Mmmmmmmmmm. The cattle of Helios. <gargles on own saliva>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord of the Rings through a modern perspective.
...In fact, they were never even making the novel into TWO movies. The plan has always been to include all of that "off-screen" stuff from the Hobbit and the LotR appendices into the movie, since it happens in and around the time frame of when Bilbo & Co are heading to Erebor. Instead of Gandalf just disappearing to wherever and then coming back later, we are going to be seeing all of the bits and pieces of what else is going on in the world at the same time. If you've read things like Unfinished Tales and the Tolkien errata books, you know there is puh-lenty of material there...
This is an issue I had with Lotr. The off-screen stuff is off-screen for a reason, it is NOT critical to the overall plot and telling of the tale. It's afterthought information that doesn't really matter. As I said, I'm going to see the Peter Jackson's HAFLING movie, he did a great job with HIS telling of Lotr. However, it's not going to be The Hobbit I love, it's going to be something else entirely. Entertaining? Absolutely. Look at what PJ did for King Kong. Will it be The Hobbit? Not to me.
|
Lord of the Rings through a modern perspective.
** spoiler omitted **
"Rep. Grima Wormtongue
(D) Rohan""...Mordor, largest oil reserves in Middle Earth."
lol
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...
[facepalm]
My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...[facepalm]
My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?
Learning? I was promoted to the rank of house goblin, I'm teaching the kennel goblins things!
|
And that any Fandom will be full of people who think their thing is the best thing ever and not understand that other people might not agree.
And not just because of FanDumb. In fact, the denial of any flaws in their object of obsession is pretty much their own version of FanDumb. In the case of fans of adaptions any criticism can be dismissed as "Your just erupting over a slight bit of change."
You are right of course "thejeff." You are very much entitled to your opinion. But considering that we are on a site devoted mainly to Fantasy RPG; and that J.R.R. Tolkien maybe the most influential fictional writer in the genre; it stands to reason that those that point out any "flaws" in the works of this author become immediate fair game to counter criticism. So by all means pick away. But please don't expect the rest of us to sit idly by.
Cheers,
Mazra
C'mon Erik. You should have had enough experience with Fans to know that the moment that there is the slightest bit of change you'll see an eruption of Fan Dumb.Can't believe people are disappointed by this.
Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.
Moar, plz.
And that any Fandom will be full of people who think their thing is the best thing ever and not understand that other people might not agree.
And not just because of FanDumb. In fact, the denial of any flaws in their object of obsession is pretty much their own version of FanDumb. In the case of fans of adaptions any criticism can be dismissed as "Your just erupting over a slight bit of change."
There is a reason fans, rather purists, "erupt over a slight bit of change"...because they LOVED the work as it was first presented. Sadly, I have yet to see a single movie or TV show that has been better than the novel. Sadly, all I see is reinforcement of TV/movies turning awesome stories into not so awesome stories. It doesn't stop me from enjoying what the 'vision' of the TV/movie maker, it does however disappoint me that they can't seem to leave well enough off and just present the ORIGINAL story...no based upon crap, no adapted from crap. just take what's there put it on the screen/big screen and be done. All because the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil being considered the silliest part of the whole tale of Lotr, it was during that section of the story that Frodo showed his strength of character. However, because the decision was made NOT to film that section, Frodo had to be rewritten to fit within Peter Jackson's OPINION of how Tolkien "should have" told the tale. "A slight bit of change" as you phrase it is all it takes to change the original into something altogether different, not better, just different. I will never apologize for being a purist with those things I cherish, particularly something like The Hobbit, the novel that shaped my imagination with the Fantasy/sword and sorcery/dungeons and dragons genre. So I may be guilty of FanDumb, but that's because the SUPER GENIUSES in Hollywood need to stop with remakes and adapting stories and just present what is their. Remakes and reboots are just the way to grab more money and a poor excuse for the inability to come up with something original. Adaptations are almost as bad.
Learning? I was promoted to the rank of house goblin, I'm teaching the kennel goblins things!I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...[facepalm]
My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?
I love it when they post under the wrong name.
Aw, well Jeez, I'm glad I'm the only person who's ever posted in hurry, like, ever!
So...we now have one more decent movie we can count on this decade, another singular extra gem to stand out against a mire of the sub-cretinous to downright mediocre, and somehow this upsets people?
What, they are annoyed that an extra Hobbit movie might cut into quota they were otherwise going to be extending to such luminaries as Uwe Boll?
Peter can make TEN movies if he wants, I won't complain.
