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:
PJ confirms involvement with the scripts and shared universe with movies
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Elthir
Grey Havens


Feb 14, 5:59pm

Post #126 of 143 (370 views)
Shortcut
P.S. [In reply to] Can't Post

By the way I missed your "is any indication" part somehow, in the sense of not considering it well enough for the full meaning of your statement.

My mistake there; and too late to change my phrasing a bit.

The perils of posting/reading too quickly and editing too slowly!


(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 14, 6:02pm)


Chen G.
Lorien

Feb 14, 6:12pm

Post #127 of 143 (360 views)
Shortcut
It wasn't intended to be mean [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
are we going to simply list directors now, in response to Iorlas, with a bit of snark added?


I don't think anyone intended any harm by it.

Just being a bit playful.


In Reply To
Jackson's 6 film Blunderbuss.


I actually did a little diagram comparing it with other film series of a similar volume, and proving how its the only one that got it remotely right. Although Harry Potter (Fantastic Beasts not included) was also close.

It was a very interesting little piece to compile.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Feb 14, 6:19pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens


Feb 14, 6:22pm

Post #128 of 143 (345 views)
Shortcut
Ahh more "proof" [In reply to] Can't Post

Can I assume it includes some reference to the famous Objective Rulebook of Filmmaking?


And that's not snark, it's just my playful side Wink


Chen G.
Lorien

Feb 14, 6:53pm

Post #129 of 143 (334 views)
Shortcut
I used the three-act structure [In reply to] Can't Post

of a screenplay, and tried to apply it to the story of a film series as a whole. I was looking for:

End of Act I: The main conflict is set into motion
Midpoint of Act II: A major twist in the course of the conflict
End of Act II: The lowest point of the conflict; The Solution is set into motion.

The appropriate proportions are for the end of Act I to fall within 20-30% of the overall length of the piece; the midpoint between 45-60% and the end of Act II within 75-90%.

I checked Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Middle Earth films, and I just did a quick pass on the MCU (even though it doesn't quite count).

The first two were all wonky: Both Fantastic Beasts and the Star Wars sequel trilogy are completely redundant to the story; and even without them, the proportions were all over the place. Harry Potter took 50% (!) of the course of the story for the main conflict to begin in earnst (with Voldemort first appearing in the flesh).

Star Wars took a third of the overall narrative (The War begins), and it was almost immediately followed by the midpoint (the betrayal). You could even make the case that the lowest point (if you define it as the formation of the Empire) follows almost instanteously; although to be fair I chose to define it as near the end of Empire Strikes Back, which gives a better proportion. But its still far off.

The Middle Earth films are the ones whose numbers I remember by heart right now: it was 24% of the way for the end of Act I (Sauron's forces issue from Dol Guldur), 42% for the midpoint (The Ring is "revealed" to be Sauron's during the Prologue), and 93% for the end of Act II (Frodo is captured simultaneous to the lowest point of the siege of Minas Tirith), accordingly. So its in the right balpark.

The MCU, surprisingly, was very similar, as well: 26%, 58% and 90%-ish (still to be determined), accordingly. Although its more episodic, and spread across so many different films that its kind of hard to treat it as a unit in the same way as these films. Plus, you know Marvel isn't going to pull the plug after Endgame, which honeslty is probably going to ruin it a bit as a single narrative, because it'll lack the finality of something like Return of the King.

So the Middle Earth "saga" is the only one which can be experienced from the first film to the "sixth" one as a cohesive, well-structured story. Its one of the things Peter set out to do with The Hobbit, and he more or less did it.

I'll dig up the piece and make a bit an essay of it later.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Feb 14, 7:05pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens


Feb 14, 7:23pm

Post #130 of 143 (322 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by Elthir [In reply to]

 


Chen G.
Lorien

Feb 14, 7:26pm

Post #131 of 143 (320 views)
Shortcut
Sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm nothing if not verbose, I'm afraid.

Blush


Elthir
Grey Havens


Feb 14, 7:31pm

Post #132 of 143 (313 views)
Shortcut
No problem [In reply to] Can't Post

No problem. I deleted my response due to arguable snark.


Smile

It's not like I've never picked up a line from someone's post and used it as a springboard for my own commentary/opinion.


