|
I just saw the movie last night, my main comment is it felt like Peter Jackson was a driver with lots of options who was completely sure where to turn. Lots of instances of putting on the brakes, changing lanes that really affected the pace of the film in general. I don't mind slower paced movies, but there were a few too many tangents that the less interested movie goer (Such as myself. I read the novels didn't go much beyond that), will find to be either unnecessary or potentially tedious.
It is a pretty movie, you can't argue that and I thought the troll scene was done just how I read it as a child but I thought there were too many partial changes in direction it was difficult to stick with it given the duration.
|
Finally saw this, wasn't very happy with it. It just wasn't a quality cinematic experience for me. Every single scene felt overly long or too disconnected from the rest of the movie. It is a shame Jackson can't get the same budget for a 15-part cable series because that seems like what he really wants to be making.
|
They should have cut out all action scenes except for Smaug and getting away from the wargs using the eagles (but tone it down to make it sensible).
Then all that non canon stuff about Saruman and Galadriel discussing Sauron, without naming him, made no sense. No sense to the reader and no sense to the casual watcher.
Again this movie does not invoke the spirit or mood of the fantasy world that made the books so appealing.
I don't see at all where Jackson wants to put on the breaks or make a slow pace tv series. I have an extremely hard time watching Hollywood movies because of Hollywood disease. And this movie had it just as much as any other one.
|
As someone who has read multiple times the works of Tolkien I can say that the movie was really well done and the spirit of the Hobbit was there. What I didn't like were the unnecessary action scenes (stone giants, goblin cave), but I guess the typical movie audience needs action shots every few minutes to keep attention.
The Hobbit was always a children book and that's what the movie is, a movie for children that adults can enjoy too.
ATTENTION SPOILERS COMING:
I'm just confused how will they manage to divide it in 3 parts, where will the second movie end ? Escape from the elves (thats not a good climax) ? Death of Smaug (but does that leave enough material for the third movie) ?
|
On January 07 2013 05:21 Arcanis wrote:
As someone who has read multiple times the works of Tolkien I can say that the movie was really well done and the spirit of the Hobbit was there. What I didn't like were the unnecessary action scenes (stone giants, goblin cave), but I guess the typical movie audience needs action shots every few minutes to keep attention.
The Hobbit was always a children book and that's what the movie is, a movie for children that adults can enjoy too.
ATTENTION SPOILERS COMING:
I'm just confused how will they manage to divide it in 3 parts, where will the second movie end ? Escape from the elves (thats not a good climax) ? Death of Smaug (but does that leave enough material for the third movie) ?
As someone mentioned before it could go like this, 2nd movie death of Smaug, 3rd movie deals with the ring and bridging The Hobbit with The Fellowship of the Rings.
|
Canada11586 Posts
No the third movie is guaranteed to be centred around the battle of Five Armies and the pay-off of the Thorin vs Azog set up.
The question is whether they will kill Smaug in the second, but have a sufficient hook to bring people back for a massive battle at the third. Or whether they will save Smaug and the Five Armies for the third and make Dol Guldur/ Mirkwood and getting to Laketown the centrepiece of the second.
|
I am sort of interested in how they plan on doing Beorn now that they scrapped the song about roasting the dwarves.
|
Canada11586 Posts
Ah sweet, the podcast has been updated.
For those of you that don't know, Corey Olsen is a professor in Medieval Literature at Washington College and has developed several courses to do with Tolkien and then has gone on to create a couple different podcasts.
One of the ones was dedicated to guessing how The Hobbit would be adapted into a movie (called Riddles in the Dark). I think his lectures are more interesting on the whole, but this last one is a reflective based on what the first film presented. He is not a film critic, but is more looking at how it was adapted.
