Re: The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:13 pm

it's not Bilbo's quest. And Thorin is the leader - not Bilbo. And Gandalf is their advisor - not Bilbo.- BN

It is not his quest, but it is most definitely his story in the book. And book Bilbo becomes the leader, that is the whole point of his arc, he becomes leader through no ambition, desire or plotting to do so, but as a consequences of his inherent decentness and of his actions to others. In the book Gandalf is just more mysterious, his motivations are wizardly and unknown.

'You obviously haven't played many video games.'

The reaction that it looks like a video game does not refer to how many pixels they can throw around, or how many characters they can get onscreen or how many particle effects they can render at once. Obviously they can do a lot more in a prerendered sequence than any current game can achieve in looks in real time.
But it doesnt stop the film having a video game look and feel- skin is to shiny and plastic, there is an uncanny valley effect on cgi characters, colours are unnatural, and body movement often too.
All of which fails to fool the eye at all turns and creates the sense of watching something wholly artificial- like a video game.

'This post of yours actually sounds as if you're afraid, that someone would like the trailer and actually get interested in the movie'

Not even a little. Its a reflection on reaction to previous trailers, in particular the AUJ trailer, which was well edited and put together even though the film still sucked.
Although I would feel sorry for anyone drawn in by a false promotion or trailer, but this is their job, to present the film in the best possible light by cherrypicking moments.

'the film adaptation manages brillantly to show us Bilbo going from being reluctant and homesick to being brave and energetic.'

Shame then it all happens in film 1 and leaves the story nowhere to go, and also utterly undermines the book character arc whilst its about it and replaces it with nothing.

'The point is, that he wouldn't have been on this journey, if it had not been for Gandalf and the dwarves.'

Not true in film. In the book he does not go out of choice but is shoved out his front door by Gandalf. In the film he chooses to follow the dwarves and join the company out of an act of free will. This is a significant change to his personality right at the start.

'the Hobbit films show us "Bilbo saving the day" several times:'

But to what purpose, they are just things that happen. In the book each event carefully progresses Bilbo's character.develops him further and moves him closer to being the leader of the group.
In the film this never happens, he does things, but nothing comes of it. Thorin is still acting and seen as the leader by the other dwarves when they get to Erebor in film.

'and drink Red Bull'

Try putting some buckie in it, then you can talk drunken

by BN.filmz Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:20 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:it is most definitely his story in the book.

... and in the movies.

And book Bilbo becomes the leader, that is the whole point of his arc, he becomes leader through no ambition, desire or plotting to do so, but as a consequences of his inherent decentness and of his actions to others.

Since Thorin is the heir of the throne of Erebor and Bilbo remains the "ordinary" guy and just goes home after his adventures, I don't really see the point of this "Bilbo becomes leader" stuff, so I'm glad, that Peter Jackson make it a theme in his adaptation.

Obviously they can do a lot more in a prerendered sequence than any current game can achieve in looks in real time. But it doesnt stop the film having a video game look and feel- skin is to shiny and plastic, there is an uncanny valley effect on cgi characters, colours are unnatural, and body movement often too.
All of which fails to fool the eye at all turns and creates the sense of watching something wholly artificial- like a video game.

Let's agree to disagree here - I think, it looks fantastic and very convincing. And besides that, in my opinion bad special effects can't ruin a good film. Some of old classics contain scenes with very, very, VERY obvious background projection, and while a lot of the scenes in Hitchcock's film 'The Birds' are very convincing, others are definitely less convincing, though acceptable.

Shame then it all happens in film 1 and leaves the story nowhere to go, and also utterly undermines the book character arc whilst its about it and replaces it with nothing.

Film 1 only has Bilbo's first two heroic acts - in both cases he's nervous, a bit awkward and unsure of himself. It's not until film 2 that he really is determined and sure of himself (in the spider scene). It's 1 story in 3 movies, you know.

'The point is, that he wouldn't have been on this journey, if it had not been for Gandalf and the dwarves.'

Not true in film. In the book he does not go out of choice but is shoved out his front door by Gandalf. In the film he chooses to follow the dwarves and join the company out of an act of free will. This is a significant change to his personality right at the start.

