Print

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

[klefenz]

There is no reason to hate Tolkien, he wrote the Hobbit as a tale for his children and published it, it is very good for what it is, a children book.
But the movies try to turn it into a more adult story while retaining some goofiness, which leaves it in some in between ground which is not as pleasing.

Also it wasn't targeted at us, it often happens in movies, they make sequels or prequels that are not targeted to the original audience, but to a wider/younger one. Man, The Fellowship is already 13 years old.

[Tawa]

I see your point. Now that you mentioned it, a lot of those USA Today articles that were interviews with that actress who played Tauriel involved her saying stuff about "the little girls in the audience needing someone to relate with"

Wait what the heck this movie is rated PG - 13 on account of parents needing to oversee their children near thirteen of the manliest sentient beings to date.

[Armok]

I would have agreed a few years ago. But since then I've come to realize that "adaptation" means not "version of" but rather "vaguely inspired by", and the purpose of movies is to show pretty pictures not tell a coherent story and it's better to just relax and enjoy that part. It's basic specialization; books do stories better, movie do pictures better, as long as enough of both exist you're better of switching between them than trying to cram both things into a single experience.

[Rapozk]

Songs... songs were good... They helped setting a good mood for the rest of the movie... then it went straight down... in a bad way, as in overshooting hell..

This song inspired me to play dwarf fortress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEm0AjTbsac

[Manveru Taurënér]

Songs... songs were good... They helped setting a good mood for the rest of the movie... then it went straight down... in a bad way, as in overshooting hell..

This song inspired me to play dwarf fortress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEm0AjTbsac

Yeah, it was nice. Just too bad they cut out so much of it, although I totally understand that I'm part of a small minority that'd enjoy sitting there listening through the whole thing without falling asleep or something. Just found this cover with the whole thing the other day, totally worth checking out ^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ymgFyzbDo

[Mel_Vixen]

I like the new films. Point is Tolkien was shitty on characters and telling through them. LOTR is a story in most parts told throught the circumstances, lore and the Journey. Only at the end we see good Characterdevelopment. Face it Merry and Pipin  were dead weight for the story till they were picked up in return of the king. Killing Boromir early removed a mayor source of conflict close to the party. Only to be replaced by the shallowness of the orcs.

 The Hopbbit was much of the same cuisine. So taking the additional lore that existed and forging a more Character driven story was a good idea. It just works much better on Film and veers from the "Walking to certain doom" formula of the LOTR trillogy.

The hobbit was also meant as childrens book and the the world of the book is Happier sillier and more Colorfull serves very well as prequell. The rise of Sauron was what made the world edgier and more grimddark for example by the release of the wraiths, Sarumans temptation and the treachery in Rohan and Gondor.

As such it shows in what bad shape the Hobbits world is pretty well in my oppinion.

[xcorps]

I like the new films. Point is Tolkien was shitty on characters and telling through them. LOTR is a story in most parts told throught the circumstances, lore and the Journey. Only at the end we see good Characterdevelopment. Face it Merry and Pipin  were dead weight for the story till they were picked up in return of the king. Killing Boromir early removed a mayor source of conflict close to the party. Only to be replaced by the shallowness of the orcs.

His stories are narratives, not character studies....Tolkien didn't do character threads, he did plot threads. The "shallowness" of the orcs (what exactly does that even mean?) in the LOTR and The Hobbit is due to the fact that the narrative from the point of view of the...Hobbits.

 The death of Boromir was not a calamity that happened in a vacuum that allowed Tolkien to write out a conflict in an expedient manner (that's a pretty ludicrous evaluation). It was an event in the breaking of the Fellowship, which was the primary catalyst that allowed the journey to continue. It was an event that was the culmination of other events unrelated to Boromir and his story. If you actually believe that Tolkien wanted to write out Boromir, then you are forced to admit that Tolkien is a masterful planner, because that was no odd coincidence. The Isenguarders, the battle, the loss of Gandalf the Grey at exactly the right moment, leaving Lorien with just the right equipment to give Frodo and Sam the means to continue on all alone... that's a lot effort to write out a superfluous character instead of simply not including him in the first place.

