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: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Hobbit: 10 times shorter, 100 times more honest
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 10 2013, 4:23am

Post #26 of 46 (305 views)
Shortcut
Of course, I totally disagree. [In reply to] Can't Post

After watching an entire movie called Fellowship of The Ring, where Gandalf The Gray can't seem to do anything worth talking about with fire (save for entertainment value in a safe setting) despite being quite proficient at enchanting and wielding it in the novels, and in which he is constantly being either bested by Saruman, or shown up in displays of magic not only by Saruman (we could understand that at least) but also by Elrond's princess daugher Arwen. . . ARWEN!!!????? FTS! (And yes, that means a really harsh thing), and in which, in terms of adding anything to the company's defenses (or Frodo's prior to their being a company), more than a few lay viewers were inclined to ask, "exactly what is this Wizard doing for them that they couldn't do for themselves, aside from providing a magic flashlight," right up until the point where he puts forth enough power to stop the progress of a Balrog, after that I THANK GOD that Peter stuck with the book more this time around ESPECIALLY with Gandalf's entrance in that scene. If he had failed to put forth a potent display of power, and if his appearance had lacked mystery and been explained moment for moment with excruciating normalcy, I would have vomited, and started wrathfully chasing Peter like those wargs were chasing Thorin.

YES Gandalf shows up from time to time, saving the day in a manner that NO normal person possibly could, and salvaging situations that would have been entirely hopeless for the dwarves, Bilbo and most others in Middle Earth. . . BECAUSE HE IS A BLESSED WIZARD! Shocked Laugh Laugh And, yes, "Gandalf thought of most things, and while he could not do everything, he could do A GREAT DEAL for friends in a tight corner!"
And what the hell use is there in having a Wizard along if he can't do anything that everyone canot already do for themselves? Crazy

In Reply To
They didn't say they were going after the adaptation only, did they? The movie includes the source material. Tolkien had his own sillinesses.

To be honest, one of my least favorite scenes in the movie is when Gandalf shows up to save the day against The Goblin King. It seems so unsatisfying to have him come out of nowhere and save the day for the poor helpless Dwarves. Can't blame PJ, though.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Feb 10 2013, 4:25am)


BoromirOfWinterfell
Rohan


Feb 10 2013, 8:20am

Post #27 of 46 (289 views)
Shortcut
It's quite funny... [In reply to] Can't Post

The language is just a bit much.

s ofereode, isses swa mg - that has passed, so may this.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Feb 10 2013, 8:57am

Post #28 of 46 (297 views)
Shortcut
The whole Gandalf in the nick of time complaints [In reply to] Can't Post

are rubbish. That is what is in the book more or less, the main difference being he was not with the dwarves in the mountain cave when they were captured. He is clever enough not to be captured at any point of the story, bides his time and then does his thing.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Feb 10 2013, 9:05pm

Post #29 of 46 (265 views)
Shortcut
that article is spot on [In reply to] Can't Post

sad but true. Crazy


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 11 2013, 11:34pm

Post #30 of 46 (234 views)
Shortcut
In some regards, but not in many others. [In reply to] Can't Post

There is a great deal of exaggeration in most of this, and some of the points hold little wait when considered more carefully and in the braoder scope. ^ ^ ^ for my thoughts on things like the rescues of Gandalf, which are actually an important feature of the early part of the story, aside from being rather essential to providing substance and evidence for his claim to being a Great Wizard.

I agree that many of the falls should have been shorter, and on several other well deserved criticisms this parody gives, but a good half of it is just bear baiting, and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

In Reply To
sad but true. Crazy


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Kassandros
Rohan


Feb 12 2013, 3:27pm

Post #31 of 46 (211 views)
Shortcut
We know it's in the book... [In reply to] Can't Post

But whether the movie copies the book as closely as possible in every detail is not the measure of the movie's worth.

In this case, I think the filmmakers had to include this scene as is, but it's not very dramatically satisfying. Neither in the book or the movie. I think it's more of a problem in the movie because the dwarves are portrayed more heroically, so it feels pretty lame for them to keep having to be rescued. Especially from the biggest bad they've encountered so far, who has them trapped. The audience wonders how they'll get out... oh, Gandalf will save the day!

