|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Apr 14 2019, 4:15pm
Post #26 of 77
(17742 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe nobody knew it back then but that little film of the little book was off the table from the late 1990's when Jackson and Walsh were not able to carry out their plan to film The Hobbit and then LotR. The inescapable reality is that TH movies were made after the monumental success of the LotR trilogy and that coloured everything about them.
I didn't see much point in bringing up Jackson's original attempt to adapt The Hobbit, though a single movie would not have allowed for much (if any) expansion of the story to include elements from outside of the book itself. On the other hand, it would almost certainly have been more faithful to the book than was the trilogy we got later. Radagast is actually from the book even though he never appears in it in person. Azog was unnecessary as Bolg could have easily taken his role as Thorin's antagonist in the films.
I was never against including new characters as long as they fit organically into the story. And some of those new characters could be taken from Tolkien's legendarium. Legolas, as you noted, was a logical choice. We know that Bard eventually married and sired a son; why not incorporate this into the Lake-town sequences (even though Bard was made into a widower in the films and also given two daughters)? Alfrid provided representation for the advisors and counselors to the Master of Lake-town. Galadriel and Saruman were already members of the White Council that was responsible for evicting the Necromancer from Dol Guldur.
Tauriel was another matter; however, divorced from the love-triangle subplot, she was not a bad character to contrast with the Thranduil and his isolationism.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 14 2019, 4:44pm
Post #27 of 77
(17738 views)
Shortcut
|
have a problem with giving Bard a family, and introducing him rather earlier in the story than Tolkien did (it was a rookie mistake, to have the Dragonslayer invented practically on the spot as an ascended extra). But did we really need the whole convoluted Master-and-Alfrid-as-fascist-persecutors subplot? No, not at all. The Master could easily have behaved just as he did in the books, openly welcoming the Dwarves while scheming how to profit off them.
In fact, one dire consequence (besides the direness of the subplot itself) was losing the key moment of Thorin's arrival and self-proclamation: "Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror King under the Mountain!" said the dwarf in a loud voice, and he looked it, in spite of his torn clothes and draggled hood. The gold gleamed on his neck and waist: his eyes were dark and deep. "I have come back. I wish to see the Master of your town!"
the first time, ever, that readers experienced that Tolkienian grandeur that almost no other 20th-century author ever replicated, and which comes more and more to the fore in The Hobbit's later chapters.
Why oh why couldn't PBJ realizes that the story, along with Bilbo, grows into epic heroism?
|
|
|
kzer_za
Menegroth
Apr 14 2019, 6:34pm
Post #28 of 77
(17724 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I honestly think the equivalent scene in the film has some real grandeur to it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
With the beautiful Laketown set in the twilight, the Italian-city-state-style armor of the guards, snow falling, torchlight - the visuals are great and atmospheric. And Thorin is fully declaring himself there, though the movie has of course gotten there in a different way. In the EE, it's also the scene where Bilbo and Thorin's relationship reaches its peak, with Bilbo vouching for Thorin (cutting this was a big mistake).
(This post was edited by kzer_za on Apr 14 2019, 6:45pm)
|
|
|
kzer_za
Menegroth
Apr 14 2019, 6:34pm
Post #29 of 77
(17724 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gandalf is the big problem, I think
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He's always running off and disappearing on his vaguely defined side ventures. In the book, this works. In a standalone movie where Gandalf isn't much more than an enigmatic traveller who has nice fireworks and drags people into adventures, it might have worked. But when Ian McKellen's Gandalf is already one of the most beloved and iconic characters in modern cinema...I just don't think you can have him dropping out of the story for no reason, especially when he comes back at such convenient moments.
That said, the conception of giving Gandalf his own storyline is one thing, the execution is another, and there I will be more critical - much of the writing is iffy or worse, and I really dislike the use of dark Galadriel. Thrain is the only part of that storyline that entirely succeeds, I think. Though Dol Guldur has some great visuals (PJ's horror roots on full display), making it watchable for me despite the mediocre writing.
Also remember that under GdT, a "bridge film" was planned early on, presumably with the hunt for Gollum and some other stuff, which eventually got folded into the second Hobbit. However you want to divide the blame between GdT, PJ, and the studios, two movies were part of the plan from very early. For better or worse.
(This post was edited by kzer_za on Apr 14 2019, 6:39pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 15 2019, 5:00pm
Post #30 of 77
(17667 views)
Shortcut
|
It set TH ineluctably on a path to be Lord Of The Rings: The Prequel, and led to both a cod-epic tone that didn't suit the source at all.