MoreMorgoth
Bree

Feb 14, 10:26pm

Post #133 of 143 (276 views)
Shortcut
devolution [In reply to] Can't Post

So in 20 years time we have gone from
*** nobody can make these films.... then
*** these movies are going to suck.... then
*** these films will lose money... then
*** these films will only appeal to a very slim audience

then the films got made, collectively made almost a billion dollars per film, raked in a boatload of Academy Awards including BEST FILM, and were critically very highly rated by the vast majority of film reviewers.

So now its a prediction that some years from now, almost nobody is going to remember these films anymore.

The same crowd that was writing negative things twenty years ago is doing it again today. Some things never change.


(This post was edited by MoreMorgoth on Feb 14, 10:27pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens


Feb 14, 11:24pm

Post #134 of 143 (265 views)
Shortcut
Crowds [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The same crowd that was writing negative things twenty years ago is doing it again today. Some things never change.


I wonder, would a "Crowd Compilation" of all the negatives from Jackson fans -- over so many years now, considering their many and various opinions about what sucks or is good about these six films -- all the negatives compiled in one behemoth post, illustrate that so many parts of these films suck or could have been better/much better according to Jackson fans . . .

. . . considered as a crowd?

Or maybe a Crowd Compilation of the positive things Unfans have said about these films will illustrate that they don't suck?


No. That last part doesn't make sense to me Wink


(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 14, 11:28pm)


uncle Iorlas
Rivendell


Feb 15, 4:19am

Post #135 of 143 (246 views)
Shortcut
alas [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Iorlas never claimed that all films or directors have failed.


Indeed. I am scrying not hexing. Anyway it's certainly far too late for the movies to "fail" as commercial ventures, no? And far too late for them to succeed as artistic ones, so all that is water under the bridge.

But really, not to repeat myself, I am simply venturing a prediction, one of which I have little doubt. Once upon a time it may have seemed that Booth Tarkington would never be forgotten. In his heyday. But that ended, while others lasted.

I was just so surprised to hear anybody say that Tolkien's.book is no greater than Jackson's codswollop. I didn't mean to make a saga out of it, I just wanted there to be a voice on record saying hell to the no about that.


squire
Half-elven


Feb 15, 4:36am

Post #136 of 143 (244 views)
Shortcut
"codswallop" and "hell to the no" [In reply to] Can't Post

Fabulous language. What the heck does it mean? Sorry - use of context makes it clear, more or less.

I would tend to agree that the New Line trilogy of LotR will not be part of 'Film 101" in the 2050s, any more than the Olympian epics of the 1950s are part of anyone's viewing list today.

But there's no way to be sure. The very basis of critical thought about cinema - i.e., what makes a memorable and artistic film - may change over the next few decades.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Elthir
Grey Havens


Feb 15, 5:13am

Post #137 of 143 (235 views)
Shortcut
Good points [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd like to change my answer to who knows.


uncle Iorlas
Rivendell


Feb 15, 6:02am

Post #138 of 143 (231 views)
Shortcut
oh well [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Fabulous language. What the heck does it mean?


Guy Deutscher says three forces cause language to change. Regularization, in the name of order; simplification, out of laziness; and invention, for the sake of a little liveliness. The above examples would be...um...that last one. Not like either is any particular invention of mine, of course.


In Reply To
But there's no way to be sure.


Well, there is one way, of course, which is the invocation of a little chutzpah. Also not any particular invention of mine.


Chen G.
Lorien

Feb 15, 10:55am

Post #139 of 143 (206 views)
Shortcut
Nonsense again [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
far too late for them to succeed as artistic ones, so all that is water under the bridge.


Well, that depends on how you define artistic merit in film. To me, all film is art because its an artistic medium. Its not a procedural line of work.

If by "artistic merit" you mean a unique and elaborate visual and narrative style, than these films absolutely meet the standard. Narrativelly, they take a decidedly nonlinear approach - an unusual choice for a butts-in-seats film at the time. Also, the choice of producing rather long films which are effectively split into two separate halves like a 60s epic was quite unique at the time.

The way in which they were serialized, too, is quite unique. Even James Cameron backed off of shooting all four Avatar sequels simultaneously; and the fact that the linear course of the plot of each film (the Fabula) picks up immediately from the end of the previous film was also unusual.

