Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 414
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Traab's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    right behind you

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverent-One View Post
    On the other hand, I'd say those mentioned but not detailed scenes are worth seeing. The Hobbit is a book with a lot of things going on, but a number of them we don't see in any real detail. And some of those things (like the Council of Wizards dealing with the Necromancer) sounds really freaking cool.
    I agree, those mentioned but not detailed scenes would be fine, its if he starts cramming in other stuff like covering an extended history of the wizards council, or the evolution of trolls or, I dunno, the daily life of the elven prison guard after he got drunk and let the dwarves escape just to fill a third movie that i would object to. It might be interesting stuff, but its not a part of the hobbit story and should be left out if its going to drag the story through an extra film just to fit it all. And god help him if he does this and still leaves actual canon out, lol.
    "Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
    Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama View Post
    Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.
    "If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tiki Snakes's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Crystal Wasteland

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanBuren View Post
    Here's my question: How would Tolkien have preferred it to be done?
    I suspect personally that you would struggle to find an author less suited to giving advice on film adaptions of his work. Editorial discipling isn't really what I associate the guy with.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    pendell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karoht View Post
    *deep breath*
    Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
    I feel that way -- too much hobbit -- and let me explain why.

    Up until Peter Jackson took it on , there had never been a creditable attempt at the Lord of the Rings. The only one I was aware of was Bakshi's , which even at the tender age of 8 years old I knew was terrible. They cut it off halfway through the story.

    I thought then that it would take 6 hours of theater time to do justice to the books.

    Peter Jackson did 9. 12, in the extended edition.

    I think he did a fantastic job! Yes, he cut things out of the book and moved things around, but I forgive those things. Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire simply didn't fit the pacing of a movie. And I think he did wonders with Arwen's and Aragorn's relationship which Tolkien did not.

    So I'm happy with his length of Lord of the Rings. It was an epic, and required epic-length movies.

    The Hobbit does not.

    The Hobbit is a short, self-contained fairy tale. When I look at PJ's work, I compare it to what came before. No one had ever done Lord of the Rings as he had and I don't think anyone ever will again.

    But the Hobbit has already been done as an animated movie lasting 90 minutes. It was short. It was self-contained. It was excellent. It was one of my favorite movies in grade school.

    Turning a good 90 minute movie into 3 two hour movies does not bode well.

    Of course, I intend to see the movies before I judge them. But prima facie expanding a good movie to something else many times its length does not necessarily scream "good story telling". It does, however, scream "we want to sell more movies".

    I don't blame him for that. He's gotta eat, same as we do. But there's a very good chance that expanding the story to such a degree will hurt the story. That's a different monster entirely than LOTR, where PJ filmed the unfilmable epic, and deserves nothing but praise for doing so.


    ETA: On the other hand, if he covers the War of the Dwarves And Orcs , in which Thorin got his name "Oakenshield" and in which both Thror and Thrain are shown,I will squee like a fanboy. That's a story worth telling on screen.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    Last edited by pendell; 2012-08-02 at 08:19 AM.
    "Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".

    -- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Where ever trouble brews
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    I feel that way -- too much hobbit -- and let me explain why.

    So I'm happy with his length of Lord of the Rings. It was an epic, and required epic-length movies.
    The Hobbit does not.

    The Hobbit is a short, self-contained fairy tale.

    But the Hobbit has already been done as an animated movie lasting 90 minutes. It was short. It was self-contained. It was excellent. It was one of my favorite movies in grade school.
    Did it cover all the plot points? In 90 minutes? Without a wall of text style exposition dump?


    Turning a good 90 minute movie into 3 two hour movies does not bode well.

    Of course, I intend to see the movies before I judge them. But prima facie expanding a good movie to something else many times its length does not necessarily scream "good story telling". It does, however, scream "we want to sell more movies".
    Expanding the synopsis on the back of a novel into something the length of a novel. Same diff.
    Look at romance novels. I can summarize one in under 15 seconds, most could probably just be short stories rather than whole novels, then there are the few that are turned into 90 minute or longer films. Just because the story can be told in 90 minutes or less doesn't mean it should. But conversely, I am willing to concede that just because a story can be told across a trilogy doesn't mean it should either.

