Battle of the Five Armies - Extended Edition

I wont watch any of peejers shit ! He's as good as desecrated it. Its like going into St.Pauls or Westminster Abbey & peeing & shitting on all the artifacts & memorials & farting in the Queens face after a heavy night of eating & boozing !

azriel wrote:Its like going into St.Pauls or Westminster Abbey & peeing & shitting on all the artifacts & memorials & farting in the Queens face after a heavy night of eating & boozing !

Sounds like a more interesting film

It's only a book, and the movies are just movies, Jackson clearly made the movies he wanted to, I don't begrudge him for having his own interpretation of the material, or making the book into more of a blockbuster, at the end of the day he was making a film for the masses, juggling a huge budget and hectic schedule in the process and probably not trying to please hardcore fans, whether he succeeded is of course debatable, but what's done is done, and I can no longer be bothered to get that worked up about it.

I've had more fun discussing the films here, than I have watching them so I thank him for that at least

malickfan wrote:I don't begrudge him for having his own interpretation of the material

I do, because it's the wrong interpretation!

Me too! Its so far from the source I am even reluctant to describe it as an interpretation.

Dear, level headed Malick smoothly pours warm oil onto turbulent waters. Id love to able to be as calm as you but............. its just not me ! Tolkien wrote a story that became a book, that I like to read, not just once but, many times. Peejers, the hairy git, scrunched up said book like a old chocolate bar wrapper & threw it on the floor, ( A BIG chocolate bar to, the greedy git ) He walked away & decided he could do better with the recipe. He mixed it up, he sold it, reaped the rewards & couldnt give a stuff if people prefered the old bar instead of the new bar. He had the profits from the sales so what more is to be said ? Well, like all new things, they come & go, & Im sure there will be someone in the future that will have a different recipe for chocolate & his sales will push peejers down the toilet along with the rest of the shit.

{{{ love you Malick }}}

It's not really interpretation but (mis)appropriation. It's not really a story that's open to interpretation; it's a pretty straightforward tale. PJ peed on the story and made it his own.

Quite right Azriel- let the crabbit flow!

And I agree Raddy, its not so much the book interpreted as tons of new stuff they just made up that has nothing to do with the original material.

His take on the book is cynical if nothing else.

Hey, I wasn't defending his actions, but as far as the studios were concerned he'd proven himself and earned the right to do what he wanted, he had less than six months to prep for the shoot, and most moviegoers were expecting something similar to LOTR. Jackson was never a big fan of the book, and under enormous pressure to deliver, he made the movie he wanted to under difficult circumstances (admittedly many of which were entirely down to him). I won't fault him for doing what he thought best to get the most returns, though I certainly agree the results probably weren't worth the trouble, and his decisions caused more issues then they solved.

The films were kinda shit but after King Kong and The Lovely Bones we probably should have expected something similar to be honest .

You are talking to a guy with the talking purse as his forum Avatar, I think it's pretty clear what type of Hobbit movie I wanted...

azriel wrote:
{{{ love you Malick }}}

I wouldn't really classify myself as level headed, I just can't be bothered to get into in depth arguments about these movies anymore.

I was never criticizing you, please dont think that ! You are right in that peejers gave "the board" exactly what they wanted. Its a shame he thought of them before he thought of us ! You only have to say .."peter Jackass..er..son" & I become like a Bull to a red flag !

azriel wrote:I was never criticizing you, please dont think that ! You are right in that peejers gave "the board" exactly what they wanted. Its a shame he thought of them before he thought of us ! You only have to say .."peter Jackass..er..son" & I become like a Bull to a red flag !

No worries Az. no offense taken, I'm fairly confident Jackson has heard of our opinions by now, its rather telling the second biggest Hobbit forum isn't one overkeen on the films for the most part...

It's ironic, I suppose its partially down to the Hardcore fans forming TORN, TORC etc that the LOTR films gained traction, LOTR though a very popular book wasn't quite a pop culture hit anymore (I'd never heard of it until the movies), and Jackson's reliance on the fan network seems to have reeled in some of his crazier ideas and broadened his support, its a little sad, though understandable that when TH rolled around he seems to have abadoned this a little, TH films were marketed more as LOTR prequels than stand alone films, I guess he felt he didn't need to prove anything anymore, a victim of his own sucess I think...

The Lucas comparisons are unfair, but not without basis in fact i.m.o...