Tolkien Professor: Adaptation and Hobbit Movies
http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/audio/adaptationandhobbitmovies.mp3
What the Podcast is Not
1:00-5:00 No Speculation on future books/ Housecleaning
5:00-16:00 Not a film critic. Giant boxing, goblin roller coasters, and rabbit sleds. Tone- trying to have it both ways
Approach to Adaptations
16:00-35:00 Purists and Another Way of Viewing Adaptations (medieval perspective)
35:00-45:00 Why Changes? Adaptations vs Abridgements. Mediums
45:00-54:30 Specifics: What is the film doing? Mirkwood & Radagast- Themes
54:30-1:05:00 Change from what? Changes from the book vs Changes from Tolkien's writings and ideas. Careful harmonizing of the different texts.
Themes
1:06:00-1:20:50 Took & Baggins. Bilbo's heroism moved forward.
1:21:00-1:30:50 Home & Belonging. Parallels between Thorin & Bilbo's story. Tolkien's shift in Chapter 9&10- restablishment of the kingdom and Prophecies
1:30:50-1:41:00 Vengeance (Azog) Thorin's Pride
1:42:00-1:50:35 Spread of Evil. Mirkwood, Thror's Sickness, Grudges, hints of Thorin's corruption.
1:50:35-1:52:30 Destiny. Providence at work- Oin's portents, Elrond
1:52:30-1:55:20 films open conversations to talk about what the The Hobbit does regardless of like/dislike. Gateway to Tolkien
Misc Points- Listener's Questions
1:55:20 Moth Question
2:00:55 Bilbo finding the Ring different between LotR and Hobbit film?
and various other topics
A shorter one (if you skip to the halfway point past Phillip Pullman's interview)
Geek's Guide to the Galaxy
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/geeks-guide-philip-pullman/
I think it's a nice counterpoint to Christopher Tolkien's views to the film adaptations. Which is not to denigrate Christopher in any way as he has thrown himself at keeping the purity of his father's work.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 06 2013 23:57 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 23:23 mechavoc wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote:
Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Don't get me started on the eagles only part of Tolkien's work that I really don't like. A realy Deus ex Machina cop out. Eagles could have just taken Frodo and sam right to the mount doom, 30 mintue story. Or after the goblin cave in the hobbit when they are rescued from the trees eagles should have gone straight to mt doom, problem solved  (yah yah I know they didn't know it was the one ring then) I just hate the eagles as an easy way out of impossible situations, a happy ending machine. It's how every situation in LotR/Hobbit gets resolved. Gandalf mysteriously leaves for some reason and returns the last possible second to fix things. Tolkien, in my mind, has always been good at creating an alternate universe, but has never been a truly great/creative writer.
I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you're confusing Jackson's work with what Tolkien actually wrote. In The Hobbit, yes, Gandalf does come to the rescue at some points in the story, but it's not as ridiculous as it is in the film. In fact, it's often Bilbo who has to save the dwarves' necks using his wits, luck, and the ring. If you actually read the books, and carefully at that, you'll see Gandalf fails many times over the course of events that take place, especially in the LOTR. Failure to discover the true nature of Bilbo's ring, failure to discover Saruman's treachery, failure to find Frodo when he was travelling to Rivendell, failure of insisting they travel through Moria (Jackson switched this in the films so that Gandalf was the one who opposed it, when he was actually in favour of it in the book). This obviously lead to his death. There are a few more, but those are enough to highlight his capacity to fuck up. If you carefully examine his 'deus ex machina' moments, you will see they're all set up, or explained in full. And if, for some bizarre reason, the criteria for judging whether a writer is great/creative lay solely with how often his characters are miraculously saved from certain doom, you would still be wrong about Tolkien, because your claims are flat out wrong. People rag on his writing because how dense his descriptions are, and I can completely understand that. But if you actually look at the story, and when it was wrote, you will see a truly creative, and dare I say 'great', writer.
