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.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: I just got back and it was as big a let down as I thought it would be.
If you went in thinking it was going to be a big disappointment why did you go?
Closure.
I was exactly the same. It looked rubbish from the trailer, but it's the Scheherazade effect i.e. leave a big cliff hanger and make them come back for the last bit. If you're basically at the end, you just want to see it through.
I went in thinking it was going to be bad, based on the dakka reviews. However I had read some other reviews on rotten tomatoes that said it was good, so I went with trepidation (I mean how could my fellow dakkites be so wrong right?).
Orlanth wrote: Because he had the license to make the films and claimed intention to tell the story.
And he did. He made adaptations. He was never going to take what was on the page and put it on screen. Virtually no one does that with adaptations of books, and it is unreasonable to assume or expect him to do that.
Orlanth wrote: Film makers have artistic license, they can remove or amalgamate characters to clarify and better fit screen time, they can add scenes not seen in original point of view etc etc.
But each change should be accompanied by a reason for the change.
Rewiring Aragorn's moral compass because Jackson felt like it is no reason, it made no change to the overall plot or allowed time or number of characters presented to the audience to change Aragorn's character.
A good director will only change original source material to make a plot more filmable, and not to rewrite the source material,with exception of propaganda film makers, which doesn't apply here.
Nah. Film makers change source material all the time. Why people are more precious (no pun intended) about LOTR makes no sense.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nah. Film makers change source material all the time. Why people are more precious (no pun intended) about LOTR makes no sense.
I am so sick of book purists.
I think it's because it's (arguably) the most important, well known and detailed fictional work of the past hundred years, some people are always going to have qualms about any adaptation of anything, especially when it's such a treasured book as the LotR. Some people can't (or won't) understand that it's completely impractical to have an exact copy of a book in film form without changing stuff from it, and fans of the original will generally say that it's better - It's a similar situation with classic songs covered by other artists or rebooted film/TV franchises.
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.
I am not a 'book purist'. I would admittedly prefer the film to be as faithful as possible, but can expect some changes for filmability, it's a reasoned approach rather than a doctrinal one.
Jackson didn't stick to that, he went all over he place with the Hobbit.
My niggles with LotR were just niggles, things I would have preferred different in otherwise excellent films. However with theHobit the more Jackson went off piste, the more it sucked.
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.
I am not a 'book purist'. I would admittedly prefer the film to be as faithful as possible, but can expect some changes for filmability, it's a reasoned approach rather than a doctrinal one.
Jackson didn't stick to that, he went all over he place with the Hobbit.
My niggles with LotR were just niggles, things I would have preferred different in otherwise excellent films. However with theHobit the more Jackson went off piste, the more it sucked.
Can I actually say that one of the reasons why I didn't like this movie series at all was because I felt it stayed too close to the book.
The Screen Writing was horrible. The Dialogue not as well written as it should of been. The Shots were extremely inelegant. An over reliance on CGI and not enough on practical effects. Compare for example the Goblins in LOTR The Fellowship of the ring and The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey.
Look at the differences in armor choices and everything. Notice how everything is much cleaner in the newer one?
Notice how there is more characterization in the older film compared to the newer?
Notice how they made the female character.. Kind of a joke compared to the other stronger female characters in the LOTR series.
Evangelical Lily was fantastic though, I loved her character minus the love triangle.
You can see more emotion in the older characters than in the hobbit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 02:07:30
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
No, it really isn't. If they had said one of the most important fantasy works then I would probably agree but it was said that it was "the most important, well known and detailed fictional work of the past hundred years". When looking at the whole of literate in the last one hundred years it isn't even in the top five.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
No, it really isn't. If they had said one of the most important fantasy works then I would probably agree but it was said that it was "the most important, well known and detailed fictional work of the past hundred years". When looking at the whole of literate in the last one hundred years it isn't even in the top five.
If you can find a more detailed fictional world than middle earth then I will be very surprised.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
No, it really isn't. If they had said one of the most important fantasy works then I would probably agree but it was said that it was "the most important, well known and detailed fictional work of the past hundred years". When looking at the whole of literate in the last one hundred years it isn't even in the top five.
Don't you dare say what I am thinking you are thinking about.
Martin and many fantasy writers credit tolkien for his lingusitics and world building. That is beyond even the Game of Thrones and many others works.
