wins and never has a moment of self-doubt!Laugh) and distilling complex material into threads the audience can follow - and a multi-language, multi-cultural audience, as well. Because so many will see these films who have never read Tolkien, at all.Shocked

E.g., what we end up seeing is the end result of not insensitivity to the material, but choices that were made in story-telling for a visual medium, in films that weren't going to be small, art-house films, but seen worldwide. As PJ said, "you make something and put it out there, and hope folks like it..."

Who is to say, too, that one day we won't get the longed-for "canon" Hobbit, and the general response is "zzzzzzzzzzzzz....."? (Always in motion, is the future...Cool)
I mean, it's almost assumed, it seems, by some, that "following canon" will make things "better" but there's so much that goes into making a successful film.Shocked


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 5:08pm

Post #142 of 147 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Japanese critics picked it as the best film of the year. [In reply to] Can't Post

When they selected Late Spring, Japanese cinema was entering its second great period, during which time it was every bit the match for the American film. (The first great period was in the 1930s. Frank Capra, esteemed director of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and many other classic Hollywood movies, is reported to have viewed some patriotic Japanese films at the outbreak of World War II, in order to consider how the U.S. might respond with its own wartime propoganda. His response is said to be, "We can't beat this kind of thing. We can make films like these maybe once in a decade." He was probably undervaluing American cinema because it was too familiar to him, but it's a useful reminder that Japan has produced many excellent films.)

More recently, in 2012, the British film magazine conducted its latest decennial international polls of film critics and film directors. Tokyo Story, a 1953 film by Yasujiro Ozu, the filmmaker of Late Spring, was number three of all time for the critics . . . and number one for the directors. Yes, for today's filmmakers, the greatest film of all time is a quiet story of an old married couple who take a trip to visit their kids in the big city (beating out both 2001: A Space Odyssey and Citizen Kane by six votes). Among the directors polled were such familiar names as Guillermo del Toro, Quentin Tarantino, David O. Russell, Mike Leigh, Whit Stilman, Michael Apted, Steve McQueen, Mike Newell, Michael Mann, and Martin Scorsese, although it would take a little digging to see if any of those particular names chose that film. On the critics' side, I know it was among Roger Ebert's choices.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 10 2016, 8:45pm

Post #143 of 147 (1010 views)
Shortcut
Ah jeez, okay let me clear this up a bit [In reply to] Can't Post

- Bullet points again, because why dignify this stuff with formal formatting (especially as you bizarrely misconstrue my use of the CAPS LOCK button as some kind of way to shout out at you, as though that's possible, to make my point - instead of the simple amplification of what's required in the telling of a story vs. embellishments in said story to make the whole affair more interesting, which was my true intent - and capitalization of one Latin misspelling, a product of not being fluent in the language, it having been near 1 AM when I responded and typing the response on my smart phone as opposed to my laptop, where the feature of misspelled words being auto-highlighted would have been present - as this is a widely used phrase that I indeed know how to spell, had any of the above been different, it would have swiftly been corrected)? If I had employed bold text instead and spelled ad nauseam correctly, would you have been pacified? This is like click-bait article comments-section rhetoric, Morthoron. Let's make like the Jeffersons and get movin' on up to the East Side, yes? No doctoring up of my words or use of common Latin phrases accidentally misspelled from now on, okay? Hopefully this satisfies.

- Everything I have been writing has little to do with you personally or your posts exclusively. You've been a bit over sensitive, I fear. I referred to those things you posted because they have been posted many, many times by many, many others and my intetest lies in the (lack of) substance running underneath such critiques - my interest is not in you. I'm sorry.

- Inferring unexamined and reactionary criticism (whether coming from book purism or independent preconceived notions) are 'thick-headed' is not the same as inferring you are yourself thick-headed. It was not all about you. I'm sorry.

- Likewise, considering these 'lazy' and 'thick-headed' arguments 'annoying' is not the same as personally labeling those who hold to such views as themselves being these adjectives (keep in mind, there was an example I presented of adoration applied to the movies that I also am sick of hearing as a preposterous lauding of their quality). This isn't about all of you, but about the films. I'm sorry.

- To be fair, because I like to think I am, I have heard a couple of complaints grounded in the understanding of cinematic artistry that have been well-reasoned and intelligent (hence the two dwarfs in the barrel thing). A prime example is tonal imbalance (those - rare, in my eyes - moments where P.J. tried to touch on more light-hearted fantasy/adventure whilst reconciling that to the doom-and-gloom groundwork he had laid down in the original trilogy simultaneously and slightly missing the mark). Note, this is primarily an issue of two types of going about cinematic fantasy warring to share the same space and has little to do with Tolkien beyond the difference in what's at stake in "Hobbit" compared to "LotR" (it is not Tolkien's film series, after all, and I'm sure Jackson, like any artist worth his/her salt, would like to stay true to his own vision and style). I'm sure there are more legitimate complaints to be made and delved into, but they are not often discussed because it's easier (see: lazy) to harp on changes from the source solely on the existence of a change or to claim a change is unnecessary or distracting solely because the source devoted no time to it at all. If an adaptation introduces new characters, scenarios and themes and takes time to develop them - not forgetting the main characters and their plight - they have ceased becoming unnecessary and distracting because they have been woven into the new telling at the DNA level of the work. Everyone is free to like and dislike what they please, but dismissing the new or altered elements out of hand is ignorance. Kili and Tauriel's relationship further builds on the nonsensical divide between two cultures and what can be accomplished with a bit of mutual empathy and connection, which is entirely relavant to the overall tale, however hated the inclusion of their story is. Just one example.

