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

And were those expansions & additions worthwhile or not? My answer is: they were not. I mean, the crux of this is: Jackson has taken something amazing & made it a bit poorer.
 
You preferred this?
images


Naturally not like a cartoon, but people wearing different hats only?

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
And were those expansions & additions worthwhile or not? My answer is: they were not. I mean, the crux of this is: Jackson has taken something amazing & made it a bit poorer.
Click to expand...
I thought the expansion of action was over the top. I rather had seen some slower scenes instead, in Mirkwood but also e.g. around Beorn's house.
 
I haven't read the Hobbit, so cannot relate it to that specifically, but often some books don't lend themselves well to film adaptions 'as is' and need adjustment to make a film that would be entertaining. I've seen films in the past that I thought didn't do the books justice and it really ruined the films for me, but in most cases they were (imo) bad films in general - if it is a good film in it's own right (which I feel the LotR etc are) then I am able to separate them from the books and enjoy them for what they are.

I can understand not all are able to do this however. But from what I've seen of the Jackson films (4/5) I think they are good films in their own right and can be enjoyed for what they are.
 
Forostar said:
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.
Click to expand...
He pays more attention to the dwarves, yes, but their individual personalities and character developments aren't important to the story although they are more relevant than Legolas and Tauriel. I think Jackson adequately portrays Thorin Oakenshield's as obsessive, vengeful and haunted by the past. Bilbo is the main and central character though and the focus should have been on his personality and development instead of wall-to-wall action.
 
Forostar said:
You preferred this?
images

Naturally not like a cartoon, but people wearing different hats only?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're focusing on the Dwarves; I've never said the film representation of the Dwarves wasn't good. It was good. They're funny & enjoyed them in the first film quite a lot.
Forostar said:
I thought the expansion of action was over the top. I rather had seen some slower scenes instead, in Mirkwood but also e.g. around Beorn's house.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Crimson Idol said:
I haven't read the Hobbit, so cannot relate it to that specifically, but often some books don't lend themselves well to film adaptions'as is' and need adjustment to make a film that would be entertaining.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed. They don't need to be adapted though.
Crimson Idol said:
I've seen films in the past that I thought didn't do the books justice and it really ruined the films for me, but in most cases they were (imo) bad films in general - if it is a good film in it's own right (which I feel the LotR etc are) then I am able to separate them from the books and enjoy them for what they are.
I can understand not all are able to do this however. But from what I've seen of the Jackson films (4/5) I think they are good films in their own right and can be enjoyed for what they are.
Click to expand...
Time will decide how these films are ultimately viewed. The LotRs films were far better, in my opinion.
 
Black Wizard said:
He pays more attention to the dwarves, yes, but their individual personalities and character developments aren't important to the story although they are more relevant than Legolas and Tauriel. I think Jackson adequately portrays Thorin Oakenshield's as obsessive, vengeful and haunted by the past. Bilbo is the main and central character though and the focus should have been on his personality and development instead of wall-to-wall action.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
Forostar said:
In which scenes the focus should be more on his personality.
Click to expand...
Foro, BW isn't the screenwriter --he's just saying why waste time developing characters that are just made up, over Bilbo screentime & dialogue. You mentioned Gandalf & I make the same point again: he's not really in The Hobbit. Why should all this crap fill up the film while other more important scenes are skipped over? This is a poor judgement call & betrays Jackson's real achilies heel; his love of action. Wrong book to adapt I suggest.
 
What BW says, really. I liked the film. It's great fun to watch in my opinion, but I can see where the criticism arises. Even if you approach it as something different to the book, it's a film about a little guy called a hobbit. His role is slightly diminished by the other sub-plots and the major action going on, when it would be nice if he stood out more as the hero.
 
Forostar said:
In which scenes the focus should be more on his personality.
Click to expand...
It's more a case of omitting the scenes that weren't in the book (Legolas & Tauriel, Dol Guldur) and including the correct story at Erebor when Bilbo had two or three trips into the mountain before Smaug got pissed off.
 
Forostar said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I think Brig summed up pretty well what I was trying to get at.
It wasn't a specific thing about the filmmakers, a "that scene needed more Bilbo" or "they should have shown a scene where Bilbo..."
I just really enjoy watching Martin Freeman play the character and it seemed like the first film had more of those moments.
 
Agreed, agreed, & agreed.

I think Jackson is being hampered by the mistaken belief that these films have to sit, in mood & feel (& consistency), alongside the LotRs films. I don't think this was necessary & have no sympathy in regard to this dilemma. They should have stuck closer to the basic plot/scenes & concentrated on giving these elements the space & time & development they needed; instead of spending vast amounts of screen time on peripheral made-up bullshit. This is so, so self-indulgent.
mckindog said:
I just really enjoy watching Martin Freeman play the character and it seemed like the first film had more of those moments.
Click to expand...
This was an inspired piece of casting.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I think Jackson is being hampered by the mistaken belief that these films have to sit, in mood & feel (& consistency), alongside the LotRs films.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, then, why they do not have nearly the same tone? They're similar in length, but not nearly similar in, say, seriousness, nor in "epic feeling" (though Smaug certainly came quite close to the feeling of "epicness" I received from the Balrog).
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Totally agree.
Foro, BW isn't the screenwriter --he's just saying why waste time developing characters that are just made up, over Bilbo screentime & dialogue.
Click to expand...
He said more than that. He said that the characters of the Dwarves were not important to the story. Did we all go to the same film? They were important to the story Jackson wanted to tell.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I'm not sure why you're focusing on the Dwarves;
Click to expand...
Peter Jackson did. But more important: you did say that their character expansion was not worthwhile (your 2nd post from this page) and now you suddenly say that you enjoyed them (that's new info to me). You've gotta make a choice dude. The characters were expanded in order to enjoy them.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
You mentioned Gandalf & I make the same point again: he's not really in The Hobbit.
Click to expand...
We're judging this film. A film that consists out of scenes. We should not forget that we can judge characters (or actors if you like) in these scenes.

And looking at the scenes that we had, not at the ones we did not have, I do not feel there was not enough Bilbo, and I don't see how he could or should have acted in a way that we would have liked him more, but if others can explain that, then I am curious about that.
 
LooseCannon said:
I'm curious, then, why they do not have nearly the same tone? They're similar in length, but not nearly similar in, say, seriousness, nor in "epic feeling" (though Smaug certainly came quite close to the feeling of "epicness" I received from the Balrog).
Click to expand...
Because they failed to execute this very well? No idea. I'm struggling, anyway, with what "tone" they were aiming for, with the second film in particular, at all. They seem to have landed half way between the book & their own previous films.
 
mckindog said:
I just really enjoy watching Martin Freeman play the character and it seemed like the first film had more of those moments.
Click to expand...
Still remains vague Mckindog. Sorry. I know what you mean, but if there's no why, which, how or when, then there's not much left. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top