Except when fighting terrible evils worthy of him (the fight against the Balrog is perfect in both the book and the movies), I prefer Gandalf when he's a bit more subtle and more of an advisor. Making voices to trick the trolls or creating flaming pinecones works just fine, but coming in to fight the Great Goblin for the the Dwarves isn't very fun. I think, perhaps, the biggest problem is that the Great Goblin isn't a worthy foe for Gandalf. It feels unfair. The Dwarves shoulda been able to handle that one themselves.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


aarondirebear
Bree

Feb 12 2013, 7:24pm

Post #32 of 46 (212 views)
Shortcut
Yeah it kind of is. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But whether the movie copies the book as closely as possible in every detail is not the measure of the movie's worth.


I completely disagree with this statement. If an adaptation isn't faithful to the source material, then it is garbage.

Why must faithfulness be ignored? Why do you hate Tolkien's work so much that you all but CELEBRATE the changes Jackson made?

The dwarves should not have been portrayed as heroically in the first place, and they could easily have explained that Gandalf was using wizardry to hide (as they did in the book).

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien

(This post was edited by aarondirebear on Feb 12 2013, 7:27pm)


Kassandros
Rohan


Feb 12 2013, 7:58pm

Post #33 of 46 (206 views)
Shortcut
*sigh* [In reply to] Can't Post

Could you please take a deep breath and reread my post? I didn't really say any of the things you accused me of.

1. I never said faithfulness should be ignored. I just said that "whether the movie copies the book as closely as possible in every detail" is not the proper way to judge a movie. One can be faithful to a book and not copy every detail. One can also copy every detail and not be faithful.

2. I hate Tolkien's work? Really? So making a single criticism of one aspect of one of Tolkien's book's means that I hate it? So everyone that does not love every tiny detail of every single word that Tolkien ever wrote in his entire life can be deemed as hating Tolkien's work? Mind you, I also said that I thought the filmmakers made the right decision in leaving this part unchanged. I just didn't particularly enjoy it.

3. I do celebrate some of Peter Jackson's changes, actually, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I thought Boromir was throughly improved in the FotR movie. I found his death scene far more powerful in the film than in the book. And as much as I've always loved Tom Bombadil, I eventually came to the conclusion that PJ was correct in dropping him from the movie. I also appreciated the fact that Arwen was incorporated into the story more rather than just shunted off into an appendix. I found her story far more effective in the movie, despite a couple odd parts such as the whole part about her fate being tied to Frodo.

4.You are really gonna be surprised by this, but sometimes I think the filmmakers could have done much better in adapting certain things. I thought Lothlorien's leaves should have been, you know, golden. I thought the Ents should have been handled with far more care and reverance. And I thought the story of Azog and the history of the Dwarves that Tolkien wrote was far more evocative and compelling than the altered version that the filmmakers came up with. Despite these issues, I've enjoyed all four of Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies so far. A day may come when I see a perfect movie with absolutely zero flaws. But it is not this day.

5. I'm really astonished by the idea that you view fidelity to the exact details of a book as the only way to judge a movie. Let's imagine there's a really bad book. Let's say that it has a really good idea in it but the characters are completely flat and the story has tons of holes in it. Let's say a filmmaker adapts this work into an incrediblly good movie but changes a lot of things about the book. Let's say the filmmaker keeps the good parts but improves all of the bad parts. Would you say this great movie was a failure because it wasn't faithful to the bad parts of the book? I'm not talking about Tolkien's work, just a hypothetical book. I think Tolkien's books are quite good and I enjoy them. But the idea that a movie can be judged entirely based on how many details it keeps exactly the same as in the book is absurd.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Feb 12 2013, 10:04pm

Post #34 of 46 (200 views)
Shortcut
Let's remember [In reply to] Can't Post

that our Terms of Service do not allow for personal comments. Saying someone "hates" this or that is a personal comment. Please confine your comments to that others actually say, and refrain from extrapolating personal likes or dislikes.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 11:00pm

Post #35 of 46 (185 views)
Shortcut
No, that is your forced perspective. That is how you WANT him to behave, even if [In reply to] Can't Post

it isn't an entirely accurate representation of him. And you fail, I think, to take into account that the lay viewer does not have your background knowledge. The lay viewer is more inclined to see things like Dori, i.e. "You are a Wizard right? Can you do anything extraordinary? And if not why not?" And the end result is, they think of him as something less than what he is, even in his limited incarnation.

