|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 27 2018, 1:03pm
Post #26 of 41
(4876 views)
Shortcut
|
But the action sequences of LotR did get longer as the trilogy progressed, and sillier - as in the avalanche of skulls and corsair scenes. I dislike both of those.
PJ's action sequences often leave me a little cold upon first viewing but in rewatching I come to appreciate the choreography, the mini-story being told and the character moments.
Most of us fans seem to have a kind of cause-and-effect thing going on with The Hobbit (and LotR) movies. I love the movies so I love almost everything about them and I love the movies because there are so many great elements in them. People who dislike the movies as a whole are irked by almost everything about them and those same aspects are what makes them dislike the movies. 
|
|
|
Silmaril
Rohan
Mar 27 2018, 2:02pm
Post #27 of 41
(4868 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, it got more from film to film.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But in TH it feels like half of the movies are action scenes.
The other thing is the comedy stuff. I liked it in LOTR but not in TH. It is somehow different...
Too many changes and bad fan fiction.
(This post was edited by Silmaril on Mar 27 2018, 2:07pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 28 2018, 12:03pm
Post #28 of 41
(4830 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit novel is more comedic than LotR the book
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There is definitely a different, more comedic, tone in TH movies intended to reflect that. It doesn't work for everybody.
In my opinion the amount of juvenile "PJ" humour in The Hobbit trilogy is about the same as in the LotR films.
I get that you wanted a smaller Hobbit movie that was closer to the book. Many did and it's sad that they were disappointed. I never thought that approach was feasible and anyway I wanted bigger Hobbit movies that reflected the larger world of LotR.
I maintain that there is not much of the Hobbit story from the book that is not in the movies, but other stories (those of Gandalf, Thorin, Thranduil, Bard etc.) have been included and embellished to make the movies deeper and richer.
IMO it's incorrect to call that stuff fan fiction because Jackson, Walsh, Boyens are professional film makers not amateurs, whether or not one likes what they produced.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 28 2018, 1:03pm
Post #29 of 41
(4827 views)
Shortcut
|
I maintain that there is not much of the Hobbit story from the book that is not in the movies, but other stories (those of Gandalf, Thorin, Thranduil, Bard etc.) have been included and embellished to make the movies deeper and richer.
IMO it's incorrect to call that stuff fan fiction because Jackson, Walsh, Boyens are professional film makers not amateurs, whether or not one likes what they produced. ecause Jackson, Walsh, Boyens are professional film makers not amateurs, whether or not one likes what they produced.Many of the specific examples you cite are additions from The Lord of the Rings and its appendices. I'm not sure that Silmaril was objecting to simply expanding on the story using Tolkien's larger legendarium. The history between the Woodland Realm and Angmar and the fate of Thranduil's queen are new to the films. So is the establishment that Bard already had a family at the time of the Quest of Erebor (Tolkien never specified that Bard didn't have a family at that time, but it is generally assumed that he wedded and fathered Bain some time after the restoration of Dale).
If Silmaril is mostly uncomfortable to Jackson's original additions and changes from the book then I agree on many points. The addition to the history of Eriador of the Nazgûl tombs is awkward and unnecessary; the Kili/Tauriel ship feels out of place; allowing Azog to survive to become part of the main narrative sidelines the role of Dáin Ironfoot in the history of the Longbeards, etc. The story of Thranduil's queen might have worked better if it was better thought out and explained (this war between the Wood-elves and Angmar happened well before the birth of Tauriel? So when did the Elvenking commission the necklace from Thror, who wouldn't even have been born until roughly 200 years after the birth of Tauriel?).
"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Mar 28 2018, 1:09pm)
|
|
|
Silmaril
Rohan
Mar 28 2018, 1:36pm
Post #30 of 41
(4817 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was open for additions in the beginning...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But that love story for example did not fit for me. Bard's family and Alfrid did nothing essential for me than wasting time. The problem with additions from the appendices are that they are not written in detail. There are no dialogues which are very important for making a movie!
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 28 2018, 2:11pm
Post #31 of 41
(4820 views)
Shortcut
|
But that love story for example did not fit for me. Bard's family and Alfrid did nothing essential for me than wasting time. The problem with additions from the appendices are that they are not written in detail. There are no dialogues which are very important for making a movie! Well, there's some dialogue (though not much) provided by the appendices--mostly in Appendix A.
To continue our digression from del Toro's Hobbit, I have wondered if the Master was originally intended to survive Smaug's attack on Lake-town in Jackson's original two-film construction, only to perish later with stolen treasure as he did in the book.
