Hobbit Trailer looks crap [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Galadriel55

06-11-2013, 04:17 PM

Welcome to the Downs, Arphen! Enjoy discussing stuffs!

Comments on the trailer:

0:22 - MAJESTIC THORIN!!!

0:24 - Bilbo didn't bother closing the barrels with the Dwarves?! What a nice friend. And are the elves blind not to notice???

0:27 - why are the black butterflies blue?

0:29 - why are there chimpanzee-like humans jumping on trees? Are those meant to be Elves?

0:36 - that Legolas is so clearly animated. Seriously?

0:40 - Return to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: Fluffy's back!!!

1:23 - they can't even make a thrilling escape sequence without a fight in it?

1:24 - and of course Legolas is pwning all the baddies.

1:25 - can you actually jump that high in RL, we wonders.

1:52 - I love how noiselessly Bilbo walks.

Conclusion: this trailer should be called Everything Wrong with DOS in 2 Minutes Or Less.

Bêthberry

06-11-2013, 04:18 PM

I've seen that Bilbo/Smaug scene before--in Jurassic Park.

:(

LordPhillock

06-11-2013, 06:02 PM

This movie looks hilarious! This may be a bit unbelievable, but I love it for all the wrong reasons.

Kuruharan

06-11-2013, 07:09 PM

0:24 - Bilbo didn't bother closing the barrels with the Dwarves?! What a nice friend. And are the elves blind not to notice???

0:29 - why are there chimpanzee-like humans jumping on trees? Are those meant to be Elves?

I think those were the elves shooting at the dwarves because they didn't have the lids on so everyone could see them escaping.

1:23 - they can't even make a thrilling escape sequence without a fight in it?

Evidence suggests no.

Conclusion: this trailer should be called Everything Wrong with DOS in 2 Minutes Or Less.

I have a bad feeling that this is just scratching the surface of everything wrong with DOS.

Zigûr

06-11-2013, 07:39 PM

I take it the huge thing trying to get into the room that the Dwarves are barricading (in a repeat of the Cave Troll scene from "Fellowship", I might suggest) is a bear, perhaps even Beorn himself?

But this sums it up for me:
"It is not our fight."
"It is our fight."

This appallingly simplistic, cliché-ridden dialogue has got to be the worst part of these films, worse than shonky CGI Elves turning up everywhere they're not needed.

"What if it's a trap?!?"
"It's undoubtedly a trap."

Spare me.

I thought the recent poster of Bilbo in the wilderness before Erebor actually looked quite nice, incidentally.

Also Bard looks like the love child of Thorin and Legolas, which come to think of it will probably please a lot of fan fic writers :p I honestly thought Thorin was talking to himself for a second.

EDIT: I'd like to add that a thread title like "Hobbit Trailer looks crap" is one of the reasons I joined this forum. We'd get crucified on TORN...

Kuruharan

06-11-2013, 08:36 PM

Also Bard looks like the love child of Thorin and Legolas

Now that you mention it...

Morthoron

06-11-2013, 08:45 PM

I think those were the elves shooting at the dwarves because they didn't have the lids on so everyone could see them escaping.

Like the ludicrous Chutes-and-Ladders(TM) bit in the first movie, PJ takes implausibility to new levels with the uncovered barrels shooting the rapids. Have you ever canoed or kayaked down a rapids? It is imperative you keep your balance with oars, or else you are arse over teat and drowning. A barrel would be capsized in a matter of seconds. That whole gravity thing.

Mithalwen

06-11-2013, 09:02 PM

I will have to wait till tomorrow to dee this since it is beyond the kindle but is this the origin of a new cliche ~ like shooting dwarves in a barrel?

Zigûr

06-11-2013, 09:08 PM

I think the most pressing question is this: where's Bilbo?

He barely appears in this trailer and has no lines.

"Forget about Martin, we need to squeeze in as much of Fran and Philippa's amateurish purple prose as possible! John Ronald Reuel who?"

Nerwen

06-11-2013, 09:37 PM

fight! fight! fight! fight!

–mumble cliché line under breath–

fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! FIGHT!

(Repeat until end.)

Got it.

Arphen Silverhair

06-12-2013, 03:58 AM

Nerwen

06-12-2013, 04:56 AM

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...
Actually... I am really not the “hater” type, Arphen and in fact I have been known to argue myself against people whom I think are being unreasonably negative. I tend to see “hatedom” as basically the other side of blind fandom, and just as annoying.
So, in a way I can sympathise with what you’re saying–

–Except well, in this particular case I honestly just can’t see that much to be positive about. Sorry, but it really does look pretty bad.

Kuruharan

06-12-2013, 07:15 AM

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...

Those of us who dislike the films have to have someplace to go. You certainly aren't going to get any kind of balanced discussion on TORN either.

Arphen Silverhair

06-12-2013, 07:31 AM

Mithalwen

06-12-2013, 07:50 AM

Touch of irony no in being so judgmemtal of Barrow Downers on such a short acquaintanceship? Why not see the positives? On the whole we are an intelligent. witty bunch who reaaly know and loveTolkien. Some (not me ) really know about film. Some even like the films to a greater or lesser degree. Now I know there are Pollyanna Pangloss types ~ some I encounter on a unrelated board~ who refuse on principal to dislike things and when accused of lacking discrimination then say they like some things more. Now that ma be a therapists approved choice of language but semantically it is afine line between using liking more and less and saying like and dislike.

So you have a bunch of opinionated people but the opinions are not mindless.. If you want an unquestioning PJ lovefest you may be in the wrong place. But it is a motherlode if you have more than a superficial interest in Middle Earth. Here you will find those who have lectured and publishd on Tolkien. Again not me yet but I have loved Tolkien's worlld for a very long time now and I mind when it is demeaned.

Positives? How about that they haven't decided that making Eorn a transvestite rather than a skin changer would make him/her more relevant to modern audiences? I am thinking Grayson Perry clutching Alan Measles here.... :Merisu:

Nerwen

06-12-2013, 08:20 AM

Well I don't know what trailer you are seeing, but to me most of it looks great. The CGI is good, it's just not touched up yet.
They still have 6 months to go!
Do you really think the design for example laketown or Thranduils Halls is bad?
If it's one thing the movies really deliver.. it's the visuals.
Perhaps one exception: Azog, but that was because he was added too late.
Just think of a Smaug at Gollum-level CGI-wise.
Also, the actors still are awesome: Lee Pace just nails absolutely every line he got.

One can of course argue about the OTT Action sequences and deviations from the book, those really are unnecessary and bad as in AUJ. But there are still things to look forward to.
And also you must remember those parts with the elves won't be the whole movie. We still just have a glimpse of Beorn, the Spiders, Laketown etc.
Sure, the set design is pretty good and the acting– the very little you see of it– doesn’t look too bad (though I’d call it “workmanlike” rather than ”awesome”). So, if you want people to mention the positives– fine, there they are.

But for the rest– well, come on, look at your own comments: “the CGI is good, it’s just not touched up yet. They still have six months to go!” “[the action scenes] are unnecessary and bad” “those parts with the elves won’t be the whole movie”. So... um... it’s a great trailer except for almost everything that appears in it?:confused:

Arphen Silverhair

06-12-2013, 08:22 AM

@ Mithalwen
I think I have any right to say what my opinion about given movie/trailer is, no matter how short I am member here. And also why I think the broad majority of the people here tend to overlook that Peter Jackson is not the devil himself.
I said clearly that I dislike about the same things that most dislike about the new Trailer and about AUJ.
But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.
Or use sarcastic statements every time they comment on the movies like you did in your post, instead of for example give your view of things I thought were quite good.
(no matter how you see it, just use a different tone)

@ Nerwen
I meant the part with fighting, sliding elves. I think Tauriel is a character who is okay.

alatar

06-12-2013, 08:50 AM

Interestingly, PJ has taken a boring barrel ride and made it into a flight/chase/fight scene, because surely that's what this trilogy has been lacking. Explains why the barrel lids needed to be left in Thanduil's wine cellar.

elvet

06-12-2013, 08:53 AM

Awesome trailer. I think Peter Jackson does a good job with the movies.

Mithalwen

06-12-2013, 09:05 AM

[QUOTE=Arphen Silverhair;684142]@" Mithalwen
I think I have any right to say what my opinion about given movie/trailer is, no matter how short I am member here. And also why I think the broad majority of the people here tend to overlook that Peter Jackson is not the devil himself.
I said clearly that I dislike about the same things that most dislike about the new Trailer and about AUJ.
But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.
Or use sarcastic statements every time they comment on the movies like you did in your post, instead of for example give your view of things I thought were quite good.
(no matter how you see it, just use a different tone)"

I wasn't being sarcastic. You do have the right to post your opinions on the films. I was merely pointing out what seemed to be double standards. We have to see the best in the films but you have the right to see the worst in us on your first visit. And equally the original poster is entitled to his choice of words which while uncouth has passed the censor. Give others the rights you claim for yourself and don't dictate to them how they should post.

Arphen Silverhair

06-12-2013, 09:12 AM

Positives? How about that they haven't decided that making Eorn a transvestite rather than a skin changer would make him/her more relevant to modern audiences? I am thinking Grayson Perry clutching Alan Measles here.... :Merisu:

So this is not sarcasm?

Mithalwen

06-12-2013, 09:19 AM

So this is not sarcasm?

It was meant to be joke......hence stupid smiley but having seen the trailer with it's extremely minimal connection to Tolkien I feel rather bleak.

Nogrod

06-12-2013, 09:56 AM

I think one thing that concerns many people around here is that people had expectations with the LotR -movie, that it would be something great - not just one more blockbuster action movie with some comic relief added. In retrospect it is easy to see that you just should have guessed it: there is no high art coming from Hollywood, even if the screenwriters use a masterpiece as a basis (of deviation) for their storyboard.

I know many people differ on how they see the LotR-trilogy here. But many of even those who kind of liked the LotR by PJ are now facing a new situation when the Hobbit seems to be nothing more than yet one more "Avengers" or "Spider Man" or "Star Trek": an exploitation of older popular material built to maximise the income of the studios by following the lowest common denominators of their marketing department's imagined teen-age audiences.

Which doesn't mean it can't be quite an eye-candy.

I'm taking the optimist's route then. It maybe Hollywood doesn't know any more how to tell a story or to build interesting and deep characters (or they are not interested in those things any more) but they sure know how to make things look breath-takingly good and epic.

Kind of a larger image of our world today: we may have nothing inside, but darn we look good! :rolleyes:

alatar

06-12-2013, 10:04 AM

Hobbit trailer looks crap.

Is the thread title missing a word or some letters, or does it contain some textspeak slang that the youngin's use, with the meaning:

Computer rendered and processed
Completely reimagined, all PJ
Cash raking after production?