(Except Maybe LoveCraft)
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
I'd say that the only parts where he deviated from the LotR books in a bad way was the army of the dead fighting at the Pelennor Fields, where it would've taken far too long explaining who, how and why Imrahil, the Knights of Dol Amroth, Halbarad, The Dunedain, and all those coastal villages turned up to fight, and Faramir/Boromir/Denethor's relationship with one another, which again would have taken a lot of time and the extended edition of the Two Towers goes some way into covering that anyway.
So you thought the changes to the Entmoot were a smart call? I cannot wrap my head around the constant pleas expressed for 'more' in this thread and others. I am constantly told that X or Y was too much for the LotR trilogy; it would have complicated things or taken too long to explain. And yet there was time for PJ to add in things he wanted that tied up great chunks of time.
I can't remember what was changed about the Entmoot, so I can't say.
PJ added very little in the LotR, he just changed or cut things. Almost everything that PJ put into the film that wasn't in the book wasn't on top of something else, it was a replacement, very few of which took up more time than the original.
In the book the Entmoot is basically "Saruman has been cutting down the forest that we have been protecting for millennia and are magically connected with. Weird, he used to be a good friend to us. What should we do? Oh, these Hobbits say he's evil now, let's go to war with him."
In the movie, for some reason the Ents have no idea that Saruman has been cutting down their forest. They decide not to go to war. The hobbits trick them into carrying them south, Treebeard walks south for like a day and then sees the cut down trees. He gets mad, yells, and every single Ent in the forest emerges from it in a single giant wave, despite Treebeard having spent a day walking south by himself. It added nothing to the movie. It took longer and made less sense than if they'd have gone with the book version. It made the Ents look weaker/stupider and the hobbits dishonest.
And all the time he spent on the warg fight and Haldir & co chatting it at the Hornburg up could have been used to quickly introduce Imrahil and Dol Amroth and the fact that Gondor in fact consisted of more than Minas Tirith, which as far as I remember isn't brought up at all in the movies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 03:11:52
I was thinking about what I am going to drink later.
Asherian Command wrote: Martin and many fantasy writers credit tolkien for his lingusitics and world building. That is beyond even the Game of Thrones and many others works.
You are, at best, still stuck in one genre. No one has said the the book isn't important, but the most important book in the last 100 years? No.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Mr Morden wrote: Watched it and quite enjoyed it - yes three films was way too long, the Smaug bit could have been at the end of the last film rather than chasing the Dwarves round for half an hour, the battle seemed disjointed and badly put together sadly.
but it did have - Gladrial being awesome - loved her first appearance, walking barefoot into the heart of the enemy.
Fine with Legolas being that great - Elves in Tolkein are not D+D Elves they are in fact superhuman............
Tauriel was great - the "romance" was a major stretch - there was little chemistry between her and the dwarf but it was ok - my firend and I thought she was goign to end up with Legolas's dad actually given their final scene.
Dwarves on goats was bad....Dwarf on war pig - quite enjoyed. The worms crossing over from Dune was .....unexpected...............
Would have loved the final battle more if Azog had not somehow used his own superpowers to leap out of the ice - it was a cooly good way to kill him.........but guess it was not exctiting enough?
It's unfortunate that all the copycats of LOTR turned elves into tree-hugging hippies, when originally in the LOTR/Silmarillion works the Elves were absolute monsters in combat, especially during the First Age. It was the Elves after all that first fought Melkor at his fullest might and killed Ancalagon the Black, the greatest of dragons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: I watched the movie this Christmas, and I thought it was grand.
Dain's 'speech' was epic.
I also liked Alfrid. He added some good laughs.
The things I really didn't were those ridiculous goats appearing out of nowhere (as if Rhosgobel Rabbits weren't bad enough already) and Legolas defying the laws of physics even more than in the previous movies. The previous times I didn't mind it so much, but that scene in which Legolas defies gravity by jumping up on falling rubble pushed it too far.
The Battle of the Five Armies also was severely lacking in Wargs.
Also, the deus ex machina ending with the Eagles was horribly anticlimactic, but that is more Tolkien's fault.
I also would have liked to see more of Saruman and Sauron. That was an interesting part they could have expanded upon.
Also, the Battle of the Five Armies was supposed to be small in comparison to battles like Helm's Deep or the Pellenor Fields. After all, in the book, the Elven army only has 1000 soldiers and the Dwarves 500. The Humans are not mentioned but with Lake Town (the only significant human settlement in the North) destroyed their army probably would not be so large either. The Orc/Goblin/Warg is also not given any numbers, but it does say that three-quarters of all Orcs in the North were destroyed that day.
Tolkien's Middle Earth was meant to be on a Dark Ages level, which means that Middle Earth's total population is really rather small, and battles are not all that large either. Saruman's 10.000 strong army in the Lord of the Rings was supposed to be really special because something of that size had never been seen before in the Third Age.
Legolas being incredibly hax in battle actually falls more in line with Tolkien. Elves are supposed to be incredibly powerful superhuman gods of warfare.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 03:17:27
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
I see a lot of people on here are pissed about the movie in general. I feel sorry for all of you. It was fun. Yeah, minor issues, like what I mentioned on pg1 about Sarumon. PJ made an adaptation in the same way that comic book movie directors made changes when they adapted them to the big screen. Who wants to see a 100%, fully identical movie that matches the book you've read 50 times? That's...well, boring. Personally, I PREFER PJ's depiction. I find Tolkien's writing to be dry, boring, and in the case of the Hobbit, insulting (as it assumes anyone reading it has kids involved somewhere). The movies liven the story up and make it an actual fantasy story.
Of course, I won't change your mind, and you won't change the minds of those of us who liked it. Neither opinion is wrong, but trying to force each other will be. So...yeah. Some of us loved it, some hated it. Just the way it is.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Earendil was human but was made into an honourary elf.
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.
Mr Morden wrote: Watched it and quite enjoyed it - yes three films was way too long, the Smaug bit could have been at the end of the last film rather than chasing the Dwarves round for half an hour, the battle seemed disjointed and badly put together sadly.
but it did have - Gladrial being awesome - loved her first appearance, walking barefoot into the heart of the enemy.
Fine with Legolas being that great - Elves in Tolkein are not D+D Elves they are in fact superhuman............
Tauriel was great - the "romance" was a major stretch - there was little chemistry between her and the dwarf but it was ok - my firend and I thought she was goign to end up with Legolas's dad actually given their final scene.
Dwarves on goats was bad....Dwarf on war pig - quite enjoyed. The worms crossing over from Dune was .....unexpected...............
Would have loved the final battle more if Azog had not somehow used his own superpowers to leap out of the ice - it was a cooly good way to kill him.........but guess it was not exctiting enough?
It's unfortunate that all the copycats of LOTR turned elves into tree-hugging hippies, when originally in the LOTR/Silmarillion works the Elves were absolute monsters in combat, especially during the First Age. It was the Elves after all that first fought Melkor at his fullest might and killed Ancalagon the Black, the greatest of dragons.
Ancalagon was killed by Earendil who was half human, and due to the sheer impossibility of the act I have to assume it was due to the power of the silmaril. Now Fingolfin actually fighting Melkor hand to hand and crippling him up is far more bad ass. Fingolfin rules.
Orlanth wrote: Earendil the Mariner killed Ancalagon the Black.
Earendil was human but was made into an honourary elf.
Oops, I always forget how he was an honorary elf.
Either way, Elves during the First Age were utter hax supermen, as were the Numenoreans during the Second Age. While the power of the Elves has diminished by the Third Age, as power being lost with time and usage is a theme within Tolkien's works, they should still be incredible warrior gods equal to the likes of Achilles or Diomedes in Greek Mythology.
Although, that barrel scene in the second movie was just stupid.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
I was thinking about what I am going to drink later.
Burbane, Vodka, Scoth, White Whine? Or maybe a Genetonic or maybe A cup of milk.
Is probably perferable for a night cap. Starting the new year right is by getting drunk, slammered, burned, wasted, flabber ghasted, laid happy with drinks.
Asherian Command wrote: Martin and many fantasy writers credit tolkien for his lingusitics and world building. That is beyond even the Game of Thrones and many others works.
You are, at best, still stuck in one genre. No one has said the the book isn't important, but the most important book in the last 100 years? No.
In terms of the Fantasy Genre yes. But in terms of all books. Nah. I think the most important Book of all time was probably the book of ethics.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Mr Morden wrote: Watched it and quite enjoyed it - yes three films was way too long, the Smaug bit could have been at the end of the last film rather than chasing the Dwarves round for half an hour, the battle seemed disjointed and badly put together sadly.
but it did have - Gladrial being awesome - loved her first appearance, walking barefoot into the heart of the enemy.
Fine with Legolas being that great - Elves in Tolkein are not D+D Elves they are in fact superhuman............
Tauriel was great - the "romance" was a major stretch - there was little chemistry between her and the dwarf but it was ok - my firend and I thought she was goign to end up with Legolas's dad actually given their final scene.
Dwarves on goats was bad....Dwarf on war pig - quite enjoyed. The worms crossing over from Dune was .....unexpected...............
Would have loved the final battle more if Azog had not somehow used his own superpowers to leap out of the ice - it was a cooly good way to kill him.........but guess it was not exctiting enough?
It's unfortunate that all the copycats of LOTR turned elves into tree-hugging hippies, when originally in the LOTR/Silmarillion works the Elves were absolute monsters in combat, especially during the First Age. It was the Elves after all that first fought Melkor at his fullest might and killed Ancalagon the Black, the greatest of dragons.
Ancalagon was killed by Earendil who was half human, and due to the sheer impossibility of the act I have to assume it was due to the power of the silmaril. Now Fingolfin actually fighting Melkor hand to hand and crippling him up is far more bad ass. Fingolfin rules.
Don't forget how Fingolfin routed Melkor's entire army before engaging him in combat.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
timetowaste85 wrote: I see a lot of people on here are pissed about the movie in general. I feel sorry for all of you. It was fun. Yeah, minor issues, like what I mentioned on pg1 about Sarumon. PJ made an adaptation in the same way that comic book movie directors made changes when they adapted them to the big screen. Who wants to see a 100%, fully identical movie that matches the book you've read 50 times? That's...well, boring. Personally, I PREFER PJ's depiction. I find Tolkien's writing to be dry, boring, and in the case of the Hobbit, insulting (as it assumes anyone reading it has kids involved somewhere). The movies liven the story up and make it an actual fantasy story.
Of course, I won't change your mind, and you won't change the minds of those of us who liked it. Neither opinion is wrong, but trying to force each other will be. So...yeah. Some of us loved it, some hated it. Just the way it is.
I perfer the cartoon and puppet version that played in Sydney australia back in 1999.
The Puppet Version of The Hobbit. Is without a question the most faithful, awesome rendition of the Hobbit I have ever seen. Plus I got to see it in the Sydney Opera House. Infact I think we have a video of it on a VHS.
Don't forget how Fingolfin routed Melkor's entire army before engaging him in combat.
Personally I perfer Glorfindel (Or who ever that elf guy that starts with a g) fought against a Balrog by himself and slew it...
As a side note Its one of the reasons why I actually perfer the movie to the book because in the book. Because Glorfindel has a very minor part in the Fellowship of the ring, and his part was then taken by Arwen, which I much more prefer than the book version where Glorfindel defeats all the nine by himself. (Or maybe it was gandalf, who knows.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 03:41:19
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
I specifically said earlier that it was probably the most important fantasy book.
Ah yee did.
huh.
A great discussion point is that what is the most important book in the past a hundred years.
Anyway back on topic. The Silmarillion is one of my favorite books. God damn i love all the history in it. Its why I want George RR Martin to write all the history and mythology of his world down. I mean I am writing my own books history down FIRST then I will write down my book.
The Hobbit being another favorite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 03:47:50
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
I specifically said earlier that it was probably the most important fantasy book.
Ah yee did.
huh.
A great discussion point is that what is the most important book in the past a hundred years.
Anyway back on topic. The Silmarillion is one of my favorite books. God damn i love all the history in it. Its why I want George RR Martin to write all the history and mythology of his world down. I mean I am writing my own books history down FIRST then I will write down my book.
I love it because while admittedly dry, Tolkien managed to write a creation story that puts to shame all others written previously, Greek, Christian, possibly even the epics of Hinduism.
When your story involves a boat flying through the air carrying the brightest holy light on Middle-Earth and spearing through the breast of a dragon the size of British Isles or bigger, I think you've reached the level upon which nothing can ever be more awesome.
Ironically, a highly action orientated film like the Hobbit series would have actually far better suited the First Age of the Silmarillion then the Hobbit. It would have also probably made a lot more money as well.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
