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]
I think we will have to agree to disagree here Half-wise (nice to hear from you again!). I too have listned to the 'excuses' on the extended version and did not conclude the changes were justified by the reasoning. I can understand their arguement for example regarding the changes to Faramir but they are still wrong if only because (as I've said elsewhere) those changes show a lack of understanding of the nature of the Ring (which should be fundemental). Nor are their any reasonable excuses for changes to other characters such as Denethor which you mention, or for simply ramping up the silliness (almost anything connected to Legolas). So I stand by my comments- just because they provide reasons doesn't mean they are right! I prefer Tolkiens reasons, he at least spent a lifetime working them out.
[quote="pettytyrant101":317knm0j]So I stand by my comments- just because they provide reasons doesn't mean they are right! I prefer Tolkiens reasons, he at least spent a lifetime working them out.[/quote:317knm0j] Sometimes I agree with halfwise that they had valid reasons, and sometimes I agree with petty that they didn't. However, I think most of the excuses in the EE features were poor, probably because they were mainly dealing with the most controversial (and thus hard to defend) changes rather than the obvious ones. The one (partial) exception to this that comes to mind is splicing together the broad Frodo and Aragorn stories in the second two films. Tolkien said he didn't like the idea, but frankly, a film that follows the story of Book III to conclusion and then starts the story of Book IV right in the middle wouldn't work as a single piece (and it would have to, moreso than the book TTT, which only existed because the publisher insisted on printing in three volumes). However, I wouldn't have made it quite so "chronological" - I think that ending TTT with Shadowfax galloping into the night and the under-gates of Cirith Ungol clashing shut shut ("Frodo was alive, but taken by the enemy"Wink Smilie would have been [i:317knm0j]amazing[/i:317knm0j] cinematic moments and a much more exciting (and suspenseful) end to the movie than the long, meandering coda we got (though that wasn't [i:317knm0j]bad[/i:317knm0j]).
Oddly enough Eldo when I reedited the films my first attempt at it followed the book structure. I grouped the '3 hunter' stuff together all the way through to Gandalf leaving for Minas Tirith with Pippin. This took up 2hrs.15 mins of a 3 hour edit. The Frodo/Sam/Gollum story took up the last 45 minutes (including Shelob's Lair and Frodo's capture buit minus all the Osgiliath nonsense). It sort of worked. The cuts between scenes in the Frodo bit were often rougher than I would like as they were not shot with a mind to them sitting next to each other. But by far the biggest problem was by the time you'd watched to the end of the Aragorn story line and it switches to Frodo, at 2hrs 12 you feel like youve just watched a whole film. So I can understand their decision to cut between. The up side to following Tolkiens version is the ending of TT is more dramatic and the Mouth of Sauron scene works perfectly in RotK. My second edit I went back to intercutting, at it works better as film. However I still enjoy watching the seperate version, I just do it in two sittings.
[quote="pettytyrant101":21e8mqgz]My second edit I went back to intercutting, at it works better as film. However I still enjoy watching the seperate version, I just do it in two sittings.[/quote:21e8mqgz] That makes sense to me. Had the film-makers made four or six films I would very much hope that they kept the storylines separate, but since they only had three (and, in theatres at least, you can't expect the audience to watch the film in two sittings) I think they made the right decision. I would still prefer it if they had left the ROTK book material in the ROTK movie, even if with intercutting.
They obviously won't have to intercut scenes very much in The Hobbit - and it will benefit from being a brisker story full of action. But Bilbo the Brave. I don't see it as necessary. The battle should be brilliant - so what if Bilbo is unconscious? There are Elves and Dwarves and Goblins and Wargs (Wolves not Hyenas, pleeeeease!!!) and Bats (as cloud-cover) and Beorn and Gandalf. Tolkien describes the battle well - Bilbo's "heroism" is unneccessary. Bilbo being shot occasionally in his unconscious state, might even be a humorous touch amongst the tension and excitement of the battle. Sometimes I wish films would break with formulas anyhow. Does the phrase "cutting edge" mean anything except in CGI terms? Bilbo works because he is a "different" kind of hero - a "Grocer" as opposed to a "warrior." The strength of Bilbo is that his heroism is the kind of heroism we can imagine REAL people, average people, showing. Bilbo grows up during the book, but he never becomes a Hero, as such. That's the[i:1i8e9a3i] point [/i:1i8e9a3i]of him.