I seriously implore you to go back and read The Hobbit, at the very least (it's a relatively light book). You will see that you're confusing Jackson's flabbergastingly overdone shit with Tolkien's work.
|
On January 07 2013 12:17 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 23:57 Derez wrote:On January 06 2013 23:23 mechavoc wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote:
Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Don't get me started on the eagles only part of Tolkien's work that I really don't like. A realy Deus ex Machina cop out. Eagles could have just taken Frodo and sam right to the mount doom, 30 mintue story. Or after the goblin cave in the hobbit when they are rescued from the trees eagles should have gone straight to mt doom, problem solved (yah yah I know they didn't know it was the one ring then) I just hate the eagles as an easy way out of impossible situations, a happy ending machine. It's how every situation in LotR/Hobbit gets resolved. Gandalf mysteriously leaves for some reason and returns the last possible second to fix things. Tolkien, in my mind, has always been good at creating an alternate universe, but has never been a truly great/creative writer. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you're confusing Jackson's work with what Tolkien actually wrote. In The Hobbit, yes, Gandalf does come to the rescue at some points in the story, but it's not as ridiculous as it is in the film. In fact, it's often Bilbo who has to save the dwarves' necks using his wits, luck, and the ring. If you actually read the books, and carefully at that, you'll see Gandalf fails many times over the course of events that take place, especially in the LOTR. Failure to discover the true nature of Bilbo's ring, failure to discover Saruman's treachery, failure to find Frodo when he was travelling to Rivendell, failure of insisting they travel through Moria (Jackson switched this in the films so that Gandalf was the one who opposed it, when he was actually in favour of it in the book). This obviously lead to his death. There are a few more, but those are enough to highlight his capacity to fuck up. If you carefully examine his 'deus ex machina' moments, you will see they're all set up, or explained in full. And if, for some bizarre reason, the criteria for judging whether a writer is great/creative lay solely with how often his characters are miraculously saved from certain doom, you would still be wrong about Tolkien, because your claims are flat out wrong. People rag on his writing because how dense his descriptions are, and I can completely understand that. But if you actually look at the story, and when it was wrote, you will see a truly creative, and dare I say 'great', writer. I seriously implore you to go back and read The Hobbit, at the very least (it's a relatively light book). You will see that you're confusing Jackson's flabbergastingly overdone shit with Tolkien's work.
Not true, in the film its Bilbo that keeps the trolls arguing till dawn. While in the book it was Gandalf. Honestly, i like most of the changes that jackson made.
|
On January 07 2013 12:51 Kaien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 12:17 Telcontar wrote:On January 06 2013 23:57 Derez wrote:On January 06 2013 23:23 mechavoc wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote:
Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Don't get me started on the eagles only part of Tolkien's work that I really don't like. A realy Deus ex Machina cop out. Eagles could have just taken Frodo and sam right to the mount doom, 30 mintue story. Or after the goblin cave in the hobbit when they are rescued from the trees eagles should have gone straight to mt doom, problem solved (yah yah I know they didn't know it was the one ring then) I just hate the eagles as an easy way out of impossible situations, a happy ending machine. It's how every situation in LotR/Hobbit gets resolved. Gandalf mysteriously leaves for some reason and returns the last possible second to fix things. Tolkien, in my mind, has always been good at creating an alternate universe, but has never been a truly great/creative writer. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you're confusing Jackson's work with what Tolkien actually wrote. In The Hobbit, yes, Gandalf does come to the rescue at some points in the story, but it's not as ridiculous as it is in the film. In fact, it's often Bilbo who has to save the dwarves' necks using his wits, luck, and the ring. If you actually read the books, and carefully at that, you'll see Gandalf fails many times over the course of events that take place, especially in the LOTR. Failure to discover the true nature of Bilbo's ring, failure to discover Saruman's treachery, failure to find Frodo when he was travelling to Rivendell, failure of insisting they travel through Moria (Jackson switched this in the films so that Gandalf was the one who opposed it, when he was actually in favour of it in the book). This obviously lead to his death. There are a few more, but those are enough to highlight his capacity to fuck up. If you carefully examine his 'deus ex machina' moments, you will see they're all set up, or explained in full. And if, for some bizarre reason, the criteria for judging whether a writer is great/creative lay solely with how often his characters are miraculously saved from certain doom, you would still be wrong about Tolkien, because your claims are flat out wrong. People rag on his writing because how dense his descriptions are, and I can completely understand that. But if you actually look at the story, and when it was wrote, you will see a truly creative, and dare I say 'great', writer. I seriously implore you to go back and read The Hobbit, at the very least (it's a relatively light book). You will see that you're confusing Jackson's flabbergastingly overdone shit with Tolkien's work. Not true, in the film its Bilbo that keeps the trolls arguing till dawn. While in the book it was Gandalf.