    My issue is that fan demand was "more more more" and now they are complaing that they are getting more, with accusations of 'money grab' and greed. I won't deny that money is a related motive. Is it the major motive? For the studio, maybe, for the director/producer, who should be first and foremost an artist, money should only be a cursory motive at best.

    Imagine if the Pope had called Michaelangeo a greedy bugger and cut him off at the knees when he decided to use a church ceiling instead of a canvas.

    But there's a very good chance that expanding the story to such a degree will hurt the story. That's a different monster entirely than LOTR, where PJ filmed the unfilmable epic, and deserves nothing but praise for doing so.
    He also expanded on aspects of LoTR. Arguably, it didn't hurt the story, and helped flesh it out. Also keep in mind that Helms Deep is largely not a massive event in Two Towers the novel. But establishing the lead up and the battle itself cinema style took 2 to 3 hours. Meanwhile, covering off all of Tolkien's description of terrain and other such minutae (which was largely the filler of LoTR) will take all of a few moments with a camera pan or two and some music to convey the feeling and emtion of the land and the party that is traveling through it.

    ETA: On the other hand, if he covers the War of the Dwarves And Orcs , in which Thorin got his name "Oakenshield" and in which both Thror and Thrain are shown,I will squee like a fanboy. That's a story worth telling on screen.
    You and me both. The better question is, would it be a better or worse film to include such a story?
    And since he plans on covering off some of Gandalf's exploits (that aren't really detailed in the book but take place in that chronology), and probably backstory for the cast such as the story you linked the description of certain scenes and sequences are easily reaching the 3 film mark in my mind. Add on some necessary exposition from sources such as the Simarilion/Appendices which flesh out the world and it easily hits the 3 film mark.

    Again, as above, would it be a better or worse film to include such details? That is probably a more relevant concern than 'is 3 films too long for the material.' Just my opinion, mind you.

    Example:
    Is Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring, a stronger or weaker film for including the Defeat of Sauron at the beginning of the film? Or was that a waste of 8 minutes?

    Would The Hobbit be a stronger or weaker film for detailing a bit of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs? Or would that be a waste of (let's overestimate somewhat here) 15 minutes?

    The man who filmed the Unfilmable Epic and won Oscars for his efforts seems to think that such details are worth taking the time for. And people such as you and I would rather they spend some time on such details rather than just an offhand comment about it. I prefer a good fight scene or two and some integration into the main narrative over "yeah it was awesome, he killed like, 50 orcs!" And unless I missed my guess, you would probably prefer such scenes and narrative integration over the throwaway reference (or no reference) as well.
    Last edited by Karoht; 2012-08-02 at 10:02 AM.
    ~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
    Quote Originally Posted by gooddragon1 View Post
    If the party wizard can't survive a supersonic dragon made of iron at epic levels it's his own fault really.
    "In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Muz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    I'm holding off judgment of it being a trilogy until I see the finished product (I'm apprehensive, but can't judge it until I see it), I do want to say that the animated Hobbit film is NOT, in my opinion, a good adaptation.

    I remember seeing it as a kid. I was excited to see a number of things on screen, only to be disappointed to find that were either glossed over, truncated, or just plain not there. I watched it again, about two months ago now, and...yeah. Just...wow. Horrible pacing, extremely choppy, with context for so much good stuff either mangled or downright missing. The animated Hobbit is a good film the way a Subway sandwich is a good 4-course meal.

    Can it be stretched into 3 films (each with a satisfying arc and climax)? I don't know. I do know that 90 minutes is not enough to capture the story in the book.
    Last edited by Muz; 2012-08-02 at 01:35 PM.
    Author of Zeus Is Dead: A Monstrously Inconvenient Adventure, a comedic fantasy novel set in a version of our world where reality TV show heroes slay actual monsters and the Greek gods have their own Twitter feeds!
    Now available in paperback and ebook! (Published by Booktrope)
    ~ ~ ~
    Twitter: @TheWriteMunzspace My Blog: GeekNotesspa!

