Re: 'The Battle of the Five Armies' in theatres | SPOILERS

by malickfan Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:22 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I agree there Malick- its why I still prefer Bakshi's attemptIt's a bit of a mess, and too ambitious for the time, but I really like it as well over PJ's despite some, em, questionable design choices in Bakshi . Its tonally much closer to the source materiel than PJ's ever manages.

But I think that sense of reality is still required, you have to use the original as a guide to what the author was doing on a technical level- and its quite clear from TH book that keeping a relateable connection to reality through, well mainly suffering, is one of the main techniques Tolkien uses to sell his worldI think Del Torro did this really well in Pans Labyrinth- he takes it to a whole other level in LotR's of course, with constellations from the real world ect but the basic technique remains the same- sell the world as a real place first, then add in the fantasy elements once you're audience is convinced of the realityAgain all very good points, the problem TH has is it all seen through Bilbo's eyes and an unreliable narrator, much of the depth and underlying seriouness only creeps in later in the novel, the plot is definitely more generic and fairytale esque than LOTR.
PJ took the risky option oftrying to develop it into an epic, when the story wasn't up to it, Del Torro seemed more interested in expanding on the tone rather than Plot-if you are going to hire a new director and design crew it seems easy enough to expect something drastically different to me. As far as I was concerned, not having read the book at the time, it was a good idea-just as the LOTR films introduced me to Tolkien, I was far more excited by TH films showing me a different take on things rather than retreading the same ground.. Its the bedrock on which everything else is builtI think alot of Del Torro's ideas come from his Mexican Heritage, whatever you say about Jackson, I suppose Kiwis are culturally much closer to the English so perhaps it was natural for Del Torro to look at things from a different perspective.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:35 pm

Bilbo might be an unreliable narrator but he is not the narrator of the book, Tolkien is really using the authors voice.
And if you look at the opening of the book- the entire thing is about setting up a familiar (to its readers of the time) version of reality- hobbits like Bilbo live a recognisable middle/upper middle class English lifestyle.
The whole conversation with Gandalf sets Bilbo's ideas of reality- the comfortable and familiar- against Gandalfs offer of the unknown wider world and its dangers.
But the upshot of it is we get a very solid sense of hobbit reality and its entirely familiar- home, comfort, good food and drink, a pipe in the sun of a morning- everything is familiar about hobbits to the real world of the reader. And it sells the setting before talking trolls, bear men and helpful ravens make an appearance.

One of the issues I have with Pj's film intros which are usually some flashback to some major event is that it present the viewer with the unbelievable before its established the believable.

by Mrs Figg Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:23 pm

I don't think GDT would have been any better.

by Forest Shepherd Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:03 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
One of the issues I have with Pj's film intros which are usually some flashback to some major event is that it present the viewer with the unbelievable before its established the believable.

Pfft!
I believe that the opening battle sequence from FotR was the best-looking and most believable fantasy battle-scene, brief as it was, ever put forth on film at the time. Of course the audience cognitively knows that they are watching fantasy, but it is immersive and suspends belief very, very well. The only downside to it was Sauron's body-chopping and subsequent explosion.

The opening sequence to the Two Towers did lean towards the "light-show" side of things: it was a spectacle that relied on in-your-face suspension of disbelief. So there I agree with you.

But then again, the RoTK opens with a good dramatic believable scene. The digital effects used for when we see Deagol underwater fall into the Sauron-explosion category, but this is still definitely an exception to the "unbelievable" flashback rule.

Ultimately, Jackson's mastery of digital and miniature effects meant that his over-the-top fantasy scenes in LotR were more believable than anyone else's attempts.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:41 pm

I believe that the opening battle sequence from FotR was the best-looking and most believable fantasy battle-scene, brief as it was, ever put forth on film at the time. - Forest

I said nothing about its quality as film, merely its placing. The thing about important information is the context it is given in.However you put the history of the Ring into the film it is going to consist, at the end of the day, as an information dump, the only question therefore is what context do you give it in.
PJ's answer is none at all.
And that leaves it as a big information dump in a void, leaving the general audience with the impression of an impressive visual feast of a fight with some big bad guy and so good guys fighting him and a ring that falls in a river and ends up in a cave somehow and yeah 'shhh whatever we've forgotten by now the film proper has started.'
It needs context, which is why Tolkien puts it in the two places he does- Gollum and Smeagol we get from Gandalf in Bag End- the Ring history from Elrond in Rivendell at the Council. It makes the information meaningful to progression of understanding of the story, and thats as true on film as in a book.
PJ just doesnt have the belief in Tolkien's structuring of the story to follow through on it and attempt to fnd ways to mirror it in film, he always takes the tried and trusted route, more so in FotR than in any others, than follow in Tolkien's unorthodox, but ultimately more effective footsteps.