That doesn't invalidate a single thing he said...
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 07 2013 12:51 Kaien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 12:17 Telcontar wrote:On January 06 2013 23:57 Derez wrote:On January 06 2013 23:23 mechavoc wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote:
Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Don't get me started on the eagles only part of Tolkien's work that I really don't like. A realy Deus ex Machina cop out. Eagles could have just taken Frodo and sam right to the mount doom, 30 mintue story. Or after the goblin cave in the hobbit when they are rescued from the trees eagles should have gone straight to mt doom, problem solved (yah yah I know they didn't know it was the one ring then) I just hate the eagles as an easy way out of impossible situations, a happy ending machine. It's how every situation in LotR/Hobbit gets resolved. Gandalf mysteriously leaves for some reason and returns the last possible second to fix things. Tolkien, in my mind, has always been good at creating an alternate universe, but has never been a truly great/creative writer. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you're confusing Jackson's work with what Tolkien actually wrote. In The Hobbit, yes, Gandalf does come to the rescue at some points in the story, but it's not as ridiculous as it is in the film. In fact, it's often Bilbo who has to save the dwarves' necks using his wits, luck, and the ring. If you actually read the books, and carefully at that, you'll see Gandalf fails many times over the course of events that take place, especially in the LOTR. Failure to discover the true nature of Bilbo's ring, failure to discover Saruman's treachery, failure to find Frodo when he was travelling to Rivendell, failure of insisting they travel through Moria (Jackson switched this in the films so that Gandalf was the one who opposed it, when he was actually in favour of it in the book). This obviously lead to his death. There are a few more, but those are enough to highlight his capacity to fuck up. If you carefully examine his 'deus ex machina' moments, you will see they're all set up, or explained in full. And if, for some bizarre reason, the criteria for judging whether a writer is great/creative lay solely with how often his characters are miraculously saved from certain doom, you would still be wrong about Tolkien, because your claims are flat out wrong. People rag on his writing because how dense his descriptions are, and I can completely understand that. But if you actually look at the story, and when it was wrote, you will see a truly creative, and dare I say 'great', writer. I seriously implore you to go back and read The Hobbit, at the very least (it's a relatively light book). You will see that you're confusing Jackson's flabbergastingly overdone shit with Tolkien's work. Not true, in the film its Bilbo that keeps the trolls arguing till dawn. While in the book it was Gandalf. Honestly, i like most of the changes that jackson made.
I don't get it. What does that have to do with anything I wrote? And honestly, who do think is more capable of imitating voices, especially those of trolls, and crafting a fight between them: a wizard who has travelled all over middle-earth, or a hobbit who has barely begun his first adventure? It's a nonsensical change to make, only to empower Bilbo's character, which naturally comes later on in the story. If you honestly prefer Jackson's alterations to the original, I can only assume that you either read the books after watching the films, or just flat out didn't like them.
