Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Middle-earth TV Series Discussion:
Peter Jackson is keen to help out...
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Elthir
Grey Havens


Dec 31 2018, 4:31pm

Post #201 of 225 (1776 views)
Shortcut
     apparitions [In reply to]  


In Reply To
(…) Who I thought was noting something about a detail in The Hobbit, I can't recall what. So take up this subject with 2ndBreffest, who, at least to me, appeared to be the living incarnation of that "imagined" purist.


So someone who was simply "noting something about a detail" in The Hobbit, appeared to you to be . . .

"But to a purist, that's the sort of thing that really matters. Not whether the themes are there, and the tragedy of Thorin elaborately and beautifully laid-out - but whether or not Dwalin had a blue beard, and Gloin had a white hood."

Since that's your characterization of a purist, why would I take this up with 2ndBreffest?


In Reply To
(…) since such people do, indeed, exist, and if you don't believe me, ask my father, who will rant at you for forty minutes about Kili's hair color.


In my opinion, your father can rant for an hour and forty minutes, or more, about any detail, and still not be a person who fits your description above.

And generally speaking, "trivial" can be subjective too, for an example from discussions I've read on the web: film-Gandalf's statement about "death" to film-Pippin seems a trivial change to some, not trivial at all to others.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 31 2018, 4:41pm)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Dec 31 2018, 5:48pm

Post #202 of 225 (1766 views)
Shortcut
     Another book worth checking out [In reply to]  

I agree with my friend N.E.B. that the quality of the essays in Tolkien on Film vary. Another book that I think is worth checking out is Picturing Tolkien: Essays on Peter Jackson's the Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy which I think presents a more balanced view.

https://www.amazon.com/...rilogy/dp/0786446366

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Dec 31 2018, 6:19pm

Post #203 of 225 (1737 views)
Shortcut
     haha [In reply to]  

Trust me, there is far far more about PJ's Hobbit other than details such as the hood colors of the dwarves for "purists" to worry about. Things like that are simply salt in an already gaping and infected wound.


Chen G.
Lorien

Dec 31 2018, 8:26pm

Post #204 of 225 (1706 views)
Shortcut
     So not purist - just anal [In reply to]  

Beyond being book purists, there is something to be said against anal filgoers: Those who abide by the kind of film-criticism that is being promoted by YouTube film criticism of the sort of Cinema Sins or the kind of amateur scene-by-scene reviews that sprout everywhere.

Film is about the overall impression: not every little detail. Martin Scorcese's The Departed is jam-packed with continuity errors, and yet it won (and very much deserved) the Best Editing award.

Braveheart has quite a few shots that are not in focus, and yet it won - and absolutely deserved - best cinematography.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Dec 31 2018, 8:40pm)


Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Lorien

Dec 31 2018, 9:03pm

Post #205 of 225 (1692 views)
Shortcut
     Yeah [In reply to]  

But you never really explained (at least, not as far as I can recall) what other things are so bad about the films. You spoke a lot about burping jokes, which, at least in my opinion, are still only details, but for instance you never talked about Thorin's tragic arc, which was the discussion going on at the time that I made the statement about purists, which I made because you said something about how as soon as Fili and Kili showed up at the door without beards, you fell into a depth of despair that continued to the end of the film.
Maybe you just don't like the scriptwriting, of course, which is perfectly valid.

"Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come, had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord."


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Dec 31 2018, 9:49pm

Post #206 of 225 (1680 views)
Shortcut
     Cinema Sins is delightful. // [In reply to]  

 


Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.

But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.


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


Elthir
Grey Havens


Dec 31 2018, 10:29pm

Post #207 of 225 (1676 views)
Shortcut
     Yet . . . [In reply to]  

the point was, and remains: if someone chooses to post about a detail (from any film) in some negative way . . . this act simply does not mean that that's all this person really cares about.


Nor, in my opinion, would it mean someone is necessarily anal and would dispute, for example, Braveheart winning best cinematography -- even if he/she were in full agreement with your statement that there are quite a few shots out of focus.

Now that I think about it (not that anybody cares) I've seen Braveheart, or parts of it, possibly more than quite a few times by now! I can't recall what films were in the running that year, but I enjoy the cinematography in any case.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 31 2018, 10:33pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 1, 3:36pm

Post #208 of 225 (1585 views)
Shortcut
     well... [In reply to]  

alright, so PJ's Hobbit has a lot of extremely crude and unnecessary humor that really has no place in an adaptation of a work by Tolkien. The "I could have anything down my trousers" line is particularly distasteful, and more so being that this is supposed to be an adaptation of one of the most beloved children's books of all time. This sort of humor just doesn't belong.

