Switch Theme:

The Desolation of Smaug  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ae
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






 iproxtaco wrote:

Yes, exactly, the Hobbit is a kid's book. If the film appeals to kids it's because the subject matter was written for kids. Why do people think there are thirteen dwarves with silly names?


The names of the dwarfs are actually found in the Prose Edda, which is a collection of three Icelandic stories and sagas written by Snorri Sturluson in the 13th/14th Century. Tolkein, of course, loved the Norse sagas.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Frazzled wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
 Perkustin wrote:
I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie


I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.

The book was straight forward. The movie was not.


It helps to infantilize the novel while simultaneously exaggerating the film. Both are "people go on a journey, shenanigans ensue". It really isn't that complex.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Ahtman wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
 Perkustin wrote:
I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie


I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.

The book was straight forward. The movie was not.


It helps to infantilize the novel while simultaneously exaggerating the film. Both are "people go on a journey, shenanigans ensue". It really isn't that complex.


Except of course the Radagast/Dol Guldor plotline and Ork bounty hunter revenge biker gang plotline having nothing to do with the Hobbit. Plus they were just stupid.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course the Radagast/Dol Guldor plotline and Ork bounty hunter revenge biker gang plotline having nothing to do with the Hobbit. Plus they were just stupid.


It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Ahtman wrote:
 -Loki- wrote:
I'll forgive them making up their own stuff simply because Evangline Lilly is in it.
Did you know Tolkien also made up his own stuff?
Wha???

Once more for good measure:
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 14:38:36


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Ahtman wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course the Radagast/Dol Guldor plotline and Ork bounty hunter revenge biker gang plotline having nothing to do with the Hobbit. Plus they were just stupid.


It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.


But its not a larger cohesive narrative.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

 Perkustin wrote:
 rodgers37 wrote:
I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.

Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.


Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.


It's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Personally, I thought making Aragorn a reluctant king by pushing back his acceptance of Anduril was perhaps the most important improvement. The story is about the "return of the king," after all, and that change adds some dramatic tension around that, which leads to a better payoff.

Actually, scratch that. Getting ol' Tom Bombadillo out of the story was #1. Aragorn was #2.

Elves at Helm's Deep is the aforementioned mixed bag. I get that it kinda cheapened things in a sense. But then it also served as a tangible demonstration of the races again working together in the face of unimaginable evil. It clarifies the point.

I can't argue against the Dead Men being too much of an instant win at Pelannor. Perhaps it's a subtle thing -- how do you make it clear that they put the good guys over the top without making them seem an instant win? I think perhaps the flaw there was the visual execution. They fell in love with the CGI -- "look how we can make them crawl over everything like army ants" -- and this representation made them seem like an overwhelming force that single-handedly won the battle.

I'm with you on The Hobbit -- the issues aren't about deviation from the text. I just don't think it's a great piece of filmmaking.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 14:52:43


My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Frazzled wrote:
But its not a larger cohesive narrative.
Sure it is. Or at least describe why you think it's not.

   
Made in us
Posts with Authority






 gorgon wrote:
 Perkustin wrote:
 rodgers37 wrote:
I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.

Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.


Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.


It's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Personally, I thought making Aragorn a reluctant king by pushing back his acceptance of Anduril was perhaps the most important improvement. The story is about the "return of the king," after all, and that change adds some dramatic tension around that, which leads to a better payoff.

Actually, scratch that. Getting ol' Tom Bombadillo out of the story was #1. Aragorn was #2.

Elves at Helm's Deep is the aforementioned mixed bag. I get that it kinda cheapened things in a sense. But then it also served as a tangible demonstration of the races again working together in the face of unimaginable evil. It clarifies the point.

I can't argue against the Dead Men being too much of an instant win at Pelannor. Perhaps it's a subtle thing -- how do you make it clear that they put the good guys over the top without making them seem an instant win? I think perhaps the flaw there was the visual execution. They fell in love with the CGI -- "look how we can make them crawl over everything like army ants" -- and this representation made them seem like an overwhelming force that single-handedly won the battle.

