|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Mithlond
Sep 5 2016, 10:17am
Post #26 of 92
(1537 views)
Shortcut
|
TH trilogy it's just for the PJ die hardcore fans. The hobbit trilogy is for Tolken fans, LOTR trilogy fans, PJ fans and fantasy fans. I am a Tolken fan and I like The hobbit trilogy, plus I know people who are not PJ fans and still like The hobbit trilogy. If you don't like them that is fin but don't say that only PJ fans like this films.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 5 2016, 10:34am
Post #27 of 92
(1540 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Firstly, no one needs to take sides.....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..this isn't a war, just two longtime Tolkien book enthusiasts with differing views of the films.
Second, seems to me from the box office figures that if The Hobbit was just for 'PJ die hardcore fans' (whoever they might be) there must be enough of them to populate a large country. Financially the films were a great success, even though there are some people who don't like them.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 5 2016, 12:16pm
Post #28 of 92
(1519 views)
Shortcut
|
that PJ knows how to make movies that people will flock to see, so I'm not surprised TH made a decent profit at the box office. That was after all the main motivation behind 90% of the changes that many book fans found issue with; extending the story into a trilogy, the addition of a female character/romance, Legolas, additional action sequences etc. The point of making a movie is to make money, and in that regard, PJ's Hobbit was a success...but as a fan of the book I must object to the method in which that success was achieved.
As Ringtir points out, for many, PJ's movies were their first introduction to Middle-earth, and most would be content with that interpretation and leave it at that. I believe most of the support for PJ's Hobbit comes from that camp.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 5 2016, 1:14pm
Post #29 of 92
(1508 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, as a fan of the book I'm happy to say that I enjoy...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..both sets of films and respect and admire the skill and effort that went into them.
'Fan of the book' doesn't imply or require any particular attitude to the film adaptations. We're all individuals who react individually. And there, dear wizzardly, I think this point must rest, for me, at least.
But I will leave you with one thing to ponder. You believe Peter Jackson was wrong to adapt The Hobbit in the way that he did, even though you concede that his adaptation was a success. Would he have done the name of Tolkien and the reputation of the book any favours if his films really had been the box office failure that many of their detractors seem to believe they were?
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 5 2016, 1:36pm
Post #30 of 92
(1504 views)
Shortcut
|
should remain mostly unscathed, at least amongst the literary minded folks. Sadly for us however, this is a visual age, and PJ's interpretation will likely be the "go-to" version of the story for many in the future. The main harm I see in the financial success of PJ's movies is that it will enable future filmmakers to take similar liberties with other classic works of literature , thus altering their original intent for the consumption of modern audiences for profit or political agendas. It's unfortunate and sad to see, but inevitable.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 5 2016, 1:58pm
Post #31 of 92
(1494 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wish that people would get over this notion that Hobbit movie fans can’t be book fans as well.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That idea has been around since FotR was released and it still isn’t true. LotR my favourite book and has been since I first read it close to fifty years ago; TH is part of that, as are The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales etc. I also love Jackson’s movies.
The thing is, some of us are capable of enjoying different versions of the stories. I love all six movies as beautiful recreations of Middle-earth and also as retellings of the familiar stories through the eyes of another artist. I appreciate seeing Tolkien’s works in a different light and like some of the changes and differences whilst disliking others.
Obviously The Hobbit movies diverge more sharply from the book than their predecessors did by expanding the characters, intensifying the tone and complicating the plot, though Bilbo’s story and the essential themes are still there. But PJ was never going to film the sweet 1930’s book for an audience of children, he was making a 21st century movie for a worldwide audience of all ages. It still surprises me that people actually thought and maybe still do, that it could ever have been any different.
I might well enjoy some other director’s take on LotR and TH in the future, just as I have liked several of the different approaches taken to Pride and Prejudice over the years. I do hate the R-B Hobbit though.
Incidentally, I consider myself a fan of PJ’s Middle-earth movies but don’t think I’ve ever seen any of his others films.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 5 2016, 2:03pm
Post #32 of 92
(1496 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But don't you think that ship sailed long ago?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Filmmakers have been taking liberties with classic books for as long as there have been films - liberties that make the changes to The Hobbit look rather modest. Most adaptations of Oliver Twist and Wuthering Heights appear to have been made from copies of their respective books with large parts of the story torn away. I don't know where in the world you are and you may not have heard of Susan Cooper's 'Dark is Rising' sequence or count the books as classic, but they've been continuously in print and loved for up to half a century. The film of the first one was truly dire and flopped - one review I saw was along the lines of 'I suppose they did keep the names of the characters - some of them, anyway.' I could go on.