I think the difference between the reaction to the book core fans between LotR's and TH is interesting, though in truth it really only holds true for FotR- as what they went back and shot for films 2 and 3 had increasingly less and less reference in the source material.

Nevertheless there was a notable difference in approach- with LotR's the information they released tended to be geared towards reassuring bokok fans they were getting the real deal treated with respect. They made a point to show copies of the book on set, to mention actors referencing the book for authenticity in scenes, they produced documentaries about the books and about the process of adapting them to film. ect

From the beginning with TH they were not out to reassure book fans at all, they were out to reassure fans of PJ's LotR's films that they were getting a PJ film, and what they promoted was distinction from source- so we got the dwarf posters first for example. And a lot of talk about feminine energy and the inclusion of Tauriel. There was no talk of the book on set, no documentaries about the book or how the adapting process was done. They deliberately were highlighting how it was not like the book.

PT, what is "bokok"? Does it have aught to do with chickens?

Yeah probably giant ones pulling sleighs

"The Roosters of Rhosgobel"

Oh yes !
the roosters of Rhosgobel  clucking their way thru forests, squawking thru fields, feathers flying in the wind

azriel wrote:Oh yes !
the roosters of Rhosgobel  clucking their way thru forests, squawking thru fields, feathers flying in the wind  

...shitting on Radagast's face.

malickfan wrote:The films were kinda shit but after King Kong and The Lovely Bones we probably should have expected something similar to be honest .

I do think that the overinflated expectations is part of the reason for the vitriol directed against The Hobbit, but I was expecting a subpar film as early as 2009 and I was still disappointed. I was definitely in the minority in the beginning though.  I wrote this piece in February 2009 (about two months after I became active in Tolkien fandom) and got a lot of shit for it at the time.

http://eldorion.com/tolkienpurism/hobbitchanges/prediction/

malickfan wrote:It's ironic, I suppose its partially down to the Hardcore fans forming TORN, TORC etc that the LOTR films gained traction, LOTR though a very popular book wasn't quite a pop culture hit anymore (I'd never heard of it until the movies), and Jackson's reliance on the fan network seems to have reeled in some of his crazier ideas and broadened his support, its a little sad, though understandable that when TH rolled around he seems to have abadoned this a little, TH films were marketed more as LOTR prequels than stand alone films, I guess he felt he didn't need to prove anything anymore, a victim of his own sucess I think...

PJ definitely stuck closer to the book when the project was unproven, and reading some of the behind the scenes stuff like The Frodo Franchise, the popularity of the book was a huge selling point when he was pitching the project to New Line.  It had already sold about 100 million copies by that point.  I've gotta disagree that LOTR wasn't relevant in pop culture in the late '90s.  It had moved on to an elder statesman status of sorts since the only new stuff coming out at the time was The History of Middle-earth, but Tolkien retained enormous cultural power.  LOTR was repeatedly voted book of the century in national (UK) polls in the late '90s and even book of the millennium in an Amazon-sponsored poll.

The Lucas comparisons are unfair, but not without basis in fact i.m.o...

I don't think The Hobbit trilogy is as bad as the Star Wars prequels, though personally I'd probably prefer to watch Episodes I-III again.  Only slightly and mainly due to nostalgia though, and because the SW prequels didn't crap on a book I loved.  Anyway, there are a ton of similarities between the two projects, so regardless of which you think is worse I think the comparisons were inevitable.  Let's start with the most basic: how many other prequel trilogies are there?  I can't actually think of any others offhand.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:From the beginning with TH they were not out to reassure book fans at all, they were out to reassure fans of PJ's LotR's films that they were getting a PJ film, and what they promoted was distinction from source- so we got the dwarf posters first for example. And a lot of talk about feminine energy and the inclusion of Tauriel. There was no talk of the book on set, no documentaries about the book or how the adapting process was done. They deliberately were highlighting how it was not like the book.

Hey now, there was a lot of talk about the 125 pages of the Appendices, or "Tolkien's extended Hobbit notes", as PJ calls them.

I still can't believe that R rating. What a fuckin' wanker.

Thats it Bungo say it how it is !
I'd give it an "S" rating..... for, shit, shat, shite,

bungobaggins wrote:I still can't believe that R rating. What a fuckin' wanker.

P.G was perfect...Please God no there's more of it

Does R equate to a 15 or an 18 in the UK?

I can barely remember the movie, but this seems to indicate Jackson is going braindead with the gore...

quote " P.G was perfect...Please God no there's more of it" unquote.