Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Bilbo the Brave? From TORn

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Bilbo the Brave? From TORn   [1] [2] >>
Here's some interesting news! http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/09 ... more-38409 Some nice info in there, some talk of production starting in January! Probably not true, as with most Hobbit movie news, but one can still hope <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Some stuff there though, that I did not like: "And, inadvertently, we know of a possible change to the plot. The character summary says: although . . . he doesn’t have huge courage he does become, particularly in the last battle, very brave." I hope they don't make a big warrior out of Bilbo, that would be silly. Hopefully, this part of the article will prove false :P
shudder shudder shake
[quote="Ringdrotten":2h174iw5]"And, inadvertently, we know of a possible change to the plot. The character summary says: although . . . he doesn’t have huge courage he does become, particularly in the last battle, very brave."[/quote:2h174iw5] Is anyone [i:2h174iw5]seriously[/i:2h174iw5] surprised by this? I can understand hoping that the writers would be more faithful but after the validation they received from LOTR, did anyone really think they would be able to restrain themselves this time?
Well, not surprised, I had expected them to give Bilbo more to do in the final battle, but I had hoped they wouldn't. Bilbo just isn't a soldier, I hope they will realise how stupid it will look, and leave it out :P
I'm thinking of something the guy in your avatar said, Ringdrotten, about hope and fools. :P (All in good fun. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> )
Maybe like the Arwen/Helm's Deep debacle they will realize their folly before its too late (and hopefully this time before they waste a chunk of the budget and filming time on nonsense like this- have they learned nothing? I'm starting to wonder if they even read the book or if they just got someone to give them a rough outline so they could make up the rest themselves.)
[quote="Eldorion":2qx2vye0]I'm thinking of something the guy in your avatar said, Ringdrotten, about hope and fools. :P (All in good fun. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> )[/quote:2qx2vye0] Spot-on, I guess :lol:
[quote="pettytyrant101":3bjm5v75]have they learned nothing?[/quote:3bjm5v75] They've learned that they're able to make billions of dollars while disregarding faithfulness to the core characters and themes of the book. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
I still hold deep in my heart Eldo that this is a cause of once bitten, twice shy. Having been largely bored senseless by RotK maybe the public will be more wary of TH now! And rightly so.
[quote="Ringdrotten":2u9kty0h]Here's some interesting news! http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/09 ... more-38409 Some nice info in there, some talk of production starting in January! Probably not true, as with most Hobbit movie news, but one can still hope <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Some stuff there though, that I did not like: "And, inadvertently, we know of a possible change to the plot. The character summary says: although . . . he doesn’t have huge courage he does become, particularly in the last battle, very brave." I hope they don't make a big warrior out of Bilbo, that would be silly. Hopefully, this part of the article will prove false :P[/quote:2u9kty0h] They can't have Bilbo fighting- it would look so weird! Like in TRK, where Pippin or Merry kills that ORK. Except he would be, in the middle of a full scale battle fighting, Men twice his size! :cry: I mean it says in the first chapter that he is a burger- don't mess this up Jackson! I hope this doesn't happen, if it does, it may very well spoil the movie for me.
[quote="pettytyrant101":2zcmo45p]Having been largely bored senseless by RotK maybe the public will be more wary of TH now! And rightly so.[/quote:2zcmo45p] :? ? Your personal feelings aside, ROTK was a resounding critical and financial success (even with the 3D craze it's still the third-highest-grossing film of all time). I think you're in a minority of not liking it, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the film-makers to change their ways. Though I can keep my fool's hope. :mrgreen:
No Eldo I believe loads of people wanted it to be good, wanted to enjoy it and paid a lot of money to go see it in droves-and were stung and knew they were. Hence I believe they will be more wary this time. As I've said elsewhere, off of this forum I don't know a single person who, having watched those three films, has any remaining desire to ever have to see them again. And more people than for any other film in my entire life have said to me that they have never seen the end of RotK because they fell asleep first. And the bottom line is if someone earnestly asked me to recommend five enjoyable films to watch LotR wouldn't be there, and for the films of my all time favourite book not to be there is a terrible thing, but in all honestly would you really recommend them above other films? Even other blockbusters such as Avatar? Or Star Wars (New Hope)?