Bathroom humor and sexual innuendos aside, the script is an embarrassing mess. It's supposed to be a story about Bilbo and his experience of going on an adventure, but you barely even see him in it on account of all of the time that PJ dedicates to his own made up nonsense. Tauriel and Legolas had way too much screen time for characters that really didn't need to be in the story, and one that doesn't even exist at all, except in Peter-earth. Practically every scene Legolas is in is pure cringe and the love triangle is so ridiculous and unconvincing it's hard to believe this was written by award winning screenwriters. As a fan of Tolkien, it's sad to think that people unfamiliar with his work will see these silly movies and think that this is an accurate recreation of the beloved tale. PJ and co write schlock..they should have just filmed the story as it was written, with only the barest minimum of alterations, because yes I understand books and movies are different and some things work on paper that don't on film, blah blah etc.

Now, I don't really care too much about the technical stuff and would be more willing to overlook my personal gripes if only the script was halfway decent but its not so here goes...the LotR was shot on film, this was shot digital and it shows, and its not great. Everything looks too bright and sharp and fake. Who cares about super realistic high frame rates when all it does is makes everything look like a video game cut scene? I could go on...this adaptation is a colossal disaster.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 1, 7:06pm

Post #209 of 225 (1550 views)
Shortcut
     Nonsense [In reply to]  


In Reply To
It's supposed to be a story about Bilbo and his experience of going on an adventure,.


Who told you that nonsense?

That's certainly not the impression I got from watching the film. First few minutes of watching An Unexpected Journey for the first time, and I immediately understood that it was Thorin's story I was watching, not Bilbo's, and I was with it.

I could have watched this trilogy with Bilbo cut out entirely, and it'd still have worked for me. The story I was invested in was the Dwarves wanting to reclaim their homeland, and Thorin wrestling with his demons.

Those two elements are as heartfelt as anything in The Lord of the Rings, and the latter is quite complex, as well.


In Reply To
Tauriel and Legolas had way too much screen time for characters that really didn't need to be in the story, and one that doesn't even exist at all, except in Peter-earth. Practically every scene Legolas is in is pure cringe and the love triangle is so ridiculous and unconvincing it's hard to believe this was written by award winning screenwriters.


Tauriel and Legolas account for maybe 10% of the latter two films' running time.

I don't think Legolas is redundant. He helps keep Thranduil in the loop of the plot (unlike the book where he pops up in the Woodland Realm, and than again later in at the Shores of the Long Lake). Plus, without Legolas, just how much action would have been in The Desolation of Smaug? Absolutely zero, that's how.

As for Tauriel, I like the character fine. She's a good foil for Thranduil's isolationism, and in the first few scenes, her connection with Kili reads to me as very genuine. Its only near the end of The Desolation of Smaug where it starts going downhil. But its by no means a deal breaker.


In Reply To
the LotR was shot on film, this was shot digital and it shows, and its not great.


Bollocks. Digital is great. Skyfall was shot on digital, Apocalypto was shot on digital - both those films look friggin' amazing. So too does An Unexpected Journey: its crisp and sharp and vibrant.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 1, 7:11pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Jan 1, 7:13pm

Post #210 of 225 (1545 views)
Shortcut
     You seem to be the only one with that impression [In reply to]  

Many, many people have voiced their regrets that a trilogy collectively called the Hobbit doesn’t revolve around its protagonist, Bilbo Baggins. The bookend prologue implies that the narrative will be woven around Bilbo and Thorin, not that Thorin is the driving force of the narrative, which, in both book and film, is not an accurate statement.


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 1, 7:18pm

Post #211 of 225 (1544 views)
Shortcut
     It is [In reply to]  

I don't care about the title: titles are essentially an element of marketing. They help for a brand for the film. The Silence of the Lambs isn't really about Lambs, for instance.

The fact of the matter is that as I'm watching the trilogy I'm thinking "whose story is this that I'm watching?" and, for the most part, the answer is Thorin.

Its Thorin who has a homeland to reclaim - not Bilbo; Its Thorin who needs to take vengenance upon the dragon - not Bilbo; Its Thorin who has to wrestle with his demons - not Bilbo; and its Thorin who has grievances to settle with Thranduil and Azog - not Bilbo.

Bilbo's his sidekick. Hell, we even have the framework story to assure us that Bilbo makes it out unscathed - the sense of stakes therefore cannot lie with him - its with Thorin.

Essentially, that's the role of An Unexpected Journey: that's the Bilbo-centric one, and it ostensibly gets the story of Bilbo out of the way, so that Jackson can focus on the (much, much more interesting) story of Thorin and the company.

It happens with a lot of films: Shawshank Redemption, for instance, is really the story of Red, not Andy. Many would say The Return of the King is Sam's story rather than Frodo's, etc...