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WalkingTarget's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muz View Post
    I'm holding off judgment of it being a trilogy until I see the finished product (I'm apprehensive, but can't judge it until I see it), I do want to say that the animated Hobbit film is NOT, in my opinion, a good adaptation.

    I remember seeing it as a kid. I was excited to see a number of things on screen, only to be disappointed to find that were either glossed over, truncated, or just plain not there. I watched it again, about two months ago now, and...yeah. Just...wow. Horrible pacing, extremely choppy, with context for so much good stuff either mangled or downright missing. The animated Hobbit is a good film the way a Subway sandwich is a good 4-course meal.
    Agreed. I look on that cartoon in much the same way as I watch the David Lynch Dune movie. It will have a place in my heart as its own thing and for being what prompted me to read the original novel, but it isn't a really great version of the story as originally written.
    Take your best shot, everyone else does.
    Avatar by Guildorn Tanaleth. See other avatars below.

    Spoiler
    Show
    My original avatar and much better ones by groundhog22 and a Winter Olympics one by Rae Artemi.


  7. - Top - End - #67
    Troll in the Playground
     
    mangosta71's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    here

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    The Wizard Council vs. the Necromancer is surely enough material to flesh out 90-120 minutes. The war between the dwarves and orcs could easily fill 120-150. I'd prefer these events get their own chance to shine rather than see abbreviated versions tacked onto another story as supplemental material. Particularly when said story works perfectly well as a stand alone work to begin with. The Hobbit is a good enough tale that it doesn't need a bunch of other stuff to make it awesome.
    Delightfully abrasive in more ways than one
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbitHoleLost View Post
    Mango:you sick, twisted bastard <3
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryffon View Post
    I think Krade is protesting the use of the word mad in in the phrase mad scientist as it promotes ambiguity. Are they angry? Are they crazy? Some of both? Not to mention, it also often connotates some degree of evilness. In the future we should be more careful to use proper classification.

    Mango is a dastardly irate unhinged scientist, for realz.

    Pirate Mongoose by Kwark_Pudding

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karoht View Post
    Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.
    Dream on. Even if they could skip them, they never would even if they would be forced to extend with scenes that were cut not for time reasons but because they were crap.

    How else could they sell the DVDs and Blurays twice?

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Reverent-One's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mangosta71 View Post
    The Wizard Council vs. the Necromancer is surely enough material to flesh out 90-120 minutes. The war between the dwarves and orcs could easily fill 120-150. I'd prefer these events get their own chance to shine rather than see abbreviated versions tacked onto another story as supplemental material. Particularly when said story works perfectly well as a stand alone work to begin with. The Hobbit is a good enough tale that it doesn't need a bunch of other stuff to make it awesome.
    While I agree with you on the war between the dwarves and orcs (which I don't expect to see in these movies), not so much on the Council vs Necromancer front. While they are two separate stories, given the temporal connection between them through Gandalf I think it makes sense to show them together. Otherwise you'd have random time skips as he moves between the two plots.
    Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Turcano's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Land Where 99 Men Weep and One Man Laughs
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Weezer View Post
    However, it seems that everything major that Jackson changed or added (rather than left out) was awful. This includes gimli and Merry and Pippin as comic relief, butchering Faramir everyone except Sam and making the army of the dead show up at Minas Tirith.
    Fixed that for you.


    "Mech is king."
    Heinz Guderian

    Johann Kraus avatar courtesy of Beleth.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    pendell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karoht View Post
    Did it cover all the plot points? In 90 minutes? Without a wall of text style exposition dump?
    Muz disagrees with me, but I believe so, yes. Hit all the high points and the most exposition was in the Dwarf song which, set to music, was done extremely well. Certainly there were no walls of prose.

    My issue is that fan demand was "more more more" and now they are complaing that they are getting more, with accusations of 'money grab' and greed. I won't deny that money is a related motive. Is it the major motive? For the studio, maybe, for the director/producer, who should be first and foremost an artist, money should only be a cursory motive at best.
    *Cough* *Hack* *Choke*

    Whatever the director feels about art vs. movies, he had producers who plunked down hundreds of millions of dollars. Five hundred MILLION dollars .

    Five hundred million dollars!