I know you perfer him as little more than a wise man. That isn't what I prefer, though I think that is an essential and dominant part of who and what he is. That said, our prefferences are not the sole matter of debate. What is written is. You seem to want them to delete an entire aspect of his character and power as the book relates it so that the aspects of him that you prefer are made even more dominant, nevermind if it makes him appear virtually powerless, or useless as anything other than a guide. That is NOT how the book depicts him, however. If Bombadil were in the films, one might say, "I don't like that he is so jolly and sings all the time. . . he should be more grim and dangerous, because he is so ancient and powerful." Well, to each his own, but the fact is, Bombadil is jolly and he sings alot.

Now, I feel Thorin should have put up a MUCH better fight against Azog, especially wielding Orcrist. I also felt Gandalf's fire assault on the orcs and wargs should have been slightly more impressive (and blue in its beginning).

Yet his rescue of the dwarves worked much better BECAUSE they are portrayed as more warriorlike in the films. It enhances him without diminishing them. He gets them out of situations that NO normal person, even a valiant warrior, could easily escape. And, in that sense, he is only putting forth his power when necessary. We are shown that the dwarves can fight. At least against goblins (not so well against larger orcs Unsure). I do wish the dwarves showed more prowess against the orcs. But, regarding Gandalf, what you see as him being reserved, I see as a neutering of his powers as the book describes them, and the lay viewer would see as him being an ineffective, and seemingly all but impotent Power. . . a great advisor, perhaps, but a piss poor wizard. I thank God that did not happen.

In Reply To
But whether the movie copies the book as closely as possible in every detail is not the measure of the movie's worth.

In this case, I think the filmmakers had to include this scene as is, but it's not very dramatically satisfying. Neither in the book or the movie. I think it's more of a problem in the movie because the dwarves are portrayed more heroically, so it feels pretty lame for them to keep having to be rescued. Especially from the biggest bad they've encountered so far, who has them trapped. The audience wonders how they'll get out... oh, Gandalf will save the day!

Except when fighting terrible evils worthy of him (the fight against the Balrog is perfect in both the book and the movies), I prefer Gandalf when he's a bit more subtle and more of an advisor. Making voices to trick the trolls or creating flaming pinecones works just fine, but coming in to fight the Great Goblin for the the Dwarves isn't very fun. I think, perhaps, the biggest problem is that the Great Goblin isn't a worthy foe for Gandalf. It feels unfair. The Dwarves shoulda been able to handle that one themselves.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 11:16pm

Post #36 of 46 (179 views)
Shortcut
On this I agree with you immensely. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

4.You are really gonna be surprised by this, but sometimes I think the filmmakers could have done much better in adapting certain things. I thought Lothlorien's leaves should have been, you know, golden. . . And I thought the story of Azog and the history of the Dwarves that Tolkien wrote was far more evocative and compelling than the altered version that the filmmakers came up with. Despite these issues, I've enjoyed all four of Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies so far. A day may come when I see a perfect movie with absolutely zero flaws. But it is not this day.


In regards to The Goblin King vs The Dwarves though. . . he certainly is a massive foe, in the films. Almost a more intelligent version of a troll. I don't think there is any suggestion that the dwarves could not handle goblins (though, as said, the orc encounters are terribly dissapointing in some regards), as the clean the hall with them once they regain their footing. They are caught entirely off guard, mostly sleeping then dumped (in too long a drop) into a heap and disarmed early, and also vastly outnumbered. By the time Gandalf arrives, they are piled under large numbers of goblins/orcs in an almost impossible situation. His use of magic here is both grand and wholly merited. Also, it is designed (appropriately so) so that both the dwarves and audience miss him more later, when he is NOT there to save the day. If his power isn't on display saving the dwarves etc., it would be very difficult to understand why they are so distraught at the thought of him parting ways with them. The consensus of the lay audience would be, "he didn't (couldn't or wouldn't) really do sh*t anyway."