|
On January 07 2013 13:43 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 12:51 Kaien wrote:On January 07 2013 12:17 Telcontar wrote:On January 06 2013 23:57 Derez wrote:On January 06 2013 23:23 mechavoc wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote:
Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Don't get me started on the eagles only part of Tolkien's work that I really don't like. A realy Deus ex Machina cop out. Eagles could have just taken Frodo and sam right to the mount doom, 30 mintue story. Or after the goblin cave in the hobbit when they are rescued from the trees eagles should have gone straight to mt doom, problem solved (yah yah I know they didn't know it was the one ring then) I just hate the eagles as an easy way out of impossible situations, a happy ending machine. It's how every situation in LotR/Hobbit gets resolved. Gandalf mysteriously leaves for some reason and returns the last possible second to fix things. Tolkien, in my mind, has always been good at creating an alternate universe, but has never been a truly great/creative writer. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you're confusing Jackson's work with what Tolkien actually wrote. In The Hobbit, yes, Gandalf does come to the rescue at some points in the story, but it's not as ridiculous as it is in the film. In fact, it's often Bilbo who has to save the dwarves' necks using his wits, luck, and the ring. If you actually read the books, and carefully at that, you'll see Gandalf fails many times over the course of events that take place, especially in the LOTR. Failure to discover the true nature of Bilbo's ring, failure to discover Saruman's treachery, failure to find Frodo when he was travelling to Rivendell, failure of insisting they travel through Moria (Jackson switched this in the films so that Gandalf was the one who opposed it, when he was actually in favour of it in the book). This obviously lead to his death. There are a few more, but those are enough to highlight his capacity to fuck up. If you carefully examine his 'deus ex machina' moments, you will see they're all set up, or explained in full. And if, for some bizarre reason, the criteria for judging whether a writer is great/creative lay solely with how often his characters are miraculously saved from certain doom, you would still be wrong about Tolkien, because your claims are flat out wrong. People rag on his writing because how dense his descriptions are, and I can completely understand that. But if you actually look at the story, and when it was wrote, you will see a truly creative, and dare I say 'great', writer. I seriously implore you to go back and read The Hobbit, at the very least (it's a relatively light book). You will see that you're confusing Jackson's flabbergastingly overdone shit with Tolkien's work. Not true, in the film its Bilbo that keeps the trolls arguing till dawn. While in the book it was Gandalf. Honestly, i like most of the changes that jackson made. I don't get it. What does that have to do with anything I wrote? And honestly, who do think is more capable of imitating voices, especially those of trolls, and crafting a fight between them: a wizard who has travelled all over middle-earth, or a hobbit who has barely begun his first adventure? It's a nonsensical change to make, only to empower Bilbo's character, which naturally comes later on in the story. If you honestly prefer Jackson's alterations to the original, I can only assume that you either read the books after watching the films, or just flat out didn't like them.
In the movie bilbo speaks with his own voice, and the trolls know it's him.
Anyway as far as magic goes, the only things gandalf does in the books are light and minor explosions. In fact, nobody really does explicit magic in the books, in the exception of people wearing The ring (invisibility is cool ). If you assume the mages have electric bulb on their staff and always have a little bit of explosives on them, you can't really tell gandalf is a magician (oh and btw the explosive thing isn't unrealistic, don't you remember who makes beautifull fireworks ?).
|
Thanks for the link, Falling. Very interesting, seems like a guy that knows his stuff. going to listen to a few more of those talks
|
On January 07 2013 13:23 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 12:51 Kaien wrote:On January 07 2013 12:17 Telcontar wrote:On January 06 2013 23:57 Derez wrote:On January 06 2013 23:23 mechavoc wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote:
Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Don't get me started on the eagles only part of Tolkien's work that I really don't like. A realy Deus ex Machina cop out. Eagles could have just taken Frodo and sam right to the mount doom, 30 mintue story. Or after the goblin cave in the hobbit when they are rescued from the trees eagles should have gone straight to mt doom, problem solved (yah yah I know they didn't know it was the one ring then) I just hate the eagles as an easy way out of impossible situations, a happy ending machine. It's how every situation in LotR/Hobbit gets resolved. Gandalf mysteriously leaves for some reason and returns the last possible second to fix things. Tolkien, in my mind, has always been good at creating an alternate universe, but has never been a truly great/creative writer. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you're confusing Jackson's work with what Tolkien actually wrote. In The Hobbit, yes, Gandalf does come to the rescue at some points in the story, but it's not as ridiculous as it is in the film. In fact, it's often Bilbo who has to save the dwarves' necks using his wits, luck, and the ring. If you actually read the books, and carefully at that, you'll see Gandalf fails many times over the course of events that take place, especially in the LOTR. Failure to discover the true nature of Bilbo's ring, failure to discover Saruman's treachery, failure to find Frodo when he was travelling to Rivendell, failure of insisting they travel through Moria (Jackson switched this in the films so that Gandalf was the one who opposed it, when he was actually in favour of it in the book). This obviously lead to his death. There are a few more, but those are enough to highlight his capacity to fuck up. If you carefully examine his 'deus ex machina' moments, you will see they're all set up, or explained in full. And if, for some bizarre reason, the criteria for judging whether a writer is great/creative lay solely with how often his characters are miraculously saved from certain doom, you would still be wrong about Tolkien, because your claims are flat out wrong. People rag on his writing because how dense his descriptions are, and I can completely understand that. But if you actually look at the story, and when it was wrote, you will see a truly creative, and dare I say 'great', writer. I seriously implore you to go back and read The Hobbit, at the very least (it's a relatively light book). You will see that you're confusing Jackson's flabbergastingly overdone shit with Tolkien's work. Not true, in the film its Bilbo that keeps the trolls arguing till dawn. While in the book it was Gandalf. That doesn't invalidate a single thing he said...