It's inevitable, as you say, and it can be a frustrating and disappointing experience for those who love the books, but I don't think The Hobbit films will make any difference to it. Reshaping the original source in line with current trends is something that has always gone on - and just from where I'm standing I'd sooner cheer Peter Jackson for all the times he has taken a very un-Hollywood path with these films.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 5 2016, 2:13pm
Post #33 of 92
(1486 views)
Shortcut
|
that ship has sailed long ago, and PJ's Hobbit was merely the final nail in the coffin for me.
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Sep 5 2016, 4:19pm
Post #34 of 92
(1475 views)
Shortcut
|
Specially because I know a lot of people didn't care for fantasy topic. But really felt in love with LOTR. Instead, TH trilogy it's just for the PJ die hardcore fans. There is none who likes other themes in movies that finds TH a rewatchable movie.
That makes the trilogy bad? Nope for the fans. But they are a tiny group, just like the original book lovers (wich in fact, are much more)
Just sayin' disagree, as a "tiny" group at some point shelled out 74 million+ for DOMESTIC disk sales alone, for BOFA:
http://www.the-numbers.com/...-Armies-The#tab=more
and that was just U.S. disk sales, for ONE of the films.
So, based on your statement, I imagine those folks who kept BOFA at the top of the disk sales for about 6 weeks, because they are not re-watching the film:
1) Bought the DVD or Blu-Ray, because they are fanatical complete-ists and HAD to have a complete set of Middle Earth movies, little knowing that as they pulled out their credit cards, months later, they would be tormented by the agony of whether to buy the same films (half of which they don't watch ) because if they take the plunge, everything will REALLY match on the shelf. Kinda.
2) Are really into arts and crafts:
http://craftingagreenworld.com/...ys-recycle-cds-dvds/
3) Feel guilty because their parents are rich?
I don't KNOW if there are more "book lovers" than "movie lovers". Aside from the question of why not love both, how do you factor in non-English speaking countries? Do folks in China love the Hobbit book more than the film? I raise the question as a native English speaker raised with U.S. filtered traditions that originated in Europe (among other places). As such, culturally, the Hobbit book had, for me, an instantly recognizable "feel" to it - small determined beings, a wizard, elves, woods, a dragon, talking animals, magic.
Is that true around the world? Has the Hobbit been translated into multiple languages? If so, how many in Africa, South America, Asia, have read it? If those folks have, do they embrace it as a classic or do they have their own traditional classic literature that means far more to them? Or might they enjoy the films more? How do you determine that?
Because for sure, don't know about BOOK publishers, but film-makers are paying attention to the GLOBAL market, and Sir Peter certainly was - as IMO, he should - considering the worldwide interest for the Hobbit films...
IMO folks are entitled to like whatever movies they like, of course, but for myself I re-watch the Hobbit films a lot, and LOTR once in a while, and even then rarely finish ROTK. Because I like the LOTR books better, and the Hobbit films more than the book. Although happy to have EVERYTHING.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Sep 5 2016, 5:50pm
Post #35 of 92
(1460 views)
Shortcut
|
This might almost make you nostalgic for PJ's liberties with The Hobbit. 'Oliver Twist' NBC Adaptation in Development: 'Sexy Contemporary ... http://variety.com/...01851274-1201851274/
Be grateful that Joel Silver didn't get his hands on The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. He's the real reincarnation of Mort Zimmerman.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 5 2016, 5:58pm)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 5 2016, 5:59pm
Post #36 of 92
(1445 views)
Shortcut
|
I feel PJ's Hobbit in part paved the way for this type of thing.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Menegroth
Sep 5 2016, 6:06pm
Post #37 of 92
(1440 views)
Shortcut
|
There were far enough departures from the text. It absolutely doesn't make sense because the orcs and wargs were there for their own reasons, not at Sauron's behest because he was still gathering his power. The spiders should be staying in the shadows of the forest (for that matter, the trolls shouldn't have been there either).
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Sep 5 2016, 6:10pm
Post #38 of 92
(1443 views)
Shortcut
|
I feel PJ's Hobbit in part paved the way for this type of thing.
This kind of thing's been going on for a long time. Remember the Beauty and the Beast television series with Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton (though that was mostly pretty good)? I'll believe that you have a valid point when I see a promo for Law & Order: The Shire.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 5 2016, 6:10pm)
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Sep 5 2016, 6:21pm
Post #39 of 92
(1436 views)
Shortcut
|
sounds awesome. I'd watch it!
