Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and LOTR Official Thread

1515254565798

Comments

  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Holy SHIT... Epic beyond belief. A true masterpiece Im speechless...
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Glad you enjoyed it, Richard! :D

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    I have no words, Im upset I didnt see it sooner. It exceeded every expectation and then some. I cant fucking wait for the desolation of smaug. Damn.t That ending...
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    :D I'm glad you liked it! I wish I could see it again. However, I'm excited at the prospect of waiting for an extended edition blu-ray so that my second watch will be fresh and almost completely new.
    imageimageimage
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Aaron i completely loved it...much more than LOTR I had a million questions for lotr and here not really.

    Theres one thing that sticked out though, why didnt gandalf have the eagles take them all to the mountain?
  • HessHess Posts: 1,734 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Eagles are basically another race, just like Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc. They're very proud creatures who take don't shit from nobody, and they wouldn't risk going so near the Lonely Mountain, considering there's a freaking Dragon :P
    image
  • HessHess Posts: 1,734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    don't take*... my bad.
    image
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Ohhh good reason haha thanks!
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Eagles are starting to feel very overused, loll. Saving moment in ROTK, The hobbit, if they have another "omg saving moment without them we'd be dead" in the Battle of the Five Armies like the book then I'll be a bit annoyed, loll.
    image
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The difference between a repeated savior like the Eagles or say, Lilys love/blood connection in Potter is that was the mystery in the books: how does Harry escape and what makes this connection work? It always saved him, but we didn't know why or how. Here it's just "OMG EAGLES ARE HURR AGAIN WE SAVED!"

    Nevertheless I loved the hobbit and ill love the next two, loll, it'll just be a small annoyance :p
    image
  • NickNick Posts: 20,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    i can,t remember if the eagles were in the book the hobbit or not but if they do show up i wont mind.
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    I want to see it again right now. In fact Im down for extended editions.

    I hate how I must wait a year to iwn it ugh.
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    Glad u enjoyed it.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Look who's back. And without even an announcement.
    imageimage
  • KranenKranen Posts: 4,768 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Go away Coon.

    image
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Stop spamming coon with flags he isnt spamming really.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Loki, please use punctuation. I had to read one of your posts twice.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • FireflyFirefly Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭
    Just got back from seeing it a second time and wow, it was even better.

    I had no bad expectations from shitty reviews so I could just sit back and enjoy the film for what it is.

    I had read thoughts from people who had watched it a second time and said that the beginning really dragged.

    Not at all. I was blown away all over again.

    It's such a feel-good film. Every time I hear that battle theme I just get a rush of euphoria and feel so happy.

    The humour is also spot on and had me laughing all over again.

    Argh. What are these feels.

    At the end of the day, this is a film(s) for Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings film fans. If you don't like them then you definitely won't like this. Obviously it's ultimately made for money, but the people who work on it are obviously fans and everything is made with loving care and emotion.

    Reviewers who slated this movie can **** off as far as I'm concerned.

    You only need to see the disconnect between critics scores and audience scores to see where the problem lies.

    The critics have gone on a full-blown assault against the 48fps and that has inappropriately seeped into their reviews of the film itself.
    image image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Firefly said:


    Reviewers who slated this movie can **** off as far as I'm concerned.

    You only need to see the disconnect between critics scores and audience scores to see where the problem lies.

