|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 16, 2017 18:37:49 GMT -5
The Hobbit movies were dire...and they got worse as they went along. They were the perfect illustration that Peter Jackson needs someone to reign him in. His ability to turn what was perfectly set up to be a great 2 1/2 hour movie into a grinding eight hours of mind-numbing pain is ridiculous. I wouldn't quite go that far. the real issue was that they were sticking to the trilogy format, when the Hobbit is a self-contained story, that moves along pretty well. LOTR meanders quite a bit, but at least builds to a conclusion (mostly). The Hobbit really is "there and back again." It only needed one movie; one and a half, tops. The Rankin-Bass version was only 78 minutes and doesn't really lose that much of the story. I don't even think Jackson wanted to do a trilogy; but, the studio did and if he wanted to make his Hobbitt, he had to agree to their structure (all supposition, obviously). I really wish we could have seen Guillermo del Toro's version, as it would have been different, yet exciting. I have no interest in a tv series, unless it has a lot of minstrel narrators. Jackson's King Kong was a bloated turd also. I will admit that the short turnaround from del Toro to Jackson clearly didn't help. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 16, 2017 20:07:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't quite go that far. the real issue was that they were sticking to the trilogy format, when the Hobbit is a self-contained story, that moves along pretty well. LOTR meanders quite a bit, but at least builds to a conclusion (mostly). The Hobbit really is "there and back again." It only needed one movie; one and a half, tops. The Rankin-Bass version was only 78 minutes and doesn't really lose that much of the story. I don't even think Jackson wanted to do a trilogy; but, the studio did and if he wanted to make his Hobbitt, he had to agree to their structure (all supposition, obviously). I really wish we could have seen Guillermo del Toro's version, as it would have been different, yet exciting. I have no interest in a tv series, unless it has a lot of minstrel narrators. Jackson's King Kong was a bloated turd also. I will admit that the short turnaround from del Toro to Jackson clearly didn't help. I would agree on King Kong. he wanted to cram about 2 films worth of stuff there, and got overly enamored of his CGI. If they had to do it stop motion, the effects guys would have balked and said, "You know, less is more, sometimes." |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 16, 2017 20:39:21 GMT -5
...the real issue was that they were sticking to the trilogy format, when the Hobbit is a self-contained story, that moves along pretty well. LOTR meanders quite a bit, but at least builds to a conclusion (mostly). The Hobbit really is "there and back again." It only needed one movie; one and a half, tops. Well that was one of the "real issues", for sure. Another real issue that marred the trilogy was its hamfisted and dogged desire to be a prequel to LOTRs at all costs, what with Saruman, Galadrial, and Sauron/the Necromancer all making appearances, which, of course, they didn't in the book. Yet another real issue would be the shoehorning of some kind of syrupy "reclaiming our home" plot motivation for the Dwarves, rather than just having their motivation be getting rich from a simple treasure hunt, as it is in the book. Still another real issue with the film was its humourless dedication to gritty, bad assery, in place of the charm and comedy of the original. And finally, one more real issue was the film's over-reliance on crappy, action film style cgi effects (rather than the acclaimed practical effects seen in abundance in the LOTRs trilogy). Needless to say, there were countless smaller issues that detrimentally affected the quality of the films, but those are the main ones, in my opinion. The Hobbit should've been one 3 and a half hour long film and stuck to the mood and tenor of the book. It should've been a fantastically exciting and humour filled hunt for treasure, requiring the slaying of a fearsome dragon and one little Hobbit finding his inner strength. What we got was an utter mess that became less and less like the book that I know and love with each instalment. Yeah, that film trilogy sure ain't my Hobbit. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 16, 2017 23:11:54 GMT -5
How did they show the Necromancer in the Hobbit films? Sauron was meant to have lost his physical form at that point wasn't he?