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 5 2016, 6:41pm
Post #40 of 92
(1426 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well it's just one more poop for the already massive poop pile...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
one tiny glimmer of hope is the fact that the Ghostbusters remake didn't do as well as they believed it would.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 5 2016, 10:27pm
Post #41 of 92
(1389 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Where's the 'like' button when you need one...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hello, Starling!
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Sep 5 2016, 11:25pm
Post #42 of 92
(1377 views)
Shortcut
|
Silly it would be.
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Ringtir
Ossiriand
Sep 6 2016, 2:26pm
Post #43 of 92
(1334 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My mistake, im not good at grammar
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
PJ's TH trilogy was made specially for the PJ's LOTR fans. That's what I should have written. PJ has so many different styles of movies in his back that being a fan of his work is beyond the ME saga. Even TH and LOTR have a very different style (so I'm contradicting myself) One more serious and real, the other funnier and with a fairy visual style. Wich I applause. But in terms of script the thing gets messy. Specially in DOS, where I remember trying to see TH, while the screen gives me Sauron, The One Ring, Legolas, an orc talking bout Sauron, a new Grima, Legolas jumping in barrels, Legolas in Laketown, Legolas vs Bolg, Smaug talking bout Sauron... Ok movie, I understand that this story could work as a LOTR prologue, but what happens to Bilbo? Is he sad, tired, longing for home? Where is the relationship with Thorin? What with the other dwarves? Where is the development of the characters? Why Beorn's role was diminished? And what about Mirkwood, it's dark because Sauron is back or for other reason? It's like the movie spent so time trying to remember me that it's connected to LOTR, and dealing with another changes created by the screenwriters, that it lost completely the essence of the book.
Anyway, I like this movies a lot, at least TH moments. Even take the task to cut appart all those not Hobbit moments to enjoy the trilogy without skipping parts (sadly, this "fanedit" doesn't fix the lack of character development). So, in my opinion, there are plenty of great stuff and PJ make a terrific job in giving us such a work, even with all the difficulties he has to sort, the trilogy is epic and has lots of fun and adorable moments, but as an adaptation of the original work, it fails. Anyway, its just my opinion.
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Sep 6 2016, 3:24pm
Post #44 of 92
(1325 views)
Shortcut
|
Specially in DOS, where I remember trying to see TH, while the screen gives me Sauron, The One Ring, Legolas, an orc talking bout Sauron, a new Grima, Legolas jumping in barrels, Legolas in Laketown, Legolas vs Bolg, Smaug talking bout Sauron... Ok movie, I understand that this story could work as a LOTR prologue, but what happens to Bilbo? Is he sad, tired, longing for home? Where is the relationship with Thorin? What with the other dwarves? Where is the development of the characters? Why Beorn's role was diminished? And what about Mirkwood, it's dark because Sauron is back or for other reason? It's like the movie spent so time trying to remember me that it's connected to LOTR, and dealing with another changes created by the screenwriters, that it lost completely the essence of the book...
So, in my opinion, there are plenty of great stuff and PJ make a terrific job in giving us such a work, even with all the difficulties he has to sort, the trilogy is epic and has lots of fun and adorable moments, but as an adaptation of the original work, it fails. Anyway, its just my opinion.
Just my opinions, too ...the Hobbit films became my favorite movies ever, in no small part to the IMO superb cast, esp. those hairy dwarves and an IMO amazing Bilbo - plus the changing, magical-to-me landscapes, and IMO there's charm, beauty, pathos, heroism, imagination...
That said, I've posted in the past, that IMO, PJ should have tried hard to forget LOTR ever existed (and I think this is true of other directors making films that are connected) and stay in the present; to work with an amazing cast and not try to bang folks in the head w. LOTR references . I think a light touch of that would have been better, IMO.
IMO for me tho, core "essences" of the Hobbit book were better in some cases in the film - specifically Bilbo/dwarves; Dain, Bard - while others IMO less so - tho IMO that's true of LOTR as well *cough* Faramir *cough*. Plus the Hobbit has the spectacular Smaug which IMO is such a stunning rendition of a dragon, not sure if and when there will ever be better IMO.
And...re the OP's post...IMO utterly spectacular spiders. I'm blown away by the Mirkwood spiders, the way they look, move...the special effects/CGI guys outdid themselves. I remember just the DOS trailers creeping me out.
But, IMO, I don't think BOFA needed spiders in any way, shape, or form on the battlefield, it being crowded enough with more amazing, terrifying creations - the eerie masks/helms of the battle trolls being favorites of mine.
*Realistically* IMO it would be impossible to control spiders, who would probably just pounce and eat anything in their path - plus spiders tend to take their time with a kill. IMO it just wouldn't work..
