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

[Night Prowler]

tl;dr

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Yeh, thanks for those considered comments NP...

 

[Brigantium]

Interesting perspective, I do see where you're coming from on several of those points. I thought it was messier than the first Hobbit film and it lost some of the magic. I enjoyed it a lot more than you obviously did (or didn't) Cried, but yeah, you make valid criticisms.

 

[Crimson Idol]

Additional Character: Again, with so little room for any other development, what was the purpose in this "love" storyline & introduction of a new character? Other than the absurdity of it within Tolkien's world, it seemed to serve very little purpose in Jackson's Middle-earth. The scene with her rubbing his leg was total fucking nonsense. Other than looking like an old movie depiction of a sex scene (i.e. where there is no sex but it's only very tangibly suggested/implied) --this was interwoven with Erebor/Smaug scenes. The juxtaposition was ridiculous.

I've not seen the second film, and actually haven't read the book either, but things like this irritate me in general. The inclusion of a romance sub/sideplot to a story just to try and make it appeal to a wider audience. If it has some sort of relevance to the main story then no problem, but too often films just have it tacked on the side as a "oh we need something to appeal to that crowd".

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I have no idea what motivated them to include this in The Hobbit.

 

[Brigantium]

I didn't mind that too much, it was just a side plot, but some of the other stuff, I felt, affected the way the film ran.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Objectively, I just thought it was incredibly scrappy & rushed.

 

[mckindog]

Thanks for being interested, frankly. I'm not saying this just for the sake of it --but, as Brigs says, I genuinely thought this was a poor, poor movie. Where to start...

1) Dialogue: Loads of great actors; with both previous form, in Jackson's franchise, & newer actors/characters (e.g. Stephen Fry). They said very, very little. The dialogue seemed so sparse. A total waste I thought. I mean, even Freeman & McKellen were pretty subdued. Nobody, in my view, came out of this film very well. Not the actors fault, just a poor script. When actors actually said stuff it was always good. They just didn't say much.

2) The look of the film: Literally all studio work, with hardly any outside film work. There were a few scenes, but not many. Think of the LotRs films: these looked visually far, far superior to this. Where was all the visual detail of previous films?
3) Atmosphere/tone: Where was the atmosphere of the book? Jackson has no touch in this department at all. This is my biggest complaint about all his films at times, but in this one period. He could still have had humour (something he has good form with), despite the "darker" feel here; but there was very little. Mirkwood?! Where was the enchantment & magic? Where was the visual treat? Difficult on film, granted. But this was a real let-down. No atmosphere at all. A huge missed opportunity, skipped past too quickly.
4) Action: The action in this film, more than any other, really, really started to drag. It was pure filler hokum. Think of what they managed to cram (characters, places, plot, locations, etc) in to the three LotRs films; quite a lot. Jackson had three films in which to spin out a far, far simpler story. And yet it felt like they'd really left themselves very little room for the scenes & places that mattered. The relentless Orc interwoven storyline (other than being uninteresting & pointless) has lead the film makers to actually have the Orcs practically having more to say than (for example) Gandalf. Is this what they set out to do? A real mistake.
5) Additional Character: Again, with so little room for any other development, what was the purpose in this "love" storyline & introduction of a new character? Other than the absurdity of it within Tolkien's world, it seemed to serve very little purpose in Jackson's Middle-earth. The scene with her rubbing his leg was total fucking nonsense. Other than looking like an old movie depiction of a sex scene (i.e. where there is no sex but it's only very tangibly suggested/implied) --this was interwoven with Erebor/Smaug scenes. The juxtaposition was ridiculous.
6) Smaug: Visually he was great. He started speaking, & it was, again, good. Then he kept speaking. And kept speaking. And started literally chatting. And then he was duped like the dumb monster he is! Do you think they could have portrayed this any poorer?

I could go on, but I'm boring myself to tears here...

Fantasy (yes, even Fantasy for kids) requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Fantasy is fragile. It requires just suggestion sometimes, not blatant depiction. Smaug is a Dragon; difficult to pull off. But Tolkien wrote a great Dragon character; one they should at least have had the sense to stick closely to. Instead, we have a massively diminished character; another stupid, easily-fooled monster. "This way!"; "no, over here" (Smaug looking at Dwarves in one direction, & then the other). The magic is totally destroyed here. As Brigantium says, I didn't "hate" this as a Tolkien fan, I just thought this was a missed opportunity. And a poor film to boot. I genuinely have no idea what you guys thought was good about this film. I thought it was a total car crash.