Very much agree that the mood and tenor of the book are what make it so special, in large part, though of course it's also a rollicking adventure story full of memorable characters and set-pieces. I always thought it would be extremely difficult to translate that to the screen even assuming they tried, which I'm not sure they did. Much of it comes from the narrative voice Tolkien uses, and I'm not sure even an accomplished actor doing a voice-over would be able to capture it.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 17, 2017 0:17:49 GMT -5
How did they show the Necromancer in the Hobbit films? Sauron was meant to have lost his physical form at that point wasn't he? He doesn't become fully formed, but watch towards the end of this clip to see how they showed him. This is the scene where Gandalf names the Necromancer as Sauron. if you've not seen the films you won't know what the hell is going on though, since nothing you see in this scene happens in the book. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 17, 2017 3:01:35 GMT -5
How did they show the Necromancer in the Hobbit films? Sauron was meant to have lost his physical form at that point wasn't he? He doesn't become fully formed, but watch towards the end of this clip to see how they showed him. This is the scene where Gandalf names the Necromancer as Sauron. if you've not seen the films you won't know what the hell is going on though, since nothing you see in this scene happens in the book. Thanks. Yes, you're right, that didn't look too good. But then, I didn't think they found a good look for Sauron in the LoTR films either. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 17, 2017 7:32:28 GMT -5
He doesn't become fully formed, but watch towards the end of this clip to see how they showed him. This is the scene where Gandalf names the Necromancer as Sauron. if you've not seen the films you won't know what the hell is going on though, since nothing you see in this scene happens in the book. Thanks. Yes, you're right, that didn't look too good. But then, I didn't think they found a good look for Sauron in the LoTR films either. Oh, I didn't mind how he looked too much. I just had a problem with how they shoehorned him into the Hobbit. If I remember correctly, the Necromancer is briefly mentioned by Gandalf in the Hobbit and that's it. We don't learn that he is Sauron until the LOTRs. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 17, 2017 8:19:08 GMT -5
Thanks. Yes, you're right, that didn't look too good. But then, I didn't think they found a good look for Sauron in the LoTR films either. Oh, I didn't mind how he looked too much. I just had a problem with how they shoehorned him into the Hobbit. If I remember correctly, the Necromancer is briefly mentioned by Gandalf in the Hobbit and that's it. We don't learn that he is Sauron until the LOTRs. Those extra bits in the Hobbit trilogy are also found in more detail in the Unfinished tales; I get the impression that in order to boost the length of his films (and perhaps out of some obsessive fannish devotion), Jackson mined Tolkien's works for all they were worth. I regret that he felt the need to also incorporate extraneous things to make the films more Hollywood-friendly... doomed romances, monstrous bad guys, video-game races through the Goblins' mines... ugh. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 17, 2017 8:56:13 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't mind how he looked too much. I just had a problem with how they shoehorned him into the Hobbit. If I remember correctly, the Necromancer is briefly mentioned by Gandalf in the Hobbit and that's it. We don't learn that he is Sauron until the LOTRs. Are you sure? I've never read the Unfinished Tales, but my understanding is that all that Jackson, Wingnut Films and New Line Cinema had the rights to were The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Nothing featured in The Silmarillion or any of the other books could be used. All the stuff about Azog the Defiler (the Pale Orc) and the additional info about Radagast the Brown and the Necromancer comes from the appendices of LOTRs, I believe. Plus, they made a s**t tonne of stuff up as well, of course! I get the impression that in order to boost the length of his films (and perhaps out of some obsessive fannish devotion), Jackson mined Tolkien's works for all they were worth. Ain't that the truth! And it really didn't need to be like that. As I say, it would've been a much better and much more focused cinematic experience if they'd just made one 3½ hour film that stuck to the story and mood of in the book as much as possible. I regret that he felt the need to also incorporate extraneous things to make the films more Hollywood-friendly... doomed romances, monstrous bad guys, video-game races through the Goblins' mines... ugh. In particular, the look of the Goblin mines was a real bugbear of mine. The mines should've been just that: a maze of tight, claustrophobic tunnels. Instead we got the Ewok village underground! No doubt this was to turn the sequence into a set piece, with, as you say, "video-game races" through the mines. But I just remember shaking my head in the cinema as those scenes played out. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 17, 2017 12:32:50 GMT -5
Those extra bits in the Hobbit trilogy are also found in more detail in the Unfinished tales Are you sure? I've never read the Unfinished Tales, but my understanding is that all that Jackson, Wingnut Films and New Line Cinema had the rights to were The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Nothing featured in The Silmarillion or any of the other books could be used. Since many pages tell the same stories with varying levels of details, they probably can get away with a lot of interpretation as to what's in LoTR and The Hobbit and what is from Unfinished Tales... but yeah, a lot of the politics described in The Hobbit are featured in The Silmarillion, in the chapter "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age". Ditto for Unfinished Tales. Where both characters are really minor figures, and not at all the cinematic caricatures (the Bad Guy! The Comic Relief!) found in the Hobbit movies, I hasten to add! Not a lot of it good... (Not any of it good).I get the impression that in order to boost the length of his films (and perhaps out of some obsessive fannish devotion), Jackson mined Tolkien's works for all they were worth. Ain't that the truth! And it really didn't need to be like that. As I say, it would've been a much better and much more focused cinematic experience if they'd just made one 3½ hour film that stuck to the story and mood of in the book as much as possible.[/quote] Hear, hear! The animated Hobbit was fine in what it chose to show, as was a puppet play I saw in the late <70s. All the extra stuff in the Hobbit movies was a massive distraction which detracted from the actual story. Yes, it was cool to see Gandalf face the Necromancer... but it was by no means necessary, nor even desirable. I regret that he felt the need to also incorporate extraneous things to make the films more Hollywood-friendly... doomed romances, monstrous bad guys, video-game races through the Goblins' mines... ugh. In particular, the look of the Goblin mines was a real bugbear of mine. The mines should've been just that: a maze of tight, claustrophobic tunnels. Instead we got the Ewok village underground! No doubt this was to turn the sequence into a set piece, with, as you say, "video-game races" through the mines. But I just remember shaking my head in the cinema as those scenes played out. [/quote] Yeah... One of the aspects I enjoyed the most in the LotR trilogy was how real most of it felt. I could believe that Hobbiton was a real place, and Hobbits a real people. Now in the Hobbit movies we see people falling great heights onto solid stone and getting up without a scratch? Bah! |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 17, 2017 13:04:09 GMT -5
All the stuff about Azog the Defiler (the Pale Orc) and the additional info about Radagast the Brown and the Necromancer comes from the appendices of LOTRs, I believe. Where both characters are really minor figures, and not at all the cinematic caricatures (the Bad Guy! The Comic Relief!) found in the Hobbit movies, I hasten to add! No, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason for Jackson et al expanding Azog's role in the Hobbit trilogy was doubtless because the first and second films needed an antagonist, since the heroes don't meet Smaug the Dragon (the book's villain) until late in the second film. This is just one more reason why The Hobbit really didn't work as a long, drawn-out trilogy and would've been better served by being just one film. As for Radagast, I must confess that I rather enjoyed Sylvester McCoy's take on him, although it does take the barest bones of the character's personality (preoccupation with flora and fauna, and forgetfulness) and ramp them up to caricature-like proportions for the sake of injecting comic relief into proceedings. That was kind of unnecessary because there was already plenty of comedy in the book that the filmmakers decided to chuck out in favour of inappropriate, gritted-teeth bad assery (see the Dwarves' encounter with the Wood Elves in Mirkwood as a perfect example of how Jackson sucked all the joy and playfulness present in the book out of the film). Plus, they made a s**t tonne of stuff up as well, of course! Not a lot of it good... (Not any of it good).Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 0:35:54 GMT -5
So Sir Ian McKellan is stating publicly that he would like to revisit his role as Gandalf for upcoming Lord of the Rings television series. I doubt it will happen, but it is an interesting thought.
-M
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 17, 2017 6:39:51 GMT -5
I'm wondering if this thread should be renamed as a general purpose Tolkien, LOTRs, Middle-earth etc discussion thread? You know, a bit like the "A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away" thread is for all things Star Wars. What do you think, @mrp? Might be nice to have a general thread for all things Tolkien-related.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 14:43:40 GMT -5
I'm wondering if this thread should be renamed as a general purpose Tolkien, LOTRs, Middle-earth etc discussion thread? You know, a bit like the "A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away" thread is for all things Star Wars. What do you think, @mrp? Might be nice to have a general thread for all things Tolkien-related. Sounds good to me... -M |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Dec 17, 2017 14:57:15 GMT -5
I couldn't get into the LOTR movies the first time I tried to watch them for some reason. I ended up falling asleep during the wizard fight in The Fellowship of the Ring. It wasn't until I got into reading the source material that I was able to sit through the movies. My brothers has the recent Blu-Ray edition of the trilogy with the additional footage and I may try to borrow them over the holiday break.
|
|