Nerwen

06-12-2013, 10:32 AM

I said clearly that I dislike about the same things that most dislike about the new Trailer and about AUJ.
But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.
Might some of us not be criticising this trailer for perfectly legitimate reasons? I mean, Arphen, it seems you largely agree about what’s wrong with it– it’s just that you think we should ignore that and focus on what’s positive. Okay, in a way that’s a pretty good attitude– but the thing is, when most of what’s shown in a trailer is CGI-heavy action scenes, then the quality of both CGI and action becomes rather relevant. Plus, what there is of dialogue sounds awfully trite to me. So– what’s left? I just don’t think “scenery” is enough to swing it. (“Acting” is a moot point– it’s a good cast, but we’re not actually seeing much of what they’re capable of here.)

Which doesn't mean it can't be quite an eye-candy.

I'm taking the optimist's route then. It maybe Hollywood doesn't know any more how to tell a story or to build interesting and deep characters (or they are not interested in those things any more) but they sure know how to make things look breath-takingly good and epic.
They do... but that doesn’t mean they always succeed... I mean, honestly, this doesn’t even look good– in fact, that’s largely what we’ve been talking about.

Besides, I think you’re making a lot of sweeping generalisations here. Hollywood is what it always was– i.e. mainly about profit, but quality films can and do get made. And believe me, I can appreciate a decent blockbuster/popcorn film, and enjoy it for what it is rather than what it isn't. That doesn’t mean one has to be completely uncritical all the time.

Alcidas

06-12-2013, 10:36 AM

@ Mithalwen
I think I have any right to say what my opinion about given movie/trailer is, no matter how short I am member here.

Of course you have every right to state your opinion about the trailer in here. Similarly, those posters who wish to state their opinion that the trailer is a load of crap also have every right to do so.

What you are being criticised for is not your opinion that the trailer is good, but your presuming to lecture other posters about their opinions.

Surely you can see this very simple point?

Galadriel55

06-12-2013, 10:45 AM

But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.

This might go a bit off topic, but I personally don't hate the movie on principle. I just dislike it on principle. Not even that. I don't really care about it, but I love to complain about every little detail they get wrong. You should try it, it's fun. :D :Merisu:

Alcidas

06-12-2013, 10:56 AM

I don't really care about it, but I love to complain about every little detail they get wrong. You should try it, it's fun. :D :Merisu:

Yup. What really bothers me about this trailer is those blue blue eyes that Legolas has. I mean, what IS the deal with that? :p

Aiwendil

06-12-2013, 11:23 AM

it’s a good cast

I don't think Orlando Bloom is a good actor. There, I said it.

Aganzir

06-12-2013, 12:58 PM

Also Bard looks like the love child of Thorin and Legolas, which come to think of it will probably please a lot of fan fic writers I honestly thought Thorin was talking to himself for a second.
He does! I can almost never be bothered to read fic, but I might make an exception for this one. :p

EDIT: I'd like to add that a thread title like "Hobbit Trailer looks crap" is one of the reasons I joined this forum. We'd get crucified on TORN...
Yes, actually, I was going to say earlier that this is one of the funniest thread titles I've seen for a while.

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...
I've paid close attention to the positives! As I said, Tauriel is the least of my concerns now. ;)
I'm not seeing any hate here, though. Criticism, but not hate, and the criticism is there for a reason. We know what PJ did with LOTR and AUJ, and some of us have our doubts. I don't think anybody has decided to outright hate everything PJ produces, it's just that many of us don't expect very much.

Positives? How about that they haven't decided that making Eorn a transvestite rather than a skin changer would make him/her more relevant to modern audiences?
Hahaha I want that so much! :D

Computer rendered and processed
Completely reimagined, all PJ
Cash raking after production?
Oh alatar... I tried to rep you but apparently I haven't been spreading enough rep lately. That was awesome.

Bêthberry

06-12-2013, 07:07 PM

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...

BTW have you seen this?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151697149436171

Mostly this thread is about a little humour. If you knew us, you would be able to recognise the jokes. But that's the problem with internet communication. It's also very difficult for people well versed in Tolkien's books to take a Hollywood adventure/action/gaming flick in any way as a legitimate interpretation of Tolkien. We've learnt, as Agan says, from four previous ones.

One of the things we Downers pride ourselves on, besides our knowledge of Tolkien's books, is the way we conduct discussion here. We tend to avoid simple statements of opinion and favour explanation and argument to support our positions. Sometimes we even manage to persuade each other! Or exhaust each other. ;)

So, given that we tend to listen to each other's reasons, I want to ask you what you mean by linking to that You Tube video. What do you think it proves in terms of your argument? That others are deeply impressed? That we should follow suit also?

Simply linking to that video does little to further your point that we are full of hate. We aint'. But let my give you one possible interpretation of that video to show how it needs a bit of explanation.

It shows some fangirls giggling and excited over the trailer. And it shows three actors' response to the you tube video.

Are the fans giving any kind of argument or debate? No, they are simply going gaga over the scenes they are seeing. They seem to be thoroughly excited by what they are viewing.

Why would Jackson choose this particular video to highlight in the marketing of the second Hobbit movie? Is it a way to forestall criticism? It is a way to demonstrate who he believes his audience is? Is it a way to titilate fangirls by showing them a reaction in the actors they admire?

Why show three actors reacting to the video--and in particular, these three actors? They are all in costume, so it is not likely an unrehearsed or unscripted response, but very likely part of the publicity that the actors must engage in as part of their employment in the film. Is it a way for Jackson to suggest a Middle-earth response? Is it too cynical to regard this as a mere merchandising ploy, using fans to further the marketing strategy?

I for one could never be one of those fangirls, so the entire video does not address me as a fan of Tolkien.

Really, I'm left with the comments, if not here then from one of our recent threads, which presented two of Jackson's writing team's defense of their work: "It's in the appendices!" "It represents the spirit of Tolkien."

Those two statements beg for critical analysis, and neither one of them can bear the scrutiny for long. Critical analysis is not hate. It is the response to the films from people who know the books well.

So, tell me, why did you link to that video? Do you have another "reading" of it that would enlighten us and make us regret our initial responses to the trailer?

mark12_30

06-12-2013, 08:23 PM

"We find the gold...
"We take the gold...
"And we run like there's no Manana!"

"And that's your plan?!?"

"Mm hmm."

".....well, I like it."

Well, I do like it. The trailer, I mean. Lots of reasons not to, but I'd rather be happy about it than curmudgeonize the evening away. I'm even glad to see Leggybopper back, and his redheaded sidekick isn't so bad.

Actually, she's a badass Merisuwiniel.

I think it's time I start planning my opening night costume.

mark12_30

06-12-2013, 08:31 PM

Hmmm, Aiwendil, I'm not sure I disagree with you. So I shan' t think about that too hard before I sleep, perchance to dream. He's a good bowbender, anyway.

:Merisu:

Kuruharan

06-12-2013, 08:31 PM

I'd rather be happy about it than curmudgeonize the evening away.

Killjoy. ;)

I'm even glad to see Leggybopper back, and his redheaded sidekick isn't so bad.

Actually, she's a badass Merisuwiniel.

Yes, but Merisuwyniel was intended as parody.

Still, I don't doubt the unintentional humor quotient will be high. :cool:

Bêthberry

06-12-2013, 10:20 PM

"

".....well, I like it."

Well, I do like it. The trailer, I mean. Lots of reasons not to, but I'd rather be happy about it than curmudgeonize the evening away. I'm even glad to see Leggybopper back, and his redheaded sidekick isn't so bad.

Actually, she's a badass Merisuwiniel.

I think it's time I start planning my opening night costume.

Oh dear. Helen, I remember a certain balrog's eyeliner that got your fancy. :D

[quote=Kuru]
Still, I don't doubt the unintentional humor quotient will be high. [quote]

There has to be some recompense for seeing it. ;)

Nerwen

06-12-2013, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Nerwen
it’s a good cast
I don't think Orlando Bloom is a good actor. There, I said it.
Well, neither do I, actually, but that didn’t seem the place to mention that.

Why would Jackson choose this particular video to highlight in the marketing of the second Hobbit movie? Is it a way to forestall criticism? It is a way to demonstrate who he believes his audience is? Is it a way to titilate fangirls by showing them a reaction in the actors they admire?

Why show three actors reacting to the video--and in particular, these three actors? They are all in costume, so it is not likely an unrehearsed or unscripted response, but very likely part of the publicity that the actors must engage in as part of their employment in the film. Is it a way for Jackson to suggest a Middle-earth response? Is it too cynical to regard this as a mere merchandising ploy, using fans to further the marketing strategy?
Well, if we feel like being really charitable we might suppose that Jackson was for some reason so touched by the decision of the girls to film themselves giggling over the trailer that he shot the response as a purely friendly gesture, with no ulterior motive whatever– but you wouldn’t think he’d have the leisure for that kind of thing right now. And it’s a characteristic of modern marketing to make a lot of use of “spontaneous fan reactions” (whether real or not is largely irrelevant).

So... if we assume there’s a point to this, then what is it? It really seems like the basic messages are, “here’s some people getting excited, so you should too”, plus, “look, even YOU, the ordinary fan, can be a part of this!"

Note the responses on the page:
Watching people that are watching people.... this could go on and on, and on, and on, and on,..... well you get the point. Now those girls need to post another video of themselves watching the cast watching them watching the trailer.

i want to see a reaction video to them watching the cast reaction video of their trailer reaction video!...

.........those fans will be in heaven on earth after seeing the actors watching their responses to them in the trailer!

etc, etc.

Bêthberry

06-12-2013, 11:19 PM

Well, if we feel like being really charitable we might suppose that Jackson was for some reason so touched by the decision of the girls to film themselves giggling over the trailer that he shot the response as a purely friendly gesture, with no ulterior motive whatever– but you wouldn’t think he’d have the leisure for that kind of thing right now.

Well, he did make a video with him, John Howe, and Alan Lee for the Tolkien Society's Return of the Ring con last summer, meant to welcome us to the event.

Arphen Silverhair

06-13-2013, 03:09 AM

Mostly this thread is about a little humour. If you knew us, you would be able to recognise the jokes. But that's the problem with internet communication. It's also very difficult for people well versed in Tolkien's books to take a Hollywood adventure/action/gaming flick in any way as a legitimate interpretation of Tolkien. We've learnt, as Agan says, from four previous ones.

One of the things we Downers pride ourselves on, besides our knowledge of Tolkien's books, is the way we conduct discussion here. We tend to avoid simple statements of opinion and favour explanation and argument to support our positions. Sometimes we even manage to persuade each other! Or exhaust each other. ;)

So, given that we tend to listen to each other's reasons, I want to ask you what you mean by linking to that You Tube video. What do you think it proves in terms of your argument? That others are deeply impressed? That we should follow suit also?