There's nothing wrong with retelling The Hobbit as a Lord of the Rings prequel. Its one of the best aspects of these films, they sit with The Lord of the Rings trilogy to form a unified six-part cycle of works. I think that's great.
Plus, to say that it doesn't fit the nature of the story is to ignore the epic scope of the story of The Hobbit. Is Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago an epic novel? No. Did it stop Sir David Lean from telling it as an epic? No. Its just an artistic choice.
And lastly, for me the scale of The Hobbit trilogy doesn't stem from it being a Lord of the Rings prequel. It stems organically from the re-orienting of the story to focus around Thorin.
inclusion of LR-derived nonsense like the Nazgul Tombs balderdash, dragging Blanchett Lee and especially Bloom back in.
While the Tombs are an original invention, the presence of the Nazgul in Dol Guldur, and the involvement of the White Council are perfectly cannonical, so lets stop pretending that they aren't.
If you want to get especially dense, its not tricky to deduce from Legolas' words in the Council of Elrond that he was present during the Quest of Erebor.
the morphing of Thorin into Short Aragorn
That's boll0cks, I'm afraid. Thorin is nothing like Aragorn. He's more like Isildur or Boromir, with the exception of not being fleeting. He has the best character journey to be found in all six films.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 15 2019, 5:01pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 15 2019, 5:34pm
Post #31 of 77
(17668 views)
Shortcut
|
It set TH ineluctably on a path to be Lord Of The Rings: The Prequel, and led to both a cod-epic tone that didn't suit the source at all. There's nothing wrong with retelling The Hobbit as a Lord of the Rings prequel. Its one of the best aspects of these films, they sit with The Lord of the Rings trilogy to form a unified six-part cycle of works. I think that's great.
Well, it's a free country; for my part I think it follows up the LR trilogy with three ghastly turds, and they're ghastly turds precisely because PJ tried to carbon-copy his earlier approach onto source material it didn't fit in the least.
Plus, to say that it doesn't fit the nature of the story is to ignore the epic scope of the story of The Hobbit. Is Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago an epic novel? No. Did it stop Sir David Lean from telling it as an epic? No. Its just an artistic choice.
And lastly, for me the scale of The Hobbit trilogy doesn't stem from it being a Lord of the Rings prequel. It stems organically from the re-orienting of the story to focus around Thorin.
Yup. Big Mistake Number 2, and why many critics have suggested the whole enterprise should have been retitled The Dwarf. Poor Bilbo is reduced to being a supporting character in his own story, since PJ really is only interested in telling the (fabricated) Epic Tale. The Hobbit is NOT an epic, even if its consequences sent out ripples that affected the broader history.
Also: Peter Jackson is no David Lean.
inclusion of LR-derived nonsense like the Nazgul Tombs balderdash, dragging Blanchett Lee and especially Bloom back in.
While the Tombs are an original invention, the presence of the Nazgul in Dol Guldur, and the involvement of the White Council are perfectly canonical, so lets stop pretending that they aren't.
If you want to get especially dense, its not tricky to deduce from Legolas' words in the Council of Elrond that he was present during the Quest of Erebor.
Oh, sure, they are canon, in the sense that Helm's civil war with Wulf is canon, except that Tolkien told us more about Helm and Wulf than he ever did about the White Council. One sentence at the end of The Hobbit and about three lines from Appendix B: this is the 'canon' out of which PBJ decided to write roughly a movie and a half- and if there's one thing which was already apparent from Rings, it's that PBJ are incapable of writing original material that's worth a damn.
If there is any one word to describe PJ as a filmmaker (besides "adolescent"), it's "derivative." So long as Jackson was deriving his stuff from what Tolkien wrote, as he did through much but sadly not all of Rings (notice how much better those films suddenly got when the script used Genuine Tolkien Text(tm)?), but untethered from that sure anchor he falls back on his usual melange of pop-culture cliche. This is after all a guy whose declared cinematic idol is not Lean, not Kurosawa, not Eisenstein or Murnau or Godard, but freakin' Harryhausen.
Give Bloom a cameo? Why not? It's reasonable he would have been at his father's side. But to make him a major character, with all the Tauriel nonsense, avalanche-climbing and final nonsensical 'exile' searching for a 10-year-old whose identity Elrond was keeping secret? That there are people who defend this stuff is just more evidence, I think, that the world divides into Jackson fans and Tolkien fans, and the former never run out of excuses for why PJ's malodorous vomit doesn't actually reek so very badly.
