|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 20, 2014 22:00:01 GMT -6
I had a thought today. Maybe everyone else has already had it, but it seemed important at the time. First, a reminder about the history of Middle-earth. You recall that the Hobbit was the first book written, and that it was a smash hit as a children's story. Tolkien was then tasked to write essentially "Hobbit II" -- another children's story to be a lighthearted sequel to the first. Years later, what we got was the Lord of the Rings, which is a great epic but it wasn't Hobbit II. I think that's the problem with the way folks look at the movies, only in reverse. Lord of the Rings was the first sequence of movies made, and they were a great epic of a tale which spanned three movies. People cheered and said "if only Peter Jackson could also make the Hobbit!" Only, instead of the children's story which would mirror the book, Peter Jackson made "LotR II" as a great epic prequel to his earlier film trilogy. In other words, I'm thinking that people are dis-satisfied with the Hobbit trilogy because they are looking for one thing and were delivered another. Reading Tolkien's books is a little strange because the first is so light-hearted, then the rest gets dark and grim. Watching the movies won't have that problem, as the tone of LOTR is essentailly maintianed for all six. In many ways, Jackson's verison of Middle-earth is actually more internally consistent because it maintains the same tone throughout. At least that was the thought that occured to me halfway through watching Hobbit 3 for a seond time.
|
|
benno
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 23
|
Post by benno on Dec 21, 2014 3:41:27 GMT -6
It's been my experience that fans, particularly the fandom found in nerd culture, are notoriously hard to please. A blockbuster movie by definition has to have a reasonable amount of commercial success. It's no wonder that these things don't appeal to the hardcore. It was never the intention to produce for them in the first place. My position is that nobody's taste is entitled over another and that getting outraged at a movie aimed at being a Spielbergian blockbuster is fool's errand.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 21, 2014 7:37:24 GMT -6
I know that many fans won't like things for various reasons. I'm thinking it was because they expected a children's movie and got an adult LotR-thing again.
My real question becomes "is the Hobbit, as viewed through the LotR lens, a worthy prequel?"
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 21, 2014 8:22:24 GMT -6
Good point, Fin.
What has helped this hardcore fan is the notion that this ancient history has many different telling a and variants. Who knows which is more true?
Like midrash, the historian simply weaves what is needed for this particular telling.
What if the movie was "what really happened," and what JRRT wrote down was the kid appropriate version.
Good thinking, Fin. You just saved the movie for me.
Here is my remaining complaint: it is too NS vs OS, too superhero vs hero, too The Matrix vs Bourne Identity.
Thanks, Fin!
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 21, 2014 13:57:24 GMT -6
Most of us knew long ago that these movies would be a PJ Prequel Trilogy rather than a faithful (by any measure) adaptation of The Hobbit. It’s still a shame. A shame that The Hobbit will be associated in many minds with colorless, plotless “badassery” punctuated with buffoonery. A shame that many decades will pass before a faithful adaptation can be done. A shame that some excellent talent (Martin Freeman) was wasted on this travesty ( travesty, travesty, travesty, travesty, travesty…). I’m only chiming in because this thread seems to be specifically about the “nerdragers” (thanks for that, benno and 18 Spears) who, apparently, only have ourselves to blame for having read the books.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Dec 21, 2014 15:07:38 GMT -6
The hobbit is a clear case of fan fiction. People can complain about JRRM not giving readers "what they want" in his SoIaF series, the same could be said of the old professor. What Peter Jackson did was give fans what they wanted. Wanna see the learned lore master Elrond do Kung-fu? Wanna watch Galadriel be bad-ass? He gave it to us. The hobbit movie was to tolkien what 50 shades of grey was to the twilight series (look up the history if you don't know). The hobbit was a D&D film. All of the scenery of tolkien, but none of the feeling. There was a brief moment, at the end where Bilbo is saying goodbye to Gandalf in the woods. A brief moment of how childlike and full of wonder this movie could have been. Inspired I think by this picture by Howe The movie he made was ugly, violent. I personally would not take a child to go see it, ironic for a children's book.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 21, 2014 15:33:58 GMT -6
My daughter in recent months has dived deep into Harry Potter. So as to better talk with her about it, I've started reading the Harry Potter books. I'm about 75% finished with the first one, and the movie is very faithful to the book. If Peter Jackson had made a single, 3-hour Hobbit movie as faithful to The Hobbit as the first Potter movie is to the first Potter book, I think there would be very little complaint.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 21, 2014 16:18:53 GMT -6
The movie he made was ugly, violent. I personally would not take a child to go see it, ironic for a children's book. But that was my very point in this thread. If you think of the Hobbit as an extension of LotR instead of a film of a children't book, I think that changes the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Dec 21, 2014 18:16:46 GMT -6
I don't mind the use of the hobbit as a set up to LotR. Horrible dialogue, horrible acting, CGI cartoons, when clearly they had the budget to do live action, is what I don't like. Would Aragorn's fight with the lead Uruk-hai in the first LotR movie have been improved by a boat-load of CGI? To "tie it into LotR" does it need lots of heads being chopped off in a bloodless cartoon manner? Does the audience feel like anyone's lives are actually in danger? Ever? Literally Bolg and the other orc are CGI...there are no actual villains. Why was Bolg a cartoon? He is an evil Jar-Jar binks character. Where was the real sword fighting that was so good in the first LoTR movie? Would sean beans death have been cooler if CGI orcs shot him instead of actual actors in orc costumes.