Simply linking to that video does little to further your point that we are full of hate. We aint'. But let my give you one possible interpretation of that video to show how it needs a bit of explanation.

It shows some fangirls giggling and excited over the trailer. And it shows three actors' response to the you tube video.

Are the fans giving any kind of argument or debate? No, they are simply going gaga over the scenes they are seeing. They seem to be thoroughly excited by what they are viewing.

Why would Jackson choose this particular video to highlight in the marketing of the second Hobbit movie? Is it a way to forestall criticism? It is a way to demonstrate who he believes his audience is? Is it a way to titilate fangirls by showing them a reaction in the actors they admire?

Why show three actors reacting to the video--and in particular, these three actors? They are all in costume, so it is not likely an unrehearsed or unscripted response, but very likely part of the publicity that the actors must engage in as part of their employment in the film. Is it a way for Jackson to suggest a Middle-earth response? Is it too cynical to regard this as a mere merchandising ploy, using fans to further the marketing strategy?

I for one could never be one of those fangirls, so the entire video does not address me as a fan of Tolkien.

Really, I'm left with the comments, if not here then from one of our recent threads, which presented two of Jackson's writing team's defense of their work: "It's in the appendices!" "It represents the spirit of Tolkien."

Those two statements beg for critical analysis, and neither one of them can bear the scrutiny for long. Critical analysis is not hate. It is the response to the films from people who know the books well.

So, tell me, why did you link to that video? Do you have another "reading" of it that would enlighten us and make us regret our initial responses to the trailer?

Me linking that Video had nothing to do with my or your opinion about the Trailer. I just thought that it was somehow sweet to see these three elves watching those hilarious, giggling girls, because I've never seen that kind of "official" video response.
Although it certainly is some form of marketing.

Nogrod

06-13-2013, 04:41 AM

it was somehow sweet to see these three elves watching those hilarious, giggling girls, because I've never seen that kind of "official" video response.
Although it certainly is some form of marketing.They have just been fast copying the format from the Game of Thrones who (or whose fans - I think we don't khow how far HBO-organized the initial video was) published videos of fan-reactions to the "Red wedding" - anyway then George Martin appeared on Conan's TV-show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azr99OfKLxk) and watched the fan reactions.

Pretty much the same idea...

Alcidas

06-13-2013, 05:09 AM

They have just been fast copying the format from the Game of Thrones who (or whose fans - I think we don't khow how far HBO-organized the initial video was) published videos of fan-reactions to the "Red wedding" - anyway then George Martin appeared on Conan's TV-show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azr99OfKLxk) and watched the fan reactions.

Pretty much the same idea...

Hmm. So its a staged video of Orlando Bloom and his co-stars, all dressed as elves, watching a staged video of a couple of fangals giggling while they watch some footage?

I suppose you can say that it is 'somehow sweet'. Like having seven spoons of sugar in your tea.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 06:06 AM

Maybe merely demonstrating a ' mise en abyme" (literal translation not really helpful but a cultural version of the laughing cow cheesebox). Given that some advertisements are made to seem like youtube amateur efforts now it may not be surprising that this has been latched on to. My sister went to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games last year and a few weeks before she got an email from Danny Boyle saying that he would have wished his father to be at the games and inviting attendees to email picture of someone who they wouldmhave liked to have been there. So my late father was one of those shown in the memorial section. And that was touching. But Boyle wasn't selling something in the same way.

Alcidas

06-13-2013, 06:26 AM

...merely demonstrating a ' mise en abyme"...

Yes, I do agree that it is pretty abysmal... ;)

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 06:41 AM

Well the literal meaning is pretty much the Gandalfian cast into an abyss...

alatar

06-13-2013, 08:11 AM

Note that many of these same criticism aren't just about Peter Jackson's work. Below is part of a review of the new Superman (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/06/12/man-steel-review-special-effects-overkill-thin-story-ground-latest-superman/?intcmp=features) movie (emphasis mine):

Little in this film feels natural or real, which Snyder seems to want to convey. The oversaturation of effects, which has become the norm in most blockbusters, completely overshadows any natural cinematography, which may create a schism between the audience and the film. Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy was a massive success for its dark realism, and there are attempts to do that here, too, but the crew seems to have gotten a bit carried away with creating as many CGI shots as possible that all realism is lost. With Snyder, Nolan and Goyer sacrificing story for endless CGI action sequences, “Man of Steel” can be summed up by that great line Jeff Goldblum says in “Jurassic Park”: they “were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Switch out the directors' names with Jackson et al, and swap Superman with Hobbit, and you have many of the posts on this thread.

And I doubt the writer is a Superman book purist...;):D

Inziladun

06-13-2013, 08:27 AM

The over-emphasis on special effects to give a sense of "being there" is one of the main reasons I have so little time for modern films. I feel that in most cases the CGI and whatnot detracts from story and acting, as it tends to monopolize the viewer's attention, as well eating up screen time.
I think that's the reason my favorite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Hell_House) movies tend to be on the older (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caine_Mutiny_(film)) side, as the technology didn't allow for so much flash, and acting had to take the forefront to make a film work well.

Nerwen

06-13-2013, 08:41 AM

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 08:41 AM

Having had anothwr look the rare glimpses of Bilbo which were about the only things I rcognised from the book save the doorstep were relatively appealing. The look on Freeman's face when he breathes clear air and sees butterflies was perfect. But it was a nanosecond in a lot of portentous extraeneous stuff. F they hadn' been so desperate to echo the LOTR films there mighthave been a jolly romp of a Bilbo focussed film there. If the trailer is representative then calling it the Hobbit might contravene trade descriptions.

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

Nogrod

06-13-2013, 08:50 AM

If the trailer is representative then calling it the Hobbit might contravene trade descriptions.Happily trailers are not representative as their basic raison d'être is to catch the attention of as many - or the right kind of - people as possible. So all the trailers of action films (which the Hobbit sadly seems to be) are even more packed with action than the real films as they have to convince the wannabe audiences they will get some reaallly hard and fast speed stuff to blow their minds off... they kind of pack the thick of the action scenes into a short music video kind of burst in trailers.

Bêthberry

06-13-2013, 09:03 AM

The movie Life of Pi is a superbly done adaptation of the book of the same name--and it isn't slavishly done. And even more stunning is the fact that the special effects and even the 3D support the story rather than supplanting it.

So modern technology can enhance a narrative. Just not in Jackson's hands apparently.

Happily trailers are not representative as their basic raison d'être is to catch the attention of as many - or the right kind of - people as possible. So all the trailers of action films (which the Hobbit sadly seems to be) are even more packed with action than the real films as they have to convince the wannabe audiences they will get some reaallly hard and fast speed stuff to blow their minds off... they kind of pack the thick of the action scenes into a short music video kind of burst in trailers.

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off? Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

Tidesson

06-13-2013, 09:24 AM

Nogrod

06-13-2013, 09:27 AM

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off?They probably even know it - but consider those people a marginal matter compared to their views of the more desired audiences.

Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?If you just check what kind of films are the blockbusters and bring in the most revenue... Now there sure are exceptions to that, but they are insecure aka. they can't be predicted. So when you are basically just making money (instead of art) you take the more safer road and rely on action and advertising.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 09:30 AM

Yes I knowthey are after the young male demographic but isometimes there is nothing that appeals to other audiences. When I lived in Paris where you are allegedly never more than a quarter of a mile from a cinema and it was cheap and i had no telly i went to the cinema ja lot and saw nearly everything goimg if it wasnt quite my glass of miruvor it wasnt a great loss. Now with the price of petrol and parkimg and a twenty five mile roumd trip it has to really appeal. This doesn't. And I have to admit that seeing th fellowship trailer changed my mind about seeing the film. Maybe I am just gettimg old and grouchy

Nogrod

06-13-2013, 09:35 AM

In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.I couldn't agree more.

Just thinking about it: the LotR in six seasons (one season per book) where one season would be ten times one hour episodes!

And well, a decent director would have been needed as well... :p

Or to go into a full phantasy mode then: let's see the stories of Silmarillion as series - with six seasons one would get... oh, only in my dreams... :rolleyes:

Bêthberry

06-13-2013, 09:38 AM

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

Forgive me as I might be getting old and my memory may be faulty, but wasn't The Hobbit a short little book that could have nicely been done in one movie? No need for a miniseries of it.

They probably even know it - but consider those people a marginal matter compared to their views of the more desired audiences.
. . . .
If you just check what kind of films are the blockbusters and bring in the most revenue... Now there sure are exceptions to that, but they are insecure aka. they can't be predicted. So when you are basically just making money (instead of art) you take the more safer road and rely on action and advertising.

See, the real problem is that those "desired audiences" just have way too much disposable income compared to the rest of us. ;)

Kuruharan

06-13-2013, 09:52 AM

Well, I’ve said this before: people often rail against CGI and special effects in general, but they can be a very good tool if used properly. It’s when the effects become the point of the film that you run into trouble.

Also, even with all the advances of modern computer graphics, there are still some things that are better done as live action– I think studios can be a bit prone to kidding themselves about how realistic some of the work they produce looks.

Moviemakers seem to commonly forget that in order to tell a story people have to be at the heart of it. An endless string of flash and gimmicks may sparkle and amuse...briefly, but it is not a story.

Stories are what hook people to invest themselves in them. Sparkle and flash by themselves cannot do that because by themselves they really aren't much of anything.

Just thinking about it: the LotR in six seasons (one season per book) where one season would be ten times one hour episodes!

And we would have the added bonus of not having to worry about what will happen when the series catches up to and then passes the author in telling the story.

alatar

06-13-2013, 09:55 AM

The movie Life of Pi is a superbly done adaptation of the book of the same name--and it isn't slavishly done.
Note that that movie has nothing to do with mathematics or the discovery of 22/7.:rolleyes:

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off? Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?Me guesses that the number of movie-going persons attracted by action packed trailers greatly exceeds those that aren't.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 10:08 AM

There are other demographics with cash. The grey pound can be very strong and there have been some very successful films in the past couple of years that have benefitted. Even with the stellar cast I doubt Marigold Hotel cost many Hobbit minutes. Of course though they dont attract the peripheral merchandising tat.

The Hobbit is not a long book and i oo not know to laugh or cry when film apogists iwho defended the omissions of tne Rings (with some justification~ it is the additions I minded more) claim that the Hobbit needed expanded. Yes it isa episodic but it was designed to be. have always thought it would work best as the sort of Sunday teatime classic serial that the BBC used to do when I was a child. Now they seem to think children dont have the attention span to follow a story over several weeks. However it is still how I would wish it done..couple of chapters per shortish episode each ending on a mini cliffhanger.

Aiwendil

06-13-2013, 10:11 AM

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

I'm with Bethberry here. The last thing we need is to give Jackson more time to fill with pointless action and new characters. The Hobbit is a short book; I'd say that the optimal length for a cinematic adaptation of it would be something like three hours. The Lord of the Rings could work better as a miniseries, though not a long one.