Good read. Ironically, you've made me want to see the movie again.
Point by point:
1) Didn't notice the dialogue as poor, but Freeman was definitely under-utilized. His performance was the highlight of the first film for me.
2) Didn't notice this either. Now that you mention it, there probably weren't the same great sweeping exteriors, or the rich tapestry that said so much of the culture of each place in the LotR movies, but I'm not sure where they should have gone. Beorn was poor, Laketown excellent, Mirkwood meh. we'd already seen the Lonely Mountain and Dol Guldur. What else was there?
3) Very much agree on Mirkwood. The hiking around part was a lost opportunity. The overall tone of the movie though was similar to the first.
4) I thought the barrel escape sequence was excellent, much better than the goblin battle in the first one.
5) Evangeline Lily is certainly easy on the eyes and the idea of the love triangle was a dumb one. But was it really a love triangle? Or was it just a dwarf who liked to flirt and an elf who was getting confirmation of her suspicion that the rest of the world isn't what her king makes it out to be? I liked that her character kicked ass without being teenage boy fantasy wish fulfillment and also how it showed what was wrong with the elves hiding away in the woods. Agreed that there needs to be stronger payoff coming though to make her presence worthwhile.
6) I though Smaug was marvellous, even though the entire golden statue sequence trended toward silly and existed only to give this movie a climax.

In short (for NP) I think some of your criticisms are valid, but the movie was still fun.
And the difference in artistic excellence between it and LotR is consistent with the difference between the books as well.

 

[Perun]

tl;dr

idryo

 

[Forostar]

When actors actually said stuff it was always good. They just didn't say much.

That's something I can really appreciate. When actors shut up, it can created extra room for suspense, depending on the scene and on how it is directed (and acted).

The look of the film: Literally all studio work, with hardly any outside film work. There were a few scenes, but not many. Think of the LotRs films: these looked visually far, far superior to this. Where was all the visual detail of previous films?

Maybe the story called for it? Which were the scenes that should be done outside, and even if they were done inside, in which scenes did it show so much that they were done inside?
I thought it all looked very realistic. I mean; it is fantasy; but it looked real.

Atmosphere/tone: Where was the atmosphere of the book? Jackson has no touch in this department at all. This is my biggest complaint about all his films at times, but in this one period. He could still have had humour (something he has good form with), despite the "darker" feel here; but there was very little. Mirkwood?! Where was the enchantment & magic? Where was the visual treat? Difficult on film, granted. But this was a real let-down. No atmosphere at all. A huge missed opportunity, skipped past too quickly.

Agreed here, although I've seen enough humour. There's more emphasis on action. I think Brig already made a statement on Mirkwood that I can relate to.

Action: The action in this film, more than any other, really, really started to drag. It was pure filler hokum. Think of what they managed to cram (characters, places, plot, locations, etc) in to the three LotRs films; quite a lot. Jackson had three films in which to spin out a far, far simpler story. And yet it felt like they'd really left themselves very little room for the scenes & places that mattered. The relentless Orc interwoven storyline (other than being uninteresting & pointless) has lead the film makers to actually have the Orcs practically having more to say than (for example) Gandalf. Is this what they set out to do? A real mistake.

Agreed. Too many unnecessary Orc chases. I believe they were only done to incorporate Legolas and our beautiful lady Elf in the film.

Additional Character: Again, with so little room for any other development, what was the purpose in this "love" storyline & introduction of a new character? Other than the absurdity of it within Tolkien's world, it seemed to serve very little purpose in Jackson's Middle-earth. The scene with her rubbing his leg was total fucking nonsense. Other than looking like an old movie depiction of a sex scene (i.e. where there is no sex but it's only very tangibly suggested/implied) --this was interwoven with Erebor/Smaug scenes. The juxtaposition was ridiculous.

I don't know what was the point, but it was less bad or dominant than I expected. On the other hand, if she wasn't in it, there would be more room for Mirkwood or anything else that went 'rushy'. It was a choice, probably to appeal a large part of the crowd. Uhm, that's including me. I confess that I loved to watch her face. What a beauty.

Smaug: Visually he was great. He started speaking, & it was, again, good. Then he kept speaking. And kept speaking. And started literally chatting. And then he was duped like the dumb monster he is! Do you think they could have portrayed this any poorer?

I laughed out loud when I read this. Then he kept speaking. And kept speaking!
Still laughing!
I was more baffled by the unrealistic action that followed. The way the Dwarves fought the Dwarves. They did it as easy as they cleaned Bilbo's table.

I could go on, but I'm boring myself to tears here...

Well, even if I don't agree with all comments, I enjoyed it a lot. I wish Jackson could read this.

Fantasy (yes, even Fantasy for kids) requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Fantasy is fragile. It requires just suggestion sometimes, not blatant depiction. Smaug is a Dragon; difficult to pull off. But Tolkien wrote a great Dragon character; one they should at least have had the sense to stick closely to. Instead, we have a massively diminished character; another stupid, easily-fooled monster. "This way!"; "no, over here" (Smaug looking at Dwarves in one direction, & then the other).

*Laughs again*

The magic is totally destroyed here. As Brigantium says, I didn't "hate" this as a Tolkien fan, I just thought this was a missed opportunity. And a poor film to boot. I genuinely have no idea what you guys thought was good about this film. I thought it was a total car crash.