I'll give you RotK- its flashback is a character piece, even though I have issues with it- namely that Deagol tries to grab Smeagols throat and strangle him first, which to me legitimises Smeagol's murder of Deagol when it should be clear cut deliberate meditated unprovoked murder.

by Mrs Figg Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:32 pm

nah, the opening sequence if FOTR was brilliant mastery of storytelling. It set everything up nicely and as Forest says was pretty stupendous to watch. and still is 10 years later.

by chris63 Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:48 pm

I agree. Bloody brilliant start to a film. Gandalf and the fight with the Balrog wasn't to bad a start either to the Two Towers.

by Mrs Figg Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:19 am

yep agreed

by **Orwell** Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:24 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote: Even in the Hobbit which is much more fairytale than LotR's in style it doesn't shirk reality- its still the basis for connecting reader to story- think of all the times Tolkien emphasis how cold it is, how wet, how miserable or afraid Bilbo is. They are near starving on two occasions. You need that sense of a real solid world with real recognisable relatable effects on people to sell the fantasy elements- if its all over the top fantasy you lose that sense of engagement with the world and so care less about what happens to characters in it.

Aye!

The Hobbit is comical, wry, scary and adventuresome with reality it's foundation while fantasy lifts it on high to a land called Suspended Disbelief. PJ knows nothing of such subtleties. Mad

by **Orwell** Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:35 am

Forest Shepherd wrote:

I believe that the opening battle sequence from FotR was the best-looking and most believable fantasy battle-scene, brief as it was, ever put forth on film at the time. Of course the audience cognitively knows that they are watching fantasy, but it is immersive and suspends belief very, very well. The only downside to it was Sauron's body-chopping and subsequent explosion.

Pfft!

Could have been better shown during the quasi Shadow of the Past scene when Gandalf tells Frodo about the Ring's history. A quiet start - like in the book - building into history, then tension building as the Black Riders appear - mysterious and scary and totally unheard of by hobbitses - like in the book.

That would have made a great introduction to a great movie, not the movie we got, which is a movie which fails the book and, ultimately (though too few know it), the viewer. Nod

As it is at the start, we are bludgeoned into the fact LotR is a fantasy: but tell me of any one person who went to see the movie not knowing it was a fantasy? Possible, but mind boggling if so. Shocked

by **Orwell** Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:37 am

chris63 wrote:I agree. Bloody brilliant start to a film. Gandalf and the fight with the Balrog wasn't to bad a start either to the Two Towers.

Eeek!

by azriel Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:16 pm

Whether its right or whether its wrong, but, Ive always liked the battle between Gandalf & the Balrog. The stirring choral music, watching the pair of them flying down together into the abyss, the lighting & then the pan out where you see 2 small dots & its them, still fighting.

by Forest Shepherd Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:09 pm

The wide-angle shot of them both falling is excellent cinematography and just a really pretty shot.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:54 pm

Yes thats a nice shot- the tighter ones of superman Gandalfs zooming and whizzing around the Balrog not so much Evil or Very Mad

by **Orwell** Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:41 am

azriel wrote:Whether its right or whether its wrong, but, Ive always liked the battle between Gandalf & the Balrog. The stirring choral music, watching the pair of them flying down together into the abyss, the lighting & then the pan out where you see 2 small dots & its them, still fighting.

If it had been when Gandalf meets Aragorn and Gimli and Legolas in Fangorn, it would have worked just as well. Say, when they first see it is Gandalf. A sudden flashback would then have been appropriate.

by **Orwell** Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:41 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yes thats a nice shot- the tighter ones of superman Gandalfs zooming and whizzing around the Balrog not so much

Agree!

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:06 am

If it had been when Gandalf meets Aragorn and Gimli and Legolas in Fangorn, it would have worked just as well.- Orwell

Exactly where I put it in the purist edit! Nod

(Minus all the superman nonsense too)

by **Orwell** Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:13 am

Good laddie. Saucy Wink

by Mrs Figg Sat Apr 11, 2015 4:57 pm

Forest Shepherd wrote:The wide-angle shot of them both falling is excellent cinematography and just a really pretty shot.

yes I agree its fab Thumbs Up

by Music of the Ainur Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:14 am

As far as the opening scenes in LotR, I enjoyed them as well.

However, I disliked that in FotR it created a dark and somewhat ugly tone right out of the gate.
I agree that it was a good scene all in all, but that it should have come as others said, in the telling of the history of the ring. More like what Tolkien did.

The books started out with a very different feeling describing day to day in the shire which created a much different feel. I suppose for many that would be boring or not fast paced enough, but I for one didn't think that when I read it

I liked the Smegol finding of the ring intro, but like Petty's point,I was confused why they twisted it to where he was attacked first therefore killing Deagol for possession of the ring was watered down to be less of an outrageous heinous act. Starting out TT with it was just fine with me. Didn't mind that ones placement.