    The Apollo Project itself clocked in at 20 billion .

    However PJ Jackson feels about art, the people who plunked down FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS didn't do so for the Sistine Chapel. They expect to earn MORE than five hundred million dollars back in screening, in DVD/wireless showing, in merchandising etc.

    Heh. And people say there's no money for space exploration. If we took all the money put into movies for ONE year, both spent to make and what consumers spent to buy, we just might be able to go to Mars. But I digress.

    Artists who care only about their art make low-budget art films or youtube videos. People who care only about the cash turn in knockoffs of older movies and stories like Starship Troopers or Transformers 2 or what not. But the best artists care about the cash AND about the art. I think PJ is in that category. He may not be in the top tier (though I'd be hard pressed to think of a modern film maker who does these things better) but he's definitely one of the best in the field today.

    Imagine if the Pope had called Michaelangeo a greedy bugger and cut him off at the knees when he decided to use a church ceiling instead of a canvas.
    Patrons in the Middle Ages would shell out any amount of money for art because the value of art to them was prestige, status. The whole point was to throw away money to show that you had money to burn. Modern moviemakers don't make movies for status -- they make a movie to show a profit.

    He also expanded on aspects of LoTR. Arguably, it didn't hurt the story, and helped flesh it out. Also keep in mind that Helms Deep is largely not a massive event in Two Towers the novel. But establishing the lead up and the battle itself cinema style took 2 to 3 hours. Meanwhile, covering off all of Tolkien's description of terrain and other such minutae (which was largely the filler of LoTR) will take all of a few moments with a camera pan or two and some music to convey the feeling and emtion of the land and the party that is traveling through it.
    Agree.

    The man who filmed the Unfilmable Epic and won Oscars for his efforts seems to think that such details are worth taking the time for. And people such as you and I would rather they spend some time on such details rather than just an offhand comment about it. I prefer a good fight scene or two and some integration into the main narrative over "yeah it was awesome, he killed like, 50 orcs!" And unless I missed my guess, you would probably prefer such scenes and narrative integration over the throwaway reference (or no reference) as well.
    And I believe that art is only one of the reasons he is doing this. The other reason is to maximize his budget to tell the story the way he wants to, but commercial people won't cut loose with that kind of cash unless the throws them a bone to show that it makes them more money. If they shelled out $100 million for a movie which makes $300 million, everyone's ecstatic. If they shell out $500 million for a movie which makes $300 million, you're going to have some very unhappy producers.

    I think he's trying to find the optimal point which brings in maximum return, vacuums as much money from the rubes in the cheap seats as he can, while ALSO making a labor of love and a good movie. That, I believe, is what separates him from people like Uwe Boll. Here's hoping he gets it right.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".

    -- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Traab's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    right behind you

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Hey! I LIKED Starship Troopers! Though the second and third one were pretty bad. :p
    "Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
    Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama View Post
    Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.
    "If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Troll in the Playground
     
    mangosta71's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    here

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Traab View Post
    Hey! I LIKED Starship Troopers! Though the second and third one were pretty bad. :p
    See, I'd read the book, so I had a whole lot of expectations going in. I wanted to see power armor. I wanted intelligent bugs that used tools and weapons. I wanted to hear the MI troops singing "For the everlasting glory of the infantry!" when they charged into battle. I didn't get any of that, so, as you can probably imagine, I was extremely disappointed by the end.
    Delightfully abrasive in more ways than one
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbitHoleLost View Post
    Mango:you sick, twisted bastard <3
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryffon View Post
    I think Krade is protesting the use of the word mad in in the phrase mad scientist as it promotes ambiguity. Are they angry? Are they crazy? Some of both? Not to mention, it also often connotates some degree of evilness. In the future we should be more careful to use proper classification.

    Mango is a dastardly irate unhinged scientist, for realz.

    Pirate Mongoose by Kwark_Pudding

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Where ever trouble brews
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    Five hundred million dollars!

    The Apollo Project itself clocked in at 20 billion .
    There is a pretty big difference between 500 million and 20 billion. I don't really see what you are getting at here.