I like the ending of RotK, everything from when Sam carries Frodo on his back to the end is great I think <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> But that's me, I can easily understand that people fall asleep during the end ( I can remember quite a few doing so in the cinema). [quote="Ally":3dc8spp3] I hope this doesn't happen, if it does, it may very well spoil the movie for me.[/quote:3dc8spp3] Exactly my thoughts as well. Perhaps not the whole movie, but definitely the Battle of Five Armies would be ruined.
What makes you think they will stay restrained all the way till Five Armies? No I fear the troll scene will now involve a fight- no dwarves creeping up to be captured one by one, they will all go down axes swinging I reckon. And whats the chances of Bilbo tricking the spiders with words when he can just slaughter his way to the rescue (I know there's a bit of fighting here anyway in the book but it will be far, far more I bet). And the elves, appearing and disappearing in the woods, that's not threatening or dramatic enough for PJ. Lets have the elves hunt the dwarves down through the wood, on horseback, led by Prince Legolas. And Bard shooting Smaug- that's no good either. Get the hero do it after he's slaughtered all the orcs. Bard can get knocked out instead of Bilbo and Bilbo can pick up his bow and miraculously manage to draw it and shoot saving the day before he and Gandalf nip down to Dol Guldur to reveal and chase out Sauron before heading home! May the Valar forgive them because I doubt very much I will.
Always so pessimistic :lol: I'm sure they'll make changes, but we'll have to wait and see if they are for the worse <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
[quote="pettytyrant101":1g7rjlsn]No Eldo I believe loads of people wanted it to be good, wanted to enjoy it and paid a lot of money to go see it in droves-and were stung and knew they were. Hence I believe they will be more wary this time.[/quote:1g7rjlsn] I really think that what I said about hope to Ringdrotten is applicable here too. :roll: [quote:1g7rjlsn]As I've said elsewhere, off of this forum I don't know a single person who, having watched those three films, has any remaining desire to ever have to see them again. And more people than for any other film in my entire life have said to me that they have never seen the end of RotK because they fell asleep first.[/quote:1g7rjlsn] And lots of people I know, even ones who normally don't like fantasy and other geek-related stuff, loved the LOTR movies. Can we agree that personal anecdotes aren't a good basis for generalizations? [quote:1g7rjlsn]And the bottom line is if someone earnestly asked me to recommend five enjoyable films to watch LotR wouldn't be there, and for the films of my all time favourite book not to be there is a terrible thing, but in all honestly would you really recommend them above other films? Even other blockbusters such as Avatar? Or Star Wars (New Hope)?[/quote:1g7rjlsn] Not the original Star Wars (and maybe a few others), but they'd be pretty high up there, petty. Reiterating your own opinions does not make them any less of a minority opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong about the films' quality because it's a subjective measure that can't be labeled good or bad, but I don't think as many people agree with you as you seem to believe.