_______________
PS: at this time the Nazgul were not at Dol Guldur (much less ever entombed); they were at Minas Morgul. Khamul's assignment as Sauron's viceroy in Mirkwood with another Wraith as assistant/messenger only occurred after the reconstruction of Barad-dur
(This post was edited by Solicitr on Apr 15 2019, 5:43pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 15 2019, 5:44pm
Post #32 of 77
(17658 views)
Shortcut
|
That's his cinematic style. Its what he does with King Kong, as well, where the epic style is even less called for.
Its a perfectly legitimate artistic choice to tell The Hobbit as a grand epic. Its globetrotting in the scale of the quest and it has massive repercussions.
And there's nothing wrong with making Bilbo a supporting character, either. Thorin's simply more interesting. I think it was a stroke of genius to rework the story around him. I love that character.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 15 2019, 5:45pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 15 2019, 5:46pm
Post #33 of 77
(17658 views)
Shortcut
|
And there's nothing wrong with making Bilbo a supporting character, either.
I can honestly say that there's no responding to that.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Apr 15 2019, 9:16pm
Post #34 of 77
(17631 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As long as it supports the movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
No there isn't. The movie needs to sustain by itself. When are you people going to understand that?
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Apr 15 2019, 9:18pm)
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Nargothrond
Apr 15 2019, 10:18pm
Post #35 of 77
(17618 views)
Shortcut
|
I’m always a bit speechless at that admission.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Apr 16 2019, 2:14pm
Post #36 of 77
(17541 views)
Shortcut
|
While the Tombs are an original invention, the presence of the Nazgul in Dol Guldur, and the involvement of the White Council are perfectly cannonical, so lets stop pretending that they aren't.
Tolkien only tells us that three of the Nazgûl were sent to occupy Dol Guldur in T.A. 2951 -- ten years after the Battle of Five Armies. Before that, the Ringwraiths were presumably commanding their own territories in other parts of Middle-earth. We don't know that any of them were in Dol Guldur at the same time that Sauron dwelt there as the Necromancer. That was an assumption made by Peter Jackson.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 16 2019, 2:16pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 2:35pm
Post #37 of 77
(17541 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The films' Dol Guldur is an amalgamation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of the book's Dol Guldur over several points of time. Makes sense, too. Movies need a feeling of immediacy, so you can't have Dol Guldur and The Necormancer's identity being known for around for a millennia any more than you can have Frodo waiting in the Shire for twenty years.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 16 2019, 2:38pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Apr 16 2019, 3:01pm
Post #39 of 77
(17526 views)
Shortcut
|
There's a big difference between a century and thousands of years, though I do get your point. 
I would argue that the seventeen-year gap from Bilbo's farewell party to the departure of Frodo could have been made to work by giving the audience some sense of Gandalf's efforts during that period. However, it could have eaten up a significant amount of screen time. Certainly the visual cue used by Ralph Bakshi to represent this in his animated film came off as a bit silly.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Apr 16 2019, 3:06pm
Post #40 of 77
(17526 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I strongly disagree that Bilbo is or should be a supporting character in TH movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and that Thorin is their hero.
The glamorous and charismatic warrior king of the movies is “cooler” than the staid Bilbo and so draws the eyes of some, but that doesn’t make him the sole main protagonist.
On film, Bilbo is one of three main characters; himself, Thorin and Gandalf, each with his own, though often intertwined, story. Bilbo’s arc is pretty much the same as it is in the book: a physical and emotional journey during which a timid everyman finds great courage and empathy within himself and gradually becomes a leader and a hero. But even in the book, if we weren’t seeing everything through Bilbo’s eyes, there are times when we might forget about him because he is so passive. Bilbo is rarely forgotten in the movies. Even if he is not the focus of a scene, if Bilbo is present he usually has a line or two or a small bit of action or we cut to him for a reaction and so on. Bilbo’s relationships with Thorin and Gandalf are pretty much the heart of the movie trilogy.
However even in the book Bilbo is a supporting player in Thorin’s story, a more epic and tragic tale of a king in exile, flawed by pride, arrogance and greed, whose actions bring about, though not entirely directly, war and death and his own demise. Thorin is fine but I prefer Bilbo.