Aragorn vs. Uruk-Hai > Thorin vs. Bolg even though we wait 9 hours of film to get to this climactic battle. Viggo Morgenson looks physically exhausted in his fight. He actually, in the most bad-ass way possible, deflects a thrown dagger with his sword, the Uruk-Hai captain actually chops his real sword into a real tree. What does Bolg do? Who cares? Why is anything in that fight scene impressive? What's impressive about 100 computer animators making that ice-floe battle? I've seen stuff just as good in video game intros.
Why was Thorin Oakenshield the hero of this movie and not bilbo? Why did they decide that Thorin Oakenshield would be an Aragorn like figure? Why do all the bad guys have mouth herpes? What's impressive about CGI battles when entire movies can be made in CGI? And on and on and on. The movie isn't bad because it was retro-fitted into LotR (Tolkien did that himself with his 2nd edition rewrite). The movie is bad because it is probably the worst movie I've seen since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
The movie is adam sandler quality. It was George Lucas and the star wars prequels all over again. Bolg was a CGI cartoon because it was the easy way to do it. The whole movie, all 9 hours, was a cop-out.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 21, 2014 22:54:46 GMT -6
cooper is critiquing art and literature. You, 18 Spears, are making ad hominem attacks.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 21, 2014 23:49:42 GMT -6
Would Aragorn's fight with the lead Uruk-hai in the first LotR movie have been improved by a boat-load of CGI? To "tie it into LotR" does it need lots of heads being chopped off in a bloodless cartoon manner? Does the audience feel like anyone's lives are actually in danger? Ever? Literally Bolg and the other orc are CGI...there are no actual villains. Why was Bolg a cartoon? He is an evil Jar-Jar binks character. Where was the real sword fighting that was so good in the first LoTR movie? Would sean beans death have been cooler if CGI orcs shot him instead of actual actors in orc costumes. Aragorn vs. Uruk-Hai > Thorin vs. Bolg even though we wait 9 hours of film to get to this climactic battle. Viggo Morgenson looks physically exhausted in his fight. He actually, in the most bad-ass way possible, deflects a thrown dagger with his sword, the Uruk-Hai captain actually chops his real sword into a real tree. What does Bolg do? Who cares? Why is anything in that fight scene impressive? What's impressive about 100 computer animators making that ice-floe battle? I've seen stuff just as good in video game intros. I, too, strongly prefer live-action to CGI.