I don't agree. I believe Jackson wanted to portray how tortured Frodo was with the burden of carrying the One Ring. In that, Jackson and Elijah Wood pulled it off very well.
Cheers,Mazra
Huh, different strokes I guess. I also loved Elijah Wood in the role, I just felt like for a good chunk of the movie the ring totally eclipsed his character. In my more recent rewatches it's begun to grate on me having him faint nearly every other scene.
As a side note, the cast crack me up. As does Drunk Elijah Wood
FanDumb...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Aragorn's story arc
Is probably my favourite part of the films. Different strokes, again, but surely you can see SOME good in it? Surely Viggo's acting is a little better than "just painful"? He took a different direction, and that's fine by most of the audience. That kind of "slow reveal" works a lot better in a book than in a film. It was that or some kind of BIG EXCITING TWIST kind of reveal. Which would you prefer, honestly?
I'm interested in discussing this, but does it belong in another thread? I'm not sure.
More stuff than would even fit in a quote!
Personally (and only my own point of view) I enjoyed the way PJ held back the reforging of Narsil/Anduril until the third movie; it made the reforging a plot point instead of something that just happened while they were staying at Rivendell.
At this point, I'm very curious about how The Hobbit: Five Too Many Movies will turn out. I think it will be a PJ vs Middle Earth grab bag, and that I will enjoy watching it.
I went in to Fellowship with low expectations and liked it much better than I thought I would. There were some glaring annoyances, the wizard battle being one, dwarf-tossing being another. The actual plot differences didn't really bother me. There were some things I had misgivings about that foreshadowed later developments, but at that point I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
I had much higher expectations for the Two Towers and was much less impressed. I don't even remember much of it now, though the whole Aragorn falls off the cliff and kisses his horse...
There's a certain Black Goblin out there somewhere who has watched the LOTR movies 100 times+. Or at least parts of them. I think there was a good three-year stretch back around 2006 where every night I would come home from work and find him passed out, surrounded by Budweiser cans, the Mines of Moria battle scene blaring from the speakers.
What does that have to do with what you're saying? Nothing.
There are lots of parts of LOTR that I don't think are awesome. But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander. Not many Altmans or Scorseses working in movies about wizards and orcs. "If you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down."
But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander.
Im shocked and horrified that you make this claim!
How can you so readily discount the timeless classics from the 70's and 80's!? Take THIS GEM for example. Point made?
That scene is pretty awesome.
That scene is pretty awesome.
Do you want the Axe or the Sword?
I want the head!
Aw-oooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Don't forget Ladyhawke, I like that movie (although the soundtrack...ugh).But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander.
I hear you on that one. I was maybe 13 when I saw that movie in the theatre. I was emotionally involved from moment one, but then the score was awful. I've watched it may times since, mostly on videotape, and the visuals work for me, but the soundtrack is horrible.
Reverse adaptation: the novelization by Joan D Vinge is surprisingly good.
For the record, I'm not saying that every fantasy movie pre-LoTR blew chunks.
Hawk the Slayer was pretty awesome, but don't quote me, I fell asleep halfway through a CBS Late Night Movie broadcast back in 1981 or something...
And that link doesn't even work? Thatcher's bloody Britain!
|
|
In some essay, Ursula le Guin wrote that if Sam had called Frodo "sir" one more time, she was going to start a Socialist Hobbit Party.
Right on, sister!
You'd think Le Guin would understand what a batman was and how the trenches of WW1 operated...
oh, and the best pre-LotR fantasy film is Princess Bride.
|
|
To me, in the movie, it seemed entirely predictable and boring. As I said, I saw the roots of it in Fellowship and was afraid he was going in that direction. Sadly I was right.
OK! We get it! You clearly had issues about Jackson's LotR trilogy early on. What I don't get is why you are posting on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But it seems you relish in spewing your anti-Jackson LotR diatribe. Why don't you start a new thread, "Things I hate about Jackson's LotR Trilogy." You might find some love there. Please don't expect a lot of love here.
OK! We get it! You clearly had issues about Jackson's LotR trilogy early on. What I don't get is why you are posting on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But it seems you relish in spewing your anti-Jackson LotR diatribe. Why don't you start a new thread, "Things I hate about Jackson's LotR Trilogy." You might find some love there. Please don't expect a lot of love here.
To me, in the movie, it seemed entirely predictable and boring. As I said, I saw the roots of it in Fellowship and was afraid he was going in that direction. Sadly I was right.
Because the thread is called " Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be Made into a Trilogy" and not "LOVE Peter Jackson's interpretations or post somewhere else"? Heck, the first responce was a negative responce.