Their sight is merely clouded Eldo. It is like when you watch a good stage magician and everyone is fooled but you know how the tricks done. Many were fooled by PJ's stage tricks, but they were not mere harmless entertainment, they struck at the heart of a great book, and therefore it is the duty of those of us who can see the trickery to reveal it for the benefit of others less fortunate lest it be allowed to happen again. I am merely performing a public duty, to the memory of Tolkien, that his work not be peed all over from a great height yet again by PJ. When it comes to film personal anecdote is what most people go on- what is a film review but an anecdote?- all those critical applauds you credit to PJ's films are merely the anecdotes of people paid to give anecdotes. And most generalizations [i:34sa7sfg]are[/i:34sa7sfg] anecdotal, so if I am going to make a generalization it may as well be an anecdotal one! <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
[quote="pettytyrant101":3qsty7s5]therefore it is the duty of those of us who can see the trickery to reveal it for the benefit of others less fortunate lest it be allowed to happen again. [/quote:3qsty7s5] :roll: :roll: :roll: It's not trickery for film-makers to have different priorities (even when there's good arguments to be made why they should think otherwise). More importantly, people are not "unfortunate" just because they disagree with you and I. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [quote:3qsty7s5]When it comes to film personal anecdote is what most people go on- what is a film review but an anecdote?- all those critical applauds you credit to PJ's films are merely the anecdotes of people paid to give anecdotes.[/quote:3qsty7s5] Film reviewers also influence a lot of people's movie-going habits. They also a group with a broad spectrum of likes, dislikes, friends, etc.; as opposed to 'the people who petty talks to about LOTR'. You may have noticed that I talked more about box office than critical acclaim, anyway.
Box office is merely a way of keeping track of the amount of people who where fooled. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> Its not a comment on quality or whether a film is actually any good.
But it does suggest that the film was rather popular, which is the point I was making. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
No it suggests a lot of people were fooled!
Why are you so resistant to the idea that other people simply honestly disagree with you? Your insitence that 'fooling' was involved smacks of a hubris that is quite unwarranted.
I have a purists eyes Eldo. The dilemma therefore is this. The films are by any objective or even subjective purist standards at best okish (that's as generous as I can get with them and then only FotR) and as adaptations poor. And (anecdotal as is) anyone I know who has seen them and isn't a raving Tolkien head didn't particularly enjoy them or were actively bored. Yet loads of people paid to go and see them. My conclusion therefore is that slick marketing, and a sense of occasion 'fooled' many through the doors (much like Avatar) and it had little to do with the quality of the films.
So, those who went to see the films several times in the cinemas, and later bought theatrical releases and extended editions and watched them several times were fooled? Those who were fooled by slick marketing probably didn't watch the films a second time, the ones who enjoyed the films for what they are, did :P
[quote="pettytyrant101":1iw6ma1h]The dilemma therefore is this. The films are by any objective or even subjective purist standards at best okish (that's as generous as I can get with them and then only FotR) and as adaptations poor.[/quote:1iw6ma1h] [b:1iw6ma1h]There is no objective standard for cinematic quality![/b:1iw6ma1h] When assessing the films as adaptations we have something concrete to compare them to - the book - but it is impossible to conclusively assess whether or not they're enjoyable to watch because every individual has their own criteria for what they consider to be fun to watch. Since such enjoyment is inherently subjective, it's not up to you or anyone else to tell other people they're wrong about it or were tricked. This really isn't that complicated.
[quote="Ringdrotten":283h3wjq]Those who were fooled by slick marketing probably didn't watch the films a second time, the ones who enjoyed the films for what they are, did :P[/quote:283h3wjq] Very good point, Ringdrotten. Additionally, slick marketing is becoming less effective since the Internet is making it easier for early viewers to give feedback to other people. This has really taken off in the last few years but even when LOTR came out the Internet was growing fast. And, of course, movie critics (who a lot of people listen to) are able to say if a film is good or bad regardless of marketing. A slick marketing campaign is not enough to save a movie that audiences hate (Exhibit A: [i:283h3wjq]The Last Airbender[/i:283h3wjq]). Advertising aside though, audiences will go see movies they like even if petty doesn't think they should like them, because he is not the arbiter of cinematic quality.