I don't know what you base those criticisms on, but I don't think they are even close to the mark.

[Mel_Vixen]

I just say Boromir would provide the more interesting conflict in the long run. The attack by the Orcs would have split the group anyway so why not keep the guy that wants to use the Ring as tool against Sauron?
He also wasnt as shallow as the other characters, he had more sensible underlying motivations, apart from saving the world/lets help Frodo thing. Boromir wanted to please his father, make the Stuarts of Gondor count for something and directly safe his home with the atleast halfway sensible plan of using the Ring against Sauron.

And by "shallowness of the orcs" i mean Tolkien did send Mooks and Henchmen. A distant lingering treat replaced the graspable and tangible one that Boromirs desire for the ring presented.
And yes Tolkien was a masterfull planner, among other things. I just think storywise offing Boromir right there was a wrong decission.

Also Frodo and Sam didnt have all the means. They didnt know where to go (making Smeagol useful) and the needed later camouflage taken from the orks which killed each other (a bit to) conveniently in the guardtower. That and Galadriel can foresee the Future so she got them what they needed in Lorien. Well except a way back to safety once the ring was destroyed. Tolkien had to pull that damn "deus ex machina" with the eagles to get a happy ending. Galadriel thought, in my opinion would have willingly sacrificed Frodo and Sam to off Sauron.

All i want to say that Fellowship is kind of bland, Towers and Return got better with more character development, even in the books, without taking anything out of the story. Still In comparsion to todays much more refined approach to fantasy storytelling the books lack. Which i can forgive them, in my mind they are still awesome and with right the archetype for modern fantasy.   

My point remains though, not including the new/made up stuff in the Hobbit would have made it bland and uninterresting. We care about the character because they are actual characters and they have stuff to work through. On screen, in a way we can sympatise with them.
The original story works in the Books, because its suited for the medium but for the silverscreen its not.
Also the new stuff serves as distraction from the Ring. We all very well know its a THE McGuffin. We also all know the End of the Story. The ending wouldnt provide anything meaningful to someone who saw LOTR.
Instead we get to go on an eventful awesome and twisting ride which on itsel is fulfilling.

[Matoro]

-Not enough beard, seriously, these were dwarves of the Longbeards clan. The actor that played Thorin used his natural human beard, and it had to be trimmed constantly for the movie. So much for longbeards.

-They added monsters that did not exist. Like those stone giants, and the goblins. I know the book says goblins, but Tolkien stated that he meant orcs. They were orcs.

Richard Armitage (Thorin's actor) has explained a lack of Thorin's beard. In the appendices of LotR it is told that Thrain ripped his beard or something like that when he mourned Thror's death. Similarly Thorin still mourns the loss of Erebor, Thror and Thrain. He had a longed beard in the Erebor flashback (where he was 27 years old), but after the dwarves fled Erebor he had shorter beard. So Thorin keeps his beard short to honor all his kin. He will probably grow a long beard after (if) he's taken Erebor back.

Well stone giants and goblins definately exists in Tolkien's canon. Stone giants were just mentioned and never met close enough to conclude if they "exists" as a creatures or are they just natural phenemom or something like that. They might exist or they might not. And the filmmakers knew that goblins are orcs. The goblins of The Hobbit movie are just small mountain-orcs living in the caverns, like their Moria cousins. Their skin is pale and eyes big because they have adapted to the live in the caves. Goblins are more like "subspecies" of orcs (along with uruks).



Now, Dwarf Fortress.

In Erebor, everything is unnecessarily big and designed like a megalomaniac would design it. Giant golden dwarf statue? Definately megaproject.

It's really shame that DF doesen't have yet multi-tile dragons. Because Smaug is just awesome. The best thing in the movie. Overrally it was a bit of dull - too much action sequences and too little Tolkien, and LEgolas had a scary lightbulb-eyes - but Smaug made it worth of watching.