    Related side note:
    I find it interesting that most people have a problem with this due to economics and not due to story reasons or art reasons or anything of the like. If anything, I'm actually rather reassured that they've spent the money to make a really awesome trilogy of films as opposed to cutting corners. It's more investment in OUR enjoyment, so I largely don't care too much what they spend on it. And since they are making that investment, I'm okay with giving them my money 3 times instead of 2.


    But the best artists care about the cash AND about the art. I think PJ is in that category. He may not be in the top tier (though I'd be hard pressed to think of a modern film maker who does these things better) but he's definitely one of the best in the field today.

    And I believe that art is only one of the reasons he is doing this. The other reason is to maximize his budget to tell the story the way he wants to, but commercial people won't cut loose with that kind of cash unless the throws them a bone to show that it makes them more money.

    I think he's trying to find the optimal point which brings in maximum return, vacuums as much money from the rubes in the cheap seats as he can, while ALSO making a labor of love and a good movie. That, I believe, is what separates him from people like Uwe Boll. Here's hoping he gets it right.
    I think we are largely in agreement here. Bolded parts just for emphasis.
    It's sad but true, money and art are not mutually exclusive terms these days. Again, I don't care if they want to make an investment spend more money to tell me a better story. It's like a date, they can take you to macdonalds and a movie, or they can take you to a fancy restaurant and the opera. I'm okay with having more money be spent on my enjoyment.

    And by extention, I'm absolutely pleased that they spent more money so that Peter Jackson can tell me a better story. Especially because it acknowledges that they looked at the story they were going to tell, they asked if they could do better, the answer was yes, and then they made a commitment (a very very very large commitment, both in terms of money and artistic perspective) to telling a better story.


    They delivered once before with astonishing results, I doubt they threw money at this without making sure that a worthwhile formula for success was there a second time.
    ~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
    Quote Originally Posted by gooddragon1 View Post
    If the party wizard can't survive a supersonic dragon made of iron at epic levels it's his own fault really.
    "In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Xondoure's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    I'm sure it's somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    *Cough* *Hack* *Choke*

    Whatever the director feels about art vs. movies, he had producers who plunked down hundreds of millions of dollars. Five hundred MILLION dollars .

    Five hundred million dollars!

    The Apollo Project itself clocked in at 20 billion .
    Mwahahahahahahahaha!

    Mhmhmhm (cough.) Space travel isn't as profitable as the entire film industry, and it's an order of magnitude more expensive.

    Edit: And was the article clear on the point that this was all for the first movie? Or is that the price for all three?
    Last edited by Xondoure; 2012-08-03 at 10:34 AM.
    Avatar Credit: the very talented PseudoStraw. Full image:
    Spoiler
    Show


    3DS Friend Code: 3411-1771-4133
    Friend Safari: Dunsparce, Minccinno, Eevee

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    pendell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    There is a pretty big difference between 500 million and 20 billion. I don't really see what you are getting at here.
    My point is that the expense to make a major movie is comparable to that spent on a space launch. 500 mil is 1/40th the cost of the entire Apollo program spread out from its inception in the early 60s to Apollo 17 in the 1970s. It ain't money you find under the sofa. It is a HEAP O'CASH. It's not something people interested in profit plunk down unless they're pretty sure there's going to be a return.

    As an aside, that's why so many moves are so formulaic and trite these days. Formulaic and trite = guaranteed to produce a return. Producers would rather have mediocre art that's guaranteed to get their money back over something, new, radical and innovative that sets fire to hundreds of millions of dollars of their money.

    Edit: And was the article clear on the point that this was all for the first movie? Or is that the price for all three?
    When the article was made, the Hobbit was two movies, not three. I expect the cost has gone up.

    Hmmm ... maybe THAT's why there are now three movies? The studio execs may have realized that they will get more cash back from the audience if the movies were split into three, rather than two, because now you have three box office openings rather than two, and you can now sell three movies on Amazon rather than only two? Increasing the total revenue from the movies by 30%?

    If that's the case, I can't say I blame them. If *I* had plonked down better than half-a-billion dollars for a movie, I'd want to play every trick in the book I could to ensure I would make a profit. With those kind of numbers I can't afford for it to be plan 9 from outer space.