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Kassandros
Rohan


Feb 12 2013, 11:27pm

Post #37 of 46 (181 views)
Shortcut
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. [In reply to] Can't Post

AinurOlorin wrote:
"You seem to want them to delete an entire aspect of his character and power as the book relates it so that the aspects of him that you prefer are made even more dominant, nevermind if it makes him appear virtually powerless, or useless as anything other than a guide."

No, I do not. I specifically said, on multiple occasions, that I do not think the filmmakers should have changed that scene in particular. I just said that I didn't enjoy that particular scene. I did not say I thought it should be changed. Also, I did express admiration for other scenes where he expresses his power, such as the flaming pinecones and the fight against the Balrog. I enjoy the former because it's subtle and interesting and the latter because the Balrog is a foe worthy of him. Watching Gandalf beat up a goblin, however large, is not my idea of entertainment. However, I did not say it should be removed. I think the proper thing to do is leave it like in the book. I just don't especially enjoy it.

From my post that you replied to, I wrote:
"In this case, I think the filmmakers had to include this scene as is"

AinurOlorin wrote:
"That said, our preferences are not the sole matter of debate."

I specifically used the words "I prefer". You may talk about whatever you'd like to, but I was only talking about my personal enjoyment of the movies. Would I enjoy the scene more if Thorin and the Dwarves had more of a hand in their own escape? Sure. But this is a classic scene and even though I don't like it much, I think it should probably remain as is. Also, having Gandalf rescue the party in both The Hobbit and LotR raises the stakes when he's gone. It means that when he falls, you really feel the loss and are really scared for the Fellowship. I've often likened losing Gandalf to losing your parents. I do think that Tolkien might have had that metaphor in mind, but even if he didn't, that's how I see it. And Gandalf saving the main characters in both FotR and The Hobbit sets this up nicely. That doesn't mean it's always enjoyable when he does. I find it more enjoyable when he saves them by things like flaming pinecones and imitating troll voices rather than just taking out a rather large goblin. There are innumerable characters who just blast their enemies with fireballs and the like in fantasy literature. Gandalf is more interesting because he doesn't use such grand displays of power most of the time. And that's how Tolkien wrote him.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 12 2013, 11:59pm

Post #38 of 46 (179 views)
Shortcut
Well stated, and fair enough. [In reply to] Can't Post

And I agree with alot of this, even though I thoroughly enjoyed a few things which you didn't. Regarding the goblins though, I don't think his killing of The Great Goblin is the crux of that. We saw Thorin and Orcrist repel the behemoth earlier in the scene. I didn't get the impression, even with his increased size, that the Goblin King alone was to much for all thirteen dwarves to reckon with, but his army and the circumstances greatly shifted the balance. Gandalf was not rescuing them just from the King, but from the minions and the situation, which was dire. My favourite part of that scene was his entrance, much more than his actual slaying of the Great Goblin, and that is true for book and film alike.

In Reply To
AinurOlorin wrote:
"You seem to want them to delete an entire aspect of his character and power as the book relates it so that the aspects of him that you prefer are made even more dominant, nevermind if it makes him appear virtually powerless, or useless as anything other than a guide."

No, I do not. I specifically said, on multiple occasions, that I do not think the filmmakers should have changed that scene in particular. I just said that I didn't enjoy that particular scene. I did not say I thought it should be changed. Also, I did express admiration for other scenes where he expresses his power, such as the flaming pinecones and the fight against the Balrog. I enjoy the former because it's subtle and interesting and the latter because the Balrog is a foe worthy of him. Watching Gandalf beat up a goblin, however large, is not my idea of entertainment. However, I did not say it should be removed. I think the proper thing to do is leave it like in the book. I just don't especially enjoy it.

From my post that you replied to, I wrote:
"In this case, I think the filmmakers had to include this scene as is"

AinurOlorin wrote:
"That said, our preferences are not the sole matter of debate."