One last point: Jackson didn’t copy himself in making TH. The design and the detailed world building are similar as are the predilections for cutting edge effects and large action sequences, but tonally the trilogies are very different. LotR is much darker and has much more gravitas despite the moments of humour. TH trilogy is meant to be fun; it starts off with a much lighter tone, much more in the way of humour and even silliness, not unlike the book, and never takes itself as seriously. In the movies the tone gradually darkens to the tragic conclusion whereas in the book there is a rather abrupt turn after the arrival in Erebor
Solicitr, I’d appreciate it if you would stop with the simplistic Tolkien fans versus Jackson fans stuff. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. I am no Tolkien scholar but have been an ardent book fan for fifty years now and have read the novels many times as well as much of HOME etc. And I also love Jackson’s LotR and Hobbit movies (the only films of his that I’ve seen).
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 3:26pm
Post #41 of 77
(17515 views)
Shortcut
|
I am no Tolkien scholar but have been an ardent book fan for fifty years now and have read the novels many times as well as much of HOME etc. And I also love Jackson’s LotR and Hobbit movies.
Same here.
The glamorous and charismatic warrior king of the movies is “cooler” than the staid Bilbo and so draws the eyes of some, but that doesn’t make him the sole main protagonist.
Its not just that he's cooler. Its that he's genuinely complex. Most of the truly complex characters in The Lord of the Rings were side-characters like Boromir (whom we only really ever experience during the second half of The Fellowship of the Ring) and Gollum. However here Thorin is at the forefront of the narrative, as the lead or deuteragonist, depending on one's point of view.
Thorin is heroic and noble, but he's also cantankerous, vain, greedy, isolationistic, he's secretive, he's bitter and wrathful, he's suspicious, narrow-minded, stubborn, detached, zealous, and - deeper down the line - outright neurotic.
He's even treacherous: In An Unexpected Journey, when Gandalf says to Elrond that their interest in the map is academic, Thorin smiles at him, which Jackson comments on: "this is the point where Thorin starts to really trust Gandalf and regard him much more as a friend" and yet once they reach the High Pass, Thorin is perfectly fine with ditching the rendezvous with Gandalf in order to make better progress.
Bilbo is rarely forgotten in the movies. Even if he is not the focus of a scene, if Bilbo is present he usually has a line or two or a small bit of action or we cut to him for a reaction and so on. Bilbo’s relationships with Thorin and Gandalf are pretty much the heart of the movie trilogy.
Yeah, while I do think the filmmakers marginalized him (which I'm fine with), in other aspects they often gave him more to do than in the book: see his outwitting of the three Trolls, instead of Gandalf doing so in the book.
TH trilogy is meant to be fun; it starts off with a much lighter tone, much more in the way of humour and even silliness, not unlike the book, and never takes itself as seriously. In the movies the tone gradually darkens to the tragic conclusion whereas in the book there is a rather abrupt turn after the arrival in Erebor.
Yeah, the second part of An Unexpected Journey and the first part of The Desolation of Smaug are still quite light. The moment the movie turns on a dime, tonally, is when Thorin is being ferried across to Erebor.
He's just left Killi behind and has shown be completely fine with subjecting the people of Laketown to a great potential threat, should he wake the dragon. When the Dwarves previously beheld the mountain it was one of the sweetest, most revent moments of the trilogy. But now, a similar beat is played very ominously: its in the way Thorin carries himself, but also in the music and the bleak landscape.
Large parts of the narrative after that moment are quite dour and certainly not meant to be "fun", though. Of course, that's perfectly fitting to Thorin's tragic story. I love the Dwarves overlooking the destruction of Laketown. You feel their guilt and sense of worthlessness in your bones. It could have been a scene in Saving Private Ryan.
If one's looking for a chipper adventure flick, the later par of the Desolation of Smaug and the entirety of The Battle of the Five Armies are not for you. But if one's looking for something more confronting and powerful - they're a boon.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 16 2019, 3:40pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 4:46pm
Post #42 of 77
(17496 views)
Shortcut
|
is not Tolkien's, not even remotely. Goblin-town and the barrel-chase come from some alternate universe, Looney Tunes perhaps. When Tolkien included Action Scenes (which never happen in the book before Mirkwood), he takes them very seriously, not as an opportunity for fun'n'games. His humor is drier, droller, more donnish... and would never, ever countenance fart, burp or dick jokes.
Even though I'll grant you that Thorin is interesting, he nonetheless shouldn't displace Bilbo any more than Boromir should have displaced Frodo. And Gandalf should never have been a narrative focus, period. And even if one could find an excuse for the White Council stuff and the very poorly done Dol Guldur sections, that STILL wouldn't excuse Azog and all the rubbish appurtenant thereto, intruded because, according to Boyens' Hack Screenwriting 101 course, there simply had to be some "pursuing threat" for the first part of the journey. Again: PBJ arrogantly thinking they could tell Tolkien's story better than he could, which is, to repeat an analogy I've used earlier, like hiring Frank Frazetta to "upgrade" the Sistine Chapel.