I share some of your criticism but nonetheless thought it was a very enjoyable film.

 

[Forostar]

Good read. Ironically, you've made me want to see the movie again.
Point by point:
1) Didn't notice the dialogue as poor, but Freeman was definitely under-utilized. His performance was the highlight of the first film for me.

How was he under-utilized? Which specific scenes? In the first film he's introduced, he meets Gollum, he gets the ring.... he's prominent in some scenes.
But in this film as well (e.g. opening the door in Erebor, meeting Smaug etc.)

 

[Brigantium]

I get this. I thought his character didn't stand out quite as much as it could have, bearing in mind this film is 'The Hobbit', ie Bilbo is the central character! There are two high points in this part of the story in which Bilbo proves his mettle (Mirkwood, and the meeting with Smaug). His big moments seemed understated in comparison to all the high drama and fast action going on.

 

[Black Wizard]

His big moments seemed understated in comparison to all the high drama and fast action going on.

This is because Peter Jackson is more concerned with making an action movie rather than retelling the story, ignoring the fact that good characters contribute more to a story than slapstick action scenes do.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Exactly, Brigantium (& BW)

Going beyond criticism of this film(s) in general, at a fundamental level I just don't see any evidence (from any of the five films so far released; & inc. all the extra material & interviews) that Jackson &/or Boyens &/or Walsh really "get" Tolkien. They speak about "the fans", but they're not talking about Tolkien fans; they're talking about the LotRs film fans. For some this is unimportant (--& the division also not so clean cut.) But for me this is very important. I want (& wanted) to feel some Tolkien when I watch these movies. And I feel very little. Tolkien's personal & literary outlook was deeply philosophical; it was coloured by his Catholicism, his academic learning, his personal interests --& all of this informs all of his writing. To ignore this, is to ignore Tolkien. And I find that deeply disrespectful. Nobody forced Jackson & Co. to adapt Tolkien; they chose to. Taking a look at what they've produced (at great effort) I'd prefer if they hadn't bothered. As I've said before, I view adaptation as derivative from a purely artistic point of view. At its worst it comes across as artistically lazy i.e. the foundation (& much else) is all already there. If you've got to do it, it's got to be good. This wasn't.

I know most here are going to say "it's just a movie, get a grip" --but this is how I feel about the matter. Tolkien's writing means quite a lot to me & don't feel these films have served any purpose beyond light entertainment. And, I question the sanity of a society which thinks spending this much time & money, & producing something this mediocre, is a worthy enterprise; and, furthermore, that I should applaud it.

 

[Forostar]

Would you address the questions I asked?

How was he under-utilized? Which specific scenes?

This question remains unanswered as well. Where would Bilbo have to stand out more? In which scenes?

In this film Bilbo is not in every scene the central character. There are more people. E.g., one of them, a certain wizard, played by Sir Ian McKellen who had first credit.

 

[Forostar]

I want (& wanted) to feel some Tolkien when I watch these movies. And I feel very little. Tolkien's personal & literary outlook was deeply philosophical; it was coloured by his Catholicism, his academic learning, his personal interests --& all of this informs all of his writing.

How would a film capture all that? You're asking for the impossible.

To ignore this, is to ignore Tolkien. And I find that deeply disrespectful.

O come on.

I know most here are going to say "it's just a movie, get a grip" --but this is how I feel about the matter. Tolkien's writing means quite a lot to me & don't feel these films have served any purpose beyond light entertainment. .... etc. etc..

It's a movie, get a grip.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

It's a movie, get a grip.

Yes, yes; very funny.

 

[Forostar]

This is because Peter Jackson is more concerned with making an action movie rather than retelling the story, ignoring the fact that good characters contribute more to a story than slapstick action scenes do.

I don't think Jackson ignores the character aspect. On the contrary: He actually pays more attention to character than Tolkien who gave Dwarves a coloured cap, a line of family, some lines to speak, and that's it. In Jackson's film you really get to know the Dwarves as indiviuals.

If you're not over focused on Bilbo, you can see that.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Would you address the questions I asked?

Are you talking to me?

1) Didn't notice the dialogue as poor, but Freeman was definitely under-utilized. His performance was the highlight of the first film for me..

How was he under-utilized? Which specific scenes? In the first film he's introduced, he meets Gollum, he gets the ring.... he's prominent in some scenes.
But in this film as well (e.g. opening the door in Erebor, meeting Smaug etc.)

mckindog said this. You quoted him earlier.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I don't think Jackson ignores the character aspect. On the contrary: He actually pays more attention to character than Tolkien who gave Dwarves a coloured cap, a line of family, some lines to speak, and that's it.

If you're not over focused on Bilbo, you can see that.

Foro, are you saying/claiming the focus of these movies isn't fundamentaly action orientated?

In this film Bilbo is not in every scene the central character. There are more people. E.g., one of them, a certain wizard, played by Sir Ian McKellen who had first credit.

And this is true to the book in what respect?