"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock
|
|
|
Petty Dwarf
Bree
Mar 29 2018, 6:56pm
Post #32 of 41
(4778 views)
Shortcut
|
The reason that Alfrid took over the gags that would have been much less grating if Steven Fry had been doing them is that they had already filmed the Master's death scene back when it was going to be two movies, and could not get Mr. Fry back for additional scenes due to scheduling issues.
"No words were laid on stream or stone
When Durin woke and walked alone."
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 29 2018, 8:41pm
Post #33 of 41
(4773 views)
Shortcut
|
I suppose that was so there could be closure on the Master's character-arc without the need to reveal it in an epilogue (that could have been the visit from Gandalf and Balin years later).
"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Mar 30 2018, 10:38pm
Post #34 of 41
(4627 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One thing about the Master bit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I did genually laugh out loud when the Master was escaping from Lake-Town at the start of Bofa and was saying very drolly something like 'well, yes of course we have to hurry there is a great big dragon coming here isn't there!' almost like a top civil servant might be annoyed about paper clipps been out of place. And I must say that I did not laugh too much during the Lotr movies
|
|
|
Silmaril
Rohan
Mar 31 2018, 11:07am
Post #35 of 41
(4568 views)
Shortcut
|
and Bard's prison break was absurd for me.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Sep 4 2018, 2:34pm
Post #37 of 41
(3573 views)
Shortcut
|
Most of us fans seem to have a kind of cause-and-effect thing going on with The Hobbit (and LotR) movies. I love the movies so I love almost everything about them and I love the movies because there are so many great elements in them. People who dislike the movies as a whole are irked by almost everything about them and those same aspects are what makes them dislike the movies. Don’t know if I agree with that. What “same aspects” are you claiming make some of us dislike the movies? I loved the LOTR movies, pretty much despise the Hobbit movies. I would argue that PJ’s additions and changes in the LOTR movies kept the essential story while he changed the story and characters of The Hobbit. I loved how PJ did the Good Morning scene ... and then it all went downhill after that with cheap bathroom humor and garbage storylines that changed or added to the history in the books. What he told was the Quest for Erebor or the story of Thorin & Company — not The Hobbit ... and even then, Thorin’s essential character was changed, as were those of Bard and Beorn. I didn’t mind him giving Bard a family in Laketown prior to Smaug’s death but detested how he changed him from captain of the guard to some proletariat hero and created Alfrid. I didn’t mind him changing the nameless captain of the guard in Mirkwood into a badass Elven maiden but was nauseated, incensed, and flabbergasted by the Kili-Tauriel-Legolas love triangle.
My remarks referred to a kind of chicken and egg thing.
Over the years, starting with FotR, I’ve found it interesting that people who love the movies, like me, love almost everything about them and are willing to overlook and let pass the things they think don’t work. The scores are probably my favourite movie music and so on.
On the other hand, people who dislike either LotR or The Hobbit or both trilogies complained about almost everything: the writing, the casting, some of the acting, the music and the way it was used, the special effects, and so on. It’s difficult to know where dislike of the movies as a whole and dislike of individual elements begin and end, which begets which. It must be a balance thing – at some point, earlier or later, the build-up of unliked elements turns to dislike of the movie as a whole. Probably people who disliked FotR were never going to like any of the subsequent films.
It must work the other way too, for those who like the films. Really, it doesn’t matter – people feel what they feel and think what they think and it’s all fine.
I wasn’t sure about FotR on my first viewing because of the enhanced action, as well as some corniness and childish humour but the story and the beauty and emotion and all the things that felt right had blown all that away by the time the movie was over. From FotR until the end of BotFA, I let slide the elements that irked me, small and not so small, because I was enthralled by the whole. Coincidentally, I’ve just been watching the LotR movies for the first time since AUJ was released my love of them is undimmed, even though the same things still bother me that have from the first time I saw FotR.
IMO, the LotR trilogy is not so different in most ways from the Hobbit films, except that a lighter and more comedic tone was chosen for the latter and the story of The Hobbit was embellished and expanded by the addition of the stories of Thorin, Gandalf, Bard, Thranduil and Legoals/Tauriel/Kili. Otherwise, they were PJ films just like the LotR trilogy, with all that entails. Yes, the story of Bilbo’s journey became one of several strands of the overall saga but it was still there. Yes, the writers created a lot of material to fill out elements that were touched lightly upon in the Appendices. They could have made different choices but they didn’t, as was their prerogative. I don't like all their choices: in the Hobbit movies; for instance I liked Tauriel and Alfrid in DoS but could have done without the love triangle and Alfrid in BotFA.