    Then the problem lies with the public as far as I'm concerned. Critics have better basis for evaluating films than the average Joe and Jane. However, the world isn't so black and white that all critics hated it and everybody else loved it.
  • NickNick Posts: 20,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    im going to the hobbit for my birthday!!
  • XWingardium_LeviosaXXWingardium_LeviosaX Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭
    I have read the comments, and I have seen you guys talk about frames. I'm ignorant in movies, or what you would call "stupid". So, can someone explain about the frames and how can you tell how the movie is cut or whatever? Thanks!
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Okay, so when we say 24 Frames per second (FPS) essentially it means 24 pictures flash in 1 second. This is so fast for the human eye, it doesn't look like 24 pictures, it looks like motion. So 48 FPS is even smoother and more fluid motion, and nearly EVERYTHING you've seen in your life that's a movie or video is 24, so making 48 FPS is ballsy and why we're talking about :p
    image
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    In fact, when you first see it, it almost looks like it's sped up, and this jarring feeling can sometimes take you out of the movie. At other times, it can look so lifelike that it can expose the falseness of some of the sets and CGI. However, I thought it was quite stunning in the Hobbit, especially looking at all the things that were actually shot, like the stunning vistas of New Zealand.
    imageimageimage
  • nick_hansennick_hansen Posts: 2,305 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I hadn't been so anxious to see a film for ages and my word, even though the wait was painfully long, I finally saw it. So I saw it in 3D HFR and the experience was like no other. Firstly, HFR was the most surprising and stunning thing ever. The clarity and smoothness was just unbelievable. Wow, HFR is my new best friend, it made the film so much better and the experience so much more enjoyable. 3D was also good, it didn't make much of a difference but was still enhanced the film.

    As for the film itself. An epic adventure and I really enjoyed the lightheartedness that this film had in comparison to the LOTR trilogy. It was really fun and such a thrill to watch. I can't express the beauty that this film had and you have to hand it to New Zealand for that. The scenery in this for me just topples over the scenery in LOTR, it brought the biggest of smiles to my face, it was just SO BEAUTIFUL!!!! I can't get over it.

    Some of the stand out scenes for me were all of the battle scenes which were visually stunning as expected. The thunder fight thing was beyond amazing. CGI just owned there but what topped it for me was the eagles scene. As 10 or so of them were in the air after their rescue, I was lost for words, it was beautiful, beautiful, so so beautiful, amazing, wonderful, breathtaking.

    Peter Jackson has definitely provided us with something amazing yet again. Wonderful direction, perfect casting, beautiful scenery (I actually can't get over how beautiful this experience was) and Howard Shore again composes a beautiful score. The Dwarves theme was another hit, just nailed it.

    This is definitely by far, the most impressive film that I have seen in terms of its visuals and absolute beauty.
    image
  • XWingardium_LeviosaXXWingardium_LeviosaX Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭
    Ohh that was very interesting. I didn't know the difference. I still can't tell from each one but its good to know its there. Thanks for explaining!
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    I just got the book, Im excited to read it! :)
  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Fantastic. I'm so pleased with the film. Everything was excellent, and I cannot wait for the next part.
    imageimage
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    I can't decide whether to rewatch this or not: the more I think about the film, the more it hits me how bloated it was. I still think it was fun, but also highly exhaustive. There's a noticeable problem when every scene could, and should, be cut down. I think that by watching Deathly Hallows, it kind of struck me how problematic the slow pacing of this film ultimately is. Part II is almost an hour shorter, and yet 5x as much actually happens. An hour into the Hobbit and I think we've only just left the Shire. Jackson has developed far too much of a fetish for length, especially when he seems to only manage to achieve that length by elongating everything to the absolute maximum. Cool as they were, the Stone Giants really had no business being over a minute long. Even Elrond with the moon runes can't help but feel like it's taking its gruesomely sweet time to get to the point. The Goblin town was also very long, and the trolls, the warg chase, Rivendell. It all feels like it needs a good edit.

    And as much as I wanted to see it, the White Council felt rather perfunctory, a way to introduce certain plot points and foreshadowing. This might have been less troubling if the writing had been better. It doesn't sit well with me how obvious they make Saruman's dual nature here.

    On the other hand, there were some sequences that I loved. The last half-hour, with the Riddles Game and Bilbo's pity, Azogs pack, the chase, the fire and the eagles. It's fucking great. I loved the stuff at Bag-End. The prologue is beautifully melancholic. Why, oh why, does it have to be so divided?
  • FireflyFirefly Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭
    $686,703,000

    Not bad for a flop!

    Movies 2 & 3 will likely be pure profit for WB if AUJ continues at this rate.

    I doubt WB are concerned at all about the mixed reviews.