|
|
benno
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 23
|
Post by benno on Dec 22, 2014 3:21:46 GMT -6
Most of us knew long ago that these movies would be a PJ Prequel Trilogy rather than a faithful (by any measure) adaptation of The Hobbit. It’s still a shame. A shame that The Hobbit will be associated in many minds with colorless, plotless “badassery” punctuated with buffoonery. A shame that many decades will pass before a faithful adaptation can be done. A shame that some excellent talent (Martin Freeman) was wasted on this travesty ( travesty, travesty, travesty, travesty, travesty…). I’m only chiming in because this thread seems to be specifically about the “nerdragers” (thanks for that, benno and 18 Spears) who, apparently, only have ourselves to blame for having read the books. You're certainly free to interpret it that way. Although, I was talking pretty explicitly about expectations and the entitlement people feel that their expectation should be met over others. The Hobbit was the first book I read cover-to-cover and I enjoyed the films. So I hardly see the need for your passive-aggressive quip. Liking both on different aesthetic terms is not contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 22, 2014 5:59:49 GMT -6
cooper is critiquing art and literature. You, 18 Spears, are making ad hominem attacks. Actually, in this case I sort of agree with 18 Spears. cooper just didn't like the movie. I did. I guess I can get over any/all of his objections and still enjoy the movie. And I can't see any way to rationally compare it to "Adam Sandler level of quality." Well, I'm now officially sorry to have started this thread. I thought I had a new and different take on the movie, but all I see here is the same people repeating the same discussion they've said in other threads.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Dec 22, 2014 6:33:13 GMT -6
The movie is bad because it is probably the worst movie I've seen since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This statement elucidates much. Your problem is not that it's a bad movie; it's that it was a disappointment to you. Crystal Skull wasn't that bad; it was just disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 22, 2014 10:57:33 GMT -6
Finarvyn, brother, I understand you like the movie. That’s cool; no-one has made offensive remarks about people who like the movie.
Whereas people who don’t like the movie are subjected to name-calling and analysis of what their “problem” is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2014 19:36:20 GMT -6
Fee-fi-fo-fum, first, let me probably add that possible notorious broilers will, errrh, play the roles of the dwarves in what might amount to a stunning replay of the dinner scene with the trolls. The trolls, being played by Fin and me. And the dwarves get eaten this time. Second, on the subject, I think that it should not be a fantasy fan's apostolic creed whether one likes mass market products, like the PJ movies were. People complain so much that the movies were overly theatrical, and faithful to the original only in the adaption of the basic narrative frame - when it was perfectly clear from the get-go that this would be prerequisite of the entire production: Quite plainly, and somewhat paradoxically, it was clear from the get-go that So the "Hobbit" movies would not be flicks to watch if you were a fan of the book. - By themselves, and in connection with the first PJ trilogy, "The Hobbit" manages to entertain, if you disregard the very perceivable traces of the tumultuous production. (NLC going nuts, MEE going nuts, directors changing, movie length varying, and on.) - Looking and them for themselves, understanding that the movies are about as far from the books as Terry Gilliam's "Brothers Grimm" was from being a well-researched biopic, I don't think that one can really maintain that the three "Hobbits" were not entertaining. They are their own thing, but they are not outright crap. So far, I've always left the theatres satisfied, if fairly underwhelmed. But that is what one enlists for with modern cinema, I guess. Third, about personal disappointment with classic adaptations in modern media: That's just Hollywood, people! Dracula, V for Vendetta, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, or just Will Smith's terrrrrruble take on "I am Legend". My dad once told me, "that day when you watch TV, and are disappointed, that means that you've become a reader". Well, I guess we all are there now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 6:04:27 GMT -6
*Oh, if you could see the look on my face now. * Esteemed soulless peon and commoner, I was making a, wait for it, joke. I did so because the admin of this community was already in this thread, and if he had seen it fit, you would already have felt the reprimand. I made the joke, to emphasize a friendly warning: Nobody "is getting eaten up", talks "bull", or needs to "calm the heck down" for explaining in detail, and in good measure, what he or she doesn't like about the, I repeat, random product. That's what boards like these are for, after all. The tone of YOUR writing, was, quite simply, too colloquial for a written conversation. In person, no biggie, but it reads like you are shooting him down for having a differing opinion. Don't do that again, or the big bad wolf will be coming down on your house, all huffing and puffing. (Figuratively speaking, of course. I am reading way too many of those "Fables" comics, lately.) That said, you were making a point, you just responded to the wrong conversation. I too think some of the nerdrage on the subject is fairly excessive, and that it tells more about the writer's respective persona than that it really transmits an opinion. But so far, noone here has gone on a diatribe even remotely comparable to the examples I have in mind, so your surely well-meant interjection was in appropriate as of the time being, and you might safe it for another time. To amplify the discussion again, I think the core of the discussion is less about Tolkien, specifically, and more about literature being generally mistreated by Hollywood. Grown-up-oriented cinema in general seems to become a niche phenomenon, as production studios try to cash in on an increasingly illiterate, and increasingly younger base of regular movie goers, and as specific political messages are not necessarily welcome on a changing global market. - For comparison, who here went to see "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", and who went to see "Lincoln"?
