|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 28 2015, 12:08am
Post #51 of 70
(797 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, there are lots of things.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suppose, in passing, I should say that I don't tend to break down dislikes in art, in quite the same way as I see in a number of posts. I tend to think they work or don't work as a whole, when it comes to how much I like them.
Which is not to say that I don't think elements can be particular highlights or not work very well. So, one example might be that I don't think AUJ did a strong enough job of conveying a sense of progress or resolution. So it doesn't really translate to the book in a straightforward way (I've never sat and read those chapters of the book in one go and then set it aside for a year, for example!). However, it does read across in the sense that this isn't an issue for me in the text - that lack is absent. If that makes any sense?
Something non- literal? Azog being alive, Radagast's involvement, the barrel sequence, lots of things.
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Jan 28 2015, 12:13am)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Jan 28 2015, 12:17am
Post #52 of 70
(784 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for elaborating on that.
I am still not sure if I agree or disagree about the literal/non literal being a factor in one's appreciation of the films though (for many critics, at least), and I do think there is a curious connection to the overload of fan edits we're getting that chip away at the non literal things you mentioned. And the opposite is certainly not true. We don't for example see fan edits where people are trying to minimize Bilbo's screen time, or bolster Azog's story. But we don't have to open that can of worms right now. I see where you're coming from.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 28 2015, 12:23am
Post #53 of 70
(782 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, it's hard to know. I think, and all that follows is speculation and surely not universal, that there is probably a degree of inherent conservatism, or at least conservation, when it comes to "fans"' views on adaptations. However, this is often not explicitly expressed as such, and how can anyone truly know what someone else thinks?
|
|
|
R11
Lorien
Jan 28 2015, 2:38am
Post #54 of 70
(815 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Of course that will never happen
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's a pandering, bloated, silly and juvenile adaptation that barely resembles the original story because that's what PeeJay wanted.
ron
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Jan 28 2015, 3:54am
Post #55 of 70
(816 views)
Shortcut
|
Makes it quite clear you have little respect for the man. What would have been pandering would have been to follow the book to exaction...
Bard not appearing until he's needed? No problem! Lack of character development with Thorin and Bilbo? Great! Lack of character development for Every Single Dwarf save Balin (and even that is rather sparse) wonderful!
The story was turned into a tale that involved Dwarves, Elves, and Men. Rather than focusing on Dwarves rather than having Men and Elves be obstacles to overcome.
What you call "bloat" I call quality story-telling. And Juvenile? Let's not even get started on the talking purse and sing-song Elves from the book, itself.
Posts like that remind me of this...
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Oakentoon-56-True-Story-for-orthodox-fans-387273293
Is this what the "purists" wanted?
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Jan 28 2015, 5:53am
Post #56 of 70
(779 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, they were creative decisions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That worked for me but not some others. Simple as that.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member.
Really? Alright...
Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jan 28 2015, 6:36am
Post #57 of 70
(758 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with dormouse, this was his take on it, possibly augmented by the EE. There's zero chance that he would go around this again.
Someone else may, some day. It would be interesting to see. But not PJ.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Jan 28 2015, 6:37am)
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 28 2015, 8:23am
Post #58 of 70
(726 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If someone goes this route I think it would be better for it to be a stand alone film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My feeling way way back just after LOTR's release that's stayed pretty much the same is that if someone was going to attempt a version of the Hobbit more directly in the spirit of the book it would be best to make it totally unconnected to Jacksons LOTR, that is a total recast and change in the art direction.
In a lot of ways I think that Jacksons Hobbit was actually much closer to the book than a more purely studio controlled adaptation would have been which likely would have tried to ape LOTR's as closely as possible(likely unsuccessfully). That said I think Jackson was still bumping up against the expectations of the story taking place in the same world as his LOTR films, an adaptation that ignored that would likely have not be very popular with the vast majority of the audience and come across as rather jarring.