Now you're just splitting hairs. In the film he's metaphorically speaking being "shoved out his front door by Gandalf" - they've spend a whole evening in his home talking about their quest, Gandalf has given him a lecture and appealed to his adventurous spirit, and they have left the contract on his table. Gandalf has definitely being manipulating him, which is kind of the same as "shoving" him out of the door.

And furthermore: You say, that "In the book he does not go out of choice". That's not true. Gandalf does shove him literally, but he doesn't force him. He doesn't threaten him to continue from that point on. It's Bilbo who has to take the next steps, not Gandalf. And Bilbo chooses to continue, doesn't he? Wink

'the Hobbit films show us "Bilbo saving the day" several times:'

But to what purpose, they are just things that happen. In the book each event carefully progresses Bilbo's character.develops him further

To what purpose? He is learning about the world outside, he becomes experienced, he becomes brave and adventurous. In order words: His character is progressing.

As Gandalf says in film 1: "The world is not in your books and maps. It's out there." And also Gandalf's other line: "And if you do [get back], you wont be the same."

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:49 pm

and in the movies.- BN

I would disagree. Whilst doing the purist edits I have taken from a running time of just over 6 hours, 3 and half hours of material which has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development.
Thats more than half the entire running time. I dont see how a character who is only directly involved in less than half the films can justifiably be the main character.

'Since Thorin is the heir of the throne of Erebor and Bilbo remains the "ordinary" guy and just goes home after his adventures, I don't really see the point of this Bilbo becomes leader stuff'

The point is its the authors point. Bilbo's entire character from the book is gone from the moment he choose to leave himself.
To ask what is the point is to ask what is the point of adapting the book if you have no intention off keeping to the characters and their arcs?
You seem not to enjoy the book, thats a shame, but for those of us who do, and who prefer Tolkiens thoughtful, well constructed character development PJ has made an utter mess of Bilbo's in the film.

'It's 1 story in 3 movies, you know.'

Its 1 story bloated and stretched into 3 movies, you know.
And there is a massive difference in how Tolkien lays out Bilbos development between Shire and Elven Kings Halls and PJ.
In the book each event Bilbo grows in courage and self assurance, culminating in his first kill coming with the spiders, and his full acceptance by all the dwarves except Thorin, which he finally gets after the rescue from the Elven King Halls.
In the films Bilbo has killed more than once and saved Thorins life before they get to Beorn. And nothing Bilbo does after that point has any further development consequences for his character or his relationship with the dwarves.

'Now you're just splitting hairs.'

No its a fundamental change to Bilbo, one they continue at the troll scene so its not an accident.
Film Bilbo chooses to go on an adventure, he even says so as he leaves.
Book Bilbo is shoved trying to protest out of his front door by Gandalf.
At the start of the book Bilbo is very much the Baggins. He needs the nudge out the door before the Took side awakens. And it takes a while to emerge, all the way to the trolls he is miserable and homesick. The dwarves view him as annoying baggage and he has no respect and no idea what he is really doing there in the first place, heis wet, cold and hungry, and when he discovers the trolsl he uses it as an opportunity to prove himself to the dwarves, and fails.
Film Bilbo has the Took awoken before he leaves, chooses to go, and at the trolls is proactive in stalling them and confident in confronting them and succeeds.
So its not a nitpick its a fundamental shift in how they are portraying Bilbo that continues throughout the first film as they accelerate his arc to get to hugging Thorin by films end.

'He is learning about the world outside, he becomes experienced, he becomes brave and adventurous. In order words: His character is progressing.'

Thats not character progression its just things happening. There is a difference.
In the book each of the scenarios Bilbo finds himself in in some way adds to or expands his character, but to a purpose, to a goal, the goal being that despite just being a hobbit, it is his inherent sense of right and wrong, his basic decency and his hobbit good sense that are stronger than all the oaths of the dwarves.
For all Thorin's importance, prominence, and respect, he is not a good leader in the book. He is too arrogant, to proud and to narrowly focused.
What happens to Bilbo in the book is all preparing him and laying the ground work for him gaining the respect of the others by the time they reach the mountain and so gaining a greater understanding that allows him to see a potential solution that even though it betrays Thorin, he is now capable of carrying out because he has come into his own.