    I doubt they threw money at this without making sure that a worthwhile formula for success was there a second time.
    Back when there were video stores, you could walk down row and row and row of movies. And weep , because so many of them were going to be the next Big Thing, and they bombed.

    If the moviemakers were following the "tried and true" formula, they'd put something on screen with car chases and explosions and scantily dressed women with a minimum of plot to move the whole thing along, vacuuming up young male money for summer popcorn entertainment. The Hobbit .. isn't that. It's a major risk. Here's hoping it pays off.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".

    -- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Xondoure's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    I'm sure it's somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    I find it more likely that the general public was not as well informed about the number of films than the executives when it came time to start putting money on the table.
    Avatar Credit: the very talented PseudoStraw. Full image:
    Spoiler
    Show


    3DS Friend Code: 3411-1771-4133
    Friend Safari: Dunsparce, Minccinno, Eevee

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    However PJ Jackson feels about art, the people who plunked down FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS didn't do so for the Sistine Chapel.
    Done on commission, incidentally.

    Patrons in the Middle Ages would shell out any amount of money for art because the value of art to them was prestige, status. The whole point was to throw away money to show that you had money to burn. Modern movie makers don't make movies for status -- they make a movie to show a profit.
    Indeed, but even though the motivations have changed, the relationship between the artist and the money has remained pretty constant.

    I think we are largely in agreement here. Bolded parts just for emphasis.
    It's sad but true, money and art are not mutually exclusive terms these days. Again, I don't care if they want to make an investment spend more money to tell me a better story. It's like a date, they can take you to macdonalds and a movie, or they can take you to a fancy restaurant and the opera. I'm okay with having more money be spent on my enjoyment.
    When where they ever? Some of our greatest works were motivated by someone paying the artist.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Troll in the Playground
     
    dehro's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    I'm worried.
    mind you, I was worried when I first heard they were going to do LOTR.
    so this time around I'm a bit less worried, because the people who did LOTR did a pretty damn good job, minus a few gripes that every fan of Tolkien cannot avoid having with what was taken out and/or changed. (faramir being the biggest crime in my eyes).
    as far as I'm concerned, PJ is the most qualified man out there to tackle the entirety of Tolkien's opus and filmify it, so on that score he has my blessing, for what it's worth, to give us another dozen movies, if he thinks there's enough story to tell.
    that said, I do think it is without a doubt true that adding a 3rd movie to the current effort IS a money grabbing scheme. when PJ tackled the trilogy, he pitched 2 movies because he didn't believe he could get money for 3. as soon as he got the green light for 3 movies, he rewrote the entire script and it was always going to be 3 movies from then on, even before casting. when he found that he had too much to tell he simply decided to make extended versions and longer movies. he's definitely not shy that way.
    I don't think for a second that he's adding a third installment because he's decided he had too much to tell us to be able to do it in 2 movies.
    I do believe they're adding more material, be it Silmarillion, speculation or other sources. I'm hoping they'll keep the "expanding on what tolkien glossed over" to a minimum..there's enough detailed material as it is.
    what I'm really hoping for that this blatant executive meddling stops at this and doesn't also try to tell PJ what to tell in the movies and how to do it.
    also, I'd wish they'd be honest and renamed the project from the hobbit into..well..whatever else there is that they're going to tell us.

    so.. worried, cautiously optimistic, but not too much. Peter Jackson is a great director, but the combination of casting, talents, technical staff and ..many other things.. on the MOTR was exceptional and it is a hard act to follow.
    comparisons with the first trilogy will be inevitable and probably crushing.. but..well.. let's hope for the best.
    a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
    Quote Originally Posted by kpenguin View Post
    Cursed zombies are more realistic.
    Spoiler
    Show

    with many thanks to Avi for the siggatar

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    What did Jackson do to ruin Faramir?
    The Lorewarden's Lair: My new blog. Stop by and read some stories, comic book scripts, and more! Also on Blogger!