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jan 2, 2015 20:52:21 GMT -6
Suppose a director or producer from the late forties, the fifties, the sixties or the seventies had made the Hobbit.
If someone tomorrow was going to discover the lost reels of the Hobbit before the eighties, who would have made it if you had your wish? And who would have starred in it? How long would it have been, and who would have composed the score?
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 5, 2015 20:50:11 GMT -6
How about the creative talent that made Disney’s Sleeping Beauty (1959)? I know Tolkien hated Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) but Sleeping Beauty is IMO in a league all its own; the greatest fantasy movie of all time. I’d have to ponder the question of the score.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 23:17:33 GMT -6
Suppose a director or producer from the late forties, the fifties, the sixties or the seventies had made the Hobbit. Akira Kurosawa
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 6:17:08 GMT -6
Suppose a director or producer from the late forties, the fifties, the sixties or the seventies had made the Hobbit. Stanley KubrickGiven the man's perfectionism and his attention to detail? I do believe he could have made a film even the die-hard fans could have loved. I know I would have loved to see him try. I'm still watching 2001: A Space Odyssey all these years later and I'm still awed by that film. Don't make the leap to thinking, by the way, I didn't like the Jackson's Middle Earth series of films. I enjoyed them very much, but I would love to see a different take on the Hobbit and LotR on film because I feel the story can stand multiple visions. The stories are that good and that layered.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Jan 6, 2015 6:40:06 GMT -6
I think I might've said on here before that if the Hobbit novel is a warm cup of Earl Grey, then the movie is a 22 oz mega-gulp of Mountain Dew. Unfortunately I have no desire to see the third movie, the first (and only) of the six that I didn't see in the theater. Back in the 90's, if you would have told me that someday I'd pass up the chance to see a Tolkien movie in the theater (or anywhere for that matter) I'd never believe it. So I definitely consider myself "disappointed", though I might borrow the DVD from someone someday.
In regards to what Fin mentioned above, I think there is a nice transition from The Hobbit->Fellowship of the Ring->Two Towers->Return of the King (written out here like it was some kind of epic Grateful Dead jam). The first part of Fellowship maintains some of the innocence and whimsy of the Hobbit, then things gradually darken until they reach the Aragorn's Climatic Battle/Frodo's Mordor Death March of the final book.
I remember that Benicio Del Toro was originally attached to the Hobbit movie (I think it was just one movie back then). That would have been interesting.
Edit: On second thought my apathy regarding the new movie is so much so that I don't really care enough to be disappointed. Edit 2: Guillermo not Benicio. Got my bulls confused.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 6, 2015 14:54:44 GMT -6
Unfortunately I have no desire to see the third movie, the first (and only) of the six that I didn't see in the theater. Unfortunate, because in my opinion the 3rd Hobbit movie is the best of the trilogy. I think it has nice transition to the LotR movies. A friend of mine saw Hobbit 3 with me the other day (my third viewing, his first) and his comment was something like, "I don't know why the critics didn't like this movie. It's just one three-hour battle scene."
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 6, 2015 15:22:15 GMT -6
Sleeping Beauty is IMO in a league all its own; the greatest fantasy movie of all time. For me it's Ray Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jan 6, 2015 17:48:03 GMT -6
Suppose a director or producer from the late forties, the fifties, the sixties or the seventies had made the Hobbit. Stanley KubrickGiven the man's perfectionism and his attention to detail? I do believe he could have made a film even the die-hard fans could have loved. I know I would have loved to see him try. I'm still watching 2001: A Space Odyssey all these years later and I'm still awed by that film. Don't make the leap to thinking, by the way, I didn't like the Jackson's Middle Earth series of films. I enjoyed them very much, but I would love to see a different take on the Hobbit and LotR on film because I feel the story can stand multiple visions. The stories are that good and that layered. I can actually imagine this! Even though I know Kubrick would have probably added his own vision--still, while it also might have ended up not 100% Tolkien either, I imagine it would probably have been my favourite movie of all time. I watch about four of his films again every year, often more than once, and 2001 is awesome-- I wish I could see these films on the big screen. Akira Kurosawa--fascinating to think how that would turn out!