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 1, 7:22pm)


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 1, 8:51pm

Post #212 of 225 (1514 views)
Shortcut
     where I got the idea... [In reply to]  

"This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected." -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit


Ataahua
Superuser


Jan 1, 9:22pm

Post #213 of 225 (1494 views)
Shortcut
     Well, [In reply to]  


In Reply To
Digital is great. Skyfall was shot on digital, Apocalypto was shot on digital - both those films look friggin' amazing. So too does An Unexpected Journey: its crisp and sharp and vibrant.


One of my issues with The Hobbit films is the 4K resolution - it's too crisp and sharp and vibrant, and doesn't fit alongside the visual feel of LOTR. I know I likely don't like 4K because I haven't grown up watching 4K, but that knowledge doesn't make it easier for me watch it on screen.

PJ filmed LOTR with the intention of telling the story as a history in all its gritty, sweaty, dirty reality. For me, the hyper-reality of 4K did the opposite and as a result, The Hobbit movies *feel* otherworldly - like a fantasy.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Chen G.
Lorien

Jan 1, 9:26pm

Post #214 of 225 (1492 views)
Shortcut
     No [In reply to]  

Shooting on film doesn't necessarily contribute to a gritty aesthetic. Apocalypto is about as gritty as cinema gets, and the fact that the gore and grime are captured with all the clarity of digital cameras only makes it that much more visceral. Ditto Hacksaw Ridge. Hell, Skyfall isn't a film that pulls punches, either.

Speaking specifically of The Hobbit, the truly digital, vibrant look is really only found in An Unexpected Journey. Jackson and Lesnie very cleverly graded each of the next two films down gradually, so that there's a reasonably natural transition from The Battle of the Five Armies to The Fellowship of the Ring.

Oh, and The Lord of the Rings was shot on super-35-mm film with quite a few perforations. In shots without visual effects, you could probably scan it at about 6K. It'll never have the clarity of digital, but it could get pretty close.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 1, 9:29pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jan 2, 5:36am

Post #215 of 225 (1425 views)
Shortcut
     Well, there's your problem. [In reply to]  


In Reply To

In Reply To
It's supposed to be a story about Bilbo and his experience of going on an adventure,.


Who told you that nonsense?

That's certainly not the impression I got from watching the film. First few minutes of watching An Unexpected Journey for the first time, and I immediately understood that it was Thorin's story I was watching, not Bilbo's, and I was with it.


You are arguing from the perspective of the movies while 2ndBreffest is focused on the book. Tolkien's story was unequivocally about Bilbo Baggins as the main character as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Angelic It was Peter Jackson's decision to place much more of the focus on Thorin and his goals, and on Sauron's plans for the North. A more Bilbo-centric adaptation would have certainly been possible, but would have been a much different film (or films).

Now, I disagree with many of the decisions that Jackson made, but I support his right to make them. I just don't want him making final story-telling decisions for this show.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 2, 5:41am)


NecromancerRising
Gondor


Jan 2, 8:09am

Post #216 of 225 (1399 views)
Shortcut
     Well, [In reply to]  

that specific "problem" applies to both ways actually.Many endeavour to interpret the movie from the perspective of the book which is utterly wrong imo.Although one can argue if all the themes of the book are adequately adapted into the three films,my experience is that all layers are greatly translated with many thematic additions that enhance and not detract from the core story imo.

"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 2, 9:28am

Post #217 of 225 (1373 views)
Shortcut
     yes... [In reply to]  

Hopefully Amazon will come to their senses and realize that if they give PJ and Co. the responsibility of head writers on this thing, they will be getting a whole lot of corny one-liners, cringe-inducing melodrama, legolas/tauriel/kili love triangle quality subplots, horrible made-up characters like Alfred, awful slapstick comedy, overly long and boring action sequences that look like video game cut-scenes, and of course, burping and farting. All of this combined with the fact that there is precious little material from Tolkien for them to work with this time around, is the recipe for disaster, and it will probably end up being cancelled after one season.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 2, 10:39am

Post #218 of 225 (1358 views)
Shortcut
     and... [In reply to]  

I almost forgot...unforgivably horrendous re-imaginings of Tolkien characters like Radagast.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jan 2, 11:33am

Post #219 of 225 (1354 views)
Shortcut
     Yes, but... [In reply to]  


In Reply To
that specific "problem" applies to both ways actually.Many endeavour to interpret the movie from the perspective of the book which is utterly wrong imo.Although one can argue if all the themes of the book are adequately adapted into the three films,my experience is that all layers are greatly translated with many thematic additions that enhance and not detract from the core story imo.