The RotK Balrog fight was nice to see, an unexpected treat. It was a bit superman silly I agree, but I didn't mind that.

But again, I too think it should have come in the reunion in Fangorn.

To start off with it is a spoiler to the whole fall of Gandalf shock. When he falls into the abyss it seems certain that he is killed, but starting with the battle scene in the movie it suggests he survived, so that diminishes the shock for when he does reappear in my mind anyway.

But, I did enjoy these surprise extra scenes.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:24 am

I do find when watching my purist version that starting Fellowship with Bilbo writing his book and thinking about this party sets just the right tone for the opening in terms of keeping more of the books feel. I agree entirely that one effect of the intro from PJ is to set a heavy, dark, epic tone way too soon- that should be built up to. From the small and everyday and the personal to the large scale should unfold with the viewer as the story does and the journey progresses.

by halfwise Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:27 pm

Actually, the only way to judge the proper placement of the introduction to LotR is to have one group of non-book readers see the original and another group see Petty's placement and compare reactions. It's possible that seeing all the darker backstory leading into the much lighter hobbit scenes kept their attention better. Hard to know.

I do know a lot of people who tried to read the books were put off by the light tone of the hobbit scenes and couldn't grasp where it was going. They gave up before reaching the Shadow of the Past. Of course the pacing of a movie is faster, might have worked.

by Music of the Ainur Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:43 pm

My above comment was not from the viewpoint of what most people would like, it was from my viewpoint.

Halfwise you are probably correct in that most people would be more instantly engaged by the way it was done.

In our over stimulated and perhaps jaded society most folks don't have the attention span to build slowly into something. Most lack the calm sensitivity and need to be jumping out of an airplane with their hair on fire before they feel excited and stimulated.

I agree that the slow beginning of the book causes many to quit it. They judge it as childish perhaps or silly. I have known some people who didn't get far into it.

But, I agree with JRR that this softer tone is the place to start.

It sets a feeling that could not be achieved if instead it began dark and heavy. That feeling of the Shire being this safe, sheltered spot that these simple folk lived in, in their peaceful bubble unaware that all around was dark perilous evil. That peaceful land that Gandalf loved, that Strider worked to protect... That refuge from the dark ugly Real World...To build that first is important to the over all tone of the story I feel anyway...

It is a different thing though, holding an audience in a theater and with a book.

Once you've made the trip to the theater and bought a ticket and popcorn most people will sit and watch for quite a while before they stand up and walk out.

So, the need to jump right into battle to capture the attention of the masses is not as critical, I don't think anyway.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:54 pm

the proper placement of the introduction to LotR is to have one group of non-book readers see the original and another group see Petty's placement and compare reactions. It's possible that seeing all the darker backstory leading into the much lighter hobbit scenes kept their attention better. Hard to know. - Halfwise

I have done this experiment on a very small scale of a few people, none of whom had read the book.

My Dad for example watched PJ's version on TV.
Whereas one of my friends watched only the purist edits. I asked both of them afterwards to tell me what they remembered of the history of the Ring- my Dad, who is generally an astute viewer (he loves those complicated 70's cold war spy thrillers for example) had a vague outline, but was short on detail and even shorter on exactly how the Ring got from the big fight at the start to Frodo- yes all that information is in the films but its split over all three films and out of order and given no context.
My mate on the otherhand had a much stronger grasp of events and could even give me all the events in the Ring history between fight and Frodo purely because the information is given in the context of the Shadow of the Past scene and in chronological order.

Ive run this little experiment of sorts a few times- and the result is the same every time- hardly scientific polling I grant you, but interesting anecdotal evidence none the less.

"In our over stimulated and perhaps jaded society most folks don't have the attention span to build slowly into something."- Music

I think this is a myth driven by media, to their own cost. Look at shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Wolf Hall- all slow building character pieces, all hugely popular. People are more capable than they are given credit for I reckon.
If ll you offer folk are McDonald's burgers they will eat McDonald's- but that doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer if given the choice quality food well cooked and prepared instead. Its the lack of choice is the problem.
PJ was given the recipe for one of the worlds greatest meals, and he turned it into McDonalds.

by Music of the Ainur Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:20 pm

You may be right Petty about the myth of the short attention span, and I prefer that view and wish it were so, but I am not so sure about that.

I don't think that everything should be dumbed down to that level though.

However, as I said holding the book reader and the movie audience is not quite the same. The urgent need to capture immediately is not there. A film has the luxury of being able to develop a viewers engagement.

I agree with your sentiment of Jackson being handed a clear recipe for fine cuisine and turning it into fast food completely.