Re: Adapting Lord of the Rings

by Forest Shepherd Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:52 am

Do you really need to ask Petty?

Edit:
He talks around minute 8-something about how you can't make a film for the fans. You have to make the film that you want to see. The alternative is to go the hollywood "film-by-committee" route, which is where people with a feel for fads and popular trends don't so much make decisions as simply deliver what needs to happen in order for the film to do well.

Hardly a convincing argument against the idea that Jackson and Co. failed in terms of delivering a good adaptation.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:04 pm

I listened to the first 15 mins roughly- for a man claiming he doesn't bend to Hollywood trends and fads its odd he made a set of films that exemplify every worst aspect of the current Hollywood trend for spectacle over any substance. And his seeming admission, picked up by Eldo, that the only reason th lotR's is not also a physics free cartoon zone is that he didn't have the tech to make it that way, rather smashes all the lies they told at the time about aiming for a feel of historical reality.

by Eldorion Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:03 pm

I do kind of wonder how much of his claims that he would have done things different in LOTR are entirely true, and how much is ass-covering and/or a factor of his tastes changing over the years. Like I don't doubt that he would have done things differently if he'd had as much freedom and as little to prove in 1999 as he does now, but the directives he gave to the crew about "historical reality" and the fact that even with ROTK-EE they moved back towards the books from some of their earlier, greater divergences makes me suspect that his LOTR approach was genuine to a significant extent. But maybe that's wishful thinking. Shrugging

by dak Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:43 am

I wonder if for LOTR he assembled a very capable team and was very careful not to screw it up but the Hobbit he didn't take as seriously and indulged his own ideas more. And other people went along with his ideas since lotr was a big hit.

by halfwise Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:00 pm

True except for having the same team for both. And I wouldn't say his ideas, more like his team's ideas.

Come to think of it, he didn't have John Howe and Alan Lee to anchor the look. That probably led to a flurry of changes.

by Mrs Figg Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:38 pm

Howe and Lee are very wonderful illustrators, when you look at their drawings they conjure up magical atmospheres. wonder what went wrong?

I didn't get any magic in TH. wasn't their fault the designs got hidden under a mile of plastic and cgi.

by Eldorion Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:13 pm

halfwise wrote:Come to think of it, he didn't have John Howe and Alan Lee to anchor the look. That probably led to a flurry of changes.

Lee and Howe worked on The Hobbit films.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dWq2vV6q6mQ

by halfwise Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:41 pm

They did? That's almost disappointing. I think they'd have kept the dwarf looks under control.

by Eldorion Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:33 am

I'm not sure how much of a say they had in the character designs. IIRC PJ wanted the dwarves to all be identifiable solely by silhouette, so they were always gonna be ... unusual.

by **Orwell** Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:16 pm

I still haven't seen Movie 3!! cheers

by halfwise Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:24 pm

Soldier on!

by Mrs Figg Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:10 pm

I wish I hadn't

by **Orwell** Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:38 pm

by Forest Shepherd Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:12 am

I'm glad I did but wish that it didn't exist.

by Eldorion Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:55 am

I'm glad it exists because otherwise I wouldn't have met you guys (even the whiners Wink

).

I honestly struggle to think of any downside to these movies existing. With LOTR there was the criticism that they would overshadow the book and affect people's perception of Tolkien's work, but I think the movies are different enough (and looked down on enough) that that's much less the case here. One could argue that they tarnished the LOTR films' reputation retroactively but I think for more people they drove home how special that trilogy was. There has been to some extent a reassessment of LOTR and I think people are more willing to acknowledge its flaws than they were in, say, 2004, but that process was already underway when The Hobbit came out.

As I've said before, I don't think The Hobbit films were good films (though they weren't as bad as the SW prequels), but even just from the fan perspective, having something is better than nothing, at least insofar as there isn't that what-if hanging over our heads. Though I guess I might feel differently if I had previously been a true blue PJ believer, which I think many of the most vocal critics of The Hobbit were (feelings of broken trust/promises seem to be a recurring theme in certain discussions). So I guess The Hobbit films did cost a certain segment of fandom their innocence. Razz

{{{I hope you guys know I'm just teasing I love you

}}}

by Mrs Figg Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:28 pm

I agree about the broken trust.

by davidjoneshoward Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:20 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If Aragorn had been rock solid from the start it wouldn't have been such a satisfying ending.- Figg

But he isn't rock solid in the book. He is certain of his right and of his claim but nothing beyond that.