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 4:54pm
Post #43 of 77
(17489 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But its not Tolkien's film, is it?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Its a Peter Jackson film. The only way to make Tolkien's film is if Tolkien would have directed it himself.
I like the lightheartedness of the earlier parts of the trilogy, physical comedy and all. One of my favourite movies, Braveheart, very much the prototype for these movies, has a ton of that humour. In both, its a nice juxtaposition with the seriousness of the later passages.
And Azog is 100% necessary for these films to be even remotely interesting. Plus, you have to give Thorin some achievement. After all, he isn't the one to slay Smaug or reclaim Erebor, nor is he the one who actually turns the tide of the Battle of the Five Armies. Killing Azog works for him.
To equate Thorin to Boromir in terms of his part in the overriding narrative is simply ignorant, I'm afraid. Even in the book, Thorin is very central to the story and certainly, unlike Boromir, he's present throughout.
The filmmakers saw more potential in that character and chose to expand upon his role. I enjoyed it immensly, and that's all that matters. Some moments with him, like his confrontation with Thranduil, hit two notes at the same time, which is great. Others, like the end of his journey, brought me to tears, which is the ultimate thing for a movie to do.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 16 2019, 5:04pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 5:03pm
Post #44 of 77
(17481 views)
Shortcut
|
Its a Peter Jackson film. The only way to make Tolkien's film is if Tolkien would have directed it himself.
It made kazillions of dollars by purporting to be Tolkien's story and was marketed as such. If it was solely Peter Jackson's movie, and not Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien, then they should have eschewed Tolkien's name and title and marketed it as PETER JACKSON'S THE DWARF.
-----------------
And, no, Azog was absolutely NOT necessary. He simply represents Boyens' utter inability to figure out how to create momentum without falling back on cliche.
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 5:43pm
Post #45 of 77
(17473 views)
Shortcut
|
"A WingNut Films production" which is another way of saying "a Peter Jackson film".
There's no way for a director with any sense of vision to adapt a work without making it his own: look at Kubrick, Lean or Spielberg, for that matter. All worked predominantly on adapted screenplays (written by themselves or otherwise) and they all infused each of their works with their own sensibilities, with themes which weren't in the source material, changed up the genre (Jurassic Park the book is hardly as adventurous like the movie), changed key points in the narrative and made large changes to the characters, etcetra.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 16 2019, 5:47pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Apr 16 2019, 5:44pm
Post #46 of 77
(17470 views)
Shortcut
|
And Azog is 100% necessary for these films to be even remotely interesting.
Not really; Bolg could have easily been substituted for Azog, though it might have been necessary to give him a named underling to lead the Gundabad forces.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 5:45pm
Post #47 of 77
(17467 views)
Shortcut
|
Tomato Tomato, says I.
The point is, the inclusion of someone chasing the Dwarves with a personal vendetta against Thorin, which isn't quite in the book.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 16 2019, 5:48pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 6:03pm
Post #48 of 77
(17464 views)
Shortcut
|
Tomato Tomato, says I.
The point is, the inclusion of someone chasing the Dwarves with a personal vendetta against Thorin, which isn't quite in the book.
remotely necessary
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Apr 16 2019, 7:26pm
Post #49 of 77
(17454 views)
Shortcut
|
[Nor] remotely necessary
...something was needed to speed up the progress of the company through Eriador. It was painfully slow as Tolkien described it, especially after later maps provided more context as to the distances involved. And, in the book, literally nothing interesting happens from the time the company leaves Hobbiton until they cross the bridge and encounter the Trolls. A journey that should have taken no more than three weeks--tops--to get the company to Rivendell was dragged out to five weeks.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Apr 16 2019, 7:51pm
Post #50 of 77
(17444 views)
Shortcut
|
is why cinema employs the "cut."
Once you have established that characters are going from Point A to Point B, it isn't necessary to show every plodding mile or nightly camp. Just skip to the next point something interesting happens (just like Tolkien did in the Hobbit, but not the LR).
Thorin & Co. were going to Erebor. That's all the motivation needed. If you're making a wagon train movie, "gettin' to Oregon" is sufficient; you don't have to add a vengeful one-armed albino Sioux chief!
|
|
|
|
|