"They obviously won't have to intercut scenes very much in The Hobbit - and it will benefit from being a brisker story full of action."- Odo. I fear you have forgotten (or wiped from your mind) the WC. I fear there will indeed be much intercutting. Your final point about Bilbo however could not be more on the mark if you'd used targeting lasers. Absolutely spot on. Sadly I don't think PJ and the Coven are listening.
[quote="pettytyrant101":3ucjqtrd]I fear you have forgotten (or wiped from your mind) the WC. I fear there will indeed be much intercutting.[/quote:3ucjqtrd] Popularity demands the WC MUST be in the movies by all accounts! :ugeek: [quote="pettytyrant101":3ucjqtrd]Your final point about Bilbo however could not be more on the mark if you'd used targeting lasers. Absolutely spot on. Sadly I don't think PJ and the Coven are listening.[/quote:3ucjqtrd] No, they wouldn't be. Apparently, in regard to TH:- "movie adaptation" means "movie-based-on-an-original-idea-if-only-loosely-or-vaguely." :geek: We'll have a brave Bilbo, a White Council - and probably some newly invented characters or creatures - and no songs, or talking spiders, or jolly Elves... But there will be plenty of play on The Hobbit Movie being based on The Hobbit Book. Made for Fans - but ALSO for the Broader Masses (once everything that makes the book a classic has been removed or sanitized). Hey! The Hobbit as Pulp. Brilliant! :ugeek:
It suggests they were incredibly popular. There's no such thing as "objectively awesome" when it comes to movies because what people value in good movies varies so much. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
On Odo's point about Bilbo, with it being the anniversary of the Battle of Britain, there's been interviews with the surviving pilots (one of them was 19 at the time). And what comes through quite clearly is that not one of them thought of themselves as heroes during that period (and there is no false modesty in that) because at the time they just had to get on with doing it. You didn't think about it, you did it, what courage you had came out then. It was to me very reminiscent of Sam's speech about heroes in tales to Frodo and of Bilbo's life story. Jackson used footage of WW1 to inspire him when making LotR perhaps he should listen to these men to understand what kind of hero Bilbo is. He is not a warrior he is an ordinary hobbit in extraordinary circumstances, just as those pilots were. It is the courage and bravery that comes out that you never knew you had until the moment its demanded of you, its not fighting an army or slaying dragons, if it were the hero of the book would be Bard and Thorin would have lived and stood victorious in gold at the end. Besides the Battle of Five Armies is a stupid battle. If there is such a thing as a just war this is not it. The fight is over greed, old grudges, bureaucracy and history. No one is fighting for a good clean moral cause here unlike say the Pelennor. Bilbo takes no sides in the fight, he makes a new better way that helps resolve the issues. To have him actively participating puts him on morally suspicious ground.
[quote="Eldorion":1xr5cwkx]It suggests they were incredibly popular. There's no such thing as "objectively awesome" when it comes to movies because what people value in good movies varies so much. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />[/quote:1xr5cwkx] Don't be such a Literalist Eldo :P :roll: . I was just making the point that most film critics HATE popular movies; thus, their unabashed support of Jackson's films suggests that they were a superior product all the way around. By the way Petty, your points regarding Bilbo and Heroism are very astute. :ugeek: [b:1xr5cwkx]GB[/b:1xr5cwkx]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":245a7qwo]I was just making the point that most film critics HATE popular movies; thus, their unabashed support of Jackson's films suggests that they were a superior product all the way around.[/quote:245a7qwo] SOME popular movies receive critical scorn. The second Transformers movie is a good example. Others (such as the original Star Wars (especially the originals), Titanic, Harry Potter, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Inception, and others have been very well-received. I don't think there's any particular correlation between popular reception and critical reception. Not every critic is Armond White. In any event, it still doesn't have any bearing on quality, merely popularity and marketability. Just because large numbers of people like something doesn't mean it's good (Twilight is popular and has received some good reviews). Now, I do think PJ's movies were good, but I think so because I enjoyed them and they had a lot of high quality work (not so much for the script, maybe, but for other parts) - not because other people enjoyed them.
  << [1] [2]