Repeat-Viewings anyone?

What do you think of Tolkien on the silver screen...? Whether Bakshi, Jackson, Amazon, BBC radio play, or whoever else, come on in and discuss your reflections, opinions, and memories...

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby siddharth » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:19 am

Jotnar - you may be somewhat right but I am not sure it is entirely correct.
There are plenty of TORCers here who knew Tolkien decades before the films came. And some of them love it to pieces. As an example, OB- Old Begonia that is, saw FotR 37 times! :shock: I cannot even imagine that. :lol:. And she was introduced to Tolkien first, I assure you. Then there is Voronwe.
And Vana. And boots, Calma, Sable, FT (don't know if he liked DoS or not though) And a lot many more like these who like the films and are just not posting specifically here.
User avatar
siddharth
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:13 am
Location: ===Always changing===
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:38 am

jotnar wrote:@Gorthaur the Cruel
If it was solely "Bad, bad, bad! If I don't like it, it's bad!", then I could sympathise with your objection, but that is not the case. There is a surfeit of exposition on why the films are bad, not simply dismissive declamations that the films are bad. I am frequently puzzled by how people who express their love for Tolkien's written word can be so effusive about films that so distort the source material, in plot and, especially, tone.

I wanted Tolkien on film, not Brooks. :)

There is no (zero, nada) "exposition" or critical analysis of what makes the films bad by Wildwood, jotnar, and tbh I haven't seen any from you. I have seen opinion and reaction dressed up as objectivity but the fundamental point that you consistently avoid facing is that on its own merits, as an action blockbuster, it is massively successful. It is a good film. It is a good adaptation. The box office figures prove this.

As a Tolkien fan with the (apparently rare) ability to watch the films and accept them on their own terms, I'm frequently puzzled by other fans' inability to judge the films by any measure other than those by which they esteem the books. It's not the same experience.
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby jotnar » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:55 am

@Gorthaur the Cruel
The Shawshank Redemption did poorly at the Box Office, yet now it is generally regarded as a great film. Performance at the Box Office is not necessarily an indicator of a "good film". The fact that The Hobbit films have been successful in generation theatre revenue proves nothing, except that they are successful at generating revenue. To use Wildwood's analogy, so are cheeseburgers, but they add little to gastronomy.

And to add; I don't just dislike the films as representations of the literature they are sourced from, but as films. I find the (expanded) plotlines generic, the pacing dreadful, and the set-pieces boring (and ridiculous). None of that is because they are (or are not!) Tolkien.

@siddharth
I was careful not to deny that people who came to the films via the books cannot like, or even love, the films, merely that it is more likely that those who were introduced to Tolkien via the films would (naturally, I think) find their imagining of Tolkien's world filtered through PJ's vision, and so would be more readily accepting of PJ's Hobbit as "Tolkienesque". :)
User avatar
jotnar
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:59 am

jotnar wrote:@Gorthaur the Cruel
The Shawshank Redemption did poorly at the Box Office, yet now it is generally regarded as a great film. Performance at the Box Office is not necessarily an indicator of a "good film". The fact that The Hobbit films have been successful in generation theatre revenue proves nothing, except that they are successful at generating revenue. To use Wildwood's analogy, so are cheeseburgers, but they add little to gastronomy.

You're still avoiding the single point that matters, jotnar. The Shawshank Redemption was not an action blockbuster. On its own terms, as an action blockbuster, The Hobbit is a good film and a good adaptation. We know this because its single measure of success is pretty healthy. It might not suit your particular taste in films but that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to satisfy massive audiences and make hundreds of millions of dollars. Cheeseburgers, likewise, are made to sell in their millions. They may not be to your taste, but they're pretty darned successful at being cheeseburgers.

jotnar wrote:And to add; I don't just dislike the films as representations of the literature they are sourced from, but as films. I find the (expanded) plotlines generic, the pacing dreadful, and the set-pieces boring (and ridiculous). None of that is because they are (or are not!) Tolkien.

"Expanded" from what? Your list of dislikes are all personal opinion, jotnar, not critical facts. Plenty of people found the set pieces exciting and fun, and possibly ridiculous, and possibly fun because they were ridiculous.

What evidence is there that the plotline, pacing and set-pieces are not good, solid, action blockbuster fayre? I ask, because, up to now, I've only seen your justification for such complaints expressed in terms of their difference to the book.
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby jotnar » Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:22 am

Well, to reiterate, I have no problems with Blockbusters; I've chomped popcorn through enough of them. I could accept The Lord of the Rings receiving the blockbuster treatment, even if the final result was not to my taste, because Lord of the Rings is of a magnitude to fit the form. Three films were ideal, because they accorded with how the tale was published.