- I do not hold these movies or my opinions in 'godlike reverence.' The only work on earth I put on such a pedestal is the Word of God as I consider myself saved by His grace and His Word is indeed beyond reproach or total mortal comprehension. However, it would appear you hold Tolkien's writings in such a light when you post something hilarious like this: "I am not aware of Tolkien using anything in a haphazard manner." When I speak of interchangable plot happenings, I mean something like getting lost and confused in Mirkwood (a completely fabricated location, of course, like the rest of them) instead of the same occurrence being relocated to some abandoned region of the goblin tunnels plagued with magical surface runoff (or whatever else Tolkien would have felt like writing in the moment). The specifics, though often written with the motifs of folklore, as you said, are embellishments of the focus of the narrative and it is not an automatic fault of the films for picking and choosing or adding or subtracting embellishments. The literature stands on its own or does not, context provided by itself; the films stand on their own or do not, context provided by themselves. Often, users here and elsewhere claim they will discuss 'execution' and then immediately go into why a change was unnecessary or inappropriate, totally forgetting they were supposed to discuss the execution of the scene in question as a scene in a movie that is not the book (see: thick-headed). And it gets annoying.

I'm sorry.

"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 10 2016, 8:54pm)


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 9:42pm

Post #144 of 147 (990 views)
Shortcut
Just fyi as concerns use of caps. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
especially as you bizarrely misconstrue my use of the CAPS LOCK button as some kind of way to shout out at you, as though that's possible, to make my point - instead of the simple amplification of what's required in the telling of a story vs. embellishments in said story to make the whole affair more interesting, which was my true intent


Apologies if I'm repeating something you already know, but it's a longstanding convention of online writing (apparently going back more than 30 years) that use of caps indicates shouting, although usually that interpretation seems usually to be applied to the use of full capitalization for an entire sentence, or at least a substantial phrase, and not the odd word or two as you have done.

I hope to find time to read the more important parts of your post later.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jun 10 2016, 9:49pm

Post #145 of 147 (979 views)
Shortcut
It would be pretty bold not to show the end of the battle. [In reply to] Can't Post

There are few good filmic equivalents to the way that Tolkien ties up loose ends after Thorin's death, so it's hard to say exactly how to translate that to the screen, but in my opinion, Tolkien doesn't "show" the end of the battle in the same way that he "shows" its beginning and middle. The most faithful way to film Beorn's arrival on scene to fit the manner in which Tolkien relates it would probably be to have one of the other characters tell Bilbo what happened and not show it at all. And that would be a very unusual choice.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jun 11 2016, 1:34am

Post #146 of 147 (939 views)
Shortcut
Posts deleted from this thread for personal remarks. [In reply to] Can't Post

Once again, I remind you all not to let disagreements or misunderstanding lead you into personal attacks. If you do not have anything profitable to say, then move on.

A handy rule of thumb: If you or someone else has made the same point three times in the same discussion and no progress is being made toward understanding, you have reached the end of useful discussion and it's time to walk away. Mere repetition always ends in aggravation and animosity, which leads nowhere good.

Silverlode

Roads go ever ever on
Under cloud and under star
Yet feet that wandering have gone
Turn at last to home afar.
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known.




KW
Rivendell

Jun 11 2016, 2:15pm

Post #147 of 147 (886 views)
Shortcut
I like that kind of bold. [In reply to] Can't Post

But given some of my author tastes I may have a higher tolerance and even appetite for storytellers happy to frustrate their audience through omissions. My inclination is that when someones says, "but I want to see this or that" to respond "yes, and that is exactly why you won't get to."Evil

My vague recollection of Princess Mononoke is that the film tends to only show bits and pieces of battle, taking advantage of the circumstances of the protagonist to distance the audience from the battles. We mostly see them from afar physically or in flashback or aftermath.

It is a little different with The Hobbit in the set up since the battle more directly involves Bilbo and the climax but I might argue that Bilbo isn't all that essential to the battle and his character climax occurs earlier. Doesn't he mostly just tread water until finally being submerged? Possibly you could just expand the scene where he is found on the battlefield by some random dude. Basically have the battle erupt, go south from bad to worse and hopeless and then end it there with Bilbo getting knocked out. The scene in which Bilbo walks through the aftermath and this stranger briefly relates the rest of what happened would be a less literal way to "show." For one I think that Bilbo is more relateable/applicable to the audience and that momentary companion may be more relateable to Bilbo in many ways. The original story was less about relating to some warrior king and more about relating to an average joe being thrown into these situations, I believe. And so having the battle (and Beorn) relayed through him offers an interesting perspective from a sort of every-man. Conveying the no doubt awed and perhaps alarmed way in which that guy might have experienced witnessing Beorn in action might indeed lend some weight to the character and work on the audience's imagination. We get to physically walk through and see the aftermath and see the reaction and fears of Bilbo. And events are put in a more sober intimate scale framework rather than battle as spectacular entertainment. It is also a nice way to disorient and then reorient the audience.

But even if this might work (and I concede that it may not) it most certainly would not work in the context of elevating Thorin which I tend to see as a rather flawed approach anyway. I think that the original story is often so deliberate in its functional unity that trying to retain elements from that source while drastically enlarging or introducing others adds a great deal of functional disunity to the narrative.


(This post was edited by KW on Jun 11 2016, 2:22pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.