    The fan response has been majority positive.
    image image
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    AUJ hasn't even been out a month yet, and people claim that it is a "flop" I can't for any reason say that I agree, only that I strongly disagree, as this is likely to still be out well into January, and perhaps for a little of February. Try telling me or anyone for that matter that $1 billion is what makes a "flop" as that is pretty much guaranteed.

    Now, also, money isn't a sign of a great movie. If I say that The Hobbit is a great movie, then that's my opinion, and it's fair. Avatar destroyed everything in its path, but that doesn't make it the best. Far from it. The general consensus, I gather, is that The Hobbit is merely being seen as a good movie. Fair enough, but that's not me.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Firefly said:

    The fan response has been majority positive.

    Indeed:

    http://cinemascore.com/#

    It's an A there.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That is all we needed to hear. It doesn't really matter what the critics think. Overall, the fans feel as though the film did a good job at handling Tolkien's original work.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • FireflyFirefly Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭
    I feel that movie 2 is going to be reviewed a lot better.

    AUJ has a lot of familiar locations and it's structure is very similar to FOTR.

    Movie 2 has a lot more unique locations that we've never seen before.

    Mirkwood was only glimpsed in AUJ.

    Surprising how AUJ was originally going to end with the Barrels down the river scene when it was just two films.

    I dread how much AUJ would have been squashed and cut to get all of that into one movie.

    I'm fine with three movies, give me as much of Middle Earth as possible.
    image image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    I've already made it clear I didn't like the movie, but I hadn't bothered writing a review until now. There will be spoilers as always.

    I hope Bilbo is right when he believes that the worst is behind us. This movie moves at a snail's pace, and the slowness serves no purpose. Compare this to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 in which director David Yates uses the time to create an atmosphere of frustration and isolation. It has this wonderful sense of the main characters being separated from the rest of the world -- a world they ironically are trying to save -- while wandering through the English countryside without getting any closer to defeating Voldemort. Their frustration ultimately culminates into an engaging fight, which justifies the time spent on dwelling because the characters and plot move forward as a result of it.

    The problem with The Hobbit is that everything seems too arbitrary; you have a chase scene here and a troll scene there, but they come out of the blue and have no consequences for the overall story. There is no build-up and zero atmosphere here despite the pretty images. It also gets a bit repetitive to see them run away from orcs. While funny to begin with, Bilbo's slow reaction time to dangerous situations and his comical facial expressions feel a bit exaggerated after a while. Every obstacle is solved by coincidences. An improvement -- if there was something that needed to be expanded on -- would be to set up that Gandalf is leading the group to the elves from the beginning to make their rescue seem less random, as well as establish Gandalf's connection with the birds that save them at the end of the day.

    I realize that the book has the same episodic structure to it, but unlike Peter Jackson, Tolkien never insisted to tell the story in such an epic and long-winded manner because he must have known that it wouldn't suit the rather light-hearted tone of the story. In the book the episodic structure provided a sense of wonder and excitement about what waits around the corner in this fast-paced tale. I disagree with Jackson that the story needs to be stretched out because it isn't the details that make The Hobbit an entertaining read, but the denseness of the adventure and the characters developing (e.g. Bilbo finding courage) and coming together to fight against the evil forces. Tolkien for one clearly thought the same by focusing exclusively on the main plot and referring passages of time and side plots such as Gandalf's journey in short paragraphs. What does Jackson do? Predictably enough he shoves in as many sweeping panorama shots as possible and includes irrelevant action (e.g. the stone mountains war), side plots, characters and references from LOTR which have no payoff here. The Radagast plot in particular has nothing to do with the journey. What has the darkening of Middle-Age to do with anything? And how did the orcs know about the journey? These things need to be re-introduced and answered in the next two movies.