In the film Bilbo does things, and things happen to him, but its going nowhere. Its not serving any narrative purpose any more because of the changes they have made to the story. The Bilbo/Thorin arc they sewed up at the end of film 1 as far as the book was concerned. And they never had him needing to gain the trust and respect of the rest of the dwarves at all, and he never emerges as the defacto leader of the group as a result of his actions. He is just there in the films shorn of character development and purpose.

by Eldorion Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:21 pm

And furthermore: You say, that "In the book he does not go out of choice". That's not true. Gandalf does shove him literally, but he doesn't force him. He doesn't threaten him to continue from that point on. It's Bilbo who has to take the next steps, not Gandalf. And Bilbo chooses to continue, doesn't he?

I don't think Petty is arguing that Bilbo was forced to go on the quest at knife-point or anything. Wink

But if you look at the events in the first several chapters of the book, he feels forced into everything because of his inability to say no to anyone (which boils down largely to an ingrained Hobbit-y sense of politeness, but might also be because of a latent Tookish desire for the unusual). Bilbo only invites Gandalf to tea because he can't bring himself to say "go away and don't come back"; he's unable to stand up for himself when the Dwarves start showing up at his house; and he goes on the adventure more because he's expected to by everyone around him at that moment. A big part of Bilbo's growth throughout the story is his learning to stand up for himself.

In the movie, the Tookish desire for adventure is not so much latent as just barely repressed, and Bilbo has embraced it by the morning after the party (though of course he second-guesses his decision later on). He still grows and changes over the course of the first movie, but here the main internal conflict isn't over whether or not he made a mistake by going on an adventure, but whether or not he can hold his own as a fighter alongside the dwarves (his sense of insecurity about this being the main reason he tries to leave the company in the mountains). And the climax of this character arc (at the end of AUJ) is Bilbo proving himself to be as good a fighter as most of the other Dwarves.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:29 pm

A big part of Bilbo's growth throughout the story is his learning to stand up for himself.- Eldo

exactly and its planned and structured throughout each encounter.
At the trolls he tries to stand up for himself for the first time and gets caught, and gets everyone else caught too. And they all need rescuing by Gandalf.
In the goblin caves they get caught again and all need rescuing- but this time Bilbo gets left behind and is forced to stand on his own two feet, which he does in his encounter with Gollum.
At the spiders Gandalf is gone and everyone except Bilbo gets captured, he rescues the others and gains the trust of the dwarves bar Thorin.
Then in the elven king halls the dwarves are again all captured and Bilbo not only rescues them but devises and carries out the escape plan.

There is a consistent progression of events that help Bilbo stand on his own two feet more and more until he is capable of the final acts he carries out at the mountain. And it also informs his relationship with the dwarves, from the starting position of know one wanting him, to the end position of turning to him first for ideas.

by BN.filmz Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:20 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:and in the movies.- BN

I would disagree. Whilst doing the purist edits I have taken from a running time of just over 6 hours, 3 and half hours of material which has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development.
Thats more than half the entire running time. I dont see how a character who is only directly involved in less than half the films can justifiably be the main character.

So here you're getting an expert opinion from yourself? ... Sorry, but I have to: slap laugh

I don't care about edits of the films. I consider "fan edits" (meaning: edits made by fans of Tolkien) to be unauthorized works by fanatics. I know, that such a statement won't make me popular - but it's important for me to be completely honest and speak my mind.

That's all I have to say about "fan edits" and "purist edits" and whatever they're called.

Bilbo's entire character from the book is gone from the moment he choose to leave himself.

No, it's not. That's just your interpretation, and it's nothing but an over-interpretation.

The book is depicting Bilbo as reluctant and prudent and as someone who is very much a homebody. And it's no different in PJ's adaptation. His reluctance is shown in the first scene with him and Gandalf. It's evident in the scenes inside, when he assures the dwarves that he is no burglar, and even more so in the scene, where Gandalf once more speaks with him in private and lectures him.

The keyword here is "reluctance", and even YOU will have to admit, that it's not only book Bilbo that shows this characteristic - film Bilbo also does. His reluctance is present in both versions of the story - it's really just a question of how his reluctance is expressed. Since book Bilbo doesn't go back inside his house after being shoved by Gandalf, he DOES choose to go on an adventure.

You seem not to enjoy the book, thats a shame, but for those of us who do, and who prefer Tolkiens thoughtful, well constructed character development

I do enjoy the book. Believe it or not, it is in fact possible to enjoy a book, that has certain flaws, just like it's possible to enjoy a film, that has flaws.

