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

[LooseCannon]

We could actually do a fan edit once the third extended comes out next year. I'd be down for it. It'd be hard, and since none of us are actual, what's the term, editors, it'd likely be very rough, but it might be fun.

All of that being said, I hereby move we dispense with spoiler tags. All in favour?

 

[Brigantium]

Aye

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Go and see it, if you want to watch: 48 frames make millions a dollars look like a fucking 1960's BBC live broadcast; loads of decent actors doing very little acting; Aidan/Kili staked through the heart (how ironic) in the finale to the hideous Jackson Elf/Dwarf love triangle; Legolas walking on bricks like a game advert; Thorin's gold-sickness being depicted as him being drunk; too many white-faced bad-orcs to give two flying fucks about; Galadriel rolling about like some vulnerable woman; Billy C. throwing a few too many Glasgow kisses around; and big fucking imaginary Peter Jackson worms! Yes, you read that correctly: worms. A small bit of Middle-earth literally died right in front of my sad face yesterday. I don't know what state Tolkien's in after all that turning. This film is a total shitfest & cements my view that modern cinema is a vacuous worthless pile of crap that is unworthy of my hard earned cash. The pulled pork & chicken combo thing I had a Chiquito's beforehand probably swayed the balance towards it being a worthwhile evening out though. That's my initial thoughts.

Don't go & see it @Brigantium! It's hideous.

 

[Brigantium]

It has a wizard, a dragon, dwarves, elves, a hobbit and lots of swords. I'm going to see it.

 

[LooseCannon]

I dunno about hideous, but it didn't need to be its own movie.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I dunno about hideous, but it didn't need to be its own movie.

It just didn't need to exist.

 

[LooseCannon]

For every horrible moment, there was a truly great moment. I loved Thorin's gold sickness. He looked insane, not just drunk, and Armitage was the only actor who really got to act in the movie - other than Luke Evans, who was spectacular bringing Bard to life. Similarly, Stephen Fry was magnificent as the Master of Laketown, even if the subplots with Alfred could be removed (I find myself wondering if Alfred is the progenitor of Grima Wormtongue, and I expect the extended edition will show Alfred slinking away, vowing to take his newfound fortune to somewhere far away, like Rohan). I thought the expulsion of Sauron from Dol Guldur was fantastically done, and it makes sense that Galadriel would get her ass kicked by motherfucking Sauron. And Billy Connolly was funny, at the very least.

The defeat of Smaug was almost perfectly done, nigh-epic, and yes, it was "Jacksoned" up a bit from the book, but in a good way. It hit all the right notes, and was appropriately dramatic. It's too bad it wasn't at the end of the second movie. Or...well, there's a lot of too bads here.

 

[Forostar]

It would help if you could separate the film and the book a bit more than you're doing right now, Cried. Just a bit.
As terrible as you may find the film, it won't per se make the book worse. (Some argue it does, but that's another story)

Speaking for myself: I'll always cherish the book. But I can still enjoy this version.

Care to see another?

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

For every horrible moment, there was a truly great moment.

Are you being serious?! "Truly great" in what possible sense?

Armitage was the only actor who really got to act in the movie - other than Luke Evans, who was spectacular bringing Bard to life.

True. Where Martin Freeman shone in the other two movies (particularly the first one), Evans & Armitage were certainly the standouts in this one.

Similarly, Stephen Fry was magnificent as the Master of Laketown...

He was just okay. And we're talking about Five Armies here; he's barely in it.

I thought the expulsion of Sauron from Dol Guldur was fantastically done, and it makes sense that Galadriel would get her ass kicked by motherfucking Sauron.

In Jackson's world maybe. She didn't get her "ass kicked" though.

And Billy Connolly was funny, at the very least.

Pointless.

The defeat of Smaug was almost perfectly done, nigh-epic, and yes, it was "Jacksoned" up a bit from the book, but in a good way. It hit all the right notes, and was appropriately dramatic. It's too bad it wasn't at the end of the second movie. Or...well, there's a lot of too bads here.

Yeh, think about this a little harder & the bads keep on coming...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would help if you could separate the film and the book a bit more than you're doing right now, Cried. Just a bit.
As terrible as you may find the film, it won't per se make the book worse. (Some argue it does, but that's another story)

Speaking for myself: I'll always cherish the book. But I can still enjoy this version.

I'm not some massive, uncritical fanboy of The Hobbit (the book). But come on!, these films are garbage, with none of the magic of the book. Of course, part of the problem, for me, is that these are films --& films just ain't a patch on literature. However as films I find them tiresome & pretty poor quality (in several departments). I've said this before Forostar --removing my Tolkien fanboy hat for a second, I really, really don't know what you guys see in these films. They're intellectually & artistically total fucking junk. Yeh, they're entertaining; but as an artistic medium I expect films to aspire to something a little higher.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

We could actually do a fan edit once the third extended comes out next year. I'd be down for it. It'd be hard, and since none of us are actual, what's the term, editors, it'd likely be very rough, but it might be fun.

All of that being said, I hereby move we dispense with spoiler tags. All in favour?

Mosh is in production school. I'm sure he'll know something about editing by then. I volunteer him.

I second the motion on spoiler tags, but we should add a warning to the thread title then.

 

[Forostar]

I'm not some massive, uncritical fanboy of The Hobbit (the book). But come on!, these films are garbage, with none of the magic of the book. Of course, part of the problem, for me, is that these are films --& films just ain't a patch on literature. However as films I find them tiresome & pretty poor quality (in several departments). I've said this before Forostar --removing my Tolkien fanboy hat for a second, I really, really don't know what you guys see in these films. They're intellectually & artistically total fucking junk. Yeh, they're entertaining; but as an artistic medium I expect films to aspire to something a little higher.

We really have explained what we like about these films (and what do not like).
I am not really sure what you want with the medium film. What do you expect from film? Do you disqualify the medium altogether? As in:

cements my view that modern cinema is a vacuous worthless pile of crap that is unworthy of my hard earned cash.

Or do you want a nice film version of a Tolkien book? And then: what are your criteria for a good film interpretation? Which fantasy films do you like? Are there any you like?

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

I studied film, I have edited lots, so I can certainly edit.

The problem is that I don't really want to watch the movies that much, nor do I have the time.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

as an artistic medium I expect films to aspire to something a little higher.

There it is, right there. Your expectations. There's nothing wrong with a film being simply a good bit of fun. Unless Peter Jackson had an agreement to work from a handwritten, annotated and illuminated list of your expectations, there's no reason to think he's going to meet them.

Hobbit 3 falls short in the ability to wrap up the story with feeling. I can say this not on the basis of my expectation, but on Jackson's existing record (a comparison to RotK). Note that I'm only comparing Jackson to himself; having paid for the book rights, he's not obligated to follow the book, and a comparison to Tolkien is enlightening but not entirely relevant.

Purely as a film, Hobbit 3 is good but falls short of great.

 

[LooseCannon]

Mosh can be our Topher Grace.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

There it is, right there. Your expectations.

Indeed. And clearly my expectations of film are slightly higher/different from yours.

There's nothing wrong with a film being simply a good bit of fun.

Again, fine. But that's all the film will be: a good bit of fun; ordinary & totally forgettable. Which is unfortunate given the source material. Great films do more than entertain.

Unless Peter Jackson had an agreement to work from a handwritten, annotated and illuminated list of your expectations, there's no reason to think he's going to meet them.

I'm not suggesting he should. But what did he plan to produce & how successful has he been? Was that it? That shit that I just sat through?

Hobbit 3 falls short in the ability to wrap up the story with feeling. I can say this not on the basis of my expectation, but on Jackson's existing record (a comparison to RotK). Note that I'm only comparing Jackson to himself; having paid for the book rights, he's not obligated to follow the book, and a comparison to Tolkien is enlightening but not entirely relevant.

Purely as a film, Hobbit 3 is good but falls short of great.

So upon reflection Five Armies, just comparing Jackson with himself, isn't even (in your opinion) that good? And Jackson sits where within in the history of film making, exactly? I'm just saying, there's nothing special here. Jackson has had the luck & honour to work with some of the best source material (in terms of the Fantasy genre) possible & has, in my opinion, done very little (that is good) with it. [Also, Jackson didn't pay for the film rights.]

 

[Forostar]

Who has done something good in the fantasy genre?

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

So upon reflection Five Armies, just comparing Jackson with himself, isn't even (in your opinion) that good?

Right. It's a good movie when considered alone, but falls short of the mark when considering all that has come before. I'm not saying you're wrong to criticize the movie. I'm saying that holding it to a Tolkien standard is, to some extent, unfair. Almost no movie based on a book ever matches the source material.

Or put it this way: yes, Jackson butchered Tolkien. But a reaction like "I just pissed all over Tolkien" or "all modern films are vacuous shit" is way over the top. Jackson took his movie far from the source at times, but he didn't rape Tolkien's son or something.

The movie may fall short of greatness by any number of measures, but that's not the same as saying it's entirely horrible. It had plenty of good stuff too.

 

[Forostar]

Stop evading my questions Cried.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

Who has done something good in the fantasy genre?

Jackson. LotR is extremely good.

Also, where do you draw the line on "fantasy"? To me, Star Wars has more in common with fantasy than science fiction.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Right. It's a good movie when considered alone...

Nope, I disagree. Seriously, in ten years time I bet you won't rank this film highly, amongst your own favourite films.

...but falls short of the mark when considering all that has come before.

Compared to Jackson's record, or films generally?

I'm not saying you're wrong to criticize the movie. I'm saying that holding it to a Tolkien standard is, to some extent, unfair.

Indeed. Book vs. film is unfair.

Almost no movie based on a book ever matches the source material.

For some, I don't think it's worth attempting.

Or put it this way: yes, Jackson butchered Tolkien. But a reaction like "I just pissed all over Tolkien" or "all modern films are vacuous shit" is way over the top.

It was hyperbolic to the point of absurdity, deliberately, SMX. I was just saying: I thought it was garbage!

Jackson took his movie far from the source at times, but he didn't rape Tolkien's son or something.

Now, now, I never accused him of that...

The movie may fall short of greatness by any number of measures, but that's not the same as saying it's entirely horrible. It had plenty of good stuff too.

It's horrible, & is a country mile from "greatness" by whatever measure you care to use.

Stop evading my questions Cried.

Remind again: what were your questions?