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.
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.
Apologies. I was (despite responding to your post about characters) not primarily referring to
existing character expansion; which is, within reason, unavoidable if you are to portray any book charater on-screen. I was really talking about excessive & unnecessary (in my eyes) expansions & plain additions in general.
You also quoted me out of context earlier, in regard to Gandalf.
I quoted
you earlier. The look of the film.
He is
indeed not in the book much. However, if you are choosing to compare a Tolkien character (whether in the book a great deal or not) versus some charater you've just invented, then clearly I'd like to see more, in this case, of Tolkien's Gandalf. That should be fairly obvious.
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.
I'm not just judging this film; although I've made it clear that
as a film I thought this was mediocre at best. I'm judging this as an adaptation of the book written by J. R. R. Tolkien. It is an adaptation, is it not?
--------------------
This is the crux of it for me.
Tolkien's LotR is a deep and important work. It creates a breathtaking new world and conveys powerful themes of man versus machine; the corruption of power; loyalty and sacrifice. Jackson's LotR reflects all of the same things. I'm no Tolkein scholar, but those movies spoke to me in the same way.
They were just okay.
I say he's been very successful, but I think I went in preferring route two, whereas route one would always be your option of choice (if an adaptation had to be done at all.)
Correct.
--------------------
It's just a film about a Hobbit?
I never saw it as such. It's all about the amazing adventures that he goes through but not only. It's about the stunning looks (still waiting for your answer Cried) that we expect from Jackson. We know Jackson over a decade. He's associated with Tolkien on cinema, if we like it or not: we can't say -after more than 10 years- that a Jackson film isn't connected to stunning looks.
Agreed, it's not
just a story about Bilbo. (What answer are you waiting for?)
It's about the suspense (that I missed).
There was none. Is that what you mean?
It's about giving characters character. E.g. take Bard. I thought his role was very good and useful. The drama with his ancestor, that black arrow story, I think that it enriched the historical aspect. It adds to the perspective.
I would have taken an evocative, mood-filled, magical Mirkwood scene over the expansion of the Bard character. This isn't (as) important to me.
Speaking of history, this film is about the legacy of the Dwarves!
The book, not so much though.
This is about something before Bilbo's time. If you keep in mind that Jackson used inspiration from Tolkien outside the Hobbit, then you know it's more than just a film about a Hobbit.
Indeed. But what was he filming here? An adaptation of
The Hobbit? Or his messed-up take on Tolkien's entire Middle-earth creation (with what he was allowed to use)? It's too big for film. And, frankly, too big for Jackson.