In the book each event Bilbo grows in courage and self assurance, culminating in his first kill coming with the spiders, and his full acceptance by all the dwarves except Thorin, which he finally gets after the rescue from the Elven King Halls. In the films Bilbo has killed more than once and saved Thorins life before they get to Beorn. And nothing Bilbo does after that point has any further development consequences for his character or his relationship with the dwarves. .................... In the film Bilbo does things, and things happen to him, but its going nowhere. Its not serving any narrative purpose any more because of the changes they have made to the story. The Bilbo/Thorin arc they sewed up at the end of film 1 as far as the book was concerned. And they never had him needing to gain the trust and respect of the rest of the dwarves at all ...

According to you an adaptation can only be faithful, if everything happens exactly the same way and in the same order as in the book. But that's simply not true. As long as an adaptation has the same themes, it doesn't matter if some of the details are changed.

The Bilbo/Thorin arc is about a trust that is gained, lost again and then - ultimately - regained ... It's gained in film 1, it's both confirmed and put to the test in film 2, and it's lost and regained in film 3. In other words: this plotline has a natural flow.

Film Bilbo has the Took awoken before he leaves, chooses to go, and at the trolls is proactive in stalling them and confident in confronting them and succeeds.
So its not a nitpick its a fundamental shift in how they are portraying Bilbo that continues throughout the first film as they accelerate his arc to get to hugging Thorin by films end.

The film is a vast improvement of the story. But it's not true, that Bilbo is "confident in confronting them [the trolls]". He doesn't know what to do, so he tries to improvise, but fails and gets caught by the trolls. The dwarves save him, but they're get caught themselves, because the trolls uses him as hostage. (By this point the dwarves only lay down their weapons, because Bilbo is Gandalf's friend and because they consider him to be a poor, pitiful and helpless guy.) Once again Bilbo tries to improvise, and he does it in the same hesitant, fumbling manner as before. This time he has more luck, but the leader of the trolls sees through his trick, so actually it's Gandalf who ends up saving them. What Bilbo did, helped, but most of the credit goes to Gandalf.

In other words: You're not retelling the film's plot correctly.

'He is learning about the world outside, he becomes experienced, he becomes brave and adventurous. In order words: His character is progressing.'

Thats not character progression its just things happening.

Excuse me, but what planet are you from? People learn from experience. Life is the best teacher there is. Life changes you, Your experiences - the good ones and the bad ones - change you; they shape your personality.

For all Thorin's importance, prominence, and respect, he is not a good leader in the book. He is too arrogant, to proud and to narrowly focused.

What happens to Bilbo in the book is all preparing him and laying the ground work for him gaining the respect of the others by the time they reach the mountain and so gaining a greater understanding that allows him to see a potential solution that even though it betrays Thorin, he is now capable of carrying out because he has come into his own.

The same things happen in the third film. (And concerning Bilbo gaining the respect of the others: The main trailer shows us, that even Dwalin who up to now has been doubting Bilbo, tells Thorin, that Bilbo is right.)

by bungobaggins Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:25 pm

So many great moments from the book that would have been great on film. Gandalf literally hurrying Bilbo out the door. Bilbo reassuring the dwarves, "I will do the stinging!" Could have been a great little comedic moment from Martin Freeman.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:41 pm

I don't care about edits of the films.- BN

Your opinion of edit is not relevant to the point being made- that over half the films running time does not concern or effect or alter the supposed main character, or even involve them at all.

'And it's no different in PJ's adaptation.'

So Bilbo being pushed out his door, cut off by Gandalf every time he tries to protest and going along with the dwarves out of a sense of good manners, peer pressure and a lurking Tookishness deep down is the same as Bilbo choosing to leave shouting "I'm going on an adventure" to all and sundry and joining up himself?

I honestly dont see how they can be.

'According to you an adaptation can only be faithful, if everything happens exactly the same way and in the same order as in the book'

No I am not,. But I am saying if you are adapting a book its a good idea to preserve the character and the arc they go on with the other characters. Modify it, adjust for format of course, but to throw it out and replace it with nothing of consequence is just poor writing.
Its taking something good and replacing it with something poorer.