That's an interesting quote you have picked. Lets pull it to bits and see what it's made of!

The first bit- "I do not know what strength is in my blood" is an addition, its not in the book, and its another reference to the reluctant king arc, as we have already had a conversation about Aragorns blood at Rivendell with Arwen, in which we learned Aragorn fears the inherent weakness in his blood. So it is raising that question again and Aragorns fears he will fail because of it- he questions here how much strength is in it.

This is the way I see it: Back in 1989, after The Last Temptation of Christ devoted catholics who saw it (not that many actually did Neutral

) were so petrified that Christ was changed from an all knowing savior (who was a bit cocky too) to a self doubting, occasionally self denigrating, and who starts a family with a hooker, that they hardly even looked into what Jesus was changed into, but simply that he was changed in the first place. Personally, I find the temptation of christ to be vastly superior to the source it's based on (but hey, this is coming from someone who's very nonreligious, so that might have to do with it), and I find Aragorn to be better to his book counterpart, because it is adding more to an otherwise 2 dimensional (I'm really not trying to bash book Aragorn here).

The point is: Viggo's Aragorn brought something to LOTR just like Willem DaFoe brought something to Jesus, and we don't have to hold the books too sacred. However I feel like they should have kept Thorin more close to his book character, mostly because it resembles filmaragorn too much and because he's just a mopey asshole all the time.

Question: do you think RA is a decent actor? I know he's no Viggo, but back when AUJ came out I actually thought he was really good... until everything about him got super repetitive. From the way he delivered his lines, to his facial expressions, etc., till every time he was on screen it became even harder to watch.

by azriel Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:07 pm

For me, film 3 was the biggest pile of claptrap ive seen so far. Its whole atmosphere, lack of determination & cheesy acting just killed the whole aura of what should have been a final defiant resolution, a stirring ending that was believable & in keeping with the 'flavour' of Tolkien not this weird alien, anime or Manga stab at comic book glory.It was utter sensationalism, it was all, "look at me!", it had no direction, lacked conviction, actors might have just been stand ins looking for work. It all relied far too heavily on CGI, too much 'name dropping' in the vain hope it might inspire interest. Er NO ! my inspired interest was when the fook is this shat going to end ? where's my chocolate ? The last film was & is abysmal, It has no redeeming features at all. the so called comedic moments were purile & scratching in the dark for cheap schoolkid laughs, which it failed on. I couldnt give a rats arse about Thorin, he died, so what ? The utter incredulous love match was border line, 9PM watershed porn. The mere thought that an Elf & a Dwarf could live happily ever after made me barf as if Id read about the woman at No 56 having it off with her Alsation ! These things happen, its disgusting & so was the script that was fobbed off as something Tolkien & something called "The Hobbit", if this WAS verbatim then this is one book Id NEVER read to my kids & one they wouldnt want to hear again.

by halfwise Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:24 pm

I think Richard Armitage did what he could with what he was given, which unfortunately ended up being rather one-note. I don't blame him for how the films came out.

by halfwise Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:30 pm

I also understand the film-makers urge to change both Aragorn and Thorin. I think they took it slightly too far with Aragorn so that he doesn't feel quite kingly to me, and too far the other way with Thorin so that he isn't interesting.

by Mrs Figg Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:45 pm

davidjoneshoward wrote:
Pettytyrant101 wrote:If Aragorn had been rock solid from the start it wouldn't have been such a satisfying ending.- Figg

But he isn't rock solid in the book. He is certain of his right and of his claim but nothing beyond that.

That's an interesting quote you have picked. Lets pull it to bits and see what it's made of!