Greg
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...we now have one more decent movie we can count on this decade, another singular extra gem to stand out against a mire of the sub-cretinous to downright mediocre, and somehow this upsets people?
What, they are annoyed that an extra Hobbit movie might cut into quota they were otherwise going to be extending to such luminaries as Uwe Boll?
Peter can make TEN movies if he wants, I won't complain.
The Hobbit: Volume I - Bilbo considers leaving Bag End
The Hobbit: Volume II - Bilbo packs his stuff....
I think his "hate"* started with the term "FanDumb". A term I admit to being unfamiliar with and just by seeing it slightly offensive as well. Very marginalizing. Well, that and dumb is kind of offensive all on its own. Still haven't clicked the link even.
And truthfully, threads without dissenting opinions are usually less interesting. Lots of Ditto's and Me toos! :P
*But "hate" seems kind of strong... disappointed seems to be the word thejeff uses.
Greg
|
I get perplexed of people complaining about how the hobbit is being made into a trilogy without even having seen the first movie to have a solid judgment. It recalls me the hate on Enworld (and other online communities 12 years ago) about the Lotr movies , and how they would be crap and totally ruin and destroy Tolkien's legacy when preview was aired (Sauron with spiky helm, etc etc)...
|
|
I think his "hate"* started with the term "FanDumb". A term I admit to being unfamiliar with and just by seeing it slightly offensive as well. Very marginalizing. Well, that and dumb is kind of offensive all on its own. Still haven't clicked the link even.
And truthfully, threads without dissenting opinions are usually less interesting. Lots of Ditto's and Me toos! :P
*But "hate" seems kind of strong... disappointed seems to be the word thejeff uses.
Greg
I guess I get a little tired sometimes of all the NAYSAYERS.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
I get perplexed of people complaining about how the hobbit is being made into a trilogy without even having seen the first movie to have a solid judgment.
Well, to me, the Extended Editions dragged in several places. And LotR is about 4 times the story that the Hobbit is. Seriously, one long movie should do the Hobbit well. Two movies was going to drag some. But three? Either it's going to make Jackson's King Kong look fast-paced, or it's going to have so much extra stuff thrown in that entitling it The Hobbit will be an outright falsehood.
|
|
Maybe with The Hobbit we will get something different after its run in the theaters, the condensed version with only the parts from the actual book. That would be unique. Personally I have no problem with Jackson making three movies. Good fantasy movies are so hard to come by. But I do understand your point Kthulhu, the extended versions of LotR were long. There were worth a watch though.
You'd think Le Guin would understand what a batman was and how the trenches of WW1 operated...
Or maybe that just would make her want to form a Socialist Hobbit Party even more?
Turn the guns the other way! The main enemy is at home!
No war but the class war!
Not the full article, but even the fact that some of it is there is a pretty impressive testament to the internet.
And, oh, it's not a Socialist Hobbit Party, it's a Hobbit Socialist Party. My bad.
Greg, I get it if you are perplexed by The Hobbit being made into a trilogy. I can see where this deserves some ire. But "thejeff" is coming in with a "hate" viewpoint from much earlier on.
Well, a thread of all LoTR-love would get boring pretty quickly.
Excellent work, "thejeff!"
There's a post on this blog that describes what I'm talking about with Tolkien's approach to characterization better than I ever could.
Cool! Thanks, I'll check it out.
Edit: GREAT post. Thanks for sharing! I'll have to read the rest of them.
|
|
Because I don't hate Jackson's movies. Because I have hopes for the Hobbit movies, plan to see them and hope they're good. I am worried to hear that he's expanding it to three movies because I think it would work better more tightly focused on the main story and I don't have faith in Peter Jackson to flesh out the storylines he's expanding from a paragraph or two in the appendices. Or for that matter the character arcs he's apparently adding for each dwarf: The elf-dwarf romance being the only one that I've seen spelled out. <clip>
TL/DR: I didn't hate the movies. I do hope the Hobbit movies work. The PJ fanboys tire me just like the NAYSAYERS do you.
This is a good post "the Jeff." You could have fooled me about about not hating the LotR in some of your earlier post though. I am glad you cleared that up. Now I can see and understand your points a little better. For me waves and waves of negativity is a downer; especially when it is aimed at something I treasure. So I tend to attack those being negative. Conveying that you actually don't hate the movies, lightened the tone. As a result, I far more open to your criticisms. And actually agree with you in some of them.
Cheers,
Mazra
Bah! I prefer poorly-thought out rants with outrageous opinions, unreasonable trains of thought and questionable facts.
More like that, please.