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

Forostar said:
There should be less overemphasized drama, less slow-overdramatic-saying-goodbyes, less crying, and less women who don't belong there, thus less unnecessary romance.

In other words. If you could stand the LOTR film, big chance you can stand this one as well.
Click to expand...

Not one for the emotions eh Forostar ;)
 
I like emotions but in this film things were really so overemphasized. And I can't help comparing with the book, in which this wasn't so exaggerated.

Let me put it different. I wish we'll see a closer portrayal of the book and less long close-ups of dramatic, overly happy or sad hobbit faces. Big chance, because we'll see less hobbits, and there will be less saying goodbyes, less women, and less intense friendships, and such.

We'll get a bunch of dwarves instead.  :D
 
Perun said:
Any chance someone who has never been into Tolkien will enjoy this film?
Click to expand...
Possibly.  I could be just such a person.

Forostar said:
There should be less overemphasized drama, less slow-overdramatic-saying-goodbyes, less crying, and less women who don't belong there, thus less unnecessary romance.

In other words. If you could stand the LOTR film, big chance you can stand this one as well.
Click to expand...

And that's what lowered the quality of the movie for me at the end.  I got up to leave like three times before the movie ended only to realize oh there's more.  Having said that, the movies were enjoyable.
 
They were. But something tells me this can only be better. Jackson has more experience, and from what I've read it looks like he wants to be pretty stuck to the book.

The whole thing I find pretty exciting to be honest, even though it's far away still. I am glad the project survived.
 
Forostar said:
I like emotions but in this film things were really so overemphasized. And I can't help comparing with the book, in which this wasn't so exaggerated.

Let me put it different. I wish we'll see a closer portrayal of the book and less long close-ups of dramatic, overly happy or sad hobbit faces. Big chance, because we'll see less hobbits, and there will be less saying goodbyes, less women, and less intense friendships, and such.

We'll get a bunch of dwarves instead.  :D
Click to expand...

By and large those romances were in the book too, although I agree it was exaggerated; and again while it was probably the weakest aspect of the films, I don't think it detracted from them overall. The fact that The Hobbit doesn't have that aspect, I feel won't add or subtract from the film in comparison to LOTR.

Genghis Khan said:
And that's what killed the movie for me at the end.  I got up to leave like three times before the movie ended only to realize oh there's more.  Having said that, the movies were enjoyable.
Click to expand...
I remember when I saw the last one at the cinema I was expecting the credits quite a few times and then it just keeps on coming. But I loved that: the more LOTR the better for me. :)
 
Those romances were not in the first book. Nor women (or hardly). Still -for minutes!- we had to watch Arwen riding that horse, in a scene that was not in the book.

And in the last film, I thought it was a cringing scene when the hobbits looked at eachother when Frodo came to his senses again, in Elrond's house. Those intense stares. Jaaaiks. Same for the saying goodbyes at the end, with the Celine Dion "Heart will go on" music.

It didn't kill the film for me but it certainly detracted. I hope such aspects will be less present in The Hobbit.
 
I'll change my "killed" the movie to the more reasonable "lowered the quality" of the movie.

And did you say Celine Dion sang that? Ugh!
 
I had no problem with the repeat endings of Return of the King. I knew that they weren't doing the Scouring of the Shire (which makes a certain cinematic sense), and I knew what the endings were. My biggest reaction to each of the "ending pauses" were..."are they actually going to stop there? oh good, more!"
 
I'm actually a little dissapointed they never went to reflect on how Gimli and Legolas got on after Aragorns coronation but I can live with that.

P.S. The Lord of the Rings drinking game is so brutal D:
 
I don't think we can be disappointed with the quality of the LOTR movies. For years they were labelled un-filmable. They were an outstanding achievement every single level. It doesn't matter the criteria you gauge them against they remain an outstanding success and the best trilogy ever.
 
If you don't want to be critical, yes, of course.

I dare to say that some things (the stuff I explained) could have been done better, and that's what I hope for in the next Jackson installment.
 
Forostar said:
If you don't want to critical, yes, of course.

I dare to say that some things (the stuff I explained) could have been done better, and that's what I hope for in the next Jackson installment.
Click to expand...

I found the books a bit of a chore, especially The Two Towers which is my favourite movie of the trilogy. The fact that most Tolkien fans adore the movies is praise enough. These are the most critical people and the vast majority of them see the movies as a resounding success.
 
I never denied its success. But lots of Tolkien fans actually had quite some criticism, which is healthy of course.
 
Forostar said:
I never denied its success. But lots of Tolkien fans actually had quite some criticism, which is healthy of course.
Click to expand...

I meant they found the transition from book to screen a success. I think most of them understood the books simply couldn't work as movies and so certain things needed to be changed. The script process must've been a nightmare. Wish I could've been in that room.
 
For me the LOTR films were great. My main objections would be the green flood (ghosts) that secured victory in the end, that way the horseman could have stayed home. Second would be Legolas. The way he was skateboarding was for me on the thin line between humor and should not have been done. The killing of the the elephant was toooooo much.

My Legolas objections might be because he is an Elf. My luck the hobbit will be about dwarves.
 
Warhurst said:
My main objections would be the green flood (ghosts) that secured victory in the end
Click to expand...
Quoted for fucking truth. Probably my second least favorite thing about that entire trilogy next to the entire Aragorn-Arwen storyline.

It was so annoying how they used the Army of the Dead almost like a cop-out to win the battle. They just didn't turn the tide of the battle, the AotD won it singlehandedly that it was painfully comical.
 
They should have made the whole thing into a 20 minute short film, in which the ghost army defeats the orc armies and a giant eagle takes Frodo direct to Mount Doom. ;)
 
The ghosts bothered me too. A lot. Why did everyone die again? Ghosts can just save the day.

Their purpose in the book was to signify that Aragorn is appropriately king, a philosophical point that had been in contention since the death of Ondoher.

It's difficult to explain, but in the books, Aragorn isn't the rightful king of Gondor just because of his descent from Elendil, but because Ondoher's only child was Arvedui's wife, and should have been allowed to take the crown. However, they chose to break the line of Kings and give the crown to a lesser sire of the family of Anarion.

The ghosts swore their allegiance to the King of Gondor, not the King of the West (Elendil).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top