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

Well @Forostar I read the TOR article & it didn't really say anything particularly surprising or new; although I do agree with one of the comments that it was "opinionated, but reasonable and moderate". My guess is that you still seem to be mixing up my criticism of the films as films, with criticism which rests on an unfair comparison of the two mediums. One poster touches on this, saying:
I'm sort of confused; the article's thesis seems to be that the films should be judged as independent works, rather than within the light of the original books. But then most of the article is talking about the differences between the books and the films and justifying them. If the films are going to be defended on their own ground, shouldn't they just be looked at in their own context alone?
Click to expand...
To be clear: removing any comparison to Tolkien's work(s), I personally did not think this was a very good film. Like others, I do go to the cinema to be, at a very simple level, entertained. But at another level (when I'm sat down & asked), I do expect the visual medium of film to deliver a lot more; it certainly has the potential to. Jackson's flashy films pay short change to things I think are important & overemphasise elements which I find superficial, shallow, & ultimately unimportant. Maybe his (or the studio's) approach forced this upon him. I don't care. I don't like the end product. As I said earlier (& some people seem to find this an almost unbelievable view, for some reason), these adaptations/interpretations didn't need to be made; it would have made very little difference to me if they hadn't.
 
Thanks for reading, Cried.
That comment you quoted, did you also read the author's answer?

4. Colin R: I didn't really have a single point here. Yes, I do feel that the films and the books need to be considered separately. But as someone invested in the source material, I still have opinions about what was done vs. what could have been done. I can't justify everything Jackson decided. Some I flat-out disagree with, but most I can at least understand. One of my major points, though, is that the existing source material wasn't actually stretched into three movies. If Jackson really covered the source material (The Hobbit) and intended to fill in all the gaps as they exist in the book—where did Gandalf go, what's the significance of the Necromancer, what's the deal with the Elvenking, where was Thorin all this time before the quest, how did Gandalf get the key to the Lonely Mountain? etc.—then this could have been five films or more, easy.

You are absolutely right about the dwaves vs. Smaug. It accomplished nothing in the story except maybe gave us a little glimpse of Thorin's personal enmity with Smaug. Which is neat but not worth all the chasing and gold-melting.

I will say, I'm not particularly pleased with the lazy Strider hook at the end. In Fellowship, it's established that Legolas was sent to Rivendell as a messenger that Gollum, who Gandalf had left in their keeping, had escaped. He wasn't just wandering the world with Aragorn, as Jackson suggested it. But whatever. Again, it paints a picture of a slightly different Middle-earth.
Click to expand...
 
Forostar said:
That comment you quoted, did you also read the author's answer?
Click to expand...
Yeh, I read all of it & his responses. The interesting point touched upon here, and better put by one of the other responders (I think), is that Jackson stretched the basic story into three films --but, incredibly, managed to fill quite a lot of it with his own shit; much with no narrative value, and at the expensive of much other viable source material (appearing in the appendices, etc) that would have been of great interest.

In general, I agree with quite a lot of the article & comments that followed.
 
Maybe it's because I went into it with few expectations, but I seriously enjoyed the film tonight :p

With the exception of a few silly bits (like Bard careering downhill on a cart Indiana Jones-style through the ruins of Dale while shooting orcs with his bow), I found much of the battle and general fight scenes far more gritty and convincing than previous ones. The video game feel of scenes like the barrel riders sketch in the previous film was gone. The violence went up a notch, and I thought they neatly tied up the additional side plots they had running in this trilogy.

Contrary to what I'd expected, I felt little of it dragged. Thorin's gold-sickness was convincingly portrayed, and they managed to make Bilbo shine once more, while retaining his down to earth little quirks. After the LOTR trilogy I felt the battles were becoming very samey, but this broke the mould. Nice scene setting and a bit more imagination.

Billy Connolly was a great bit of casting. He didn't play Dain as such, Dain took on the persona of Billy Connolly! I still maintain Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo as well.

Whether I get a similar impression when I see the film on DVD is a matter yet to be concluded.
 
Glad you enjoyed it!

And indeed. This film does hardly drag, especially compared to some scenes from the LOTR-trilogy.

I think this one is The X-Factor of Peter Jackson's works. In 10, 20 years, it will be valued more for its own qualities, more independent from the golden (Bruce) era.
 
I reserve judgment in that respect :lol:

Thinking back, I think it was the greater use of actors in the fighting that helped. Computer generated characters are very sophisticated these days, but live action is still far more convincing. It felt like there was more effort all round to make battle manoeuvres and hand to hand fighting conventions look plausible. Only a handful of examples of moves that looked physically impossible or didn't make good sense in combat.

The scenery really came to life and pulled the viewer in, too. I didn't notice that as much with the previous two films, there was a lot more atmosphere.
 
Off topic, but if any of you thought Legolas' archery was impressive in the latest Tolkien-related motion picture product...

 
Finally saw the film. Loved it. Best installation of the Hobbit series, definitely. I can see where criticisms stem from but the film flows like a charm. Almost zero dragging scenes, which was a low point of a legendary series like Lord of the Rings.
 
The Flash said:
Almost zero dragging scenes, which was a low point of a legendary series like Lord of the Rings.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about...

MV5BMjE2ODc5NDIzOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzU2MTk2Mw@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg

Back when the LotR movies were released, I read a review that said, "if you feel the urge to go to the bathroom during the long movie, feel free to leave the moment you see Liv Tyler, as nothing interesting is going to happen for the next few minutes." So true.
 
That's incredible. However, I'm not sure that sort of rapid firing approach would give much range. An archer using a longbow just wouldn't be able to move like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top