    Jackson overdramatizes all the action and manages at worst to intercut the hilarious surreality of three dwarves hanging from a branch with Thorin furiously running out of the flames in slow-motion which is accompanied by cliched dramatic music. Needless to say that it's inappropriate to treat the movie in such a melodramatic way when the material doesn't have enough gravitas for it and the stakes are fairly low compared to LOTR or even your average action movie. The villain being a laughable two-dimensional CGI figure doesn't add much gravitas either. If you are going to expand on a children's story and make it more "epic" and adult, then follow through 100 %. Slapstick humour, one-liners and cheap ways out of dangerous situations don't clash well with darker aspects of the film like thirst for revenge, war predictions and heads being cut off. The large set pieces demands more realistic action than this in order to feel credible. The death of the Goblin king was especially bad. Jackson should find other solutions than Gandalf turning up every time to save the day with a little bit of luck, which makes you wonder why he left them in the first place. For fun? To demonstrate how desperately the others need him?

    That actually goes against the point of the book where they learn to become more independent of him. So much for faithfulness to the book (sarcasm)... Note that I'm merely pointing this out to emphasize the irony in faithfulness supposedly only meaning attention to details, "accuracy" and to stuff in as much as possible from the book in the mind of book purists, while the handling of characters and themes and how it works in a cinematic context don't matter at all to them.

    On the positive side, it had some fun humour -- slapstick and black comedy lines -- and there were several well-crafted scenes. Gollum had an engaging interaction with Bilbo, and I loved the moment when Bilbo chooses not to slice his throat out of pity which was the perfect pay-off to Gandalf's comment about what defines true bravery, although the choice to play the same type of music every time Gandalf shared his moral wisdom wasn't exactly subtle. The development of the relation between Bilbo and Thorin was nice with Bilbo getting a true hero moment near the end. I also thought the adaptation choice to change the focus of the journey from finding a treasure to reclaiming their homeland added more dramatic weight to the story; it was a nice parallel to Bilbo missing his home. At the end of this part he realizes that the same goes for the dwarves, which gives this part some thematic closure at least. Why he decided to join them in the first place was however not explored, which is a problem when you choose to adapt this little story into an entire trilogy considering that demands more depth.

    In sum, it's a fairly weak film with far too much bloat, but it was spectacular visually (especially in 3D) and a couple of thematic elements -- while not sufficient enough to carry the entire film -- surprised me positively. I am however convinced it was a big mistake artistically to split the book into three parts.
  • FireflyFirefly Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭

    The Radagast plot in particular has nothing to do with the journey. What has the darkening of Middle-Age to do with anything? These things need to be re-introduced and answered in the next two movies.

    All of this referenced in The Hobbit book. There isn't paragraphs and paragraphs of the stuff, but it is there.

    It is going to culminate with The White Council launching an assault on Dol Guldur. The Necromancer is Sauron in weakened form. The scenes in this film are setting up for the next one.

    We have to see what Gandalf is up to. In a book it's all well and good to say "oh I was off doing this", fair enough. For an audience watching a movie, that's frustrating, we need to see it.

    Jackson is expanding the story and including things that occurred in the time-frame of The Hobbit. It's especially going to help in linking it to Lord of The Rings.
    image image
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    Everything with Radagast was an invention by Peter Jackson. In any case, his character was ultimately pointless: he just vanishes from the film without explanation. It felt as though he was there because Jackson really, really wanted a quirky oddball character. I didn't really feel like the White Council scene forwarded anything, and I disliked how obvious they made Saruman's dual nature. In fact, I'm not even sure why he and Elrond were so cynical about Gandalf's abundantly clear evidence. It felt awkwardly forced.

    Part of the problem, I think, is that there was never much material to draw on. I believe they had outlines and notes to work with, but it still required a heavy amount of embellishment. I don't mind adding weight to the dwarves quest: that was good. In fact, it was established very well through the prologue and the Bag-End scenes. I particularly liked Balin's point that this is no band of heroes: a bunch of old men, traders and reckless young ones. Of course, as soon as the time comes for battle, Jackson drops this idea. It would have been nice to see them grow through the close-call experiences. It was jarring to watch them slaughter hordes of Goblins and then be beaten down by a dozen warg-riders.