    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Troll in the Playground
     
    dehro's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    What did Jackson do to ruin Faramir?
    in LOTR 3 people are offered the ring, or a chance to take the ring. Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir. all 3 of them refuse the ring, thereby showing their quality and personal "greatness". In many ways, Faramir is seen by several of the characters as a return of the great men of Gondor of the past, more so than even his brother, the champion of Gondor.
    by having him try to take the ring to Gondor, this is practically annulled and Faramir becomes nothing more than the vilified and unloved little brother who becomes Steward of Gondor not for personal quality but only because his dad and older brother died.
    It was necessary for..logistic reasons..to some extent, to cut down some of Frodo's travel-screentime... but it ruined the stature and personality of an otherwise great character.
    a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
    Quote Originally Posted by kpenguin View Post
    Cursed zombies are more realistic.
    Spoiler
    Show

    with many thanks to Avi for the siggatar

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Where ever trouble brews
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by dehro View Post
    in LOTR 3 people are offered the ring, or a chance to take the ring. Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir. all 3 of them refuse the ring, thereby showing their quality and personal "greatness". In many ways, Faramir is seen by several of the characters as a return of the great men of Gondor of the past, more so than even his brother, the champion of Gondor.
    by having him try to take the ring to Gondor, this is practically annulled and Faramir becomes nothing more than the vilified and unloved little brother who becomes Steward of Gondor not for personal quality but only because his dad and older brother died.
    It was necessary for..logistic reasons..to some extent, to cut down some of Frodo's travel-screentime... but it ruined the stature and personality of an otherwise great character.
    But he let the ring go. And by having that personal reflection it made a stronger character, as opposed to Faramir in the books who basically said 'I would not pick it up if I found it by the wayside' essentially dismissing it.
    ~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
    Quote Originally Posted by gooddragon1 View Post
    If the party wizard can't survive a supersonic dragon made of iron at epic levels it's his own fault really.
    "In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    pendell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    What did Jackson do to ruin Faramir?
    Made him much less noble. The book version of Faramir resisted the temptation of the ring ("Not even if I found it laying on the highway would I take it"). Movie Faramir fell, deciding to take the ring to Gondor. He didn't wholly succumb as Boromir did, in that he did not seize the ring for himself, but he succumbed enough to try to take Frodo to Gondor. Thus, Movie-Faramir is both less morally strong and less wise than book-Faramir.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".

    -- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Troll in the Playground
     
    mangosta71's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    here

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    But as Karoht said, he redeemed himself by letting Frodo go at the end. Even going so far as to admit that, by doing so, he was committing a capital offense.

    We can go around in circles forever, debating which version is the more heroic/noble figure. There's no clear answer to the question. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
    Delightfully abrasive in more ways than one
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbitHoleLost View Post
    Mango:you sick, twisted bastard <3
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryffon View Post
    I think Krade is protesting the use of the word mad in in the phrase mad scientist as it promotes ambiguity. Are they angry? Are they crazy? Some of both? Not to mention, it also often connotates some degree of evilness. In the future we should be more careful to use proper classification.

    Mango is a dastardly irate unhinged scientist, for realz.

    Pirate Mongoose by Kwark_Pudding

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tiki Snakes's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Crystal Wasteland

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    No, that seems pretty cut and dried.
    Movie Faramir was wise and was noble, because he eventually let Frodo go.
    Book Faramir was more wise and noble because he refused the ring altogether, like Gandalf and Galadriel.

    Regardless of which version is preferable, from a standpoint of ammount-of-nobleness, it's not a difficult one.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Traab's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    right behind you

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mangosta71 View Post
    But as Karoht said, he redeemed himself by letting Frodo go at the end. Even going so far as to admit that, by doing so, he was committing a capital offense.

    We can go around in circles forever, debating which version is the more heroic/noble figure. There's no clear answer to the question. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
    I just want to weigh in with the way I saw it. In the books, Faramir comes off as strong and highly resistant to the rings corruption, even if only over the short term. (Im sure if they marched together for a few weeks we would see a repeat of boromir without orcs) He says something, and he sticks to it, no matter what. That also brings in his high honor as well. Its been awhile since I read the books, but I think that after he realized frodo had the ring, there was a moments wavering, then he basically said, "No, I swore I wouldnt so much as pick it up off the roadside if it was lying there, so im not going to take it from you now."

    One thing that got cut out that I understood, was the whole aragorn of the healing hands after the minas tirith battle. How the &^$% did that make any sense except as another random portent or proof that he was who he said he was? Its like tolkein was writing up an X-Men character and kept adding stuff onto it. "Ok, ok, he is an awesome tracker, he is a kickass fighter, He is a king in hiding, OOOH! and he can HEAL PEOPLE WITH WEEDS!"
    "Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
    Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama View Post
    Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.
    "If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Reverent-One's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Well, to split hairs, it could be that Faramir is just as wise and noble, but that the ring in the movie is even more powerful. That was a concern of the crew, that if it was weak enough that Faramir could fully resist it, it loses it's menace. He still is one of, if not the least affected by it, with it in arms reach and having plenty of reasons the Ring could exploit for him to take it, and yet he never does, and he sends it off the moment he sees any real evidence of the danger the ring poses.
    Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Troll in the Playground
     
    mangosta71's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    here

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Someone could argue that, after going through the temptation, taking Frodo to the gates of Osgiliath, and then redeeming himself by letting Frodo go, Faramir was made more wise and noble than he would have been if he had simply not taken Frodo prisoner in the first place. It shows that he can overcome the influence of the Ring even after it's had time to work on him, which demonstrates strength and resilience of character.
    Delightfully abrasive in more ways than one
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbitHoleLost View Post
    Mango:you sick, twisted bastard <3
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryffon View Post
    I think Krade is protesting the use of the word mad in in the phrase mad scientist as it promotes ambiguity. Are they angry? Are they crazy? Some of both? Not to mention, it also often connotates some degree of evilness. In the future we should be more careful to use proper classification.

    Mango is a dastardly irate unhinged scientist, for realz.

    Pirate Mongoose by Kwark_Pudding

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    pendell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Traab View Post

    One thing that got cut out that I understood, was the whole aragorn of the healing hands after the minas tirith battle. How the &^$% did that make any sense except as another random portent or proof that he was who he said he was? Its like tolkein was writing up an X-Men character and kept adding stuff onto it. "Ok, ok, he is an awesome tracker, he is a kickass fighter, He is a king in hiding, OOOH! and he can HEAL PEOPLE WITH WEEDS!"
    Because that's a thing only a king can do . Kings in the real world were expected to lay hands on sick people and make them well as late as 1825.

    Aragorn was demonstrating that he was a legitimate king and had the supernatural gifts that only a king can claim. Because in this particular strand of myth , a king is more than just a person born into the right family. No, they are magical people , different from ordinary mortals, who have special gifts.

    If Aragorn can do only the things ordinary people can, he is no true king. He must demonstrate that he is one of this unique race descended from both elves and men. Which, I note, the Merovingians also believed they were.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".

    -- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Troll in the Playground
     
    dehro's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

    no.
    in Osgiliath, Faramir is faced with proof that the nazgul were after the ring/Frodo. If anything, letting him go at this point makes him a bit of a coward because it means less trouble for him to go from Osgiliath to Gondor, without having the Nazgul on his heels... whereas he knows now that Frodo is going to be chased by Nazguls..and that he's put him in even greater danger...yet he doesn't really do much to remedy his blunder.
    In the book Faramir is twice noble, firstly because he resists the power of the ring completely, secondly because he says, and we are led to believe him, that even had he known exactly what was in Frodo's possession, he would have resisted the temptation of taking the ring for no other reason that he was honour bound having given his word.
    The moral fiber and inner strength make the character in those pages and are fundamental in hightening the wrong that his father does him later on in comparing and completely misjudging him and his brother. Without that crucial passage (crucial to Faramir of course) he becomes, to those who haven't read the book, more of a whiny unknown quantity...and not really someone who is worthy of Stewardship, Gandalf and the king's favour and marrying Eowyn.
    Last edited by dehro; 2012-08-03 at 04:55 PM.
    a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
    Quote Originally Posted by kpenguin View Post
    Cursed zombies are more realistic.
    Spoiler
    Show

    with many thanks to Avi for the siggatar

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •