The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

TheSeventhSonRoberto said:
is it okay if I call it lord of the rings part five?
Click to expand...

This is a prequel.

-----

Saw the film today, I'm very very impressed. Up to LOTR standards, that's for sure. Felt my heartbeat rising at times.

Gandalf-Sauron scene was one of the best moments in five films. Bilbo-Smaug parts were pure gold, no pun intended.
 
My rating for the film would be 9/10. Bear in mind that I'd give Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King 10/10, Two Towers 9/10 and An Unexpected Journey 8/10.
 
I would agree with all those assessments.

One thing though: When you're watching The Hobbit part 1 and 2 in the cinema, it's quite easy to spot the frames where it's 100% CGI and when there's actual filmed material (plus green screen). So it's not flawless in that aspect, but give it a good 10 years more and those kind of scenes will be indistinguishable from filmed frames for the human eye. It's still extremely well made, but technology has got a bit to go still.
 
I went to see The Desolation of Smaug yesterday. I enjoyed it. The visual stuff was, as expected, excellent and it was, like its predecessor, entertaining while still remaining dark and tense enough in places. However, I felt that there was too much emphasis on making an action movie rather than retelling the story:

Up until the barrel incident the film was faithful enough to the story from the book but once the company left Lake Town the plot deviated too much in my opinion. None of the dwarves were left behind and I'm sure the company were on a hill near Erebor at some point that had something to do with talking birds. I also remember Bilbo taking two or three trips into the mountain before Smaug got pissed off and left to burn Lake Town. While being entertaining the chase through the mountain and the attempt to kill Smaug was obviously not from the book. I did like the film but I don't think it was necessary to cut so much of the original story out and chuck in a load of extra stuff.
 
Agreed Black Wizard. I enjoyed it a lot but also had these thoughts in mind:
1. Let's keep throwing in action or else people will say it's boring.
2. Let's extend this as much as possible because we have three films.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
Agreed Black Wizard. I enjoyed it a lot but also had these thoughts in mind:
1. Let's keep throwing in action or else people will say it's boring.
2. Let's extend this as much as possible because we have three films.
Click to expand...

About point 2:
While I don't disagree, I wouldn't say that it was dragging too much. The movie lasted for forever but the action was what kept it going, movies like that usually get boring beyond the 2-hour mark. But I think it could've been done in 2 movies, sure.
 
I never said it did
drag.
It's just that they threw in
so much action
because they had to fill the film with something, anything better (in their vision) than
keeping several original parts of the book
instead.
 
What you talking about?! I've had to open them all to read what you're actually saying! :p
Seriously, I don't give a crap what happens in these films. Please stop using them.
 
Some people might not have seen it yet though. :) Although they don't have to read the thread and the book is 75 years old so if you don't know that the company is attacked by spiders in Mirkwood then where the hell have you been? :P

On point 1: One of my problems with the extra stuff to make an action movie is that a lot of people who have never read the book will do so after watching the films (particularly children) and be very disappointed that the book isn't wall-to-wall action. The Hobbit is not a thriller and part of what makes it a good story is the stuff that builds up to the climax (The Battle of the Five Armies) and not all of that stuff is active and fast. Even a film can work with changes of pace in its duration so I'm not sure what Peter Jackson is trying to do and why he's done it. (I don't think that spoiler tags were required here.)

On point 2:

There definitely wasn't any need to make three films out of The Hobbit. If the Orc-pursuit and White Council/Dol Goldur storylines hadn't been included then the first film could have ended with the company's imprisonment and/or escape from the Elf-King and then the second film would have consisted mainly of the happenings under Erebor, building up to Smaug's demise over Lake Town and the Battle of the Five Armies. It's all about the money for Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema
 
Black Wizard said:
Although they don't have to read the thread and the book is 75 years old so if you don't know that the company is attacked by spiders in Mirkwood then where the hell have you been? :p
Click to expand...
Exactly. Who gives a fuck?! Jackson has spoiled Tolkien enough, without you guys spoiling this thread by littering it with annoying hidden comments! :D
Black Wizard said:
One of my problems with the extra stuff to make an action movie is that a lot of people who have never read the book will do so after watching the films (particularly children) and be very disappointed that the book isn't wall-to-wall action. The Hobbit is not a thriller and part of what makes it a good story is the stuff that builds up to the climax (The Battle of the Five Armies) and not all of that stuff is active and fast. Even a film can work with changes of pace in its duration so I'm not sure what Peter Jackson is trying to do and why he's done it. (I don't think that spoiler tags were required here.)
Click to expand...
The main problem, as I see it, is that popular big-budget films are an artless, thrill-a-second, lowest common denominator feeding, fanboy catering, contentless, shit-filled, intellectual wasteland. And that's a problem. Although, I hasten to add, I do frequent the picture houses on occassion & enjoy the odd movie...
 
I think there were definitely thriller, or even horror moments in the book in Mirkwood. Tense, uncertain moments, which were both shortened and exaggerated in the film. I was disappointed on how the suspense was made to a minimum. The chapter itself was made ridiculously short in the film. I rather had seen a lengthier scene. So in this case I am pretty sure that this chapter of the book will be better than the film to people who will read it (that is: if they can enjoy tension other then the purely visual. Also: the book featured more suspense in the escape: people did not see that they escaped, they were in closed barrels; the feeling of being seen/caught can be quite haunting, and I prefer Tolkien's writing over 100.000 action moves although there was a lot of humour in the fighting.
 
There's nothing wrong with action &/or humour --but why piggyback your predilection for these onto a Tolkien adaptation, when it's a profoundly unsuitable vehicle in which to carry either? Of course Tolkien's fictional output has action & humour, but these are hardly the main focus of his writing.
 
I saw it, I liked it. I think it's obvious that Jackson loves the book but wants to make a great story out of it.

Will see it again, and again, and buy it on blu-ray, and then see the next one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top