Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

That was one part I really missed: Them running out of water and Bompur sleeping because of that river, prompting them to go seek out the elves. Would've made for some nice pictures, too.

[Bauglir]

I am deeply confused. How could they possibly make this movie and not include the Mirkwood starvation scenes? I mean, I could understand (and object) if they downplayed them or something, but it doesn't make sense to leave them out entirely.

[SalmonGod]

Because some things just don't translate well to film format, you know?

[Bauglir]

>________________>

I'll admit, I make that claim pretty frequently, but usually in the context of an omission, alteration, or addition that serves to further some storytelling goal or take advantage of the new medium to convey something that was done differently of necessity in the original. But that arc is the defining moment of "We're not that Heroic" in the middle segment of the book. It should've been the centerpiece of the movie once all the premises established by the first movie and the overall trilogy structure are accepted.

I mean, I am not that upset about it because it's a departure from the book, but because the book already provided the perfect route to progress what the first movie was doing, and they've apparently ignored it. I really need to find time to watch this, because it sounds like they've taken an absurdly sharp turn away from the direction they established in the first movie, and that is what bugs me. Adaptation is fine with me, it's fucking it up so that your version is alarmingly inconsistent in addition to being unfaithful that gets to me.

I expect the trilogy to be different from the book in a lot of ways, but I don't expect it to create narrative discontinuities with itself.

[Helgoland]

Don't get too upset - it's a good movie! Just not the one you'd expect!

[Tiruin]

Because some things just don't translate well to film format, you know?

I really doubt that.
Like how they...clipped out the whole attack on the Shire representing Saruman's real death instead of gravity..and all other implications of that sort, to pull back LotR.

[nenjin]

In the books, the dwarves were kind of reckless dumbasses, which is why Bilbo ends up becoming a hero. Because he has to cover for them.

It seems like in the movies though, they wanted the dwarves to be kinda main characters, in the sense they could carry the story without Bilbo. It's that kind of narrative tinkering that makes me not really want to see this. For me, the dwarves being angry, quick to act but short of thought is what kind of defined the book and how the story unfolded. It's also why Bilbo had any room to grow as a character, because he wasn't surrounded by competent charcters.

[SalmonGod]

Because some things just don't translate well to film format, you know?

I really doubt that.
Like how they...clipped out the whole attack on the Shire representing Saruman's real death instead of gravity..and all other implications of that sort, to pull back LotR.

I was being sarcastic

Most of the time, I really hate this excuse, because it's completely non-applicable to the complaints that are being made.  I understand that sometimes different formats have to use different methods to portray the same thing.  That's fine, so long as the the same thing is being portrayed in the end.  If you're changing core elements of the story, you can no longer peg that on format differences.  And a lot of the time, the argument is something more like "that's fine for a book, but it wouldn't made a good movie" or "a reading audience may relate to this, but most movie-goers wouldn't".  And if that's the case, I'd rather it not be adapted at all, because there's a strong tendency for movie adaptations to culturally supercede the books they're based on.  For something like Tolkien, that's a horrible fucking shame.  It really feels like something is being lost.

[WillowLuman]

Don't bring up the whole "sack of the shire" thing, though. That is a legitimate excuse. If they had included that in the ROTK movie, it would have wrecked the pacing. And likely felt a bit cheap.

[Bauglir]

@nenjin

See, that's certainly not true of the first movie. The Dwarves wanted to be the heroes, but they bumbled their way through everything. Bilbo actually may have gotten a bit of a boost in importance (as I recall, his role with the Trolls was expanded to include Gandalf's argument-incitement, for instance). There was an impression of "Gah, I don't want to be a hero, I just want to get this over with" that actually let him get things done when the Dwarves were too busy posturing.

So if they're abandoning that, then it's a problem within the movies' own structure.

I mean, it's a failure as an adaptation, but on top of that it's an internal narrative breakdown. It's not just "You did a bad job of portraying The Hobbit", it's "You did a bad job at being art".

[Ultimuh]

"You did a bad job at being art".

Can one really be bad at this concept called 'art'?
I mean.. Even if someone paints something which most might call bad, some might see it as a masterpiece.

[Bauglir]

Fair enough. To whatever extent that one can call something bad at being art, then, it's that.

[Vattic]

It was a nice day out and I found it entertaining for what it was. Can't help feeling disappointed on Tolkien's behalf; It's not how he'd of wanted it.

[kaijyuu]

"You did a bad job at being art".

Can one really be bad at this concept called 'art'?
I mean.. Even if someone paints something which most might call bad, some might see it as a masterpiece.

Well you can still criticize things by determining whether they reached the goals they were shooting for. Sophistication in art comes from achieving what you set out to do, and if the films didn't do that, they failed.

Someone might still like them or whatever, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the criticism isn't invalidated either.

[Sensei]

"You did a bad job at being art".

Can one really be bad at this concept called 'art'?
I mean.. Even if someone paints something which most might call bad, some might see it as a masterpiece.

Yes, and they still might but it's still bad.