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Nargothrond
Sep 6 2016, 7:21pm
Post #45 of 92
(1307 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Did you catch the extended version?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For DoS, it's definitive. The focus is shifted further onto Bilbo, especially during the elongated Mirkwood sequence and that one small - but vital; should never have been missing in the theatrical cut - moment where Bilbo vouches for Thorin in Laketown. That last bit adds the necessary weight to Bilbo's "What have we done?" line that I feel was entirely absent at the end of the TE.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Nargothrond
Sep 6 2016, 10:20pm
Post #46 of 92
(1283 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But, I would argue (and have) the overarching focus is consistently on Bilbo throughout the trilogy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's largely been fans of the novel that want the whole Bilbo and nothing but the Bilbo so help them God that color their takeaways (and subsequent blog/forum/review posts) after seeing the films. Also, I suppose, it has also been those going in with no prior knowledge of the source taking note of the title The Hobbit and so, they expect to see a hobbit front and center in every frame or else, consarnit.
But in reality, the trilogy's focus is always grounded in Bilbo and also his relationship with Thorin. Being a prequel to LotR, there is certainly peripheral storytelling going on, but the primary focus remains the same.
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Sep 6 2016, 10:47pm
Post #47 of 92
(1276 views)
Shortcut
|
By that logic, shouldn't they be against anything in LOTR that doesn't have the Lord of the Rings (Frodo) happening? Or for those who complain about the new characters introduced/expanded in DOS having scenes that aren't with Bilbo or the Company... why not a problem with spending non-Fellowship member related time with the characters of Rohan and Gondor? It doesn't matter if it was in the original source material or not, the concept is the same.
And when the filmmakers added material for Bilbo to have emotional and physical action, that definitely tells me they put a lot of focus on Bilbo.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Nargothrond
Sep 7 2016, 1:02am
Post #48 of 92
(1270 views)
Shortcut
|
Except isn't Saruon the 'Lord of the Rings?' Why aren't more people upset that the films (and the novel!) didn't have Sauron present in every scene??? Did Gandalf not say, "There is only one Lord of the ring... and he does not share screen time"? Because I'm pretty sure he did.
"The Hobbit is called The Hobbit so I want only scenes with my hobbit, thank-you-very-much," critics say. But when it comes to the older trilogy, they're more like, "The Lord of the Rings is named after Sauron, but yeah, it can be about nearly 20 characters and multiple countries - how else would you do it?"
Why are there scenes in Taxi Driver where Travis Bickle isn't driving his taxi? Why is The Godfather about Michael Corleone when he doesn't acquire that mantle until the very end? Why is Casablanca a romance set against the backdrop of WWII? I couldn't have been the only one hoping for a comprehensive study on the history and culture of the largest city in Morocco.
Most importantly: when are we going to cease being so superficial and petty in our critique of art? If Mona Lisa's name was Rebecca Swanson, does the painting change?
C'mon now.
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Sep 7 2016, 1:05am)
|
|
|
Ringtir
Ossiriand
Sep 7 2016, 2:56am
Post #49 of 92
(1247 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with you in the cases where the films do better than the book, even the new Beorn is great in some point. But... I'm sad that all these great characters are suddenly lost. Fili, Dori, Ori, Nori, Bombur, Bifur, Beorn, Sigrid and Tilda, even the full story of Thranduil, lots of potential that only shine in little glimpses throughout the trilogy.
And about your first response to my first post on this thread... Charan!!!
I'm not good at numbers at all (not good at grammar either, I suck!). So you nailed it, and write an excellent post about the theme. I don't know if you put the 3 points in an ironic way, but they really exist, even I am a person who loves to collect things apart from liking it or not (I have the PoC trilogy and totally hate the third one!). My grammar mistake was that I was talking about the big thing. Big sales of merchandising and Oscars and views in YouTube and all that things that neutral people moves... Something like a World Cup era. How many people sees soccer every day and how many sets in front of the tv to see the final match? How many people download Poker Face to their phones and how many will go to a Lady Gaga show next year? Why does a song get massive while the other don't? Does this means that one is better than the other? Is this enough to call something a success and something not? IMO this isn't enough. But at the same time, popularity also means quality (or a huge fraud), and how many people review the whole LOTR trilogy around the world while they stopped in DoS or even in AUJ? Take Doug Walker for example. Anyway, it's just opinions, and tastes.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Sep 7 2016, 3:15am
Post #50 of 92
(1234 views)
Shortcut
|
IMO = in my opinion
IMHO = in my humble opionion
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
|
|
|
|
|