You could argue I spose that theres actually more room for another version of The Hobbit than there is LOTR right now dispite the latter being a decade or more older. Whilst it might not please absolutely everyone Jacksons LOTR is regarded as pretty definitive and any adaptation that wanted to be greatly different in tone would likely also be further from the tone of the book. The Hobbit series on the other hand is obviously not as well reguarded, personally I think this is somewhat due to the lesser nature of the story and a bit of a backlash but it is I would say easier to see someone attempt another version which could potentially differ in tone a lot by being closer to the book.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Jan 28 2015, 8:27am)
|
|
|
smtfhw
Lorien
Jan 28 2015, 8:23am
Post #59 of 70
(729 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw the Bakshi cartoon of LotR when it first came out and was so disappointed with it that I wouldn't have bothered to go to any subsequent ones if they'd been made. As things turned out, they weren't.
I still shudder in horror thinking about it...
|
|
|
smtfhw
Lorien
Jan 28 2015, 8:30am
Post #60 of 70
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And This I Think is the Crux of the Matter
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bard not appearing until he's needed? No problem! Lack of character development with Thorin and Bilbo? Great! Lack of character development for Every Single Dwarf save Balin (and even that is rather sparse) wonderful!
What you call "bloat" I call quality story-telling. And Juvenile? Let's not even get started on the talking purse and sing-song Elves from the book, itself.
I think you've said pretty much what I think. I love the book, don't get me wrong, but it really isn't very "filmic" and if anyone made a film that stuck rigidly to the book what you'd get would be dull as ditchwater when it wasn't being entirely silly. I suspect the audience would be numbered in hundreds at best, though possibly in tens, and it would pretty much disappear without trace after a single showing. Oh and that's to say nothing of a hero who is out cold for most of the interesting bits and has to be told about them afterwards...
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 28 2015, 9:06am
Post #61 of 70
(751 views)
Shortcut
|
No for the simple reason his objective was to make a prequel that sits with the LOTR films.
I have listened carefully to Sir Peter and Philippa Boyens commentaries of the first two films and its quite clear there view of what makes a good Tolkien adaption is not always mine. However in general they did exactly the right thing by making movies that move toward the style of the LOTR movies.
Where PJ has failed my personal dream is not to be more faithful to the Hobbit narrative but to be less faithful. He worked very hard with the 13 Dwarves and matters like the Talking Trolls to keep the faith my view is he was wrong. He should have driven a coach and horses through the most child like aspects of the book and make the company feel much more like the grim and heroic Dwarves of
Azanulbizar.
The effect of sticking with for instance these two issues has produced uneasy compromises which do not satisfactorily replace or replicate the book.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jan 28 2015, 9:06am)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 28 2015, 9:21am
Post #62 of 70
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Just wanted to thank you for the link to Oakentoon 56....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
.. the funniest by far. Had me in fits of laughter when it was first linked on the main page and it still does. The last three frames are sheer genius!
It's also an excellent illustration of the reason I find fan-editing a sterile exercise. Peckish Owl takes still images from the film and rearranges them to create something new....... a comment on the film or the characters or fan attitudes. The captions she adds are her own original ideas - fresh, inventive and funny. Fan edits add nothing original at all. They just take bits out of context and paste them back together. However skillfully it's done the end result can only be an impoverished version of someone else's work.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jan 28 2015, 9:43am
Post #63 of 70
(719 views)
Shortcut
|
Once again you express my views better than I could word them.
I have also thought a lot of why this trilogy somehow failed to satisfy me in the end - and mostly it seems to be the incoherent tone and storytelling.
I may go as far as saying that - artistically - the attempt to bring the book's style and the LotR trilogy style together failed to a large extent.
And I am also one who actually wished he would have gone all LotR-style once the Company left the Shire. A two-movie treatment would imho have been far better, and in order to tell the story (including DG) in two movies, the trolls' scene would have been my first pick to cut from the first one. TH's Tom Bombadil scene.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jan 28 2015, 9:45am)
|
|
|
Saneliur
Bree
Jan 28 2015, 10:29am
Post #64 of 70
(711 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is a pointless question...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... the answer is obviously: No.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 28 2015, 5:33pm
Post #65 of 70
(647 views)
Shortcut
|
|
PJ wouldn't have cut that for sure
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the trolls' scene would have been my first pick to cut from the first one. TH's Tom Bombadil scene.