...at the end of the day it is Tolkien's book that is the original story, making Bilbo the intended hero and main character. Jackson altered that drastically and not every fan of the book has found those changes to be acceptable. Sometimes it's much easier to complain about what something is not without being able to appreciate it for its own strengths. The Valar know that I've done that myself. Tongue And there will always be those who find Tolkien's literary style too precious, too flowery, too pedantic, etc.

Personally, I'm not going to worry too much about the direction of Amazon's M-e show and Peter Jackson's potential involvement until we have much more substantial information about it than we do now. I remain cautiously optimistic that it could be amazing (and yes it could suck).

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 2, 11:36am)


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jan 3, 12:23am

Post #220 of 225 (1298 views)
Shortcut
     A census taker once tried to test me. [In reply to]  

The Silence of the Lambs, as recently noted, is based on a successful book of the same title, so if the film title was "an element of marketing", that was because the producer hoped to capitalize on the book's appeal.

And the title is very important to the plot.


Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.

But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.


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


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jan 3, 12:46am

Post #221 of 225 (1301 views)
Shortcut
     I may have had a word or two (thousand) to say about that once. [In reply to]  

Actually, it was ... 2,956 words. At least in the draft I have handy; it might have been cut down from that version by publication. Here's one paragraph:


Quote
Like Thompson, both Verlyn Flieger and John D. Rateliff give some consideration to Tom Bombadil's absence from the movie (a point also mentioned by Paul Anthony Powell), noting that Peter Jackson said the character wasn't relevant to the story of destroying the Ring—but for that matter, neither is the entire Rohan-Saruman plot; Rateliff in fact notes that The Lord of the Rings stage musical combines Rohan and Gondor. Flieger's astute "Sometimes One Word Is Worth a Thousand Pictures" (Bogstad and Kaveny 46–53) remembers that "advancing our story," which is how Jackson argued for his structure, was exactly what Tolkien said the Beowulf-poet was not doing, and that Tolkien himself may not have wished to do, since Tom was retained for thematic rather than narrative purposes, but she feels that Bombadil's omission is due to the very nature of movies, or at least of these movies (Rateliff says, "there are things prose does better than film" [66]). She also finds that Hobbiton on screen resembles "the set for Teletubbies" (47). Rateliff divides scenes from the book missing from the movies into "Two Kinds of Absence: Elision & Exclusion in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings" (Bogstad and Kaveny 54–69), focusing specifically on Crickhollow, the Barrow-downs, the Old Forest, and Tom Bombadil, and finds only the latter two can be thought of as occurring off screen, despite the claims of Jackson and his collaborators that this applies to many book elements they chose not to film. Tolkien's plot is too complex for scenes to be manipulated without repercussions that echo through the rest of the story. Regarding Bombadil specifically, Rateliff also checks against other adaptations: three for radio, four screenplays (one produced, three not), and one stage musical, and finds that Bombadil was more likely to appear in earlier adaptations, and on radio rather than onscreen. Arguing for Bombadil's importance on the grounds that Tolkien thought of the Ring-quest as part of a larger story, Rateliff doesn't consider that even highly-acclaimed movies often seriously abridge their source material: William Wyler's Wuthering Heights, for instance, adapted from only the first half of Emily Brontë's book, received critical praise on the scale of Jackson's The Return of the King. Rateliff suggests that in as much as Tolkien meant Bombadil to represent the natural world, Jackson compensated with many landscape images. In light of responses to the excision of Bombadil, a comment by Helen Conrad-O’Briain in Epics for Students is worth considering: "It is characteristic of Tolkien to place so much weight on a minor character" (336).


I think the bit about Wuthering Heights ended up being edited out.


Treachery, treachery I fear; treachery of that miserable creature.

But so it must be. Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.


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


Paulo Gabriel
Bree

Jan 3, 7:26am

Post #222 of 225 (1236 views)
Shortcut
     Are you sure... [In reply to]  

You aren't just a ''sock puppet'' of ol' Wizzardly?


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Jan 3, 8:51am

Post #223 of 225 (1219 views)
Shortcut
     well [In reply to]  

...I take it this person you speak of is of a similar opinion to mine? There are many many fans of Tolkien who were disappointed in how PJ adapted The Hobbit.


Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 3, 10:25am

Post #224 of 225 (1190 views)
Shortcut
     Yes. [In reply to]  

He had the same opinion on The Hobbit adaption, which I share too. Deeply disappointed.


entmaiden
Forum Admin


Jan 4, 2:11am

Post #225 of 225 (1097 views)
Shortcut
     Hey guys and gals, I'm locking this thread [In reply to]  

It's grown to more than 200 replies, and threatens to slow down the boards. You are welcome to continue the conversation in a new thread. Smile

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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.