I specifically used the words "I prefer". You may talk about whatever you'd like to, but I was only talking about my personal enjoyment of the movies. Would I enjoy the scene more if Thorin and the Dwarves had more of a hand in their own escape? Sure. But this is a classic scene and even though I don't like it much, I think it should probably remain as is. Also, having Gandalf rescue the party in both The Hobbit and LotR raises the stakes when he's gone. It means that when he falls, you really feel the loss and are really scared for the Fellowship. I've often likened losing Gandalf to losing your parents. I do think that Tolkien might have had that metaphor in mind, but even if he didn't, that's how I see it. And Gandalf saving the main characters in both FotR and The Hobbit sets this up nicely. That doesn't mean it's always enjoyable when he does. I find it more enjoyable when he saves them by things like flaming pinecones and imitating troll voices rather than just taking out a rather large goblin. There are innumerable characters who just blast their enemies with fireballs and the like in fantasy literature. Gandalf is more interesting because he doesn't use such grand displays of power most of the time. And that's how Tolkien wrote him.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


imin
Valinor


Feb 13 2013, 12:05am

Post #39 of 46 (178 views)
Shortcut
I think Gandalf should have killed the Great Goblin [In reply to] Can't Post

as he did in the book - would have been way better as the whole scene in the book is very visual and begging to be made into film i think.

Still at least he got to show some strength, old Gandalf, lol.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 13 2013, 12:52am

Post #40 of 46 (176 views)
Shortcut
I Completely agree. I was pleased with what they did, but still think the way it happens in [In reply to] Can't Post

the book would have been even more satisfyingly dramatic, with all the lights going out, and the fire going up into a blue tinted pillar. They could still have force blasted everything to bits. Yet, I will not complain. . . what they did was very good, and Soooooo much better than the complete shortchanging I feared Peter MIGHT have done to this scene.

In Reply To
as he did in the book - would have been way better as the whole scene in the book is very visual and begging to be made into film i think.

Still at least he got to show some strength, old Gandalf, lol.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


imin
Valinor


Feb 13 2013, 1:39am

Post #41 of 46 (179 views)
Shortcut
Were you worried [In reply to] Can't Post

That Gandalf might get reduced to saying this to the dwarves about the great goblin? :P (hope it works!)
http://youtu.be/OOuWWzP7wl0?t=6s


(This post was edited by imin on Feb 13 2013, 1:40am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 13 2013, 3:10am

Post #42 of 46 (166 views)
Shortcut
Yes, Imin, that is exactly one of the possibilities I feared. lol [In reply to] Can't Post

Or him rusing into the cave waving the bright end of his staff into the faces of the goblins to dazzle them whilst slashing. Lol. I am VERY thankful that it ended up as properly impressive as it did, even if it wasn't absolutely perfect. It was still quite good, and that is exponentially greater than my fears suggested it might be. lol

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


aarondirebear
Bree

Feb 13 2013, 6:13pm

Post #43 of 46 (162 views)
Shortcut
QED [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Could you please take a deep breath and reread my post? I didn't really say any of the things you accused me of.

1. I never said faithfulness should be ignored. I just said that "whether the movie copies the book as closely as possible in every detail" is not the proper way to judge a movie. One can be faithful to a book and not copy every detail. One can also copy every detail and not be faithful.

2. I hate Tolkien's work? Really? So making a single criticism of one aspect of one of Tolkien's book's means that I hate it? So everyone that does not love every tiny detail of every single word that Tolkien ever wrote in his entire life can be deemed as hating Tolkien's work? Mind you, I also said that I thought the filmmakers made the right decision in leaving this part unchanged. I just didn't particularly enjoy it.

3. I do celebrate some of Peter Jackson's changes, actually, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I thought Boromir was throughly improved in the FotR movie. I found his death scene far more powerful in the film than in the book. And as much as I've always loved Tom Bombadil, I eventually came to the conclusion that PJ was correct in dropping him from the movie. I also appreciated the fact that Arwen was incorporated into the story more rather than just shunted off into an appendix. I found her story far more effective in the movie, despite a couple odd parts such as the whole part about her fate being tied to Frodo.

4.You are really gonna be surprised by this, but sometimes I think the filmmakers could have done much better in adapting certain things. I thought Lothlorien's leaves should have been, you know, golden. I thought the Ents should have been handled with far more care and reverance. And I thought the story of Azog and the history of the Dwarves that Tolkien wrote was far more evocative and compelling than the altered version that the filmmakers came up with. Despite these issues, I've enjoyed all four of Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies so far. A day may come when I see a perfect movie with absolutely zero flaws. But it is not this day.