I get why people dislike the Hobbit movies, whether they wanted more of the same as LotR or a simple rendition of the children’s book. The former could have happened but didn’t; the latter was never in the cards.
For me all of these movies are essentially alternate versions of the tales told in the beloved books.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 4 2018, 3:48pm
Post #38 of 41
(3570 views)
Shortcut
|
At its core, the book The Hobbit is the story of the great adventure experienced by Bilbo Baggins as engineered by the wizard Gandalf. Including additional elements either sourced from Tolkien's greater legendarium ("The Quest of Erebor"; the Council of Elrond) or from the filmmakers' imaginations (the tombs in the High Fells; Kili/Tauriel) threatens to dilute the original story and make Bilbo a supporting character in his own tale.
Now, remember that I went into these films fully expecting the story to be expanded to include such elements as the White Council at Dol Guldur and Gandalf's fears that led to his involvement in the quest of Thorin Oakenshield. I welcomed these additions as necessary to bring the story to an audience in its fullest form. To that end, the creation of new supporting characters was also necessary be it representation of the perspectives of the common Wood-elves of Mirkwood or giving a face and voice to the counselors and advisors of the Master of Lake-town. Where it became a problem, as I see it, was when Peter Jackson determined that these new supporting characters deserved character-arcs of their own and when his newly-fabricated additions meddled with and altered Tolkien's history of Middle-earth.
Jackson sidelines Sauron and the Nazgûl for nearly 3000 years (as opposed to Tolkien having him become active again around the year T.A. 1100). Was this necessary or even desirable? Arguably to some extent to make the threat posed by the Necromancer feel more urgent. My objection is to the specific changes introduced in the films. Jackson wants to alter the "Watchful Peace" and make it more immediate? Fine, Sauron as the Necromancer has dwelt in southern Mirkwood for some time, but move Gandalf's investigation of Dol Guldur to approximately 400 years ago. Sauron, not ready to reveal himself, flees into the East; his servants are still ruling their respective territories elsewhere in Middle-earth; and he is only recently returned to Mirkwood which is reflected in it again becoming darker. We move on from there. That's just one example of why I found many of Jackson's original touches awkward and ill-conceived.
"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 4 2018, 3:49pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Sep 6 2018, 8:29pm
Post #39 of 41
(3288 views)
Shortcut
|
Otaku-sempai, I’m become aware over the years that you have considerable expertise in all things Middle-earth, particularly the history. It seems to me that one of your major issues with these movies is the way that PJ played fast and loose with the history and geography of this world. That’s fair. I will note that only book fans would even be aware of the changes.
For me it’s different. I love the world that Tolkien built and the details of the history, geography, languages and ethnology that he devised make it the richest and most satisfying “alternate universe” I know. That being said, PJ’s fudging of those details for cinematic reasons doesn’t bother me. I feel that visually - in the sets, costumes, artifacts and weaponry, the ruin-infused locations, and so on – and in the screenplays with their many references to the past and distant places – that these movies capture the depth and breadth of Middle-earth. They got enough right to make Middle-earth and its people and places real to me. Somebody said on this site long ago that PJ took her to Middle-earth. He took me too.
As for Bilbo’s story being diluted in the mix of added material, that’s certainly one way to look at it. But for me that story is the golden thread that winds its way through the multi-strand saga, which all comes together in the climax of BOTFA. We start with Bilbo, we end with Bilbo, a good deal of what we see is seen through Bilbo’s eyes and we are always aware of the impact these events have on him and how he is changing. He is never a supporting character to me.
In the end I just like how The Hobbit movies were expanded and deepened and enriched (IMO) with stories and characterizations built up from brief or casual mentions by Tolkien or out of the writers’ imaginations. I don’t like every choice they made, but never expected to.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 7 2018, 12:15am
Post #40 of 41
(3269 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can't really argue against one of your main points.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You are right, there are some things that I just cannot gloss over the way that you can. I'm too invested in Tolkien's (granted, fictitious) history of Middle-earth to let some of Jackson's changes pass. That's just the way I'm wired.
"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
Sep 7 2018, 1:41pm
Post #41 of 41
(3167 views)
Shortcut
|
Blessed was due to play Thorin rather than Dain. Would have been much better casting in that respect. Definitely Freeman over an old Ian Holm though.
I never killed a man who didn't need killing
- Clay Allison
|
|
|
|
|