So too are they directorially unique. Jackson throws absolutely everything into the mix: from pictorial wideshots of landscapes to extreme close-ups with wide-angle lenses, to subjective camera placement (where characters are staring into the lens) to the zoom-in/track-out trick. He juxtaposes long takes and quick cutting, as well as ample camera movement. All were quite unusual in the blockbuster landscape of earlier decades. There are even wipe-transitions hidden in the piece!

Thematically, as well, they maintain a lot of the deconstructist aspects of Tolkien's works. Where the earlier Spielberg and Lucas blockbusters presented the audience with fun adventures, Jackson's (and Tolkien's) vision of "adventure" is far more violent, grim and arduous, and often leaves characters such as Frodo in quite a miserable state by the end of them. Because that is, of course, the nature of any real "adventure".


In Reply To
I would tend to agree that the New Line trilogy of LotR will not be part of 'Film 101" in the 2050s, any more than the Olympian epics of the 1950s are part of anyone's viewing list today.


Is Ben Hur not held by many as an essential film? What about Lawrence of Arabia? Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns are - in no small part - 60s epics, as well. What about those?


In Reply To
I was just so surprised to hear anybody say that Tolkien's.book is no greater than Jackson's codswollop.


To my eyes, when one compares things (as "greater/lesser" in this case) there needs to be enough of a common denominator for the comparison to be apt. We don't compare the merit of a car and pickle, for instance, we compare the merit of a car and a train, perhaps.

Films and books are both narrative forms, but that's where the similarities end. The one's dynamic and brisk, the other (potentially) ponderous and deep. The one visual, the other - literal. And so we're back to the car and the pickle.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Feb 15, 11:08am)


uncle Iorlas
Rivendell


Fri, 3:12pm

Post #140 of 143 (172 views)
Shortcut
I love your car and pickle. [In reply to] Can't Post

Here are some other unlike things. One: thee. The other: a summer's day. Can't possibly be compared, right?

Literature is full of comparisons between things much more unlike than two different media both of which present narratives. Of coirse we can compare them. And we can compare each of them to Michael Jordan. This is what we have so many neurons for.


Cygnus
Lorien


Sun, 6:11am

Post #141 of 143 (110 views)
Shortcut
no way [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

Guy Deutscher says three forces cause language to change. ; simplification, out of laziness; .

LOL he's rong ROFL (:

"I found it is the small things.....everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay.....simple acts of kindness and love." - Gandalf (movie quote)


Noria
Gondor

Tue, 2:15pm

Post #142 of 143 (35 views)
Shortcut
The place of Jacksonís movies within the history of cinema. [In reply to] Can't Post

Itís too late for movie haters to claim that Jacksonís movies were not successful as films so now itís all about their place in the history of film and how they will be regarded decades hence? Whatever. I couldnít care less about that.

The LotR movies were hugely successful in every way that movies can be successful: critically, commercially and in awards bestowed. As has been said, they broke ground in several ways in the art of movie making as well as the business.

The Hobbit movies were not as groundbreaking and were less well received, None-the-less, they were extremely profitable, the real measure of success in the movie business.

I love the books, I love the movies. For me one is not greater than the other. Even the Hobbit trilogy is merely, IMO, different from the book, not inferior.

I spent more than thirty years not caring that the literary establishment scorned Tolkien before FotR was released. Criticism of the movies, be it from Tolkien purists or professional critics or cinephiles, is not going to change my opinion of either trilogy either.

Iíd be happy if PJ was involved with the TV series.


(This post was edited by Noria on Tue, 2:16pm)


Chen G.
Lorien

Tue, 2:26pm

Post #143 of 143 (29 views)
Shortcut
And... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
None-the-less, they were extremely profitable, the real measure of success in the movie business.


And everyone seemed to have come out of them alright. Even when a film or film trilogy is commercially succesful, it can sometimes become so derided within the industry that the people involved with it never find work again: with the Star Wars prequels, for instance, George Lucas essentially quit directing, and several actors were barely heard of since; Even Natalie Portman, I hear, had a hard time afterwards. Die Another Day was a similar case.

That didn't happen with The Hobbit: Many of its veterans went on to the MCU (Freeman, Armitage, Serkis, Cumberbatch, Lilly) or to gainful TV careers (McTavish), Peter Jackson continues to direct and produce, Del Toro won two Oscars, etcetra...

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.