Given his obsession with connecting these films to LotR at every turm, the troll scene would have to stay considering they come across the frozen trolls in Fellowship. They even make a note to freeze them in the same positions as they were in LotR. It's one of the few things I thought PJ did well since I'm a sucker for accuracy.
|
|
|
Nolane
Bree
Jan 28 2015, 6:28pm
Post #66 of 70
(633 views)
Shortcut
|
It is your only your "opinion" that all of the additions are not necessary and should be removed. Others like me like most of the additions. Regardless, the movies are what they are. Why would PJ slice up his own vision to appease naysayers?
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 28 2015, 8:06pm
Post #67 of 70
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
Just to develop the point about the Trolls PJ's difficulty and the OP question.
The central image of the Lords and Warriors of the Khazad Thorin/Kili/Fili/Balin and Dwalin being put in a cooking pot by talking loveable rogue trolls is seriously out of harmony with both the more developed written legendarium and the film universe.
However it has legacy issues, Sting and The Stone Trolls, for the LOTR.
So you have three options:-
1) Play it as humorous jeopardy.
2) Radically alter it and play it.
3) Play it off screen fulfilling the legacy issues and in a manner that does not affect the stature of the Lords and Warriors of the Khazad.
I am having fun working stripping back to the original skeleton of the film makers accepting it as a given and then bringing it up to its full treatment . My view is the encounter with the Trolls should be recognised, appear in the EE happen off screen and the story be inverted with Gandalf taking Bilbo off to see what the light in the hills is and come back next day with the matter resolved and the hoard uncovered.
In The T E, In a nice piece of symbolism the incident with the Trolls is discussed between Bilbo, in Took/Baggins dichotomy mode, and Gandalf in "Bilbo's room" and Gandalf hands over the short sword he found in the hoard with those wonderful prophetic words.
I am not sure about Glamdring and Orcist. Phiillipa's pithy views about to many icons in that empire Pod cast are close to mine. In terms of symbolism the placing of the Arkenstone on Thorins cadaver in a show of reconciliation and deep reverence by Thranduil at his funeral would not gain any additional impact by including Orcist.
On the whole the swords are not crucial to the story telling. The Goblin King can do his stuff over an "Elven Sword".
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jan 28 2015, 8:08pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 28 2015, 11:54pm
Post #68 of 70
(582 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Doesn't this tell you something?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your hit list presented a catalogue of scenes which you wanted someone - anyone - to cut from the films. Peter Jackson if possible: if he wouldn't forget him, let's persuade Warners to do it. Surely everyone who cared about the books would be happy to pay for a professional cut without these scenes....
Now you have a couple of posters saying yes, good idea, let's start with the trolls. And that's a scene that you want to leave in (on this we're actually in agreement. I think it would be madness to cut the troll scene.)
Doesn't this illustrate the futility of saying that the films would be improved if only this scene was cut, or that....? These things are just personal likes and dislikes. Each cut might please one or two individuals but it would ruin the film for someone else. Best leave it as it is, I reckon.....
|
|
|
Lindarielwen
Bree
Jan 29 2015, 2:18pm
Post #69 of 70
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
He wouldn't be allowed to. I don't think that anything is ever going to make Christopher Tolkien back down and allow more people to make films based on his father's works.
~*If I consistently reach out to people, to form relationships, to put persons above things, I will be named ‘beloved,’ and my heart and my life will expand to encompass sorrow with beauty, joy more than pleasure, faith, hope, and above all, love.*~
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Jan 29 2015, 6:58pm
Post #70 of 70
(531 views)
Shortcut
|
Any shorter re-edit release would be produced by the studio. And going by past examples (such as the shorter general release re-edits of For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), Around the World in 80 Days (1956), Spartacus (1960), or for that matter most movies edited for television), character development and dialogue will be cut in favor of sex and violence.
So most likely any studio re-edit would merely give you more of what you don't like.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
|
|