For The Silmarillion, on the other hand, a miniseries probably would be the optimal form of adaptation. It would be a fairly unconventional one, though - I imagine several blocks of 6-8 episodes, each telling a single story with largely its own set of characters (Flight of the Noldor, Beren & Luthien, Turin, etc.), with a few standalone episodes for things like the story of Eol and Aredhel. Perhaps a few of those standalone episodes could even be in the style of a historical documentary (e.g. The Great March, The Coming of Men into the West).

Morthoron

06-13-2013, 10:17 AM

The look on Freeman's face when he breathes clear air and sees butterflies was perfect.

Perfect, perhaps, except that the butterflies were blue and not black. Mirkwood, by definition, is reflected by the dark denizens habitating therein (a point Tolkien referred to often). A white stag offers a color variation that is notable as a folk motif. And so, we're back to that whole subtlety thing that PJ is utterly incapable of divining.

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

Perhaps she got caught in a lie.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 10:20 AM

The thing about CGI for me is that it has little magic because I have seen the making of type programs. Might appreciate the cleverness but not astounded. Now when I saw the LOTR musical and Bilbo disappeared without any blaze of light or plume of smoke..well l might as well have been a bemused Breeland peasant. I hearn an interview with the effects designer and he didn't squeak.

Pervinca Took

06-13-2013, 11:42 AM

I put the LOTR musical on a par with the BBC dramatisation (possibly even higher). For slightly different reasons, perhaps, but both magical and breathtaking pieces of art.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 12:54 PM

They are hard to compare not least because the musical was one magical and memorable night whereas I have known the Radio series for thirty years (eeeeek) and have heard it many times since, and had the privilege of getting to ask Brian Sibley about it...I think both are great adaptations within the possibilities and limitations of the media.

Aganzir

06-13-2013, 01:38 PM

Still, I don't doubt the unintentional humor quotient will be high.
There has to be some recompense for seeing it.
And this is why we'll have Premiere Moot (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=679032&postcount=1187). Welcome one and all!

Well, he did make a video with him, John Howe, and Alan Lee for the Tolkien Society's Return of the Ring con last summer, meant to welcome us to the event.
Meant to extend a hand to us and remind us that he'd also like to serve nitpickers of the canon. ;)

I suppose you can say that it is 'somehow sweet'. Like having seven spoons of sugar in your tea.
:D

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.
PJ said in response to Stephen Colbert that he does plan to differentiate between the Sindar and the Nandor, and a fan theory I've seen is that Tauriel's ears mark her as a Nando. I must say I prefer the Sinda ears. Which might be the only thing ever where I'm on the Sindar's side.

I imagine several blocks of 6-8 episodes, each telling a single story with largely its own set of characters (Flight of the Noldor, Beren & Luthien, Turin, etc.), with a few standalone episodes for things like the story of Eol and Aredhel.
Well, if you insert one or two of Fëanor's sons in most episodes, they should be able to tell it's still the same story. :p

Boromir88

06-13-2013, 02:20 PM

I liked the overall look of Mirkwood, Dol Guldur, and what I assume was Thranduil's hall. Also, Lee Pace has some intense eyebrow thing going for him, could give Hugo Weaving a run for his money. :p

Other than that...meh. Upon seeing Bard I thought "Why is Orlando Bloom playing the part of pirate Will Turner in The Hobbit? But then I read this thread and like Zigur's explanation better.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 03:14 PM

PJ said in response to Stephen Colbert that he does plan to differentiate between the Sindar and the Nandor, and a fan theory I've seen is that Tauriel's ears mark her as a Nando. I must say I prefer the Sinda ears. Which might be the only thing ever where I'm on the Sindar's side.

. :p

But Agan the only recorded bearded elf is Sinda. And they ar musical and like the sea and given the calibre of woman they attract they must have a lot going for them. As for Hugo V Lee wll Thranduil's get up keeps reminding me of Priscilla ....

Aganzir

06-13-2013, 03:22 PM

But Agan the only recorded bearded elf is Sinda. And they ar musical and like the sea and given the calibre of woman they attract they must have a lot going for them. As for Hugo V Lee wll Thranduil's get up keeps reminding me of Priscilla ....
No there's Mahtan too! He's a Noldo and he grew a beard younger than Círdan. (Admittedly I wouldn't know this if I hadn't see so much fan art.) I'm not musical so that doesn't sway me, and isn't Melian the only cool woman who fell for a Sinda, or are there others I don't remember?

It's just, Beleg is literally the only Sinda whom I tolerate. And okay Mablung too, but that leaves a plenty of elves I don't like. ;)

Arphen Silverhair

06-13-2013, 03:40 PM

...how this huge Smaug will die in the movie?

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.

Mithalwen

06-13-2013, 03:56 PM

No there's Mahtan too! He's a Noldo and he grew a beard younger than Círdan. (Admittedly I wouldn't know this if I hadn't see so much fan art.) I'm not musical so that doesn't sway me, and isn't Melian the only cool woman who fell for a Sinda, or are there others I don't remember?

It's just, Beleg is literally the only Sinda whom I tolerate. And okay Mablung too, but that leaves a plenty of elves I don't like. ;)

Celeborn the pretty boy trophy husband? Gil~galad's mother was Sinda and depending on who his Daddy was he may have had a Telerin grandmother as well. You can't hate bright eyes can you? Squeaks piteously...
As for the dragon was that meant to be a shadow or is Smaug no longer golden?

alatar

06-13-2013, 06:47 PM

...how this huge Smaug will die in the movie?

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.I'm betting on Bilbo (with Gandalf's guidance) putting two photon torpedoes in Smaug's thermal exhaust port, as, as we all know, these ports are only ray shielded. ;)

Inziladun

06-13-2013, 07:06 PM

I'm betting on Bilbo (with Gandalf's guidance) putting two photon torpedoes in Smaug's thermal exhaust port, as, as we all know, these ports are only ray shielded. ;)

And of course, Bard must yell "It's a trap!" ;)

Galadriel55

06-13-2013, 07:14 PM

I would bet that there won't be any dialogue between Bilbo and Smaug, but then what would be the point of Cumberbatch?

Kuruharan

06-13-2013, 07:20 PM

I would bet that there won't be any dialogue between Bilbo and Smaug, but then what would be the point of Cumberbatch?

That's one of the few spots I cherish some genuine hope for some quality.

Galadriel55

06-13-2013, 07:33 PM

That's one of the few spots I cherish some genuine hope for some quality.

Ah, but what about Smaug the Magnificent with a wondorous patch on his breast?

Boromir88

06-13-2013, 07:43 PM

And of course, Bard must yell "It's a trap!" ;)

Surely they have brought back Legolas to reprise the captain obvious role? We're familiar with "A diversion!" but last time I watched FOTR and noting all the fantastic lines given to Legolas can either be plainly seen taking place or had already been stated by someone else

"He is Aragorn son of Arathorn!"
"Have you heard nothing Lord Elrond just said! The Ring must be destroyed!"
"Orcs!"
"Goblins!"
"Crebain!"
"The Horn of Gondor!"
"Frodo and Sam have left the Eastern shore!"

As for Hugo V Lee wll Thranduil's get up keeps reminding me of Priscilla ....
For some reason I couldn't stop picturing David Bowie's Goblin King...and then was waiting for him to break out in song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xAAGh-3sw0

Aganzir

06-13-2013, 07:47 PM

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.
I'm guessing one arrow from Kili, another from Legolas, a third from Tauriel, and finally the Black Arrow from Bard.

Also, Fili and Kili die in the Battle of Five Armies because Kili is too weak to fight after being scorched a little for staying too close to Smaug while shooting. Which he did, against everybody's wishes (although Thorin forgives him in the end, seeing as true love conquers all), because Tauriel was there and he liked her a tad too much.
Also, it was Legolas who taught Bard how to shoot, so technically he can take the credits for killing Smaug as well.

Celeborn the pretty boy trophy husband? Gil~galad's mother was Sinda and depending on who his Daddy was he may have had a Telerin grandmother as well. You can't hate bright eyes can you? Squeaks piteously...
As for the dragon was that meant to be a shadow or is Smaug no longer golden?
Ah Celeborn! Well, perhaps Sinda men were less trouble to handle, being less demanding and self centered than the Noldor and thus leaving their wife with more free time?
And too bad, you'd think there wasn't any daddy confusion among the elves, seeing as they marry for life, but apparently it isn't that simple either. ;)

Smaug is red, right? Isn't that how Tolkien painted him?

Galadriel55

06-13-2013, 07:54 PM

Smaug is red, right? Isn't that how Tolkien painted him?

The Hobbit. Warning: for colourblind audiences only.

And, whatever colour Tolkien drew/ described him as, he's black in the trailer. Hard to hide even from a colourblind person.

mark12_30

06-13-2013, 08:16 PM

Bethberry, I'm deeply touched that you remember my fascination with Roggie' s flameproof eyeliner. But I would never have noticed it but for the guidance of Lush the Cold and Fair. I will be curious to see whether whether Smaug and Roggie share makeup artists.

As a child I entertained myself by the hour singing: Puff a dwagon wiv by a sea an frolic inna Au'um miss.

There, Tauriel, beat that. Action smaction, let's all just sit in a toasty semicircle around the dragon's nose and sing Peter, Paul and Mary songs. No?

Never mind. Too bad they won't let me bring my Mirkwood bow into the theater.

Kuruharan

06-13-2013, 08:24 PM

Ah, but what about Smaug the Magnificent with a wondorous patch on his breast?

Now that I'm not so sure about.

I'm basing my hope on the interaction on the Gollum scene in the first movie being ok.

And whatever happens, we can feel fairly confident that DOS won't be as bad as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zqy21Z29ps).

alatar

06-13-2013, 08:32 PM

"The barrelriding is not an extended chase scene."

"The barrelriding is an extended chase scene."

Who knew I could write like the Professor?

And doesn't making the barrelriding into a dwarves vs monkeys with bows rollercoaster take away Bilbo's part in the whole story?

Arphen Silverhair

06-14-2013, 03:08 AM

The Hobbit. Warning: for colourblind audiences only.

And, whatever colour Tolkien drew/ described him as, he's black in the trailer. Hard to hide even from a colourblind person.

Sorry but this is not true. He's clearly red clouded in shadow. But I guess his underbelly will still be golden.

Mithalwen

06-14-2013, 05:00 AM

Ah Celeborn! Well, perhaps Sinda men were less trouble to handle, being less demanding and self centered than the Noldor and thus leaving their wife with more free time?
And too bad, you'd think there wasn't any daddy confusion among the elves, seeing as they marry for life, but apparently it isn't that simple either. ;)

Yeah odd thet usually in Tolkien as opposed to our world everyone usually wonders who the mother was.