'The Bilbo/Thorin arc is about a trust that is gained, lost again and then - ultimately - regained'

No its not about Thorin at all save as someone to show as an opposite to Bilbo. Th book its all about Bilbo, and his coming into his own.
This cant happen in the film because of the drastic changes made to Thorins character. And to the way the relationship between Bilbo and the dwarves develops, which in the book should already be at the point where the dwarves turn to him not Thorin.
And film Bilbo has not eared the position in the ay book Bilbo has by this point.

The pendulum swinging in the film- trust/dont trust/trust is a product of the messy character scripting in the films resulting from the rushed change to three films necessitating the clumsy ending to AUJ.

'The film is a vast improvement of the story'

The film is a vast destruction of the story and characters.

'He doesn't know what to do, so he tries to improvise, but fails and gets caught by the trolls'

He talks confidently to the trolls, he confidently stalls them, does the whole misplaced parasite stand up comedy routine, and he stalls for time after seeing Gandalf is about and after hearing the trolls talk about turning to stone.
He is proactive, especially in comparison to the book where the whole point is that they all need rescuing. Precisely because Bilbo has not come into his own again.
And typical of Tolkien there is another message here- the attempt to impress at the trolls ends in failure because Bilbo was trying to impress, to prove himself.
All the later instances where he does prove himself he is not trying to, or to show of, or even to prove something to himself, he succeeds because he acts on his own instincts and trusts in himself.
Contrast Bilbo's approach to the all important Thorin in book and his failure as a leader.

And I'm sorry but I feel that these themes are important and that it is the job of an adapter to tease these themes out for the new medium. Not to stomp all over them.

by azriel Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:49 pm

by azriel Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:53 pm

by BN.filmz Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:54 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ithe point being made- that over half the films running time does not concern or effect or alter the supposed main character, or even involve them at all.

That's just an opinion (your opinion) - not a fact. And using yourself and your edit as an expert opinion still doesn't make it a fact.

So Bilbo being ... cut off by Gandalf every time he tries to protest and going along with the dwarves ..... peer pressure and a lurking Tookishness deep down is the same as Bilbo choosing to leave shouting "I'm going on an adventure" to all and sundry and joining up himself?

Yes, because the same things - "being ... cut off by Gandalf every time he tries to protest and going along with the dwarves ..... peer pressure and a lurking Tookishness deep down" - happen in the film. They just happen BEFORE dawn. ... And all the efforts Gandalf has made to persuade Bilbo can easily be described as shoving him out the door.

The pendulum swinging in the film- trust/dont trust/trust is a product of the messy character scripting in the films resulting from the rushed change to three films necessitating the clumsy ending to AUJ.

It works perfect. You only see it as a problem, because "It's not in the book."

He talks confidently to the trolls, he confidently stalls them

No, he is insecure. He fumbles. He improvises and fails. Then he improvises again and almost succeeds (two of the trolls don't want to eat the dwarves anymore), but the leader of the trolls sees through him. Bilbo is nervous and fumbling throughout this scene as opposed to the spider scene, where he is very selfconfident and determined.

All the later instances where he does prove himself he is not trying to, or to show of, or even to prove something to himself, he succeeds because he acts on his own instincts and trusts in himself.

Just like in the films. The first of these "later instances" just happens sooner.

PJ's version is the best one. Tolkien's version is one-sided and somewhat monotous. Aside from Bilbo and Thorin the book lacks character development, and the development of Thorin's character is too simplistic. In the film Thorin is a more nuanced person. Also in this respect, it is often all too clear that it is a children's book. By making 'The Hobbit' a prequel to LOTR and including the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings and by using Tolkien's own basic idea about making 'The Hobbit' into a narrative intended for an adult audience, PJ, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens has managed to put more feelings, more depth and background and more character development into the story. That means, that it's easier to relate to Balin, Dwalin, Kili and Fili, and that the dwarves no longer appear as a homogeneous (anonymous) group.

by Mrs Figg Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:02 pm

BN.filmz wrote:

The film pretty much ignores all of this in favour of Thorin as pseudo-Aragorn.

The movie version of Thorin is very different from Aragorn. Thorin is grumpy, stubborn and greedy, and he isn't willing to share with men and elves. Aragorn isn't like that, neither in PJ's trilogy, nor in the books. So it makes no sense calling him "pseudo-Aragorn". It's an unfounded statement.
.

No its not unfounded. lets get our facts straight here, when we first meet the two characters;

Aragorn. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances. Thorin. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances.