    The biggest issue with the film though is how Jackson just drags it all out. Brevity is lost, pacing is forgotten about. I honestly ask, how long did that scene with the trolls last? It was six pages or so in the book, yet here it just didn't end. It wasn't bad: just draining. Again at Rivendell, a brief rest in the book, it just becomes something else here. Long-winded and padded out. It honestly kills the momentum. The other thing is that Jackson's just lost any sight of the bigger picture, with LOTR he was ruthless in cutting things down for the benefit of the story as a whole. Here, it seems, he's more interested in taking every scene to its limits. A sentence in the book, the Stone Giants, becomes a massive action scene. A cool looking action scene, no doubt, but it still comes across as aimlessly indulgent.

    As far as it goes, I think this film was best when it had something to focus on: be it plot or character. This is why the best scenes, for me, are the likes of Bilbo's pity or the Misty Mountain song. The loss of Erebor. They all had a purpose. It ultimately benefits when there's less room for Jackson to go crazy. The only action scene that I felt had any weight was the 'Into the Fire' sequence at the end. Aside from that, a lot of it was goofy – which is fine, the trolls should be goofy – but the constant back and forward between the brutality of battle and war and these mostly inexperienced dwarves and the super-awesome fighting styles they just inherit, it feels as if Jackson didn't really have a bigger idea of what he wanted.

    The Hobbit strikes me as a film that's fun on the first viewing but will lessen with another. I can appreciate many aspects of the film, as I said, Gollum was great. The pity of Bilbo, touching. I'd love to see scenes again, but the film as a whole is so tiring, it's really hard to be engaged when you literally feel as if you've walked a the length of the journey.
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    More pale Orc, less Goblins and Radagast. Shorten runtime, and then it's much better.

    I still really liked it though, but to say its perfect seems wrong. This was NO WHERE on the level of LOTR.
    image
  • TheDoctorTheDoctor Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I didn't like the pale orc or Azog whatever plotline lol. It felt like a very forced way to heighten the drama, and I too felt that the part where Thorin gets off the tree and walks to the orc with the choir blaring very melodramatic.

    Yes, I loved the film.
  • dobby_freak19dobby_freak19 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭✭
    Am I the only one whose favorite part is the entire golbin/gollum sequence?
    I loved their escape scene, and the riddle part as well!
    But I seem to notice everyone is complaining about the Goblin part...to me it was the most moved part of the film! hahahaha
    2nd time watching, tough, I haveto say the troll part was really boring
    image
    Hope you like it!
  • TheDoctorTheDoctor Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's kind of an unofficial fact that there is a very big group of people who hate the HP films solely because of the changes they make yet think the LotR films are 100% perfect in anyway with no flaws.
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TheDoctor said:

    It's kind of an unofficial fact that there is a very big group of people who hate the HP films solely because of the changes they make yet think the LotR films are 100% perfect in anyway with no flaws.

    There's a word for those kind of people.

    Aka hypocrites
    image
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    I don't feel Azog was a particularly strong villain, especially since there was no real conclusion to his arc. I'm not sure why he was even there, the book already had Bolg, his son, who had his own motivations for vengeance: retribution for the death of his father. That's actually something I found lacking in the film, a natural arc. It just comes to an end, nothing is really resolved. I also didn't care for Thorin and Bilbo's final scene, it just seemed tacked on, especially since, from what I can remember of the book, this conflict is only going to begin again.

    There is a truth to people being biased in Jackson's favour though. I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but they're not flawless; they made massive changes to the books, there are certain plot holes and inconsistencies. It seems to me that when Yates or whoever changes things, he's completely in the wrong and working from his own hubris, but when Jackson makes an adaptation that's 80% his stuff, 20% Tolkien, with a flimsy excuse about using small notes and outlines, he's doing it out his undying love for the material...
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    Why is everyone jumping on Peter Jackson all of a sudden? Most of the scenes in LOTR came from the book, and im happy he changed the events of the book because they dragged in the books. Adding material to The Hobbit was actually a excellent idea because it has to set up LOTR while even telling Bilbo's story.

    I think people like Jackson more because he is a fan boy and he wants to give the fans more aka the extended editions. Yates is an awesome director but why film two movies at the same time for a year and a half and not give the fans more. But thats another convo.