5. I'm really astonished by the idea that you view fidelity to the exact details of a book as the only way to judge a movie. Let's imagine there's a really bad book. Let's say that it has a really good idea in it but the characters are completely flat and the story has tons of holes in it. Let's say a filmmaker adapts this work into an incrediblly good movie but changes a lot of things about the book. Let's say the filmmaker keeps the good parts but improves all of the bad parts. Would you say this great movie was a failure because it wasn't faithful to the bad parts of the book? I'm not talking about Tolkien's work, just a hypothetical book. I think Tolkien's books are quite good and I enjoy them. But the idea that a movie can be judged entirely based on how many details it keeps exactly the same as in the book is absurd.


1) And i disagree a hundred percent. It is every bit how every adaptation needs to be judged. "One can be faithful to a book and not copy every detail. One can also copy every detail and not be faithful." is completely illogical. A character's basic personality is a detail, get that wrong and you are being unfaithful. A crucial part of the backstory is also a detail; changing it makes it impossible to be faithful.

2) You keep justifying deliberate alterations, that shows a lack of respect for the source material.

3) Those changes all fill me with seething hatred. You basically just admitted you think that PJ is a better storyteller than Tolkien, so, QED.

4) How can anyone who likes the books just FORGIVE Peter Jackson so easily? It makes absolutely no sense. The addition of Azog alone puts the movie in bad fanfiction territory as it is! How come he gets a pass when AU fanfiction authors do not?

5) If a really bad book is turned into a so-called "good movie",. I will hate the movie for being unfaithful to the book and i will consider it a "bad movie". If it were adapted faitfhfully, then I will judge it on its other merits afterwards (if it has any thereafter). I hold adaptations to a higher standard. They have to be accurate first. So to answer your question, yes, the hypothetical movie would be a horrific failure. I am sick of peiople assuming that changing details is automatically good.

Its also not an idea, its a fact.

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien


Kassandros
Rohan


Feb 13 2013, 9:49pm

Post #44 of 46 (150 views)
Shortcut
A couple questions for you to consider. [In reply to] Can't Post

Let's suppose you watch a movie. As far as you know, it is an original story, not an adaptation. Let's say that you really like the movie.Actually, you like the movie so much that you believe it is the best movie ever made. Let's say you like it so much that you go online and visit message boards and praise it again and again.

Then, let's imagine, you find out that instead of being an original story, it's actually an adaptation of a book you had never heard of and never read. Let's imagine you then read the book and don't like the book. Let's imagine that the movie changed a lot of details about the book but still kept some core concepts.

Would you suddenly "hate the movie for being unfaithful to the book?" Would you now judge it to be a "bad movie?" Would all your enjoyment of the movie just suddenly cease to exist?

Another hypothetical: Are The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings perfect books? If another author revised them, would it be impossible for them to be improved? What if Tolkien himself had revised them? Actually, he did. Did the publishing deadline that forced him to declare the version he was working on as the final version somehow also coincide with a mystical form of perfection of the story so that neither he nor another author could ever improve on the books?

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 13 2013, 10:03pm

Post #45 of 46 (147 views)
Shortcut
A good movie can be a bad adaptation (and sometimes vice versa). [In reply to] Can't Post

In the case of the LOTR and Hobbit movie thus far, I have thought them all to be great as movies, and fairly good, but certainly not exceptional, as adaptations. There are areas where being more faithful as adaptations would have made all of them better, more powerful movies. There are other areas where increased fidelity to the source might have detracted from them as films for a lay audience.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Feb 14 2013, 1:55pm

Post #46 of 46 (211 views)
Shortcut
Incorrect... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
5. I'm really astonished by the idea that you view fidelity to the exact details of a book as the only way to judge a movie.


Its also not an idea, its a fact.



That is not a fact, it is (in fact) your opinion. And an incorrect opinion in my own estimation. Alterations made in making an adaptaion can be either good or bad (or inconsequential for that matter). Turning The Three Musketeers into a steampunk movie was a bad idea (in my opinion). So was tacking a happy ending onto The Scarlet Letter. On the other hand, Akira Kurowawa's adaption of King Lear into the samurai-drama Ran was brilliant.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring

First page Previous page 1 2 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.