"objective or even subjective [b:1bq8h57o]purist[/b:1bq8h57o] standards" Please note the word 'purist' Eldo its the important one in that sentence! Besides objective standards are applied to films all the time by the critics you love and by every awards board in history. Why you feel such people have some inherent right to judge a films quality whilst others don't is beyond me. You say a lot of people go on what film critics say, yet most critics are not independent and like all journalists have the editorial nature of their employer to take into consideration amongst other things. Feedback from the internet can likewise be difficult to negotiate as it has not been unknown for film companies to post on forums and the like as a 'member' saying what a great film they've just seen. Ringdrotten I don't like the films much but I have the theatrical and the special edition dvds and I paid at the cinema too. I am a Tolkien fan. I have calendars, mugs and keyrings and the like dotted about the place none of which I needed or most likely would ever have bought if it wasn't LotR related. Even a hard edged purist like me is still a sucker for anything Tolkien. So the fact lots of people bought the merchandise does nothing to persuade me that those films are classic films in any way or will be remembered with any real fondness in the future. And for all their horribleness there is only PJ's effort and Baskhis to choose from and the desire to see LotR is a great one to the fan, a desire that is forgiving of the many flaws, more so I think than you would be were it any other film but that of LotR.
[quote="pettytyrant101":fvppriwj]Please note the word 'purist' Eldo its the important one in that sentence![/quote:fvppriwj] Purism tends to deal specifically with adaptation quality (something you may note that I [i:fvppriwj]do[/i:fvppriwj] think can be assessed objectively or semi-objectively), not with how enjoyable a movie is to watch for someone who doesn't care about faithfulness. [quote:fvppriwj]Why you feel such people have some inherent right to judge a films quality whilst others don't is beyond me.[/quote:fvppriwj] My only real disagreement with you here is whether or not most people enjoyed the films. Critics and awards shows are sometimes - though not always - an indicator of how well received a film was by most people. Nowhere did I say that critics can objectively determine a film's quality; in fact, I specifically said [i:fvppriwj]nobody[/i:fvppriwj] can judge that. I suspect that the point of confusion was in my last post, where I admit that my wording was a little unclear, but in light of my overall point I think that it was clear I was referring to critics expressing their opinions (and people acting on them) rather than any sort of objective measure. [quote:fvppriwj]You say a lot of people go on what film critics say, yet most critics are not independent and like all journalists have the editorial nature of their employer to take into consideration amongst other things. Feedback from the internet can likewise be difficult to negotiate as it has not been unknown for film companies to post on forums and the like as a 'member' saying what a great film they've just seen.[/quote:fvppriwj] Even so, it is not usual for critics to be so close to unanimous about a film, nor can undercover studio employees stop other people on the Internet from responding on forums saying the undercover person is wrong about how good the film was. Yet LOTR had an overwhelmingly positive response, far more than most films. If you were right and this was all trickery, than a lot more films would have receptions like that. As it is though, LOTR stands out for its positive reception.
(((Mr Tyrant, I'm beginning to think Eldo is a CTL*))) [size=85:1dsamtf3](((*Closet Tolkien Liberal)))[/size:1dsamtf3]
Yes, clearly, only a "liberal" would think that the highest grossing film trilogy of all time was very popular among movie-goers. :roll:
The equation is simple Eldo. Lotr films. Are they good versions of LotR the book? Answer no. Therefore they are bad films. I fail to see how they can both be bad adaptations and good films. If you are adapting a written work then the criteria to be judged on is the success of that adaptation. These films fail so are bad. Simple and above all pure!
I had a response written about, but I'm just going to use a quote from an essay I wrote because I think it was better written. [quote:jwgfvv2k]Additionally, being a purist does not mean thinking the films are horrible. Personally, I thin the films did a poor job of staying faithful to the book through the process of adaptation (thus failing in that regard, though they could have been far worse), but I also think that all in all they are entertaining pieces of cinema. I stand in awe of the time and effort put in by the entire crew, by the level of artistry in the props and sets, the breathtaking locations, and the beautiful music. In my subjective opinion, PJ’s The Lord of the Rings has everything necessary to be considered great movies, even if I find flaws in them unrelated to adaptation. This has led to something of a mantra for me: great films, poor adaptations. I love watching these films, and have seen them more than any others except the original Star Wars trilogy (and that only because Star Wars has a six or seven year head start), but I can not help but be irked by the fact that they claim to be a version of The Lord of the Rings after all the disregard for the book shown by the filmmakers in many instances. I will not let the title of the films stand in the way of appreciating their artistic and entertainment value, however.[/quote:jwgfvv2k] In short, I think that being faithful and being entertaining are two different things with different requirements for each. Just because the films failed at one doesn't mean they automatically failed at the other and I have no problem watching the films and enjoying the good even while disliking the bad.