He said Gandalf doesn't come to the rescue as much in the book as he does in the movie, and that Peter Jackson ridiculously exagerated that part of the story, when in this particular early part of the book, Gandalf actually saves the party more often than in the movie and Bilbo is far less useful. The trolls scene is one example, but overall Jackson just sped up the process of Bilbo becoming useful and earning the party's respect.
The initial comment is still wrong, later on Gandalf indeed doesn't save everyone all the time, but they do depend heavily on his help at this part of the story, as much as in the book as in the movie, or even more in the book.
|
Canada11586 Posts
On January 07 2013 22:41 Undrass wrote:Thanks for the link, Falling. Very interesting, seems like a guy that knows his stuff. going to listen to a few more of those talks
You're welcome. I would start with:
How To Read Tolkien and Why
http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/wp/lectures/introduction/
It's the podcast that launched the entire thing. It's also a lot shorter (30 min)
|
I really like the LOTR universe, and just saw this film.
Quite liked it actually, and the slow pacing didnt bother me at all.
Small question about the LOTR lore though. Since this movie does not have Mordor as we know it in the Lord of the rings trilogy. Will this trilogy contain the rise of mordor, or something like that?
I've read the thread, and it seems alot of people read the books, so this should be quite for those people.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
I did not like the film. Endless action scenes followed by endless action scenes, then 45 seconds plot, then more action scenes. And then some very long action scenes. Nice effects and scenery and all but that didn't make it a good movie.
|
On January 08 2013 00:36 Garfailed wrote:
I really like the LOTR universe, and just saw this film.
Quite liked it actually, and the slow pacing didnt bother me at all.
Small question about the LOTR lore though. Since this movie does not have Mordor as we know it in the Lord of the rings trilogy. Will this trilogy contain the rise of mordor, or something like that?
I've read the thread, and it seems alot of people read the books, so this should be quite for those people.
The book didn't have the rise of Mordor, but who knows what they'll change. What happens in the book is Sauron tries to set up camp in Dol Guldur (he's the Necromancer), but Gandalf chases him off and he goes back to Mordor. All that happens "off-stage," though: in The Hobbit, Gandalf just kind of leaves the rest of the party for a while and then reappears later, Tolkien explained where he was and what he was doing in a different book as one of his many changes to the Hobbit after LotR came out.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if they play up the importance of the Ring compared to the book, though, if only to add dramatic tension.
|
I really enjoyed the movie.
I never read any of the books (hobbit or LOTR) but I'm a big fantasy nerd and never felt the movie had slow pace. I even had uncomfortable seats 2nd row far left!
Maybe I enjoyed it because I haven't read the books and had nothing to expect other than a cool fantasy story. Sure it had it's cheesy bits, it's ridiculousness but it's all fun and it's pretty much what I went in expecting to see.
I can't wait for the next films!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