    And Radagast was not an invention, look it up, he was around in the Hobbit but was never shown fully. He disappeared around when LOTR started and was never seen again.

    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    Er, no one's suddenly just decided to hate Jackson. It's just there tends to be a hypocritical divide, the HP filmmakers are thrown to the dogs for changing the plot, yet Jackson makes huge alterations, far bigger than any in the HP series, and is often given a free pass. His changes don't always work; his tweaks with the Ents created a plot hole. I didn't like the Army of the Dead either: it felt anticlimactic and undermined the entire battle. He turned Frodo from an active protagonist like Bilbo, to a passive one. In the topic of 'dragging', are we talking about the Hobbit or LOTR? Because nothing in the Hobbit book dragged.

    He's not a fanboy in any case. He's actually been very clear about this: he came to adapt the trilogy after attempting to write his own fantasy film, only to be dissatisfied with the results. As for Yates, he understood the necessity of storytelling and pacing. Jackson did to a decade back, but now he's obsessed with filling out the films as much as possible, regardless of how it affects the story as a whole. Radagast existed in Tolkien's lore, but everything in this film was made-up by Jackson. He had a minor role in LOTR; outside of that he didn't do much.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013

    Yates is an awesome director but why film two movies at the same time for a year and a half and not give the fans more.

    I think that's because the filmmakers/producers/studio wanted to please everybody; fans of the books would appreciate the faithfulness of most scenes and attention to details, fans of the film series would notice all the wonderful nods to the earlier movies, there is enough drama, emotion and action to please the general public and some of Yates' visual choices/symbolism and inspired genre borrowing/referencing is interesting to critics and cinephiles.

    In the end I think the DH films fell between two stools; alterations from the book were taken to make some scenes work better in a cinematic context, but that filmic approach was not consistently followed seeing as the story doesn't make completely sense within its own film universe separated from the book series. While the movies were well-received and entertained the majority, certain details and plot points left many scratching their heads. The filmmakers assumed viewers to have read the book in order to fill out the gaps in the story, but took at the same time too many liberties with the source material for many of them to fully appreciate the films despite being largely made for fans. It's ironic, but that's the price of a compromising adaptation course. It seemed to succeed in pleasing "everybody" (meaning all aforementioned groups) to a certain degree in the sense that everybody could appreciate something about them, but hardly everything.


    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why is everyone jumping on Peter Jackson all of a sudden? Most of the scenes in LOTR came from the book, and im happy he changed the events of the book because they dragged in the books. Adding material to The Hobbit was actually a excellent idea because it has to set up LOTR while even telling Bilbo's story.

    I think people like Jackson more because he is a fan boy and he wants to give the fans more aka the extended editions. Yates is an awesome director but why film two movies at the same time for a year and a half and not give the fans more. But thats another convo.

    And Radagast was not an invention, look it up, he was around in the Hobbit but was never shown fully. He disappeared around when LOTR started and was never seen again.

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book or the lore of LOTR that Tolkein left. It's 100% about the movie.

    Personally, I could've done with less goblins, a little less humor, less Radagast, and more about the dwarves and Biblo. Running time would not have been bad if it included stuff I cared about more.
    image
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    MattCat said:

    Er, no one's suddenly just decided to hate Jackson. It's just there tends to be a hypocritical divide, the HP filmmakers are thrown to the dogs for changing the plot, yet Jackson makes huge alterations, far bigger than any in the HP series, and is often given a free pass. His changes don't always work; his tweaks with the Ents created a plot hole. I didn't like the Army of the Dead either: it felt anticlimactic and undermined the entire battle. He turned Frodo from an active protagonist like Bilbo, to a passive one. In the topic of 'dragging', are we talking about the Hobbit or LOTR? Because nothing in the Hobbit book dragged.

    He's not a fanboy in any case. He's actually been very clear about this: he came to adapt the trilogy after attempting to write his own fantasy film, only to be dissatisfied with the results. As for Yates, he understood the necessity of storytelling and pacing. Jackson did to a decade back, but now he's obsessed with filling out the films as much as possible, regardless of how it affects the story as a whole. Radagast existed in Tolkien's lore, but everything in this film was made-up by Jackson. He had a minor role in LOTR; outside of that he didn't do much.