The first bit- "I do not know what strength is in my blood" is an addition, its not in the book, and its another reference to the reluctant king arc, as we have already had a conversation about Aragorns blood at Rivendell with Arwen, in which we learned Aragorn fears the inherent weakness in his blood. So it is raising that question again and Aragorns fears he will fail because of it- he questions here how much strength is in it.

This is the way I see it: Back in 1989, after The Last Temptation of Christ devoted catholics who saw it (not that many actually did ) were so petrified that Christ was changed from an all knowing savior (who was a bit cocky too) to a self doubting, occasionally self denigrating, and who starts a family with a hooker, that they hardly even looked into what Jesus was changed into, but simply that he was changed in the first place. Personally, I find the temptation of christ to be vastly superior to the source it's based on (but hey, this is coming from someone who's very nonreligious, so that might have to do with it), and I find Aragorn to be better to his book counterpart, because it is adding more to an otherwise 2 dimensional (I'm really not trying to bash book Aragorn here).

The point is: Viggo's Aragorn brought something to LOTR just like Willem DaFoe brought something to Jesus, and we don't have to hold the books too sacred. However I feel like they should have kept Thorin more close to his book character, mostly because it resembles filmaragorn too much and because he's just a mopey asshole all the time.

that's exactly how I see Viggo's Aragorn, he brought something very special to the story. and using Willem Dafoe is a good example to illustrate it.

Question: do you think RA is a decent actor? I know he's no Viggo, but back when AUJ came out I actually thought he was really good... until everything about him got super repetitive. From the way he delivered his lines, to his facial expressions, etc., till every time he was on screen it became even harder to watch.

quite honestly RA bored me to tears. He was pretty one note all the way through. Book Thorin is way more complex and interesting. RA's performance turned him beige.

by azriel Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:32 pm

Beige is good, I like that. RA was certainly some sort of poop colour, poor chap. I saw him act in an early episode of "Miss Marple" on TV & he was 1 dimensional & boring then

by davidjoneshoward Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:28 pm

I think Richard Armitage did what he could with what he was given, which unfortunately ended up being rather one-note. I don't blame him for how the films came out. - Halfwise

But if he was any other decent actor, like Viggo, he would get though it in the best way possible. In fact, I think Viggo improved on the screenplay with his acting skills, and added a subtle element to it that's hard to identify. It's the exact opposite with RA, it's like he was TRYING to sound so repetitive just to bore the audiences whenever he was supposed to have a character moment.

by malickfan Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:46 pm

davidjoneshoward wrote:

Question: do you think RA is a decent actor? I know he's no Viggo, but back when AUJ came out I actually thought he was really good... until everything about him got super repetitive. From the way he delivered his lines, to his facial expressions, etc., till every time he was on screen it became even harder to watch.

I think Armitage is a decent enough actor (I've heard good things about his stage work and seen him in a few Tv shows) with a fantastic voice, but Thorin in the films just...bores me, almost as if they were trying so hard to make Thorin brooding, relatable and 'deep' they lost site of some of his nobility and larger than life flaws, he's too obviously constructed to be 'tragic' it just comes across as intrusive and cliched,he's less of a character, more a grumpy poster boy who stares into the middle distance whilst Bilbo is pushed out of frame in his own story (though I did think Armitage and Freeman had good chemistry at least) I'd go as far to say that I actually liked the tactically ignorant greedy git Thorin was for a large proportion of the book more-at least Thorin in the book acted like a king in exile-arrogant and prideful, but corteous to friends, brave, suffering no fools and larger than life, I found it easier to sympathize with him becuase he just seemed more imposing and memorable-sure he was a git at times, but at least no one is trying hard to get you to like him, Armitage could have given an oscar winning performance, but for all the supposed 'depth' Jackson and co tried to give the character, I just don't find it very interesting in the films.

I'd said it before and I'll say it again, before Armitage was cast I pictured Ian Mcshane in the role...after Armitage was cast I pictured Ian Mcshane in the role...so yeah, he did nothing for me as a viewer personally.

by Mrs Figg Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:21 pm

He tried too hard to be a broody hero figure. It didn't convince me. that bit where he is arguing with Bard through a hole in the wall is ludicrous.