"I stand in awe of the time and effort put in by the entire crew, by the level of artistry in the props and sets, the breathtaking locations, and the beautiful music." I'm with you on that Eldo (well I have a few quibbles over some locations-the Shire, Rohan, Dead Marshes- but aside from that I'm with you). But I don't think appreciating the effort should automatically equate to admiring the end product. And surely the single aim of a film adapted from a book is to adapt the book? If he just wanted to make an entertaining fantasy film he could have written his own. But he didn't he choose to adapt LotR and on that choice he should be judged. "everything necessary to be considered great movies"- I'm not sure what this everything is. Their internal plot doesn't make sense in several places (Osgiliath to name one), they are full of moments of nonsense (mainly do with Legolas but not exclusively), actors are wasted in it (Viggo throughout RotK for instance) and they display a lack of knowledge of their subject matter (the potential list here is too long!) And some of it is out and out badly filmed (warg scene anyone?). Not things I would consider ideal for 'greatness' in a film. "I love watching these films"- how much of that is because they are films of LotR? As I said above we Tolkien fans are suckers for anything Tolkien related. And the honest wish for these to be good films is strong, (even in me or I wouldn't have gone to the ludicrous extremes of reediting them into something more palatable) but are you sure you are not forgiving more than you would other films [i:32unfsrn]because[/i:32unfsrn] its LotR?
[quote="pettytyrant101":mi77zlhv]And surely the single aim of a film adapted from a book is to adapt the book?[/quote:mi77zlhv] I think the aim is - or should be - both to be faithful and to make an entertaining film. That's why there sometimes have to be changes made from the original so that the story flows better onscreen (though PJ used this excuse far beyond it's sell-by date). [quote:mi77zlhv]I'm not sure what this everything is.... Not things I would consider ideal for 'greatness' in a film.[/quote:mi77zlhv] No, the parts you mention are not "great", but there are other parts that I do consider great. That was sort of my point - though there is both good and bad, I am still able to enjoy the good. I think the amount of bad prevents them from being the best films I've ever seen, but I still think they're great (though that label is vague to the point of meaninglessness). [quote:mi77zlhv]how much of that is because they are films of LotR? but are you sure you are not forgiving more than you would other films [i:mi77zlhv]because[/i:mi77zlhv] its LotR?[/quote:mi77zlhv] I honestly can't say. I do tend to be [i:mi77zlhv]more[/i:mi77zlhv] critical of the decisions made regarding adaptation than I am with other movies, but I really don't know how much I would have enjoyed watching the films if I hadn't read the books first. Any answer I gave would be pure guesswork.
"I think the amount of bad prevents them from being the best films I've ever seen" :lol: We are actually very close to being in agreement here! Only difference is I would say "I think the amount of bad prevents them from being good films." So close and yet so far!
I think a lot of it comes down to personal taste. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
[quote="pettytyrant101":3fgyd4ko]a desire that is forgiving of the many flaws, more so I think than you would be were it any other film but that of LotR.[/quote:3fgyd4ko] I'm not so sure about that. Compared to another certain fantasy story that I loved when I read the books, is Harry Potter. I can honestly say that I am not forgiving the flaws in those films simply because it is Harry Potter (In fact, I don't forgive them at all :P ) With LotR, I do forgive the flaws because I think that there were so many great parts that outweigh the bad ones. The music, the locations, most of the scenes, Boromir, Sam, Gandalf and much more, I thought they were all great, [i:3fgyd4ko]despite[/i:3fgyd4ko] the lack of faithfulness to the original events that took place in the book. I say events though, because I think that the story of the book is easily recognisable in the films, even if lots of the events that took place in the films weren't in the books.