    I was talking about LOTR.

    The Ents were handled with care but he closed their plotline with them staying in Isengard. The Army of the Dead was a crowd pleaser, and part of Aragorn rising up to be the king he was suppose to be, more character development. If you look at the extended version of FOTR, Aragorn was trying to run away from his fate, his own destiny but when ROTK came around, he stood up and became the king he was born to be.

    i still remember everyone cheering when they showed up to the battle when i went to see it in 2003.

    LOTR and HP had storyline they could change, In LOTR, characters like Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Ghan Buri Ghan, and others could be discarded because of pacing issues and relevance to the main plot.

    I don't see Frodo as a passive character, the story still focuses on him and his quest, but the films gave more detail to the other members of the Fellowship and the struggle they had to go through, which I thought was done awesomely.

    And you have to remember when these series where made, 1950's to late 90's, But to me, what really separates LOTR from HP is that one series was complete and the other was still being written while the films were still being filmed and also while directors kept changing. . To me, thats HP's fatal flaw.

    Plus, it all comes down to how your production team handles the material, David Yates and his team did work hard, but they had so much they had to touch up and fix due to previous films, like Bill Weasley making his first appearance in DH 1, reappearance of Dobby.

    But with Jackson, he did take creative license with the films and planned out what was going to be in the 3 films for both LOTR and The Hobbit. I dont see any problem with that. David Yates also took liberties with that cliff jump and breaking of the Elder Wand, and everytime I bring it up they go bat crap crazy.

    And how does it affect the story, everything seems on point thus far?
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    edited January 2013
    Martin1 said:

    Why is everyone jumping on Peter Jackson all of a sudden? Most of the scenes in LOTR came from the book, and im happy he changed the events of the book because they dragged in the books. Adding material to The Hobbit was actually a excellent idea because it has to set up LOTR while even telling Bilbo's story.

    I think people like Jackson more because he is a fan boy and he wants to give the fans more aka the extended editions. Yates is an awesome director but why film two movies at the same time for a year and a half and not give the fans more. But thats another convo.

    And Radagast was not an invention, look it up, he was around in the Hobbit but was never shown fully. He disappeared around when LOTR started and was never seen again.

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book or the lore of LOTR that Tolkein left. It's 100% about the movie.

    Personally, I could've done with less goblins, a little less humor, less Radagast, and more about the dwarves and Biblo. Running time would not have been bad if it included stuff I cared about more.
    The dwarves barely had any backstory, Peter had to go and write synopsis for each one. In the book, most of them are background characters.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Martin1 said:

    Why is everyone jumping on Peter Jackson all of a sudden? Most of the scenes in LOTR came from the book, and im happy he changed the events of the book because they dragged in the books. Adding material to The Hobbit was actually a excellent idea because it has to set up LOTR while even telling Bilbo's story.

    I think people like Jackson more because he is a fan boy and he wants to give the fans more aka the extended editions. Yates is an awesome director but why film two movies at the same time for a year and a half and not give the fans more. But thats another convo.

    And Radagast was not an invention, look it up, he was around in the Hobbit but was never shown fully. He disappeared around when LOTR started and was never seen again.

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book or the lore of LOTR that Tolkein left. It's 100% about the movie.

    Personally, I could've done with less goblins, a little less humor, less Radagast, and more about the dwarves and Biblo. Running time would not have been bad if it included stuff I cared about more.
    The dwarves barely had any backstory, Peter had to go and write synopsis for each one. In the book, most of them are background characters.
    ...k great

    That still doesn't have much to do with my points. Okay, not more to add to the dwarves backstory? You could still eliminate goblin/humor/Radagast stuff
    image
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    Why eliminate humor? It's based off a children's novel. The Radagast stuff was fine but it could've been in the extended version. The Goblins had to be in the movie, the stuff with Azog was fine.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
Sign In or Register to comment.