Aragorn. Noble once and future king type. Thorin. Noble once and future king type

Aragorn. On a Quest. Thorin. On a Quest.

Aragorn heartthrob with big famous sword. Thorin. hearthrob with big famous sword. Saucy Wink

I rest my case milud.

by Eldorion Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:09 pm

Am I missing something, or where is Petty making himself out to be an expert, as opposed to someone who has spent a lot of time looking at the film and happens to have easy access to running times thanks to his editing software. You can dispute Petty ' s definition of what affects Bilbo, but accusing him of making an appeal to authority fallacy seems pretty baseless.

by Mrs Figg Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:33 pm

BN.filmz wrote:
Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ithe point being made- that over half the films running time does not concern or effect or alter the supposed main character, or even involve them at all.

That's just an opinion (your opinion) - not a fact. And using yourself and your edit as an expert opinion still doesn't make it a fact.

thats quite a rude and incorrect statement.

So Bilbo being ... cut off by Gandalf every time he tries to protest and going along with the dwarves ..... peer pressure and a lurking Tookishness deep down is the same as Bilbo choosing to leave shouting "I'm going on an adventure" to all and sundry and joining up himself?

Yes, because the same things - "being ... cut off by Gandalf every time he tries to protest and going along with the dwarves ..... peer pressure and a lurking Tookishness deep down" - happen in the film. They just happen BEFORE dawn. ... And all the efforts Gandalf has made to persuade Bilbo can easily be described as shoving him out the door.

Its NOT the same thing at all. In the film we dont get any sense of Bilbos being pushed by Gandalf to actually GO on the adventure, Bilbo didnt decide to go, he was fully expecting NOT to go that morning. Bilbo didnt gleefully run to meet the Dwarves fully equiped with a backpack, he went with nothing. This is a fundamental change to Bilbos character arc. Gandalf was absent in the film, as he was already with the Dwarves and had put a bet on it with Bofur, he was expecting Bilbo whereas book Bilbo had to be forced out of his comfortable existence. This makes his subsequent change in attitude all the more marked.

The pendulum swinging in the film- trust/dont trust/trust is a product of the messy character scripting in the films resulting from the rushed change to three films necessitating the clumsy ending to AUJ.

It works perfect. You only see it as a problem, because "It's not in the book."

nah its just clumsy and doesnt make any sense. Thorin and Bilbo shouldnt start to respect each other until MUCH later, but in the film they just want to get this important part of the story out of the way asap because it gets in the way of that more important cgi spectacle.

All the later instances where he does prove himself he is not trying to, or to show of, or even to prove something to himself, he succeeds because he acts on his own instincts and trusts in himself.

Just like in the films. The first of these "later instances" just happens sooner.

what like the coldblooded Killing of an innocent creature who dare to touch the Ring?

PJ's version is the best one.

by bungobaggins Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:33 am

Watched the trailer on my laptop. I guess it looked better on my phone. The screen was smaller but the possibilities were bigger. I still think the movie looks like it could be pretty good if they stick with a serious tone the whole way through. No dwarf dick jokes, testicle eating, or tales of loose wives, please. PJ, for just once, can you not?!

I'm trying to be positive, because I've had a terrible past couple weeks.

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:10 am

Mrs Figg wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:

The film pretty much ignores all of this in favour of Thorin as pseudo-Aragorn.

The movie version of Thorin is very different from Aragorn. Thorin is grumpy, stubborn and greedy, and he isn't willing to share with men and elves. Aragorn isn't like that, neither in PJ's trilogy, nor in the books. So it makes no sense calling him "pseudo-Aragorn". It's an unfounded statement.
.

No its not unfounded. lets get our facts straight here, when we first meet the two characters;

Aragorn. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances. Thorin. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances.

Aragorn. Noble once and future king type. Thorin. Noble once and future king type

Aragorn. On a Quest. Thorin. On a Quest.

Aragorn heartthrob with big famous sword. Thorin. hearthrob with big famous sword.

I rest my case milud.

Oh, I did not know that your opinion was based on such superficial and irrelevant things. I thought, we were talking about character traits. In other words: things that really defines a person.

Mind you, that everything (which is not so much, after all Very Happy

) in your inadequate and rather bland description of Thorin is taken directly from Tolkien's books. So what you really are saying, is that Tolkien created a pseudo-Aragorn! ..... (But since 'The Hobbit' was written first, it's gotta be Aragorn who is a Pseudo-Thorin.)