Liberals! There should be some sort of spray! :twisted:
[img:24xaylt0]http://www.mytexastees.com/Images/liberal_repellent_200tile.png[/img:24xaylt0] Not a spray, but looks effective enough :lol:
(((Mr Tyrant, if we managed to ban CFC's, surely we could get rid of CTL's as well!)))
Oh Ringdrotten - is that a Liberal Repellent in your pocket? :oops:
It's very rare for a film to be [i:2io31q61]both[/i:2io31q61] a popular success, and a critical success. The fact that Jackson's films were both extremely popular, and were critically acclaimed by critics (notorious for making Petty look like his sweet Aunt Matilda in their hate for popular films <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ), suggests that Jackson's films were objectively awesome. :P :mrgreen: [b:2io31q61]GB[/b:2io31q61]
No, I'm just happy to - Oh wait, your friend, Odo, wants to keep this forum respectable! :lol:
Well, he's actually my Uncle. You are, of course, quite new here! And, yes Respectability is Paramount on this Forum (with some), so if you don't mind, please keep your inuendos to yourself in future. That is: No More Sauce, Ringdrotten! :x Mind, I do offer something of an apology. I see now that what I said could be construed by the crude minded as a little [i:1x60hcn7]blue[/i:1x60hcn7]. On consideration, I should have said: "Is that Liberal Repellent small enough to put in your pocket?" <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> No hard feelings, though. (Men do have crude minds mostly - Uncle Odo is an exception, of course).
You'll need to carry it, I'm afraid, as it is too big to fit in a pocket :lol:
I don't want something like that in my hand! (What if GB knew I had it? Imagine the strain on our relationship! :shock: )
Goings back a page or two, I can't agree with Petty's statement that an unfaithful adaptation of a great book must result in a bad movie. I took a couple of friends to see TTT. It was the second time for me, and I was grumbling all the way to the show about how they had changed the plot and I did NOT like it. Though I never complained about the Helm's deep sequence, that was just too much fun. My friends hadn't seen Fellowship and barely if at all remembered the books. But they loved TTT, declaring it the best movie they had ever seen, casting aspersions on my abilities as a movie critic. I was blinded by my TP (tolkien purism). In the extended version appendices they explained nearly all the changes, many of which I eventually and grudgingly forgave them for. (Never explained Denethor and have yet to forgive them for that travesty). They had good film-making reasons for most of the changes. The writer of the original article pointed out that you can't narrate a whole movie from the main character's perspective, only to have him MIA during the climax. I doubt they'll turn him into a warrior, most likely have him hiding behind a rock with bird's eye view, poking goblins in the face with his walking stick as they stumble upon him. Then he'll do something small but pivotal in a heroic way, like fetching out a CTL atomizer at a key moment and running it over to Balin in the nick of time.
Aha! I am conflicted. Part of me is ecstatic to have you back, Halfwise <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> - the other part (the Pure part in fact) must without fear or favor umask you as the worst of kind of Tolkien Fan: the Tolken Traitor!!! :x
[quote="halfwise":2borxuvn] In the extended version appendices they explained nearly all the changes, many of which I eventually and grudgingly forgave them for. (Never explained Denethor and have yet to forgive them for that travesty). They had good film-making reasons for most of the changes.[/quote:2borxuvn] Hear, hear! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
errmmm... when I said [i:21vav1au]Tolkien Traitor[/i:21vav1au], I meant, [i:21vav1au]Tolkien-Fans-with-Points-of-Views-not-Necessarily-Always-the-same-as-the-ones-I-have[/i:21vav1au]*! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> *The "TFWPOVNNATSATOIH" as I call them (though, you have to admit, [i:21vav1au]Tolkien Traitors[/i:21vav1au] is simpler! :lol: )
  [1] [2] >>