Kitanna

06-14-2013, 05:26 AM

...how this huge Smaug will die in the movie?

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.

Bard will climb up his back and put an arrow in his head for good measure, then he'll surf down the tail and land safely before Legolas. Then Legolas will think this over and over and decide to do it years later on the fields of Pelennor.

When I went to see the first Hobbit, I went with an open mind. I was impressed by the first teaser trailer, if a bit turned off by the second. But I loved the trilogy as movies. I thought they were well done and well cast and appreciated them as movies, not book adaptations. I saw the first Hobbit and it had its moments, but the CGI was distracting. It just didn't look good to me. Normally this isn't something that bothers me, but there was something about the Goblin King's CGI that was just...ugh. So the first Hobbit movie did to Middle Earth what Phantom Menace did to Star Wars (speaking from a strictly movie going perspective.) Too much effects and none of the set building charm of the trilogy. Because the CGI scenes in that meshed well with the built sets most of the time.

Now I watch this trailer and am in no way excited. I'll still see it. I'm interested how PJ and co will pull it off, but I agree with the thread title. It really does look crap.

Rune Son of Bjarne

06-14-2013, 05:43 AM

I know many people differ on how they see the LotR-trilogy here. But many of even those who kind of liked the LotR by PJ are now facing a new situation when the Hobbit seems to be nothing more than yet one more "Avengers" or "Spider Man" or "Star Trek": an exploitation of older popular material built to maximise the income of the studios by following the lowest common denominators of their marketing department's imagined teen-age audiences.

And when they didn't make superhero/fantasy movies they were neglecting the geek demographic... There is no pleasing some people.

Obviously the "exploitation" element is getting stronger and stronger, more and more of the studios budgets go into these kind of films and so the artistic control is limited, which is regrettable. However I am very pleased these kind of movies are getting made...

And now onto the trailer...

It looks awesome!

It does not look like the hobbit though.

However, I will quite happily sit and watch PJ's fanfiction, be entertained, and supplied with plenty of ammunition to shoot down people who dare see it as an actual adaptation of the book.

I do agree that it is infuriating, how PJ feels the need to go overboard with CGI and weird action sequences. He must be compensating for something. ..

Alcidas

06-14-2013, 06:01 AM

I do agree that it is infuriating, how PJ feels the need to go overboard with CGI and weird action sequences. He must be compensating for something. ..

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?

alatar

06-14-2013, 06:14 AM

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?I'm with you here, but isn't there some middle ground?

I found AUJ completely forgettable, but could watch Iron Man (not book-based) or the Harry Potter flicks (strayed from their source material) again and again.

Mithalwen

06-14-2013, 07:31 AM

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?

I am not saying you don't have a point here but even before the films the books were ugely welll known and loved and successful. LOR was the Waterstones book of the century. I suggest that had Ackson created an original fantasy film series it would have not attracted the audience it did. People like me who were too old too female and not regular film goer enough to be a target market went because it was Tolkien not Jackson. And we took our younglingsand so they were corrupted... so actually I think PJ owes Tolkien quite as much as the reverse. And from the mainly negative reaction to what is a very Tolkienlite trailer suggests that PJ has got carried away and lost sight of the basics. E does seem to have alienated a lot od people who liked LOTR. The Hobbit is a simple tale and ot shoud have its focus on the eponymous hero. Jackson said that his version of LOTr was Frodos storyPersonally I think there was a case for making the Rings more Aragorn's story but that doesn't mean the Obbit should be done as Thorin's.

Inziladun

06-14-2013, 07:44 AM

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?

Well, if good Mr. Jackson isn't interested in pleasing me with his films, I in turn have no wish to help him line his pockets. :)

LordPhillock

06-14-2013, 10:27 AM

guys, guys... before I add my opinions to this, might I just show you a picture I did after seeing the trailer?

Spoilers in case you don't want to see what "Schmaog" (Peter Jackson pronounciation) looks like: http://i.imgur.com/9AdGnMa.jpg

Kuruharan

06-14-2013, 10:52 AM

I link this (http://www.businessinsider.com/spielberg-movie-industry-will-implode-2013-6) article because we can clearly see some of the trends Spielberg is referring to playing out in the development of The Hobbit movies.

Rune Son of Bjarne

06-14-2013, 05:44 PM

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?

I don't believe I said it was a choice between those two scenarios.

I will quite happily watch PJ's action fan fiction, but even within the genre of action movies, I find that he goes over the top with the CGI action. It is almost reminiscent of an 80's action film, where a protagonist could walk into an enemy base, kill a thousand well trained soldiers and walk out again unharmed. All I am asking for is, instead of fighting a bajillion orcs to escape the Misty Mountains, maybe they could fight eighty.

Bêthberry

06-14-2013, 05:59 PM

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?

Oh, gosh, how arrogant of us to express our opinion. :p

And it isn't even a question of the kind, degree or style of adaptation that Jackson has chosen. (Yes, film studies does identify a variety of methods of adaptation.) It is also a question of how well Jackson has put together an action flick with lots of CGI.

I've already given an example of a movie with a superb use of CGI that enhances the narrative rather than becoming a main feature--Life of Pi.

And others here have pointed out the AUS really fails many of the qualities of a good action flick. It lacks aesthetic discipline and goes for momentary thrills at the expense of the overall story. The Avengers is a far, far better done action movie--as others here have pointed out.

So the grounds of criticising Jackson's Hobbit movies are really based on two points: the quality or nature of its adaptation of Tolkien's books--a point which you seem to think is limited to the few of us here, never mind the other Tolkien sites online that discuss this issue--and its quality as a well constructed action/adventure flick. There are Downers here who aren't particularly bothered by a lack of fidelity to Tolkien's vision and ethos but who do object to a badly constructed action flick. It remains to be seen whether Jackson holds the interest of fans of action flicks.

And I think Kuru's link about comments from Spielberg and Lucas are particularly apt here. Nice find,Kuru.

Bêthberry

06-14-2013, 07:30 PM

Bethberry, I'm deeply touched that you remember my fascination with Roggie' s flameproof eyeliner. But I would never have noticed it but for the guidance of Lush the Cold and Fair. I will be curious to see whether whether Smaug and Roggie share makeup artists.

I have many memories of you and of the lushious one. In particular, I remember the wall frescoes of trees you were painting.

Smaug reminds me too much, in the trailer, of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, which to my mind does not make him decent competition for a balrog.

Kuruharan

06-14-2013, 09:57 PM

And I think Kuru's link about comments from Spielberg and Lucas are particularly apt here. Nice find,Kuru.

Thank you. :)

This is probably an instance of them being too far into the forest to see the trees, but I wish he would have made mention of the degenerating quality of storytelling in the big blockbuster as well...as that will play a major role when/if the whole thing goes kablooie.

He seems to treat it as an element of blind chance eventually happening (which I suppose to some extent it is) but I think willful laziness and cynicism will play the largest roles.

Pervinca Took

06-15-2013, 07:03 AM

Jackson said that his version of LOTr was Frodos storyPersonally I think there was a case for making the Rings more Aragorn's story but that doesn't mean the Obbit should be done as Thorin's.

PJ's LOTR films seemed much more like Aragorn's story to me, although that's maybe because I think he portrayed Tolkien's men far better than the hobbits. Frodo has a lot of screen time, for instance, in FOTR, but I just find the way he's portrayed in all three films very misguided (well, nigh-on excruciating, if the truth be told). I know the "reluctant king" aspect of PJ's Aragorn isn't canon, but to me it's far less irritatingly "not canon" than what he did with the character of Frodo.

Michael Murry

06-16-2013, 07:04 PM

Apparently, a slender book about the Hobbit has become three monster movies spread out over three years sort of involving a hobbit. (Note the significant difference in meaning between the definite article "the" versus the indefinite article "a" before a noun. The former indicates one particular, specific thing or person, whereas the latter refers to any you might care to mention.)

Also, "The Hobbit trailer looks like crap" or "The Hobbit trailer looks crappy" would have sounded less illiterate as a discussion thread title.

Since many here have commented upon the obviously unfinished nature of the trailer, I think I'll wait for the finished one. Of course, I could say the same for the movies themselves, but experience has not left me sanguine about such prospects.

Firefoot

06-16-2013, 08:07 PM

Saw the trailer in 3D today on the big screen (went and saw the Superman movie - it was only okay, if anyone's on the fence about seeing it), and honestly, I didn't think the CGI looked all that bad, though I'm hardly an audio/videophile so it would probably have to be pretty bad for me to complain about that. I have a much bigger problem with the content of the trailer and am really leaning against seeing the movie in theaters (definitely wouldn't, except my husband really wants to see it - although I've already annoyed him half to death with complaining about AUJ so maybe I shouldn't see it with him :rolleyes:).

Actually though, now that I think of it, other than the Legolas/Tauriel bit and the uncovered barrels there's not that much in the trailers I specifically object to... it's more just that it just looks like more of the same swollen drivel that filled the first movie.

Alcidas

06-17-2013, 10:34 AM

Oh, gosh, how arrogant of us to express our opinion. :p

Jeez guys, I was just being sarcastic there, sorry it came out the wrong way.

Was just trying to say that PJ is simply putting this out to draw the largest possible audience, fullstop. And yes, I agree that it is very badly done. Just hope this trailer is not indicative of the quality of the final product...

Alcidas

06-17-2013, 10:51 AM

I don't believe I said it was a choice between those two scenarios.

I will quite happily watch PJ's action fan fiction, but even within the genre of action movies, I find that he goes over the top with the CGI action. It is almost reminiscent of an 80's action film, where a protagonist could walk into an enemy base, kill a thousand well trained soldiers and walk out again unharmed. All I am asking for is, instead of fighting a bajillion orcs to escape the Misty Mountains, maybe they could fight eighty.

My comment was an attempt at sarcasm that obviously did not work. I agree with you that PJ has gone over the top. Not just with the CGI but also with his "creative" additions to the cast.

Why, for example, is there any need for a red-haired female ninja elf? The original story worked perfectly well and I simply do not see what additional value the Tauriel character brings to the film (other than to please a certain demographic with scenes of her shooting arrows while leaping ten feet in the air).

I don't buy the line that adding her might help a modern cinema audience "relate" better to the story. Its like making a screen version of Macbeth, and then adding a red-haired human ninja who can draw a bow while leaping in the air to help the audience "relate" better to the original story.

Mithalwen

06-17-2013, 12:55 PM

PJ's LOTR films seemed much more like Aragorn's story to me, although that's maybe because I think he portrayed Tolkien's men far better than the hobbits. Frodo has a lot of screen time, for instance, in FOTR, but I just find the way he's portrayed in all three films very misguided (well, nigh-on excruciating, if the truth be told). I know the "reluctant king" aspect of PJ's Aragorn isn't canon, but to me it's far less irritatingly "not canon" than what he did with the character of Frodo.