Your kind of logic is really strange. Let's try the same thing with Elrond and Thranduil:

Elrond. A leader of elves. His kingdom is set amidst some beautiful natural surroundings. Thranduil. A leader of elves. His kingdom is set amidst some beautiful natural surroundings.

Elrond. A great warrior and commander. Thranduil. A great warrior and commander.

Elrond. He has lived for many, many centuries and has fought side by side with humans. Thranduil. He has lived for centuries and has fought side by side with humans.

Elrond. While he doesn't seem to have a wife anymore, he does have children. Thranduil. While he doesn't seem to have a wife anymore, he does have a child.

So Thranduil is a Pseudo-Elrond.

by halfwise Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:20 am

by bungobaggins Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:41 am

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:17 am

Mrs Figg wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:
Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ithe point being made- that over half the films running time does not concern or effect or alter the supposed main character, or even involve them at all.

That's just an opinion (your opinion) - not a fact. And using yourself and your edit as an expert opinion still doesn't make it a fact.

thats quite a rude and incorrect statement.

Oh, really? cyclops

No, it's the truth.

Pettytyrant101 claims: "I dont see how a character [Bilbo] who is only directly involved in less than half the films can justifiably be the main character."

To prove this claim, he says: "Whilst doing the purist edits I have taken from a running time of just over 6 hours, 3 and half hours of material which has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development. Thats more than half the entire running time."

But exactly WHO says, that the removal of 3 and a half hour "has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development"??

That's just something that Pettytyrant101 himself claims. So he is proving his own claim with another of his claims! slap laugh

.... as if the other claim was a fact, which it isn't. It's just an opinion. Shrugging

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:33 am

Eldorion wrote:where is Petty making himself out to be an expert

Here:

Pettytyrant101 claims: "I dont see how a character [Bilbo] who is only directly involved in less than half the films can justifiably be the main character."

To prove this claim, he says: "Whilst doing the purist edits I have taken from a running time of just over 6 hours, 3 and half hours of material which has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development. Thats more than half the entire running time."

But exactly WHO says, that the removal of 3 and a half hour "has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development"??

That's just something that Pettytyrant101 himself claims. So he is proving his own claim with another of his claims! slap laugh

.... as if the other claim was a fact, which it isn't. It's just an opinion. Shrugging

by Eldorion Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:26 am

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here, but I disagree with your assessment. Petty made a claim about the amount of time in the film that Bilbo had, and then explained how he came to that conclusion. This is reasonable follow-up since many people would assume that the phrase "less than half the film's running time" is just hyperbole that someone made up. Petty is not citing his edits as proof of his claim, he's referring to them as the process by which he came to the conclusion that he is now arguing for.

Harping on the whole "it's an opinion, not a fact" thing doesn't really help your case, since movie debates often boil down to opinion and/or perspective. If you want to rebut Petty's argument, there are a couple of legitimate lines of thought you can pursue. You could, theoretically, re-watch both films and take excruciatingly detailed scene-by-scene notes, and then compare your results to the one Petty obtained through similar methods. However, few people would want to invest that much time in a debate like this, so I don't think anyone can fault you if you take a different approach. Perhaps the best strategy you could use would be to ask Petty to provide a brief summary of what, in his opinion, is and is not related to Bilbo in the films, perhaps using the scene listing as an outline. Or you could ask him to clarify what exactly counts as having an effect on Bilbo's story, since it's likely that the two of you have different standards for that. Then you could offer a rebuttal that would attack the supporting evidence that underlies Petty's main point.

Or you could keep using your favorite laughing emoticon and repeat "just an opinion" like it's a mantra.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure you fully understand how to have meaningful debates, as you're making good points in other subtopics within this thread, such as the Thorin/Aragorn comparison. But that just leaves me even more confused as to why you are accusing Petty of making an appeal to authority fallacy instead of actually engaging him on the merits of his argument.

by ElendilTheShort Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:02 am

I'm gonna love this latest Monty Python movie. It even has a Majestic Moose.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:35 am

I did not know that your opinion was based on such superficial and irrelevant things- BN

I dont think there is a need to be rude in order to give a difference of opinion.

Besides the changes made to Thorin to make him more sympathetic and heroic are obvious and do make him more Aragorn like than he is in the book.

Book- old, grumpy, self important, poor leader, plans to go steal treasure from the hoard to ease his heart longing.

Film Thorin- much younger and handsome, noble quest to reclaim his kingship and homeland. Heroic warrior and a leader. Trying to unite his people behind his banner.

They have made Thorin conform to a much more normal Hollywood style idea of the tragic hero.
Your comparison with Elrond and Thranduil therefore does not really hold water, as neither of those two characters have enough screen time to have been too seriously rewritten in terms of personality.
Whereas with Thorin the changes which make him more Aragorn like are not Tolkiens but PJ's and are extensive.

'No, it's the truth.'

The point as others have made is that the process of editing requires a scrutiny of the films that goes considerably beyond even that of the dedicated viewer. Its not just you are delving into the film on a minute by minute, and often frame by frame manner, but that you are required to consider each moment for its validity, is effect on the overall story, and on individual characters in order to assess its purpose and placement.
What it boils down to is hours and hours of close scrutiny and thought on the matter.

As Eldo says there may be some ground to argue over what is necessary. Although given we have the book for what is necessary to Bilbo's tale, and it not hard to show that the WC scene for example does not involve Bilbo or effect him directly (he doesnt even know it happens) and that beyond an excuse for Gandalf's absence it does not effect or concern Bilbo at all. The same can be said for the escape from Goblin Town sequence, which is a long over the top sequence whose entire removal makes not a jot of difference to the story of anyone let alone Bilbo.

Its also pretty easy to spot the joins, where you can see the editing technique used to join footage together that was never intended to be together. These films have been shuffled like a deck of cards, with scenes consistently moving about. Even if we did not know this form the press and PJs own reports anyone with editing experience could see it in the finished film.
The scenes are often periscopic, which is why it is fairly easy to remove or reorder them.

Knowing these things does not make my opinion expert, but it does make it informed.

So no, I do not site my own authority as proof of anything. But I do site my own experience of many hours scrutinising the films for editing however as a basis for informing certain conclusions about them.

You after all are basing your opinions and authority on your own viewing of the films.
Same thing, only by necessity to edit I have to go more more indepth than is normal when just passively watching and spend an awful lot of time with these films.

So when I say over half the film does not effect the main character in any shape or form I am not plucking a random amount out of the air, I can give you it down to the 100th of a second.

by azriel Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:24 am

Im my delightfully simplistic mind Im going by the name.
The Hobbit by J.R.R.Tolkien. Its a story told to us not by mum or dad but by a funny, quiet chap called a Hobbit.Its not called Gandalfs Journey or The Saga of Thorin Oakenshield or anything else you care to come up with. Its about how suddenly a gang of Dwarves unexpectantly gave him an amazing evening of tales about a Dragon. Its him that speaks of Spiders & Goblins. If it was Gandalfs story Im sure we would have found out if & why he went to Gumgumdoor, & why he kept nipping off now & again. If one of the Dwarfs had narrated the tale it probably be centered on Thorin & his initial reluctance to have this strange hobbit come along. No one else can tell this story. Thranduil is only in it for 5minutes when he captures the Dwarves,& at the end in the battle, but he cant tell you what went on, no one can tell you how Bilbo thought about it & dashed off to join the Dwarves without any provisions, the fear of fooking great spiders, how tense the riddle game was with a pale creature thats just told you it will eat you if you cant play the game, Gollum is to engrossed in his slimy pool crunching on Orcs,Elrond can only offer hospitality & reads the map for them, Beorn ? who else can tell the tale ? Its Bilbo that speaks of how he saw the Trolls & what Gandalf did to them, & after all he's been through its Bilbo & Gandy riding home with the treasure to find his home up for auction. Its him writing his memoirs years later, & how no one really believed his tale. It even says in the book,
"one autumn evening some years afterwards Bilbo was sitting in his study writing his memoirs, he thought of calling them ""There & back again,a Hobbits holiday""....
A HOBBITS Tale, not A DWARFS tale or A WIZARDS tale. Thats enough proof for me,If Tolkien named the story THE HOBBIT, then the story peejers visualised should reflect that.

by Ringdrotten Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:56 am

ElendilTheShort wrote:I'm gonna love this latest Monty Python movie. It even has a Majestic Moose.

Awesome first post Very Happy