I'm with you on The Hobbit -- the issues aren't about deviation from the text. I just don't think it's a great piece of filmmaking.


Honestly, the other things that bug me are the places where Tolkien had a straight forward event - the Dwarfs convince Bilbo to go with them, so Bilbo goes with them. The Ents decide to go stop Saruman, because he's being a jerk. And in the movies they get changed into these baffling contradictions that don't add anything, at all, to the stories. Oh, now the Ents don't even know Saruman has been cutting down their forest, so we are going to portray them as stupid, and passive. And somehow, even though Treebeard walked for like a day to drop the Hobbits off at the southern end of Fangorn, every single Ent is able to emerge from the forest in a giant single wave instantly. Now Bilbo decides not to go with the dwarfs and then suddenly changes his mind for no real reason. It's unnecessary and adds nothing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 15:42:12


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Manchu wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
But its not a larger cohesive narrative.
Sure it is. Or at least describe why you think it's not.

Sure,

*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.

*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.

Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 15:45:17


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Bromsy wrote:
Now Bilbo decides not to go with the dwarfs and then suddenly changes his mind for no real reason. It's unnecessary and adds nothing.
I disagree. In the book, there is a lot of talk about Bilbo's Tookish proclivities, about how some latent adventurous heritage from his maternal forbears is awakened in him and conflicts with his more stolid Baggins propriety. In text, you can just write that down. The omniscient narrator can simply tell it to you. But this internal conflict has to be shown to you on screen.

@Frazzled: Who is Dork Boy? Radagast?

Radagast has a better relationship with Gandalf than Saruman. (Saruman calls him a fool or similar to Gandalf.) He's not involved with orcs. The spiders aren't after him, they're just moving into his forest as the evil of the Necromancer spreads. Also, he's not made up for the Hobbit movie. Saruman mentions him in LotR and I believe part of his role in the Hobbit movie comes from the appendices published with RotK.

As for the White Orc pursuing the Dwarves -- I think that only starts mid-movie because Thorin and the White Orc seem to think each other are dead until word spreads, via the goblins? - I can't remember exactly, that this isn't the case. By that time, the Dwarves are over/under the mountains so that should answer your question.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 15:53:51


   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Frazzled wrote:
*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.

*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.


That isn't an argument against a cohesive story, just a list of things you didn't understand.

 Frazzled wrote:
Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.


That is a problem of tone, and certainly a fair criticism, but, again, has nothing to do with a cohesive narrative.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

How does the Azog track them once they get caught up in the fight with the Storm Giants?

Why is that cohesive?


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

It's cohesive because Azog is shown to be the main enemy throughout the movie so it only makes sense that he will show up again in the climactic conflict.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

My idea for a 'Modern' Hobbit movie would have been a Heist. Oceans 11 but with Dwarves, yes the tone would be lighter than LOTR but not in the weird uneven way it is in these films. Also it would'nt have that ill-conceived Israelite subtext for the Dwarves' motivation (I'm not sure if the whole Reclaim Erebor thing was Tolkein's intent but it just seems too Unsubtly Allegoric for him). The Dwarves would be after the Hoard the Dragon is sitting on.


Other than Thorin wanting the Arkenstone (and revenge) so badly he becomes rather of a fallen hero by the end of the story, many of the dwarves want to reclaim Erebor for their race. Ecpecially those of them that were literally driven from it as their home by Smaug.



"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Israelite subtext? Don't think so. This is like the people who used to write to Tolkien asking if the Ring stood for nuclear bombs.

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Ol' Blighty

Frazzled wrote:The book was straight forward. The movie was not.

Book:
1. Hey lets go get rich and get our place back. Tally ho!