Dont actually disagree..one of my friinds who read the books to find out what happened before ttt came out was astonished to discover zfrodo was brave since in the film he was always running away.. However what I really meant is that given the omissions and more significantly additions since omissios were inevitable was that the Jackson films were astonishingly faithful to the narrative lsequence of the books. Apart from the prlogue you start with theparty and follow he hobbits until the breaking of the fellowship. Now this might be regarded by others as PJ's transgressions but you could start in Gondor under attack and the strange dream sent to the old and despairing steward. See the embassy of Sauron to the dwarves and the capture of gollum that unleashes the Nazgul onthe Shire. Ideally you would need permission to use UT mzterial but it wouldbe possible

TheGhostofBelleStarr

06-17-2013, 11:33 PM

I'm not really impressed with the trailer nor the first Hobbit movie, sure I went to see it with friends twice at the theater and I bought the DVD, but I've yet to watch the DVD. On the other hand I have watched all my LOTR DVD's over and over and over. What happened to Jackson ? Laziness ? I can't believe he thinks its really a super high quality offering of a film (s) . I will say that I adore the LOTR book series but I even had a hard time getting through the book The Hobbit. It is written on such a more childish level...trolls with names Tom, Bert, and Bill ? Really ? I just couldn't get into the book.
yes I will go see Hobbit pt.2 , I just feel kind of obligated since I love LOTR...but my expectations level is way down there and that is a shame.
I went with my sister to see The Hobbit and she raved about it, I think she might have called it a " masterpiece"...oy..but she is the type that if she is a fan of something no matter how they subsequently mess it up she says " oh it was great !" like to give an honest critique is being disloyal or something. She was the same way with Pirates of the Caribbean...which she is a big fan of. OK the first movie was cute and enjoyable but after that each one got stupider and stupider but she raved about how great each one was....when it was clear as hell it wasn't, I don't understand people like this.

Nerwen

06-18-2013, 02:43 AM

Regarding storytelling– here’s what Jackson himself has to say:

well the theory is that you write the script before you start shooting. But it never quite works that way with us. We write the script /as/ we’re shooting. And you shoot, and you shoot, and you shoot some more and, you know, the scenes, the stories develop, and I mean it may be that we write a scene halfway through the shoot that we think we need to tell some of the story. And so anyway it’s very organic and it’s not until you get to the very end and you can start to look at a “cut” assembly of the film that you start to realize where there’s repetition, where there’s slow patches
You know, in case you were wondering.

Now, I don’t say that approach can never work, but it’s asking for trouble...

Alcidas

06-18-2013, 11:10 AM

Morthoron

06-18-2013, 11:22 AM

Regarding storytelling– here’s what Jackson himself has to say:

You know, in case you were wondering.

Now, I don’t say that approach can never work, but it’s asking for trouble...

Ergo, the immense metallic mothership hovering in a great looming thundercloud above Erebor, waiting to beam up Gollum, who said:

"Phone home, Precious-s-s."

alatar

06-18-2013, 01:01 PM

Ergo, the immense metallic mothership hovering in a great looming thundercloud above Erebor, waiting to beam up Gollum, who said:

"Phone home, Precious-s-s."
Hoot!

Organic processes take place in compost heaps too.

Pervinca Took

06-18-2013, 01:12 PM

It sounds to me rather closely akin to not knowing what one is doing.

Nerwen

06-18-2013, 09:58 PM

It sounds to me rather closely akin to not knowing what one is doing.
There have been some classic films made in much that fashion, actually... but all those I can think of were a very different kind of film– not something which is in all other respects a highly conventional flick. And if you are going to do things that way, you need an awful, awful lot of objectivity and self-discipline when it comes to putting the final cut together– or else be willing to step aside completely and let the editor take over.

If Jackson & Co really made LotR this way, then, well, good for them, because it’s a terribly hard thing to carry off– but I think they must have been bringing a lot less ego along with them at that stage. (Or were more afraid of Tolkien fans.)

Boromir88

06-19-2013, 05:06 AM

If Jackson & Co really made LotR this way, then, well, good for them, because it’s a terribly hard thing to carry off– but I think they must have been bringing a lot less ego along with them at that stage. (Or were more afraid of Tolkien fans.)

I remember Sean Bean saying Peter Jackson was a much different director than ones he had before. The major difference being, oftentimes the script wasn't completed for the scenes they were currently filming. During the Council of Elrond, Bean and most other actors had the scripts on their laps because it had just been given to them before shooting. Even then there would be stop-and-gos during filming as Jackson would reel off more things he wanted to add.

I think (and this really is just my guess) LOTR was a large enough story to contain a director like Peter Jackson....sort of this off-the-cuff director who seriously does not like the editting process. Yet Lord of the Rings is such an expansive story it mever felt like too much.

The Hobbit is quite different, and with the director Jackson is, you can see how easy it is for the story to get completely derailed. I was reading another article that had the actors saying why there were 3 films instead of 2 (not surprisingly "money" was not one of the reasons). Anyway, one reason was to tell more of the story (or well the story Jackson wanted to portray). Because if it had been 2 films then the Riddles scene would have been 8 minutes long instead of 12. Honesty, as good as the Riddles scene was, I just happen to think every scene could have used some trimming...and in other cases a woodman's axe.

elvet

06-19-2013, 06:48 AM

Does the title of this thread bother anyone else or am I the only one missing the 'like' before crap?

alatar

06-19-2013, 09:03 AM

Does the title of this thread bother anyone else or am I the only one missing the 'like' before crap?
Read up a few posts. Think that I explained that. :D

And welcome to the Downs, elvet.

Mithalwen

06-19-2013, 01:47 PM

Does the title of this thread bother anyone else or am I the only one missing the 'like' before crap?

If i were goimg to be bothered it would have been by the somewhat uncouth word choice rather than if it constituted an acceptable adjective.... given the informality of the vocabulary.....and the fact that I would happily say it looks rubbish ...I aint bovverred.

alatar

06-19-2013, 02:39 PM

Everything bothers me...:D

I haven't worked out the exact math, but if PJ's can take the Hobbit's few pages about barrel-riding and make an hours-long flight scene, just think what he could do with the Lay of Leithian!

The mind staggers...

And I know what I could watch on my flight to Mars.

Mithalwen

06-20-2013, 01:16 AM

Well we have the cavetroll precedent.
My nightmare is that when I am doddery enough to be consigned to a care home some hapless attendant discovering that I was a life long tolkien fan will sit me in front o the films on an eternal loop and I will be too far gone to protest but not enough not to mind. I may have to have a living will with an unusual clause.

Zigûr

06-20-2013, 06:28 AM

just think what he could do with the Lay of Leithian!
And I daresay he would be lauded in some quarters for his ingenuity... I read recently a transcript of a panel featuring the filmmakers and there was apparently an audible "Aw" from the audience when Peter Jackson informed them that The Silmarillion was probably an impossibility for adaptation for reasons of copyright. I would confess myself unbelievably surprised if very many of such an alleged Tolkienite audience had even read The Silmarillion.

MCRmyGirl4eva

06-26-2013, 12:57 PM

I'm probably only going to watch it because:

1. Gandalf
2. Legolas
3. Thranduil
4. Martin Freeman (Yes, not Bilbo, Martin Freeman)
5. Benedict Cumberbatch's VOICE!! (Seriously, that man can give Alan Rickman a run for his money.)

The only way that this movie can get any better actor-wise is if they added Tom Hiddleston.

Morthoron

06-27-2013, 11:22 AM

My nightmare is that when I am doddery enough to be consigned to a care home some hapless attendant discovering that I was a life long tolkien fan will sit me in front o the films on an eternal loop and I will be too far gone to protest but not enough not to mind.

Oh, the horror.

Zigûr

10-05-2013, 01:26 AM

So I just saw this trailer (not the newer one) before an Imax showing of Gravity (which I found reasonably enjoyable, incidentally).

I'm fairly sure at some point in the trailer focus was specifically, deliberately placed on the silvery hairs in Thranduil's eyebrows.

Bard looks like he just got thrown out of an alehouse.

I feel like I know now how Maedhros felt after he was hung from his hand for who knows how long from the dreadful pinnacle of Thangorodrim, or perhaps the awful torment of Húrin, forced to watch the suffering from afar of all he held dear. If the conclusion of the entire Hobbit film trilogy isn't the emotional equivalent of an escape facilitated by having one's hand cut off by one's best friend, I shall be sorely aggrieved.

Morthoron

10-06-2013, 08:08 PM

I just saw a commercial for Desolation of Smaug on TV. Based on the tawdry images and overblown dynamics of the piece, it is even worse than I had imagined. And I have a vivid imagination.

jallanite

10-07-2013, 06:25 PM

Inziladun

10-07-2013, 07:23 PM

Michael Murry

10-07-2013, 07:31 PM

One finds this thread of negative reactions to the trailer. And on some other sites one find very positive reactions to the trailer, with people saying how they “can’t wait” to see what will obviously be one of the greatest films of their lives.

Lines are being drawn.

I have not seen any of the trailers for the second three-hour-third of a two-and-a-half-hour movie for the same reason that I have studiously avoided a second viewing (on rental DVD or TV) of the first three-hour-third of the same two-and-a-half-hour movie. I suppose one could call that "drawing a line" of sorts. Bad film experiences with cynical, formulaic fan-milking will tend to do that.

Personally, I will wait for the Rotten Tomatoes film reviews and discussion on this forum before I will even consider watching another three-hour-third of a two-hour movie. As the old saying goes: "You can always tell the pioneers. They're the ones with the arrows sticking out of their backs." Not me. Not this time.

alatar

10-07-2013, 08:35 PM

Sadly, I know that eventually I'll have to see Part 2, if only to have that much more to snark about. Not that the new trailer isn't providing much fodder on its own...

Dwarf: "We've too much bread; not enough butter."

King Dwarf: "We will scrape the butter until there is no butter left to scrape!":rolleyes:

Morthoron

10-07-2013, 08:45 PM

What one finds so dismaying (if one could actually be dismayed by anything Jackson might do at this juncture) is that there is absolutely no dialogue from the book in the trailer. Granted, this is my unscientific recollection of what I saw, but every word spoken seemed superfluously scripted by sophomoric Kiwi scribes.

It's as if PJ & Co. have decided that Middle-earth is now their personal litter box and they're ****ing in it as it suits them.

alatar

10-07-2013, 09:04 PM

What one finds so dismaying (if one could actually be dismayed by anything Jackson might do at this juncture) is that there is absolutely no dialogue from the book in the trailer.
It's straight from the Appendices, duh! ;)

It's all there, word for word and a few between.

Aganzir

10-08-2013, 05:19 AM

And even if there are lines straight from the book, you can bet they've been given to somebody else than the original speaker.

mark12_30

10-08-2013, 06:01 AM

Or we could just talk about the contrasts cheerfully, recognizing that we're talking more about the book now than we were before the trailer came out; excepting of course those who recently posted in the books forum, such as in Chapter-by-chapter. I did not post much there, not as much as I wanted to, and I find myself wanting to reread the books-- the appendices, and the Unfinished Tales section, and There And Back Again, The Children's Book That Morphed.

I'm enjoying that lingering desire, and if a few of PJ's panoramic scenes contribute to that desire I shall not grouse; except perhaps about a few things such as Radagast's, erm, hair.

But I shall enjoy Tauriel. After all, she hasn't edited one word of the book.

Inziladun

10-08-2013, 07:15 AM

But I shall enjoy Tauriel. After all, she hasn't edited one word of the book.

There's the key! If PJ had simply written his own Tolkien-like "homage" screenplay and made up his own characters, there'd be no issues. ;)

jallanite

10-08-2013, 09:27 AM

It's straight from the Appendices, duh! ;)

It's all there, word for word and a few between.

I don’t see that.

Perhaps you intend this as some kind of parody?

Morthoron

10-08-2013, 11:17 AM

It's straight from the Appendices, duh! ;)
It's all there, word for word and a few between.

Usually, a swollen appendix is surgically removed before it bursts and causes peritonitis, but I suppose in this case the proper terminology would be peregrinitis.

jallanite

10-08-2013, 11:28 AM

Personally, I will wait for the Rotten Tomatoes film reviews and discussion on this forum before I will even consider watching another three-hour-third of a two-hour movie. As the old saying goes: "You can always tell the pioneers. They're the ones with the arrows sticking out of their backs." Not me. Not this time.

*Sigh!* Your old saying is no more true than most old sayings.

Rotten Tomatoes gives very high ratings to the three Lord of the Rings films:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_fellowship_of_the_ring/ 92% to 93% (audience 92%)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_two_towers/ 96% to 100% (audience 92%)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_return_of_the_king/ 94% to 96% (audience 84%)

So your seeing The Lord of the Rings films indicates you were not a non-pioneer, but just another dull norm, save that apparently you did not like those three films. But now you will then take Rotten Tomatoes as your guide in deciding whether to see The Hobbit, which admittedly got a much lower rating.

My own favourite film is currently Whisper of the Heart:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/whisper-of-the-heart/ 90% (audience 88%)

But tastes do differ. And I am not prepared to substitute Rotten Tomatoes or any website for my personal taste, nor to insist that my own taste is invariably better. I usually more-or-less agree with Rotten Tomatoes, but only more-or-less. It is interesting to sometimes look up film titles there and compare my ratings with that of the critics and the general audience, and sometimes to be amazed at the difference of the three.

I agree in this case, in respect to your own taste, you may be wise not to see The Hobbit films. However, remember that J. R. R. Tolkien had very idiosyncratic tastes.

There's the key! If PJ had simply written his own Tolkien-like "homage" screenplay and made up his own characters, there'd be no issues. ;)

Hardly so! I feel that had PJ had done so, there would be those screaming that PJ is an idiot who does not understand Tolkien and those screeing at everything that PJ put on the screen.

Morthoron

10-08-2013, 11:33 AM

And even if there are lines straight from the book, you can bet they've been given to somebody else than the original speaker.

Intercepted script fragment from The Desolation of Smaug:

Gandalf: "Why, I feel all thin, sort of stretched, if you know what I mean: like butter that has been scraped over too much bread. That can't be right. I need a change, or something.”

Bilbo: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Gandalf: "We don't want any adventures here, thank you!"

Elrond: "I don't hold with ironmongery, whether it wears well or no."

Gollum: "Fly you fools!"

Inziladun

10-08-2013, 11:59 AM

Hardly so! I feel that had PJ had done so, there would be those screaming that PJ is an idiot who does not understand Tolkien and those screeing at everything that PJ put on the screen.

And is there reason to not do that now? :rolleyes:

I was mainly being facetious there, but I do indeed wish that PJ and co. had chosen some other books for their treatment.

jallanite

10-08-2013, 12:47 PM

And is there reason to not do that now? :rolleyes:

My point is that it is being done now.

There are the cute and seemingly brainless screeers at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151697149436171 and in this thread a wet blanket who tries to look like some sort of rebel by substituting consensus at Rotten Tomatoes for his own taste.

To quote from another fantasy writer: “Dullness will conquer dullness: and it will not matter.”

There is always reason, it seems to me, to avoid being either a brainless screeer or an inveterate wet blanket.

Morthoron

10-08-2013, 02:02 PM

A wet blanket or brainless scree
Are not the sort of folk for me.
But they are certainly better
than an inveterate blanket wetter.

jallanite

10-14-2013, 12:08 AM

Here is an essay on films based on previous works, in this case mostly on comic books and TV shows. Rilstone’s conclusion seem to me to be very relevant to Tolkien films. He actually starts talking about his feelings about a new actor playing Doctor Who in place of Matt Smith but then goes somewhere else.

Go to http://www.andrewrilstone.com/search?updated-max=2013-08-08T11:17:00%2B01:00&max-results=10 .

Then search on Hello, I Must Be Going .

Faith that the film is going to be a magnificent version of the previous work, exactly as we imagine it.

Revulsion when news comes out about what the film-makers are going to actually do with their source, or on seeing the completed film.

Retrenchment to the opinion that no-one who knows anything ever expected a purist film and all that matters is whether the film is good on its own terms.

Rilstone does not mention that many fans do not jump to the Retrenchment stage, but remain revolted. That may be because the film is so bad that most cannot now support it, even though they would like to.

Zigûr

10-14-2013, 02:45 AM

Rilstone does not mention that many fans do not jump to the Retrenchment stage, but remain revolted. That may be because the film is so bad that most cannot now support it, even though they would like to.
I wonder if that's something which becomes truer as we get older. I was barely a teenager when the films of The Lord of the Rings were coming out, and the revival of Doctor Who only followed that by a few years. At the time, I enjoyed both. Now, I despise both - I'm not sure whether I detest modern Doctor Who more than the films of The Lord of the Rings; they're both, in my opinion, cynical and fatuous exploitations of classic pieces of genre culture (the original series of Star Trek is a more recent victim of the same disease). I am, however, willing to admit that once upon a time I did have positive feelings about these things.

To be fair, I do actually like Matt Smith's first series of Doctor Who, although the rest was a let down, Eccleston was forgettable and Tennant awful. Like the films of The Lord of the Rings, I don't understand why modern Doctor Who is popular, or at least I can't enjoy the things that their supporters do enjoy about them. Simultaneously I can at least attest that the films of The Lord of the Rings are not purely contemptible - the plot certainly could have been much less faithful (although that is surely the definition of damning with faint praise) and a few of the performances are quite admirable, doing the best they can with the butchered dialogue and simplistic direction they are given.

The "judge the film on its own terms" thing just doesn't make sense to me, incidentally. It's an adaptation - surely its 'terms' include a conversation with the source material, and whether or not the changes were necessary or successful. It is my personal conviction that a reasonably faithful adaptation of the book, omitting where necessary but not changing much, similarly to the 1981 radio series, would be a far, far better work as a film than anything produced thus far. Suggestions that the changes are necessary 'for modern audiences' and so on are only predicated, in my opinion, on the commonplace delusion that 'cinema' and 'Hollywood' are identical concepts.

Inziladun

10-14-2013, 07:33 AM

The "judge the film on its own terms" thing just doesn't make sense to me, incidentally. It's an adaptation - surely its 'terms' include a conversation with the source material, and whether or not the changes were necessary or successful.

Quite so. How can a film based on a well-known book avoid comparison with it, and why should it be expected to do so? That is, where the fans of the book have a personal connection with it, and that is certainly the case with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The more a book is loved, the more criticism any adaptation should be prepared to receive.

It is my personal conviction that a reasonably faithful adaptation of the book, omitting where necessary but not changing much, similarly to the 1981 radio series, would be a far, far better work as a film than anything produced thus far. Suggestions that the changes are necessary 'for modern audiences' and so on are only predicated, in my opinion, on the commonplace delusion that 'cinema' and 'Hollywood' are identical concepts.

My main problem with the PJ films has not been the omissions of original material, such as Bombadil. That is to be expected when transitioning from book to movie. The additions and "expansions" that are contrary to the books are much more frustrating, and still, to my mind, unnecessary. A film adaptation could have been more faithful, though I admit it might not have been as lucrative from a profit standpoint. And there lies the motive behind the films. :rolleyes:

radagastly

10-14-2013, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Inziladun:
The additions and "expansions" that are contrary to the books are much more frustrating, and still, to my mind, unnecessary.
I recently watched The Hobbit movie (quite by accident, on my brother's HBO) and was struck by how much time I spent thinking, "I don't remember any of this!" It took me out of the story and reminded me that I was watching a movie. It interrupted my "suspension of disbelief," I had the same experience watching The Lord of the Rings movies, but thought it was due to my love of the original books. I don't have that degree of affection for The Hobbit, but the feeling was there just the same, like watching a Saturday morning cartoon with a commercial interruption every eight minutes. it felt shallow and unimportant despite the epic nature of the source material or the visual imagery Jackson was creating. What a pity.

jallanite

10-14-2013, 07:43 PM

Changes when an older work is adapted into dramatic form are old hat.

We see this first in adaptations of older works in Greek drama. That we don’t find more complaints about it may be because the poetic sources themselves disagreed very much, and by the time we have commentaries the new dramatic adaptations have themselves become ancient classics.

Shakespeare’s King Lear and Hamlet were likewise adaptations of older tales which took great liberties with them. King Lear in the earlier versions ended with Lear happily restored to the throne and his daughter Cordelia named as his heir. Hamlet in the earlier stories was the tale of a man who took revenge on his uncle by pretending to be a fool, and then had many other adventures before his death in a dual with Wiglek, ancestor of the early kings of Mercia.

Perhaps some contemporaries of Shakespeare likewise blamed Shakespeare for ruining the stories. And I suppose Shakespeare might have responded that the changes were necessary to bring in the modern audiences. The same could be presumed for Wagner who likewise could be said to have ruined Norse/Germanic mythology in his opera cycle Nibelungenlied and Arthurian material in his Parsifal and his Tristan und Isolde.

The difficulty is that films, like the older dramas, are made by creative people who can’t help being creative, being more interested in what they can make of a story than in the story they were given. Give all films to uncreative people to direct? That doesn’t sound like a viable solution?

And there are honest differences of taste among audiences. Rilstone also reviewed the original Jackson Lord of the Rings films and found the first one to be mostly excellent and the second bad and the third worse. But Rilstone also very much likes new Doctor Who for the most part, which is why he is writing a book on it.

Zigûr doesn’t like new Doctor Who much at all.

So who is right? Neither, I suppose, because there is no provable right in matters of taste. I once searched for a bad film to use as an example, but not one that was so bad it was considered good for that reason by some people, and one that was also well known enough to be likely to be recognized by the people I was addressing. I looked up loads of film titles on the web, but could not find a single one that was so bad that some people could not be found who really liked it for some reason. So I rewrote the reference to mention only an unnamed “notoriously bad film”.

The Harry Potter films were rather a shock to reviewers when they first started to appear, because author J. K. Rowling had full power over the directors to insist that no changes be made in the films over what was in the books, without her permission. The films accordingly followed the books very closely, leaving many reviewers to point out that this should not work, although it did.

Zigûr

10-15-2013, 06:32 AM

So who is right? Neither, I suppose, because there is no provable right in matters of taste. I once searched for a bad film to use as an example, but not one that was so bad it was considered good for that reason by some people, and one that was also well known enough to be likely to be recognized by the people I was addressing. I looked up loads of film titles on the web, but could not find a single one that was so bad that some people could not be found who really liked it for some reason.
I find it a relief that even in the days of internet-enabled mass consumer orthodoxy and opinion groupthink there are, however, still diversities of perspective to be found. To touch upon Doctor Who for a moment, there are places not unlike this forum where those who do not adhere to the majority consensus can discuss without fear of getting the flaming pitchforks treatment that, say, critics of the films get on certain major sites for enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work.

Concerning the matter of adaptation and changes, I believe there is an element of delusion in this belief that we, as Tolkien enthusiasts, ought to be 'grateful' that the films were made, regardless of alterations. Yet considering the enormous gulf of time alone between the culture of the period in which the books were published and that in which the films were produced surely it's far from unreasonable to find the films to not necessarily be to one's taste. If I like a heroic romance from the 1950s, why should I be expected to inevitably enjoy a Hollywood film from the 2000s, even if the latter is adapted from the former? The sensibilities and cultures in which they exist are still entirely different.

Inziladun

10-15-2013, 07:53 AM

The Harry Potter films were rather a shock to reviewers when they first started to appear, because author J. K. Rowling had full power over the directors to insist that no changes be made in the films over what was in the books, without her permission. The films accordingly followed the books very closely, leaving many reviewers to point out that this should not work, although it did.

On that point, in my opinion the first two HP movies are the best, and those are the most faithful to the books. Funny how that works. ;)

jallanite

10-16-2013, 08:25 PM

To touch upon Doctor Who for a moment, there are places not unlike this forum where those who do not adhere to the majority consensus can discuss without fear of getting the flaming pitchforks treatment that, say, critics of the films get on certain major sites for enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work.

I left the Doctor Who forums some time ago when the one I visited mostly was overrun with Doctor Who haters and a search elsewhere revealed that other forums had undergone the same fate. There was too much mindless hatred from both sides and it had ceased to be fun.

Concerning the matter of adaptation and changes, I believe there is an element of delusion in this belief that we, as Tolkien enthusiasts, ought to be 'grateful' that the films were made, regardless of alterations.Indeed. I recall reading an old commentary on Tennyson’s The Idylls of the King which greatly blamed Tennyson for his poems which differed from Malory and praised those which followed Malory or the Mabinogion closely. The writer seemed to be entirely ignorant that there were also versions of some tales which were earlier than Malory and disagreed with them. Yet the influence of Tennyson can be seen in the most unexpected places, for example in Mists of Avalon and in the recently-released The Fall of Arthur by J. R. R. Tolkien.

Yet considering the enormous gulf of time alone between the culture of the period in which the books were published and that in which the films were produced surely it's far from unreasonable to find the films to not necessarily be to one's taste. If I like a heroic romance from the 1950s, why should I be expected to inevitably enjoy a Hollywood film from the 2000s, even if the latter is adapted from the former? The sensibilities and cultures in which they exist are still entirely different.Well, lots of people still enjoy Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Snow-White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, the original Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein, The Seven Samurai, All Quiet on the Western Front, Sergeant York, High Noon, Shane, Django, the original King Kong, The Westerner, Gunfight at the O.K. Coral, Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Duck Soup, Some Like It Hot, Psycho, Dracula (1931), The Birds, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Carnival of Souls, Peeping Tom, Dead of Night, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dr. Strangelove, and many others. Most large cities have art-houses where older films are often shown.

You should not inevitably be expected to like any film, whether it is an older film or a modern one, or to like any book regardless. Taste is really quite inexplicable, at least to the outsider.

LordPhillock

11-04-2013, 11:56 AM

I think you all would appreciate my tampering with newly-discovered sound-mix stems from the latest "Hobbit" trailer as I added appropriate music that better works with the film.

http://youtu.be/4ndXKnZuvbI

Jabbawocky Took

11-06-2013, 03:45 PM

Hi, this is my first post here. Nice to meet you all.

That remix from LordPhilock was the weirdest thing I've seen for a long while.

But here is an even newer trailer for DOS that came out on 4 nov. What do you all make of it - an improvement on the last one?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dlfflhfn1W-o

Nerwen

11-07-2013, 06:42 PM

Oh, it’s an improvement, all right. It doesn’t look like a bad videogame anymore. In fact, it’s starting to look like a fairly decent one. Heck, I’d play it.

Morth will no doubt be gratified that this time they’ve taken the drastic step of *almost* including some lines from the book. Did you know the “King beneath the Mountains” song was really an Ancient Prophecy of Doom? No? Must be in the Appendices.

//end sarcasm

Well, enough of that. Welcome to the Downs, Jabberwocky Took! Enjoy your death!

Kitanna

11-08-2013, 09:13 PM

It looks better than the first trailer. Maybe it if weren't for all the bow-twanging elves being beautiful, but ancient and terrible beings I'd like it even more. I do hope this is better than the first Hobbit movie.

I looked up the soundtrack today, but iTunes had a sample of one song up for preview. I See Fire by Ed Sheeran. Now, I liked all the credit songs, Enya's May it Be, Emiliana Torrini's Gollum's Song, Annie Lennox's Into the West, and even Neil Finn's Song of the Lonely Mountain (though this one took me some getting used to). I felt the songs for the trilogy always fit the mood of the movies. Song of the Lonely Mountain was ok, though it felt too folksy and somewhat of an odd choice, but I liked it. I See Fire song just seems entirely out of place. The song itself isn't terrible, but sounds more like it belongs on the Hunger Games soundtrack with Taylor Swift and The Civil Wars. Anyone else listened to the sample?

Also welcome to the Down Jabberwocky!

Morthoron

11-09-2013, 08:52 AM

Morth will no doubt be gratified that this time they’ve taken the drastic step of *almost* including some lines from the book. Did you know the “King beneath the Mountains” song was really an Ancient Prophecy of Doom? No? Must be in the Appendices.

I'm actually gratified they kept the character names from the original book. I was expecting the dwarves like Kili and Fili to have racier names better fit for the modern HBO series viewer demographic, like Brace and Flint or Clovis and Jehan. Maybe Gaelicize them and call them Conor and Ciaran or make them Welsh like Dylan and Deryn. :rolleyes:

I looked up the soundtrack today, but iTunes had a sample of one song up for preview. I See Fire by Ed Sheeran. Now, I liked all the credit songs, Enya's May it Be, Emiliana Torrini's Gollum's Song, Annie Lennox's Into the West, and even Neil Finn's Song of the Lonely Mountain (though this one took me some getting used to). I felt the songs for the trilogy always fit the mood of the movies. Song of the Lonely Mountain was ok, though it felt too folksy and somewhat of an odd choice, but I liked it. I See Fire song just seems entirely out of place. The song itself isn't terrible, but sounds more like it belongs on the Hunger Games soundtrack with Taylor Swift and The Civil Wars. Anyone else listened to the sample?

My 13 year-old daughter loves Ed Sheeran. He is a talented young man, but the majority of Ed Sheeran's fan base is 13 year-old girls. That should be enough to tell you that the inclusion of this song is based on demographics and not warranted by artistic qualities conducive to conveying a Tolkienesque feeling for the movie.

Kitanna

11-09-2013, 11:28 AM

My 13 year-old daughter loves Ed Sheeran. He is a talented young man, but the majority of Ed Sheeran's fan base is 13 year-old girls. That should be enough to tell you that the inclusion of this song is based on demographics and not warranted by artistic qualities conducive to conveying a Tolkienesque feeling for the movie.

I had never even heard of him. I suppose there are worse choices out there and maybe this song will grow on me like Neil Finn's. *shrug*

Kuruharan

12-10-2013, 08:26 AM

The reviews are starting to come in.

I like that the Huff Po (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-review-series_n_4413619.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592) reviewer acknowledged that this whole thing is a massive ego trip by Jackson, a sentiment I have not seen as bluntly stated as this very often in the media.

However, I am depressed by her closing line:

"Jackson is back on track."

This exercise in rampant unchecked greed and indulgence started off anywhere near a descent set of tracks..? I've not seen evidence of such.

Or does she mean that Jackson's knack for self-indulgence and hijacking stories is even more on display in the latest film...

We wonders, precious, we wonders...

Nerwen

12-10-2013, 08:35 PM

I don’t know, Kuru, I can’t even get much idea what the reviewer actually thinks of the movie– the tone is enthusiastic, yet the substance seems to be largely, “hey, here’s some stuff that actually didn’t get screwed up this time... Yaaay! Go Peter!”

This perhaps shows the benefit of setting the bar low enough to begin with...;)

Morthoron

12-10-2013, 11:20 PM

This perhaps shows the benefit of setting the bar low enough to begin with...;)

The bar is set so low that I believe it can now be referred to as an underground cable.

Kuruharan

12-11-2013, 08:31 AM

The bar is set so low that I believe it can now be referred to as an underground cable.

Ah ha ha ha!

The trickle of released reviews has now become a flood (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/#contentReviews).

Just browsing the leading lines from the reviews I'm guessing the film has pacing problems (whodathunk) because it is something alluded to repeatedly even by the critics giving a positive review.

The guy from Newsday who said the romance was a welcome addition infuriates me. I suppose he is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't make it a good one.

I'm also becoming wary of these repeated references in reviews to Thranduil being "campy." What did Jackson do to the Elvenking's protrayal?

Oh yes...and...from the Time review...

this second of three film adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1937 novel The Hobbit will be livelier, ruder and less slavishly faithful to its source than last year’s initial episode, An Unexpected Journey

SLAVISHLY FAITHFUL TO ITS SOURCE?!!!! :mad:

We need to start a petition drive to get this man fired AT ONCE! Either that or force him to watch a movie adaptation that actually is slavishly faithful to its source...in the hope that it might make his head explode.