|
|
benno
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 23
|
Post by benno on Jan 7, 2015 6:21:29 GMT -6
I think a Cassavetes character study of Bilbo would be interesting but the subtle Magical Realsim of later Hal Ashby would be my pick. I'd like to think Paul Giovanni would be able to re-produce a Wicker Man quality score that is both dark yet light and whimsical.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 1, 2015 22:48:37 GMT -6
Unfortunately I have no desire to see the third movie, the first (and only) of the six that I didn't see in the theater. Unfortunate, because in my opinion the 3rd Hobbit movie is the best of the trilogy. I think it has nice transition to the LotR movies. A friend of mine saw Hobbit 3 with me the other day (my third viewing, his first) and his comment was something like, "I don't know why the critics didn't like this movie. It's just one three-hour battle scene." I was and still am pretty disappointed with the first 2 installments of The Hobbit. I tend to be a completionist on these types of things and I finally watched the third installment of The Hobbit this weekend. I was pleasantly surprised by the film. It IS the best of the three. Smaug scorching Lake Town looked spectacular! I have watched it 3 times this weekend and will most likely watch it again soon. Who,knew it would take until the third film to not be disappointed?! I'm glad it ended strong.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 1, 2015 23:10:14 GMT -6
Recently watched a fan edit called "There And Back Again" that cuts about 5 hours and condenses the trilogy to one movie. It's tightly focused on Bilbo and there are no Gandalf side quests, no Radagast, no dwarf-elf romance, no Bard-uses-his-son-as-a-bow, etc.
My point is that watching it really underscored what a bloated monstrosity Peter Jackson created. It really made me feel sad wondering what might have been with a better director.
The worst thing about the Peter Jackson version in my opinion? No thrush-flies-to-Laketown-and-tells-Bard-about-Smaug's-weak-spot. So rather than Bilbo Baggins the Hobbit (remind me the title of the book/movie again?) playing a major role in Smaug's death, Bilbo is completely irrelevant to the action, and Bard is the hero all on his own. (This is especially irksome to me because PJ time and time again shows Gandalf using moths as messengers.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 3:58:42 GMT -6
I've mentioned this a few times, again: Don't blame the director, blame the conglomerate that produced the series: This was from the same creative team that brought us "The Lords of the Rings" movies... And from the same studio that brought us "Hobbit: The Online Casino".
The big difference between now and 1999, when the original production started, is, in the meantime, the Middle-Earth franchise became primarily about selling toys and gimmicks. The movies themselves are treated only as "mothership" titles, designed to appeal mass audiences; target-designed offers to the different demographics and literacy levels are only found in the "subsidiary" titles of the franchise: In other words, franchise movies are not primarily designed to be great. They are designed to build a sales platform that is as big as possible. - And, that, of course, makes adapatations that focus on a complex story alone nearly *impossible*.
I - honestly - cannot believe that PJ, who is the one to thank for Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowyn not having being morphed into the SAME character, as was the original studio decision, who fired Stewart Townsend for not resembling *book Aragorn*, is the same person responsible for Elf-Dwarven romance, Storm Giants, and bullet cam rides that even Tsui Hark would frown upon.
Why am I insisting on this so much? - Because Jackson will likely not direct any more ME movies. First, because the Zaentz license is done, and second, because the last two of the six arguably sucked. But NLC, or rather than that, Warner Bros, the guys who milked the Tolkien license to a point where became borderline embarassing, will remain in the business, and it is only a matter of time until they go back to the license, one way, or another.
And THAT's where people have to protest, and to direct their scorn to. LOTRO will reportedly go on until 2017, and a "Shadow of Mordor" sequel is likely, but after that, a reboot of the franchise of some sorts is pretty probable - unless Legendary's Warcraft is so successful that it plasters all genre-related competition.
And I dread a TV series that is made by the same people that made the executive decisions on any of the Middle Earth movies.
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Jul 7, 2015 17:47:06 GMT -6
I haven't made any attempt to see the Hobbit.
I don't want it tainting the great scenes the book conjured up in my mind when I was young.
|
|