Movie:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a deranged ork wannabe (that guy's not an ork, he's too cute) with a pack hunting us.
3. Ork pack guy doesn't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Oh and there's like this dork with a little two much fascination with a ferbie.
5. This dork is being attacked by spiders, or not.
6. Dork is now investigating a castle.
7. Dork is now pursued by the ork guy...er what? why?
8. Elves in cool armor attacking orks. Ok I get that.
9. Mmm.. Queen Elizabeth ork...drooool what was I talking about again?
10. Menacing ork dude!
11. adventures hurray
12. Ork Dude attacks!

what er eh what?

what you're saying here is completely unfair.

book:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a goblin army hunting us.
3. Goblins don't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Elves in cool armor attacking goblins. Ok I get that.
5. Menacing goblin dude!
6. adventures hurray
7. goblins attack!

the only difference to the storyline that complicates it is the dol guldur storyline (AKA "dork"), which explains what gandalf was doing (something the book didn't do) and the background of thorin (again, explaining something the book didn't cover much). With the exception of such explanations, everything you picked at with the film is also in the book.

Frazzled wrote:Sure,

*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
He does try to whack them at the beginning- with the warg riders and at the tree.

*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.
If they had the company against the goblins, Bolg would be meandering in and out of the action even more. This is a chance for a face-to-face. And the Goblins and Orcs are working together- it's no stretch to suggest the goblins let them through the mountain.
*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
I agree with you there, Radagast is too silly.
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
He is Gandalf's friend. He helps his friend escape against the orcs, as a friend would do.
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
Radagast is the protector of Mirkwood. Spiders want to take over Mirkwood. He is therefore an obstacle to their plans.
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.
Gandalf is closer by and more willing to listen than Saruman.

Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.

A children's book, with the majority of its followers now being adults, as well as it following up a more adult trilogy more than explains its trying to account for all ages.


Also, I think this thread is intended for discussion about the Desolation of Smaug, and comparing it to its predecessor is fine, but this has strayed completely from the upcoming film and into a debate about the previous one.


DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+
JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles.
corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day.
greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 shrike wrote:
Frazzled wrote:The book was straight forward. The movie was not.

Book:
1. Hey lets go get rich and get our place back. Tally ho!

Movie:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a deranged ork wannabe (that guy's not an ork, he's too cute) with a pack hunting us.
3. Ork pack guy doesn't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Oh and there's like this dork with a little two much fascination with a ferbie.
5. This dork is being attacked by spiders, or not.
6. Dork is now investigating a castle.
7. Dork is now pursued by the ork guy...er what? why?
8. Elves in cool armor attacking orks. Ok I get that.
9. Mmm.. Queen Elizabeth ork...drooool what was I talking about again?
10. Menacing ork dude!
11. adventures hurray
12. Ork Dude attacks!

what er eh what?

what you're saying here is completely unfair.

book:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a goblin army hunting us.
3. Goblins don't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Elves in cool armor attacking goblins. Ok I get that.
5. Menacing goblin dude!
6. adventures hurray
7. goblins attack!

the only difference to the storyline that complicates it is the dol guldur storyline (AKA "dork"), which explains what gandalf was doing (something the book didn't do) and the background of thorin (again, explaining something the book didn't cover much). With the exception of such explanations, everything you picked at with the film is also in the book.

Frazzled wrote:Sure,

*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
He does try to whack them at the beginning- with the warg riders and at the tree.

*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.
If they had the company against the goblins, Bolg would be meandering in and out of the action even more. This is a chance for a face-to-face. And the Goblins and Orcs are working together- it's no stretch to suggest the goblins let them through the mountain.
*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
I agree with you there, Radagast is too silly.
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
He is Gandalf's friend. He helps his friend escape against the orcs, as a friend would do.
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
Radagast is the protector of Mirkwood. Spiders want to take over Mirkwood. He is therefore an obstacle to their plans.
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.
Gandalf is closer by and more willing to listen than Saruman.

Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.

A children's book, with the majority of its followers now being adults, as well as it following up a more adult trilogy more than explains its trying to account for all ages.


Also, I think this thread is intended for discussion about the Desolation of Smaug, and comparing it to its predecessor is fine, but this has strayed completely from the upcoming film and into a debate about the previous one.


Strangely the Hobbit book I read didn't have an ork biker gang hunting them throughout the book.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Yeah, they rewrote the Dwarf and Goblin War for the movie, I guess to have an antagonist.

As I have posted again and again, Tolkien himself envisioned other people working on their own interpretations of his world.

   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





All the whining about the hobbit and Peter Jackson, first we had people whining he wasn't doing it and now people are whining that he is doing it.

BE GRATEFUL WE GET TO SEE MORE OF MIDDLE-EARTH.


If you don't like it.

Read the book.

Check out my trades http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/515178.page

Check out my Auctions

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/521603.page 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Read the book.

VERY uncertain about spending more money on this series. Leaning to NO at this point.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Ol' Blighty

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely the Hobbit book I read didn't have an ork biker gang hunting them throughout the book.

No- it had a goblin army hunting them throughout the book. The orcs were added in as part of Thorin's backstory, which wasn't fully explained in the book.


DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+
JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles.
corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day.
greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid. 
   
Made in gb
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?





UK

First off, I'll just say the trailer looks epic. Very much looking forward to seeing this one.

(by the way, none of the below is intended as a rant, just to promote discussion)

The thing is, the hobbit as a book is far closer in style to Narnia than LOTR, it was written for kids and Tolkien himself later said he admitted this was a bad idea. LOTR came later when he (and the publishers) realised there was a demand for more of the same, but more in depth and detailed. This is the line Jackson has to tread, keeping it closer in feel to LOTR than a kids story while remaining faithful to the book, for the sake of continuity as much as anything else. And given Tolkien's admission on the style of the book, you can bet it would have been far more in the vein of LOTR/the PJ films, with multiple plots, developed characters and more action. While there is a simplicity to the book, it could be said it is too basic, and is literally just 'let's go get our stuff/mountain back'.

The 'additions' are largely based on what Tolkien himself later added. At the time of writing the Hobbit, he had not even thought of the idea of Sauron and the rings of power, nor of characters such as Legolas that feature in the later books. For example, when, throughout the hobbit, Gandalf keeps disappearing at odd moments (usually followed by the dwarves getting in trouble), that was simply a plot device, it was only later that this was explained as the sub-plot with the White Council and the Necromancer. The latter is mentioned in passing at the end of The Hobbit, but only as a one-line explanation for Gandalf leaving before Mirkwood and returning late to the Erebor. Tolkien realised this was weak, and created the story of the Council to fill in the gaps. As has been already mentioned, characters like Legolas are there simply by default, the character did not exist at the time of writing the Hobbit, but as Thranduil's son, would have been present at Mirkwood, Dol Goldur and the Battle of 5 Armies.

The only real addition that Jackson has made is the Azog sub-plot, as in Tolkien's writing he is recorded as being killed by Dain at the battle of Moria (where in the film he fights Thorin and retreats). This was made for one simple reason, and that is that, aside from the brief encounter with the trolls and the escape from Goblin Town, there is really very little in terms of suspense in this early part of the book. Compare this to the Fellowship of the Ring (my personal favourite film and book), where there is the constant threat of the Nazgul hunting the Fellowship, and then the Uruks from Moria onwards. Azog fulfils a similar role, being a consistent threat throughout the film and providing an identifiable enemy with more of a motive than just 'they're dwarves, eat them/they're dwarves, kill them' that we get from the trolls and the Goblin King. The film would not work without this character or similar, as there would be very little sense of haste or pressure on the dwarves, they could just stroll to Erebor without the threat of being hunted by a character with a personal vendetta. Otherwise, it would just be dwarves plodding across fields, across a river, up and down a mountain and through a forest, which frankly, would not make amazing viewing.

As previously mentioned, it's a fine line between adding too much and leaving too much out that fans would then demand. For example, the whole Dol Goldur plot arc, had it been ignored, would have prompted just as many complaints as backflipping elves being included. In my opinion, Jackson trod this line amazingly well with LOTR (my only issue being the removal of the Scouring of the Shire) and continues to do with the Hobbit, expanding the rich universe and providing excellent films.

As a final thought, has there ever been a film that has been a truly accurate representation of the book? No.

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 gorgon wrote:
 Perkustin wrote:
 rodgers37 wrote:
I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.

Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.


Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.


It's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Personally, I thought making Aragorn a reluctant king by pushing back his acceptance of Anduril was perhaps the most important improvement. The story is about the "return of the king," after all, and that change adds some dramatic tension around that, which leads to a better payoff.

Actually, scratch that. Getting ol' Tom Bombadillo out of the story was #1. Aragorn was #2.

Elves at Helm's Deep is the aforementioned mixed bag. I get that it kinda cheapened things in a sense. But then it also served as a tangible demonstration of the races again working together in the face of unimaginable evil. It clarifies the point.

I can't argue against the Dead Men being too much of an instant win at Pelannor. Perhaps it's a subtle thing -- how do you make it clear that they put the good guys over the top without making them seem an instant win? I think perhaps the flaw there was the visual execution. They fell in love with the CGI -- "look how we can make them crawl over everything like army ants" -- and this representation made them seem like an overwhelming force that single-handedly won the battle.

I'm with you on The Hobbit -- the issues aren't about deviation from the text. I just don't think it's a great piece of filmmaking.


Well the army of the dead was pretty much an instant win in the book too, just not in the same location.

I think the Hobbit has some definite noteworthy film points. The 3d is amazing, its one of the few 3d films I've seen that uses it as an enhancement and not a gimmicky feature. The HFR is unnecessary IMO but its not detracting.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Scotland

 Manchu wrote:
Israelite subtext? Don't think so. This is like the people who used to write to Tolkien asking if the Ring stood for nuclear bombs.


Yeah that's why i don't think Tolkein had it in mind. AFAIK Thorin was more keen on getting back the Treasure than Reclaiming his ancestral home. This was only a minor gripe and tbh it was more the language in the film that tried to evoke all that 'Chosen people' stuff. It's fine to have someone wanting to retake their home but i didn't like the attempts at Allegory precisely for the reason that it wasn't Tolkein's thing.

EDIT: Also meant to say Peter Jackson earlier on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 22:45:50


Mary Sue wrote: Perkustin is even more awesome than me!



 
   
Made in us
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!





The Rock

I'm really excited for more explanation on Dol Guldor. Every time I read the book I always wanted more of that side of things. Glad it's getting some light in the movie.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
metallifan wrote:Maybe it's not the ROFLSTOMP that Americans are used to...

Best summary of foeign policy. Ever.
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/10/04/80027-finally-see-the-human-face-of-beorn/

The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/10/04/80027-finally-see-the-human-face-of-beorn/


Its wolverine's grand da!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran






In da middle of da WAAAGH! Australia.

 Frazzled wrote:
 reds8n wrote:
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/10/04/80027-finally-see-the-human-face-of-beorn/


Its wolverine's grand da!


Reminds me of Monkey...
The nature of Beorn was ... IRREPRESSIBLE!



WAAAGH! Gutsnagga Mo-ork- 5000pts Kult of speed + goffs
red space marines, (almost angry enough!) 2000 points
Here's my P&M blog - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551978.page
And here's a thread of my completed miniatures -
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551971.page
'You have that the wrong way around. Space Hulk teaches the inmates how large numbers of fast moving vicious hand to hand combatants can over come a small number of gun armed adversaries, in a sequence of narrow corridors.' -Orlanth
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Beorn looks too feline, this set up would make for a good were-lion.

You need something more heavy set and ursine, also from the setting and name, let alone Tolkiens own images of Beorns hall you need something more traditionally norse looking.

I always envisaged Beorn as heavy set broad and very brawny, not just hirsute, Brian Blessed would have make the perfect Beorn, and there ought to have been a younger version of him.

This Beorn doesn't even have a hairy chest.

But seeing as Smaug the golden, there is a clue in the name, looks half blue, I can expect Jackson to come up with anything.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/04 14:02:07


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: