Scots Taffer on 21/12/2012 at 03:25
Quote Posted by Kuuso
The movie itself is shit, Jackson is basically remaking LOTR, but this time with worse humour, worse one-liners and "comical" yet brutal violence.
So Jackson's just cut the 20+ year hiatus between his original and prequel trilogy... Good work.
SubJeff on 21/12/2012 at 07:05
Quote Posted by froghawk
the rest basically shat all over the source material... ...despite the fact that I love the LOTR films and the book was a big part of my childhood. This is Star Wars Episode 1 bad relative to LOTR.
But LotR isn't faithful to the source material in an even worse way. The Hobbit is a caper, an adventure. LotR is a an epic with much more depth and is an allegory on a grand scale which is completely diminished by the changes to the source material.
Scots Taffer on 21/12/2012 at 07:47
Whilst I will not use RT scores as some barometer for true quality, the score of 65% for Hobbit vs the scores for the LOTR trilogy certainly paint a picture that underscores a difference of some nature that's perceived SubjEff.
froghawk on 21/12/2012 at 13:14
^not to mention 43% from top critics
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But LotR isn't faithful to the source material in an even worse way. The Hobbit is a caper, an adventure. LotR is a an epic with much more depth and is an allegory on a grand scale which is completely diminished by the changes to the source material.
I'd actually be very interested if you expanded on what you mean when you talk about LOTR's allegory and what your personal interpretation of said allegory is. It can be interpreted in some questionable directions (racist - the 'good' races, all of which are consistently portrayed as white, must put aside their differences and overcome the 'bad' races, all of which are portrayed as much darker, or classist - the sophisticated, cultured, rich hobbits & elves vs. cave-dwelling industrial workers), and Tolkien stated that there are many ways to interpret it, so what is your reading (which the films evidently contradict)?
I don't even remember many changes in the LOTR films aside from adding a more extended, pathos-filled backstory for Faramir, removing the Scourning of the Shire, stretching out the battle sequences, adding a love story from the appendices, and re-ordering a few things, which isn't bad for such a long story. The changes and inventions in this Hobbit film were much more extensive and widespread (and, generally, ragingly stupid).
I think the tone of LOTR was much more suitable to the source material, despite some overextended battle sequences and silly one-liners. The visual design was incredible, the acting was good, it felt suitably epic, and it really draws you into the world of middle earth. The Hobbit's visuals were completely immersion breaking and all of the stupid elements of the LOTR films were taken to such an extreme here that there was basically nothing left at the end. I agree that there is more to ruin in the message of LOTR, but the Hobbit film even fails as a piece of entertainment, which is definitely not something I can say about the LOTR films.
SubJeff on 21/12/2012 at 14:16
LotRs is about the race of men stepping up and being all the things that they had failed to be and which led to evil not being destroyed in the first place.
The different races represent different aspects of mankind in the real world, and the race of men must take from all of them to become complete and able to face the forces of evil.
There is certainly some racial element to it, being that all the "baddies" are either creatures or foreign and not white. I don't think Tolkien meant it as racial commentary though.
I cannot believe that you don't recognise the changes in the films if you are a fan of the books.
Off the top of my head some of the worst offences:
1. The army of the dead clearing the battlefield. In the book they cannot touch nor hurt anyone and only scare Saurons forces.
This is arguably the worst crime in the films as the real reason men win is they find the sense, courage, goodness and bravery to work together and fight damn hard to win.
The ghostfaced killas take that away from them. Bollocks.
2. The Ent's reason for taking on Isengard. Not because they are tricked into seeing the devastation of Fanghorn, but because they decide that it what is right for Middle Earth.
This is significant because they are so old and the affairs of men so fleeting to them that they usually don't get involved at all.
This was dumbed down to bluuuugggh WE ANGRY in the films. Get out.
3. In the non-extended version Fanghorn does not move to Helms Deep, but a bunch of Rohirrim take out Saruman's army. Mhhhmmm. Also, Elves come to help which was put in for what reason?
In the book it is only Fanghorn that wins this battle. More tosh.
4. Girl power. Eowyn kills the Witch King in the films Because She Is A Woman.
Although the prophecy states that he can die by the hand of no man, the crucial thing here is that Merry makes him mortal with a blade that was made to kill the King of Angmar.
The version in the film completely misses all of this out and takes away from him his most important action. Even the extended edition does not redress this.
What is worse is the Girl Power bs in the film which is naturally misinterpreted.
Those are just the main 4 I can remember right now, but there is a lot more. The extended editions are much better because they have more talky bits and character development and at least have Fanghorn moving
froghawk on 21/12/2012 at 14:32
I quite like your interpretation, but I dont think that it is the only possible or correct interpretation of the story or that the films had to adhere strictly to those ideas. I take it you see hobbits as the complacent, quiet side of man who must have their lives uprooted and their home destroyed to truly defeat the forces of evil. Unlike you, I see the scourning as the film's most glaring omission - it makes the victory too easy, happy, and final and basically makes it so the hobbits can immediately return to their status quo.
But really, I am not a purist. Film ans literature are very different mediums, and details need to be changed for the translation to work. Exact translations tend to fall flat on screen (in addition to being redundant and pointless in my opinion). I dont think many of the changes in LOTR were necessary, nor did they add to the story, but very few of them really detracted from it for me - quite unlike the Hobbit, where the entire tone of the film could not possibly have been more wrong.
SubJeff on 21/12/2012 at 15:53
No, I think of the hobbits as representative of hard working simple folk who don't want for much and who have a quiet courage that the more adventurous and ambitious races lack. They are not greedy or ambitious but have an honesty and purity that others don't.
It think both sets of films (so far) have the right tone though.
froghawk on 21/12/2012 at 18:37
I dont remember the book being so garish and loud, but if I'm misremembering (after all, I read it 14-15 years ago) and it really does have the tone of an Ice Age film, then I guess time has colored my memory and I probably wouldn't like the book either.
SubJeff on 21/12/2012 at 21:56
The book isn't that garish and loud, but what works for a book is not what works on screen.
froghawk on 21/12/2012 at 23:29
Obviously I agree, but he could have easily made this film with a tone that was a little closer to the LOTR films and had it work MUCH better - as a film on its own, as a prequel to LOTR, and as an adaptation of The Hobbit. It just seems like another bad kids' movie now, but twice as long and twice as violent.