But not The Hobbit. This slight, intimate tale is ill-served by the blockbuster, three film approach. Including everything from the book, as the book is written, would not help. It would simply create a very long, and boring, experience. That is why there are screenwriters.

And I feel a good screnewriter would have edited down the written word, changed some minor details, and added scenes sparingly for explanation, having no author's narrative. This, alas for me, was not PJ's direction, and the story suffers terribly. To "puff out" the novel has necessitated extensive invention, and I don't find they work in propelling the central narrative. Again, I can only comment from my own perspective, but I have found the screenplay poor, with clunky dialogue, ridiculous additions such as omnipresent orcs and physics defying gold statues, and the most distracting for me, a serious lack of any impression of space and the passage of time. Whilst Tolkien's world feels "real", PJ's doesn't, and that is a signal failure of a film, even a blockbuster.

Just because the genre is "fantasy" doesn't mean that there are no intrinsic Laws of Nature.

I have a feeling turning The Hobbit into a cheeseburger would have offended Professor Tolkien just as much as it offends me. :D
User avatar
jotnar
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:32 am

Wildwood wrote:You know - I don't lose patience with anyone who sings PJ's praises, or loves the movies all to pieces. I really do not comprehend why it provokes people so much when I do not share their delight in the films!


Wildwood, my friend, I can not recall ever seeing a post from you that I thought was even remotely provoking. You express your own opinion, and never ever try to imply that your opinion is better than others, or more right, or an indication that your love of Tolkien is more pure than others who have a different opinion.

Unlike others.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby siddharth » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:35 am

What he ^ said Wildy! :D :D :D
:hug:
User avatar
siddharth
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:13 am
Location: ===Always changing===
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby darthgandalf99 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:44 am

Gorthaur the Cruel wrote:
Wildwood wrote:I am not contending that they are bad movies. I am just saying....they could be equally well done and stay closer to the stories as written! This is an opinion that fire cannot burn out of me!

I don't think they could be equally well done. They wouldn't be funded, so they wouldn't be made at all. If we want (and clearly we do, as an audience, because we pay to watch it) authentic detail in the costumes and sets, realistic-looking monsters, and visceral excitement, then we have to make do with these blockbuster films.

I would like to watch a film of a much more low-key and faithful adaptation of the books, foregoing the CGI and hero swords, sweeping vistas and model cities, focused on relating the story and rendering the dialogue that Tolkien wrote, but I think it's safer for studios to stump up the $500m PJ needed to make The Hobbit than the $50m a faithful rendition might require because the RoI is assured.

We've got what we've got and I'm happy to enjoy it as it is without worrying about its shortcomings in relation to the books, which it is not intended to visually replicate.


Come now, of course movies closer to the book would be funded. In fact movies closer to the book were funded: the original duology which was green-lit by the studios before PJ expanded to a trilogy mid-production.

Some of the biggest deviations from Tolkien's plot, which I, myself, (a big fan of the LOTR films and Tolkien's novels) have had trouble enjoying, are purely a function of the choice to expand to three films. The extended fight between the Company and the orcs at the end of the AUJ was a direct result of that decision, in order to create a "appropriate" climax for film one. In DOS, though I expect to have it confirmed in the director's commentary, I suspect the extended battle in the smithies of Erebor has been added or at least included so extensively, so as to create the necessary action climax for film 2. If the original two-film format was retained, I fail to see how much of that material wouldn't have ended up on the cutting room floor. If those scenes were anywhere but the climax of the film, much of that extended action would simply be pace-dragging. The other scene I had issue with in DOS was the barrel chase, which doesn't really *do* anything and is really just action filler, I wonder whether that would be included so extensively, if at all, if we only had two films.

I can certainly enjoy the films as they are, and there is such a huge audience to please, not everyone in going to be satisfied, nevertheless I find it hard to argue that the 2 ---> 3 film decision didn't induce some faultlines which could have avoided.
User avatar
darthgandalf99
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:47 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Wildwood » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:56 am

Thanks Sid and V!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Good to know that I am understood! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Gorthaur - when I read your post about negativity, I got a mental picture of Robin Hood: Men In Tights, the scene were the Sheriff is trying to deliver really bad news to the King, but in a good news kind of way! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Wildwood
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3938
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2000 9:59 am
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:59 am

jotnar wrote:Well, to reiterate, I have no problems with Blockbusters; I've chomped popcorn through enough of them. I could accept The Lord of the Rings receiving the blockbuster treatment, even if the final result was not to my taste, because Lord of the Rings is of a magnitude to fit the form. Three films were ideal, because they accorded with how the tale was published.

But not The Hobbit. This slight, intimate tale is ill-served by the blockbuster, three film approach.

How The Lord of the Rings was published is surely a comment on how the films stack up against the books, no? In the case of LotR, you understand the treatment it received because (if I can extrapolate "magnitude") it is, by nature, epic. (I think this is solely an argument for telling the story across three films, not for giving it the blockbuster treatment but...)

The Hobbit: "this slight, intimate tale" (not sure I agree with that assessment given the scale of the journey and the undertaking, the different cultures and civilisations visited, the fabulous beings and terrible threats encountered, the sheer history of it all, the kingdom - KINGDOM! - under a mountain, tremendous wealth, a dispossessed people, a massive battle, not to mention (ok, to mention) an actual dragon! I'm pretty sure the book is interpreted in epic, blockbuster terms by its intended audience who find it exciting, thrilling and fun) still represents an evaluation of the film by what the book means to you.


jotnar wrote:Including everything from the book, as the book is written, would not help. It would simply create a very long, and boring, experience. That is why there are screenwriters.

But a moment ago you called it "slight". It is true, as this reviewer observes, that "the book is shorter than the story," but Peter Jackson's vision (and bear in mind, there's no one else at the table here; it's PJ or the film doesn't get made) is of all the events going on in Middle-earth at this time, similar to the view Tolkien took after he'd written The Lord of the Rings.

jotnar wrote:And I feel a good screnewriter would have edited down the written word, changed some minor details, and added scenes sparingly for explanation, having no author's narrative. This, alas for me, was not PJ's direction, and the story suffers terribly.

But, jotnar, that's not the description of a $500m major Hollywood blockbuster, which is what this film had to be or it wouldn't've been made. You're pining for something that could never have been because nobody would fund that film.

The story might suffer terribly for you (once more judged in comparison with the "written word") but you know my response to that. Personally I think the story is being told largely intact (i.e. the journey of Bilbo and the dwarves, the White Council deliberations and the rise of Sauron), though obviously with some major additions (Tauriel, Elves in Esgaroth, the dwarven forges), some character tweaking (very normal in adaptations) and some time compression, but that's just my opinion.


jotnar wrote:To "puff out" the novel has necessitated extensive invention, and I don't find they work in propelling the central narrative. Again, I can only comment from my own perspective, but I have found the screenplay poor, with clunky dialogue, ridiculous additions such as omnipresent orcs and physics defying gold statues, and the most distracting for me, a serious lack of any impression of space and the passage of time. Whilst Tolkien's world feels "real", PJ's doesn't, and that is a signal failure of a film, even a blockbuster.

Again, your complaints about the film are completely based on your perceptions of "the novel". Personally I think clunky dialogue (from Star Wars to Inception) is a badge of honour for action blockbusters ("You can type this, George, but you can't say it"). It's an unarguable fact that a production line of drones, for the killing thereof, is a necessity in them. The Matrix was conceived of physics-defying stunts. The compression of space and time to fit plot is also par for the course as long as you can tell the characters are somewhere other than where they were before. I suspect all of the achievements you list contribute significantly to the film's astonishing success as an action blockbuster.

jotnar wrote:Just because the genre is "fantasy" doesn't mean that there are no intrinsic Laws of Nature.

Quite right. It's because it's an action blockbuster that there are no intrinsic laws of nature.

jotnar wrote:I have a feeling turning The Hobbit into a cheeseburger would have offended Professor Tolkien just as much as it offends me. :D

I have a feeling he'd've taken it at face value but we'll never know, will we?
Last edited by Gorthaur the Cruel on Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:14 am

darthgandalf99 wrote:Come now, of course movies closer to the book would be funded. In fact movies closer to the book were funded: the original duology which was green-lit by the studios before PJ expanded to a trilogy mid-production.

Well, we never saw that film so we don't know for sure whether it would have satisfied Wildwood's desires. Based on PJ's LotR treatment I would suspect not. I'm pretty sure the basic elements (excluding maybe the forge sequence) that Wildwood objects to were there in the two-film treatment. Certainly, the White Council, Tauriel/Kili, I would guess the barrel ride, and I'm sure the re-characterisations (Gandalf, Bard, the Master of Laketown, etc.), were all in there. So, no - I don't think the "closer to book" film that Wildwood desires would have been funded.
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:16 am

Wildwood wrote:Gorthaur - when I read your post about negativity, I got a mental picture of Robin Hood: Men In Tights, the scene were the Sheriff is trying to deliver really bad news to the King, but in a good news kind of way! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I haven't seen the film, Wildwood, so I don't know if your comment is intended as an insult, sorry.
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby jotnar » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:30 am

@ Gorthaur
Yes, I agree. It really is such a pity that PJ's blockbuster Lord of the Rings so queered the pitch for The Hobbit. Rather than getting this slight tale of a a hobbit's adventures set in a wide, rich world, the audience receives a wide, not so rich world lumbered with PJ inventions, into which the adventures of the hobbit are clumsily inserted.

In this case, PJ plus Blockbuster does not equal The Hobbit, nor a particularly good blockbuster, irrespective of success at the box-office. But I accept that is purely dependent on my own aesthetic sensibilities. :)

By the way, I think comparing The Hobbit to The Matrix is a mistake. The gravity-defying and impossible stunts don't happen in "real world", but when the protagonists are plugged into the matrix, and any laws of Nature in the matrix are mutable. The laws of Nature in Middle Earth, however, are not.
User avatar
jotnar
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Wildwood » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:43 am

Gorthaur!!! Absolutely NOT an insult! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D One thing you can count on from me, and that is I will never ever insult anyone here! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I am a very firm believer in "to each his own"!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D DOS movies work for you. It doesn't work for me. We can - and hopefully will - discuss it til the cows come home! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D But I will never attack anyone for not seeing things my way. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I have always been in the minority where the films are concerned. (In some cases, a minority of ONE! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ) I do not equate a differing opinion to an attack on my own. It's not about convincing people to see things my way! It's more just sharing what I see, recognizing what others see, and enjoying the interaction with other Tolkien fans from all over the world! (Thank you, internet!) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

As for the reference.... Robin Hood: Men In Tights is a Mel Brooks parody of the Robin Hood legend. One of the most hilarious films ever!!! And there is one scene in which the Sheriff of Nottingham has rushed in to deliver some bad news to Prince John. But Prince John is in no mood for more bad news, so he commands that it be delivered in a good way. :D :D :D :D :D :D So then the poor Sheriff tries to deliver it in a relaxed, casual, happy-anecdote kind of way, and the results are just hilarious! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

That popped into my head, because I was trying to figure out how I could speak about what I don't like about DOS, without sounding like I just don't like DOS! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Ah well! One of those "you had to be there" moments! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Once again - you can rest assured that I will never attack or insult you just because you have a difference of opinion to mine!! Your ideas and thoughts and feelings are all as valid as mine! Room for us all, yes? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Wildwood
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3938
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2000 9:59 am
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:02 am

jotnar wrote:By the way, I think comparing The Hobbit to The Matrix is a mistake. The gravity-defying and impossible stunts don't happen in "real world", but when the protagonists are plugged into the matrix, and any laws of Nature in the matrix are mutable. The laws of Nature in Middle Earth, however, are not.

No, I appreciate that. Bad example. In blockbusters, though, the laws of physics are broken all the time through stunt work and special effects - protagonists surviving explosions or bullet wounds, getting up and fighting on after a mortal beating, landing just right after jumping out of a plane with no parachute, delayed action stabbings, etc. In PJ's Middle-earth there is magic going off left, right and centre. There is also mithril and the dwarves' extraordinary skill in metalwork. For the pay-off of seeing Smaug shake that molten gold off his back in a fury, I'll suspend disbelief for a moment and accept that the gold statue had formed a weak crust on the outside. To me that's what blockbusters do - that's what I expect; that and all the tired clichés like kicking the key off the cliff edge (yeah, I still fell for it and gasped).
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Wildwood » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:20 am

Gorthaur, you are also correct that the film I want to see could never get funded, because they just don't make 47 hours movies! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I don't discuss the movies from ANY other perspective except that of how the movie story deviates from the book story! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D You are obviously coming at it from a different direction, and that is fine! But for me, it will always be about the story in the book, and whether it got to the screen or not! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

As for AUJ, there was all that extra stuff, but I felt the story got to the screen more or less intact! I am no fan of most of the changes, but I was not disconnected from the book story at any point. There was no time that I couldn't draw the lines back to something in the books, which explained what I was seeing! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D But with DOS, there are disconnects - direct contradictions - and pointless fabrications - all over the place! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I gave up trying to tie it back to the book, and basically just fumed through the rest of it. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Keep I mind, what is pointless to me may be very pointy to someone else! I am talking of my own feeling here, not how everybody ought to feel! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

If I had never read the books, could I have loved the film? There is no way to answer that, because I am so steeped in the books that I can't even imagine not have read them. And having read them, about a 100 times by now, and loved them more than any other work ever, I can't possibly look at any other work purporting to be based on them, and NOT expect a walking talking reproduction of what is in the books! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

So going in, automatically, the films are going to fail for me, in that respect, because what I want is not really possible! But I was aware of that, and tried to manage it as much as I could. AUJ got to me! I was enchanted while watching it. DOS didn't get to me until the conversation with Smaug! For those few moments of Bilbo speaking with Smaug, I was able to imagine the book had got up and acted itself out for me, to a small extent. There was the constant distraction of the ring, but I was so captivated by MF and BC that I was able to hush that little voice up for a while.(Less said about that Arkenstone nonsense, the better!) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

And then they went and did the dwarves vs Smaug thing, and lost me entirely! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D The gold thing was really pretty to see, but it irritated me that they were somehow able to get long cold forges fired up so easily, and that said forges just happened to be full of enough gold to make the statue, and that said gold managed to melt to liquid in about a minute! But there is a live dragon, with an amazing voice, stalking around the room, so am I really going to get upset about the physical properties of gold in ME? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Yeah - I am. But only because...it wasn't in the book! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Oh- before I forget! Another moment that I was actually able to let go and just enjoy the story was the scene with Beorn! I didn't mind how he looked. I got a real Hobbit feeling from it. It was too short, but I recognized it, what it was supposed to be! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Wildwood
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3938
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2000 9:59 am
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby heliona » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:30 am

jotnar wrote:Too many years ago, my elder sister read my copy of Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara and she waxed lyrically about it. But she had never read Lord of the Rings. I thought the book a most suspect enterprise, veering perilously close to plagiarism. The overall feel was "Tolkienesque" without coming close to reaching the heights of the Professor's work.


Just going back to this point, I heartedly agree with it. I read Sword of Shannara several years ago, after having read another of the Shannara series (one of the prequels, I suspect it was First King of Shannara) and it was such a blatant rip-off of LotR that I read it open-mouthed. He couldn't even be bothered to be inventive with the names. Wikipedia says it is "heavily derived" from LotR, but I'm frankly surprised by how it got away with being published.

I was introduced to Tolkien's world via The Hobbit twenty-seven years ago, so I'm definitely approaching the films from a book point of view. Thirteen years ago, there was an experiment on TORC to try to fit the LotR books to a screenplay and see how long it would be, without leaving anything out. I wrote the script for one of the chapters ("The Riders of Rohan"). Doing that exercise made me realise just how much would have to be cut and altered for the LotR films to make it into cinemas (my chapter alone took up 45 minutes). I suspect because of that, I was tolerant of most of the changes made in the LotR films, and I really do love them overall.

The Hobbit films I'm less tolerant of. I can understand the additional material regarding the White Council (although some of it makes no sense to me at all - the Witch King being entombed, for instance). I can't understand some random changes to dialogue and I really wish they kept to the book in some circumstances. Because The Hobbit is a much shorter book, I don't see why there needed to be so many changes, although I'm sure that PJ & Co. had their legitimate reasons, and I look forward to hearing them, hopefully on the commentary track of the Extended Editions. I'm also sure that I'll grow to love these films as they stand.

I said elsewhere that they have made me appreciate the original source material even more, and for that alone, I have to give thanks to Peter Jackson. :)

Back on topic! :P

As for watching DoS again. Well, ideally I'd like to see it again at the cinema (in 2D this time) but I somehow don't think we'll get the chance. So then I'll have to wait until the EE comes out on DVD (because, yes, I will be buying it :D ). :)
Image<-- Celebrating Science in the TVM!

Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for the might-have-beens. - Arthur Ransome

Just because I have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor doesn't mean I'm not a lady.

In Memoriam EDW - March 14th 2009
In Memoriam rowanberry - March 1st 2014 (~In Memoriam AHH - Alfred Lord Tennyson~)

Photos: My Flickr Photo Collections & Wee Nell - the furry ball of mischief!


(I occasionally post as White Shadow - you've been warned!)

New posters, there's a Welcome and Comprehensive Guide to the Messageboard to answer your questions.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10531
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby siddharth » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:09 am

Wow. Is there a doc file or link to that project heliona?

I gotta say all the spoilery updates helped me enjoy it as a film as I was in no way expecting a good adaptation . I had actually sworn just after AUJ was released that I won't see TABA
if they mess up with anything in the Mirkwood sequence (my favorite) - I mean ditto to the book just as Wildy wants it. :D

Then as spoiler updates came in I finally gave up on that expectation to see a true adaptation of the book itself. Anyway, the rest; I found out each and every spoilery detail and so in the end was not in the least bothered by any changes as such. (I must thank the HoF for the updates though. Helped je a lot! :D )
User avatar
siddharth
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:13 am
Location: ===Always changing===
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby heliona » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:48 am

siddharth wrote:Wow. Is there a doc file or link to that project heliona?


Sadly, I don't think so. Jonathan might have copies of it, but it was back in 2000, several incarnations of the messageboard ago, and it was when it was tolkienonline.com. (Incidentally, the messageboard was known as The White Council when we were tolkienonline.com, which is where the WCA (White Council Awards) come from. :) )

I've managed to find the main webpage on the Wayback Machine Archive, but they don't archive individual forums, so sadly, I suspect it is lost forever, unless some oldbie was more forward-thinking than I and saved the threads. I've still got my work, amazingly enough, saved on a floppy disk. :shock:
Image<-- Celebrating Science in the TVM!

Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for the might-have-beens. - Arthur Ransome

Just because I have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor doesn't mean I'm not a lady.

In Memoriam EDW - March 14th 2009
In Memoriam rowanberry - March 1st 2014 (~In Memoriam AHH - Alfred Lord Tennyson~)

Photos: My Flickr Photo Collections & Wee Nell - the furry ball of mischief!


(I occasionally post as White Shadow - you've been warned!)

New posters, there's a Welcome and Comprehensive Guide to the Messageboard to answer your questions.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10531
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Gorthaur the Cruel » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:58 am

siddharth wrote:Then as spoiler updates came in I finally gave up on that expectation to see a true adaptation of the book itself. Anyway, the rest; I found out each and every spoilery detail and so in the end was not in the least bothered by any changes as such. (I must thank the HoF for the updates though. Helped je a lot! :D )

I think this may have worked for me, too; only in relation to the Tauriel/Kili relationship, though. I didn't really know what to expect and I didn't have a lot of faith that Philippa Boyens (who, rightly or wrongly, I believed most likely to be responsible) would handle it at all well. When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised at how well they presented it (except Kili's delirious speech, which was terrible but I write it off as a necessity in a kids' film to make sure they get it), so thanks to spoilers for that.
Last edited by Gorthaur the Cruel on Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gorthaur the Cruel
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:32 am
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby siddharth » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:40 pm

Well, all the spoilers helped ne to get over

-- Kili/Tauriel. Which I agree was majorly underplayed.
- barrels
- Beorn's design (I actually quite like the look now!)
-the orc interrogation (they released that clip early, which I saw)
-Changes to Bard.
-and reports of the last 30 minutes being dragged on. ( though the gold statue was unexpected and totally a pleasant surprise)


the only bit I was unaware of was the laketown attack. Which ended up being the worst scene for me.
User avatar
siddharth
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:13 am
Location: ===Always changing===
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby jotnar » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:49 pm

siddharth wrote:Well, all the spoilers helped ne to get over

-- Kili/Tauriel. Which I agree was majorly underplayed.
- barrels
- Beorn's design (I actually quite like the look now!)
-the orc interrogation (they released that clip early, which I saw)
-Changes to Bard.
-and reports of the last 30 minutes being dragged on. ( though the gold statue was unexpected and totally a pleasant surprise)


the only bit I was unaware of was the laketown attack. Which ended up being the worst scene for me.

My goodness! When has a trip to the cinema ever before needed a process of desensitisation? :D
User avatar
jotnar
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Wildwood » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:43 pm

Sid, I avoided spoilers purposely, in the hopes it would help me just experience the movies for what they are, and allow them to be just what they are! It worked with AUJ. But it was a miserable failure with DOS! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D One person even sort of jokingly spoiled the whole Kili/Tauriel thing to me, but I honestly thought it was a joke!!! And then - there it was! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D So I don't know whether knowing some of this stuff going in would have helped me or not. It may well have just kept me home! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I have decided to finish out the trilogy though, just because! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I am going this time expecting to utterly despise and hate it! I think open-mindedness is probably long gone at this point! I am too suspicious of so many things now, and they've done so many things I never would have dreamed up! I just don't trust it anymore! But at least I will be able to say I went! I did it!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Wildwood
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3938
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2000 9:59 am
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:38 pm

Gorthaur the Cruel wrote:I think this may have worked for me, too; only in relation to the Tauriel/Kili relationship, though. I didn't really know what to expect and I didn't have a lot of faith that Philippa Boyens (who, rightly or wrongly, I believed most likely to be responsible) would handle it at all well. When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised at how well they presented it (except Kili's delirious speech, which was terrible but I write it off as a necessity in a kids' film to make sure they get it), so thanks to spoilers for that.


I think the Tauriel/Kili conversation about starlight is the single best piece of dialog not directed based on Tolkien written by the filmmakers in any of the five films so far. Of course, it really is based on Tolkien, though it arguably could be considered a loose copyright violation as I don't believe there is anything in the books that they have rights to that relates to the Elves' love of starlight. A lovely scene nonetheless, equally well-written by the scriptwriters and well-performed by both actors (though I could have done without the gratuitous shot of Legolas at the end.

jotnar wrote:My goodness! When has a trip to the cinema ever before needed a process of desensitisation?


Is it really necessary for you to include an insult in every post you make? I wish you would take a cue from Wildwood, who manages to be the most extreme purist in the history of the world, and yet never feels the need to insult other people who are just as passionate as she is, but look at things with regard to adaptation differently than she does.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby jotnar » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:54 pm

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
jotnar wrote:My goodness! When has a trip to the cinema ever before needed a process of desensitisation?


Is it really necessary for you to include an insult in every post you make? I wish you would take a cue from Wildwood, who manages to be the most extreme purist in the history of the world, and yet never feels the need to insult other people who are just as passionate as she is, but look at things with regard to adaptation differently than she does.

Voronwe, why did you leave the "grin" emoticon ( :D ) from your quoting from me?

Now, I seriously don't understand your issues with me. How do I "include an insult in every post" I make? I have noticed that the only personalised insult I have experienced here is from you, when you accused me of not understanding The Hobbit because I interpreted the Master differently from you.

My comment to siddharth was a joking reference to his having "flooded" himself with spoilers, and the consequent amelioration of the effects of the changes on him. Perhaps my humour is not to your taste, but I feel no need to apologise. Your repetitive sniping and self-aggrandising has become grating, and although loathe to criticise, I find such approach has an unwelcome prevalence in your published work.

If you have formulated criticisms to make of my analyses, then I welcome them with open arms. If all you have to offer is snide commentary, then I request you keep this to yourself.

Best regards.

J
User avatar
jotnar
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby heliona » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:57 pm

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:I think the Tauriel/Kili conversation about starlight is the single best piece of dialog not directed based on Tolkien written by the filmmakers in any of the five films so far. Of course, it really is based on Tolkien, though it arguably could be considered a loose copyright violation as I don't believe there is anything in the books that they have rights to that relates to the Elves' love of starlight. A lovely scene nonetheless, equally well-written by the scriptwriters and well-performed by both actors (though I could have done without the gratuitous shot of Legolas at the end.


I agree - I really liked that conversation.

Regarding the love of starlight by the elves, I think it is hinted to in Lord of the Rings such as when Gildor and his company feast and sing when the "Swordsman of the Sky, Menelvagor with his shining belt" rises above the horizon. Of course, there's Galadriel and her phial with the light of Eärendil's star. But of course, the feast under the stars isn't mentioned or hinted at at all.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
jotnar wrote:My goodness! When has a trip to the cinema ever before needed a process of desensitisation?


Is it really necessary for you to include an insult in every post you make? I wish you would take a cue from Wildwood, who manages to be the most extreme purist in the history of the world, and yet never feels the need to insult other people who are just as passionate as she is, but look at things with regard to adaptation differently than she does.


I don't think what jotnar posted was insulting. He was merely making a point that feeling a need to desensitise yourself before going to see a film isn't really a good sign with regards the film. I really don't understand how that one sentence could be construed as insulting. :?
Image<-- Celebrating Science in the TVM!

Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for the might-have-beens. - Arthur Ransome

Just because I have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor doesn't mean I'm not a lady.

In Memoriam EDW - March 14th 2009
In Memoriam rowanberry - March 1st 2014 (~In Memoriam AHH - Alfred Lord Tennyson~)

Photos: My Flickr Photo Collections & Wee Nell - the furry ball of mischief!


(I occasionally post as White Shadow - you've been warned!)

New posters, there's a Welcome and Comprehensive Guide to the Messageboard to answer your questions.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10531
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:05 pm

heliona wrote:I don't think what jotnar posted was insulting. He was merely making a point that feeling a need to desensitise yourself before going to see a film isn't really a good sign with regards the film. I really don't understand how that one sentence could be construed as insulting. :?


It is a passive/aggressive way of insulting people who look at things differently that he does, like Sidd, or myself, who realize that an adaptation is likely to have significant differences and know that the best way for us to appreciate that adaptation is to know what the differences are to a large degree so that rather than focusing on that, we can appreciate the film rather than being distracted by focusing on the differences. It has nothing to do with "desensitizing" which is a very insulting way of putting it, and completely different than what Sidd said. And the smiley face just makes it worse, because it is just a way of saying "ha, ha, I'm just joking, so you can't possibly get offended."

And with that, I bid you adieu.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby jotnar » Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:23 pm

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
heliona wrote:I don't think what jotnar posted was insulting. He was merely making a point that feeling a need to desensitise yourself before going to see a film isn't really a good sign with regards the film. I really don't understand how that one sentence could be construed as insulting. :?


It is a passive/aggressive way of insulting people who look at things differently that he does, like Sidd, or myself, who realize that an adaptation is likely to have significant differences and know that the best way for us to appreciate that adaptation is to know what the differences are to a large degree so that rather than focusing on that, we can appreciate the film rather than being distracted by focusing on the differences. It has nothing to do with "desensitizing" which is a very insulting way of putting it, and completely different than what Sidd said. And the smiley face just makes it worse, because it is just a way of saying "ha, ha, I'm just joking, so you can't possibly get offended."

And with that, I bid you adieu.

This was sidd's post that I responded to:
siddharth wrote:Well, all the spoilers helped ne to get over

-- Kili/Tauriel. Which I agree was majorly underplayed.
- barrels
- Beorn's design (I actually quite like the look now!)
-the orc interrogation (they released that clip early, which I saw)
-Changes to Bard.
-and reports of the last 30 minutes being dragged on. ( though the gold statue was unexpected and totally a pleasant surprise)


the only bit I was unaware of was the laketown attack. Which ended up being the worst scene for me.


"Spoilers helping me get over" is fairly represented in a single world summation as "desensitising", and my smiley face was intended as showing sidd that I was sharing a joke with him. My humour, not Voronwe's, but innocent nonetheless.

As for this cardboard cut-out of my understanding of film, I think I have given ample evidence of my knowledge of the cinematic process, and how screenplays need to differ from the source books. Heck, I've even commented on how "An Unexpected Party" requires editing down for film, and which I personally undertook when I edited PJ's AUJ. So this attack on me for not appreciating the need for differences bears all the hallmarks of a straw man argument.

To be honest, I am somewhat taken aback by the pettiness of your attack, Voronwe. I expected better. (no emoticon).
User avatar
jotnar
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby heliona » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:23 pm

Well, from my point of view, I don't view that remark as insulting or passive-aggressive in any way. Perhaps it boils down to a cultural thing? (I believe that jotnar is British.) At the end of the day, it seems to me that enough has been said on this subject and it should now be dropped. I'm sure if sidd is offended, he will comment on it.

I think a difference of opinion is going to have to declared and we all move on.

Regarding the original topic, has anyone's opinion changed dramatically from repeat viewings? I don't believe mine did from repeat viewings of The Lord of the Rings films, but I liked them more upon a first viewing than I did The Hobbit films. I've only seen AUJ three times (twice the theatrical version and once the extended) and DoS once so I can't comment on those films yet.
Image<-- Celebrating Science in the TVM!

Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for the might-have-beens. - Arthur Ransome

Just because I have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor doesn't mean I'm not a lady.

In Memoriam EDW - March 14th 2009
In Memoriam rowanberry - March 1st 2014 (~In Memoriam AHH - Alfred Lord Tennyson~)

Photos: My Flickr Photo Collections & Wee Nell - the furry ball of mischief!


(I occasionally post as White Shadow - you've been warned!)

New posters, there's a Welcome and Comprehensive Guide to the Messageboard to answer your questions.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10531
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Re: Repeat-Viewings anyone?

Postby Noria » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:25 pm

Dropping in to say…

I first read TH and LotR forty-five years ago and have read them, and The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Lost Tales etc. many, many times since. I love them, especially LotR, more than any other books, though I don’t think them perfect.

But apparently I am not a real fan, because I also love the movies. That may be in part because I am able to separate book and movie in my mind and see the latter as another version, another storyteller’s perception of these stories made visual. I also think they are very fine movies, not flawless but still wonderful. The Hobbit movies are not as great as the LotR trilogy in my opinion but then for me The Hobbit book is simply not LotR.

I went to see FotR spoiler-free and loved it, though I was very conscious of the differences from the book. Since then I have sought out general spoilers for each of these movies, just so I would know before seeing them about most of the changes from the books. That helped me to avoid focusing on what was different and enabled me to concentrate more on and appreciate what was actually before me. There are still choices that Jackson made with which I disagree but that would have happened regardless of who made these movies.

In my opinion, expressed long ago on this forum, the supersizing of The Hobbit was inevitable and since I find The Hobbit rather tame, I’m enjoying it immensely. In my opinion DoS is very good, somewhat better than AUJ. I've seen it four times and appreciated it more each time.

I have problems with the notion of fan edits. In my view the intellectual rights to these movies belong to Peter Jackson and Warner Brothers and one does not buy those rights by buying a digital copy. I know that's an antiquated opinion but it's mine.
Noria
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:43 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Movies and Media: Tolkien

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests