Re: Worst Case Scenarios

by **Amarië** Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:05 pm

Eldorion wrote:I think this opinion piece of Yahoo is relevant, and also an example of why fans (and the media, though there's probably not much of a difference in this case) should be kept as far away from film production as possible.

Five characters from The Lord of the Rings that should return for The Hobbit trilogy - Yahoo! Movies UK

The last suggestion is the only that might be okay, but even then there's that stupid obsession with fanservice over storytelling.

I don't know why but I have this image in my head right at the end of 'There and Back Again' of an aging Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins overlooking Frodo playing with some other Hobbit children, who are of course Merry, Pippin and Sam. I envisage some sort of knowing voice over depicting how little the young Hobbit knew about how important he would be. I think this would be a suitable ending.
FFS

No. No. NO.

by azriel Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:05 pm

What cheesed me right off was when in that statement Eldo, it said there NEEDED to be some girlies in it ?? Shocked

says who ! The Hobbit works bloody well as it is, Im a woman, I dont fooking need to have women fawning or swooning or even being heroic, just for once I really dont mind reading or watching a "lads book/film" Gawd all fooking mighty, why is there always this emphasism that there HAS to be women Mad

by Sinister71 Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:18 pm

azriel wrote:What cheesed me right off was when in that statement Eldo, it said there NEEDED to be some girlies in it ?? says who ! The Hobbit works bloody well as it is, Im a woman, I dont fooking need to have women fawning or swooning or even being heroic, just for once I really dont mind reading or watching a "lads book/film" Gawd all fooking mighty, why is there always this emphasism that there HAS to be women

Because Azriel too many women feel they need to be represented as equally as men. Its all political correctness of the 21rst century. Granted not ALL women fell that way but the sad thing is the majority do. If you don't include them you must not think they are equally important. Same goes for color (someone filed a descrimination suite against the film makers or agents for not picking someone because they were black) or sexual preference, I'm shocked we didn't get a gay dwarf well does Ori count? ANYWAYS the sad part is the majority of people get offended if their demographic isn't included in something now days. Personally I think its a crock Extremely Crabbit

by bungobaggins Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:34 pm

Sinister, I am reading through your comments over on torn about Jackson's "appendices Hobbit notes" claims. I cannot believe anyone could interpret what he has said differently, and the fans rushing to his defense! Riddikulus!

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Sinister71 wrote:Whom ever wrote that is an idiot to put it bluntly. Aragorn does nothing for the actual story, Gimli same thing, Denethor, really when is the company going to Minas Tirith, What a joke, Arwen is just another bad joke and I don't remember Galadriel being her Grandmother,merry, pippin and Sam don't have anything to do with the story anyways... Frodo was a stretch as it was. Some fans are just ridiculous about wanting favorite characters back when they were never in the damn story

Well Galadriel actually is Arwen's grandmother (G's daughter Celebrian married Elrond) but I think it's still a silly fanservice thing. You can put Arwen in the background of a scene for the fans to spot and go crazy over, but if you make her conspicuous or give her lines you're just going to confuse casual fans who recognize her from LOTR and wonder what her role in the story is.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:38 pm

I cannot believe anyone could interpret what he has said differently, and the fans rushing to his defense! Riddikulus!- Bungo

Well Ive said it plain here before- and not everyone agreed with me- but on this matter PJ is a liar- its plain and simple- what he says about the appendices and Tolkien in regards TH is a lie, he knows its a lie yet he continues to peddle it. The man is a liar.

Sadly you cant put it an opinion so honestly on ToRN or they ban you!

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:41 pm

azriel wrote:What cheesed me right off was when in that statement Eldo, it said there NEEDED to be some girlies in it ?? says who ! The Hobbit works bloody well as it is, Im a woman, I dont fooking need to have women fawning or swooning or even being heroic, just for once I really dont mind reading or watching a "lads book/film" Gawd all fooking mighty, why is there always this emphasism that there HAS to be women

To be honest, I do think there are problems with the representation of women in movies and other popular culture. It's unfortunate how many movie protagonists are not just male, but fall into the very specific category of straight white men between the ages of 15 and 35. However, I don't think going back and rewriting older stories is the best way to fix this, especially since characters who are added after the fact are usually going to be fairly marginal because they don't have a natural role in the story.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:47 pm

New modern films, contemporary to our times should reflect our times- and that includes much more diversity than before.
But I hate it when they rewrite or alter older works to bring them into line with current viewpoints- in my book its the same as destroying archeological sites- they are a piece of the time and people they were created for as well as stories to be told, not to be altered, rewritten and tampered with according to the norms of any one particular time period.
Its short sighted and incredibly arrogant.

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:48 pm

I remember when PJ made those "expanded Hobbit notes" comments and getting into arguments over them. Laughing

Reading through the thread on TORn, I'm disheartened (though not surprised) to learn that PJ repeated those claims on the official behind-the-scenes documentaries included with the Blu-ray. The actual history of the Appendices and the various editions of The Hobbit has been explained countless times but people continue to drag up the old justifications and I'm sure the documentaries will introduce a whole new generation to this misinformation. Razz

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:49 pm

Simulpost with Petty. I agree with your thoughts about not rewriting old books. I think it's important to see the evolution of people's thought, including negative and discriminatory thoughts, so that we can learn from the past. That's in addition to not liking the idea of changing works of art after the fact.

It's worth noting that adaptation is different than replacing the original novels or something, but generally speaking I'd prefer adaptations try to represent the original work faithfully even if it's older. That said, Michael Martinez made an interesting case for changes based on differing social norms when it came to tobacco usage in LOTR. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with him but it's food for thought.

http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2012/12/17/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-purists/

And finally, I have to reiterate my complaint about the smoking. It was completely uncalled-for. There is no justification for depicting characters using tobacco in the movies. The affectation was something that Tolkien had no idea was so deadly and dangerous. It is not fair to his audience to endanger future lives by portraying tobacco use as a harmless passtime.

The movie is enjoyable, but if the tobacco use is in there to placate people’s puristic desires, it was not necessary. It adds nothing to the storyline and the characterizations are not dependent upon it. People die from using tobacco products. People suffer greivous harm from using tobacco products. Hollywood needs to understand that it has a responsibility to its audience not to glorify behaviors which are now known to be deadly.

We didn’t see any Hobbits drinking rat-poison or standing in front of freight-trains. No Hobbits put guns to their heads and blew themselves away. We don’t need to see Hobbits, Wizards, and Rangers smoking. I know that I will be attacked and criticized for taking this stand. But I’m just someone who regards human life to be more important than a misguided attempt to be faithful to a book when making a movie.

So, I hope people enjoy the movie. I look forward to seeing it again. But I am saddened to see that such an irresponsible decision was made on a very important issue. For the movie overall, Peter, you get a “Well done”. For the tobacco, you get a “shame on you”.

Cancer is no laughing matter. I hope you never lose any relatives to it. I’ve lost way too many.

by bungobaggins Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:50 pm

pettytyrant101 wrote:Well Ive said it plain here before- and not everyone agreed with me- but on this matter PJ is a liar- its plain and simple- what he says about the appendices and Tolkien in regards TH is a lie, he knows its a lie yet he continues to peddle it. The man is a liar.

Here's more proof of Jackson harping on his "125 pages" shtick at comic-con before the announcement of moving from two to three films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssJ_ZEsDyo&t=11m49s

Oooooh, he is tricksy isn't he precious? Notice how he says, "The story as I understand it."

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:57 pm

The 125 pages are "almost like a story outline of how he intended to develop it into the form of a novel"? lol!

Oh my god, this just gets better and better.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:07 pm

Im listening to him with my mouth hanging open in amazement at either his ignorance (how can you be so ignorant and be adapting the book?) or his pure brazen lying. Evil or Very Mad

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:08 pm

by bungobaggins Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:12 pm

Peter Jackson wrote:What I understand Tolkien did then...is...he was intending to rewrite The Hobbit with all this stuff in, but he never did for whatever reason. And so, that is about 125 pages, which is almost like a story outline...of how he intended to develop it more.

Worst Case Scenarios - Page 4 Tumblr_mdvi2xgQw41ryb0hd

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:12 pm

I can believe maybe early on he was ignorant enough not to know (although if you don't know why make those claims?) but I find it incredible to believe in all this time of repeating this rubbish that no one has pointed out its rubbish to him.

by azriel Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:15 pm

He said "revising" but not "researching" & he also said a word I love that can get you out of a sticky situation.... massaging ! You "massage" the truth, a nicer way or rather an un- incriminating way to admit ... your fooking lying ! & look at his body language ? his stuttering & mumbling ? Im only 16mins in & Ive got a foul mood coming on !

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:15 pm

I don't think that Peter Jackson is a stupid individual. He also drew on the Appendices when making LOTR, so he should know full well that they are mostly composed of material that has nothing to do with The Hobbit. I suppose it is possible that he hasn't read the Appendices and is going on what Philippa Boyens or someone else told him, but I'm more inclined to believe that he's being willfully dishonest. Maybe he has some internal justification for it or maybe he just doesn't care. It's probably not a big deal to him either way but as someone who cares about LOTR and has tried to inform people about the books it bothers me. Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:18 pm

"You've got to make people believe that what they are looking at is really happening. And so I wouldn't want to distract people by doing some crazy camera thing." - PJ

Does he even watch his own films back?! Shocked

by Sinister71 Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:36 pm

bungobaggins wrote:Sinister, I am reading through your comments over on torn about Jackson's "appendices Hobbit notes" claims. I cannot believe anyone could interpret what he has said differently, and the fans rushing to his defense! Riddikulus!

Yeah I find it hysterical esp. considering I posted his exact quote and they still try and defend it

by azriel Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:55 pm

No profound character arcs ? At 16.21 did he just say hes got to end the film on a climax thats not in the book ? I couldnt quite get it as HE MUMBLED ! He said he doesnt analyze himself.. well isnt it time you fooking did ?, 20.52 Pj doesnt worry bout continuity, oh thats good !, Bit of a W****R when it comes to business ? ie: Weta, 27.37, he wants people to believe things are possible ? like the bone crushing falls we would endure but Dwarves are immune to ?, 32.18, The Hobbit is one of the most famous dragon stories in the world ? how come you've never heard of it then PJ ?, 33.36, So, the prat is using Gollum again is he ? He didnt show any interest in GDTs work, only if GDt wanted to show him something yet he couldnt wait to jump in & grab it when GDT left ? Ive known school kids do that !, Couldnt answer about any other reason people would like The Hobbit APART from 48fps ? I think that interviewer unnerved PJ ! that guy stared PJ in the eye all the way thru, he didnt look that impressed & didnt gush over PJ, he was firm & I dont think that sat well with PJ........GOOD !

by bungobaggins Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:38 pm

I want to point out something Jackson says before he gets into his big "125 pages" hubbub.

https://youtu.be/WssJ_ZEsDyo?t=4m18s

He says that the advancement of technology will get people (especially young people) back into the cinema. I think he's overlooking a basic truth that Kevin Spacey (star of the recent Netflix House of Cards series (which has been nominated for 9 Emmy awards)) has stated so wonderfully in this video.

It's stories we are starving for (good stories) not new technology. It doesn't matter where we watch anymore. I really don't think new tech and spectacle are going to draw audiences back into the cinema.

Kevin Spacey wrote:If you're watching a film on your television is it no longer a film because you're not watching it in a theater? If you watch a tv show on your ipad is it no longer a tv show? The device and the length are irrelevant, the labels are useless...for kids growing up now there's no difference. Watching Avatar on an ipad, or watching youtube on a tv, or watching Game of Thrones on their computer. It's all content; it's just story.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:53 pm

Thanks for that link Bungo- you can embed vids in your post incidentally, just click on the little youtube icon above the post box and put the link in there (Ill fix it on your last post for you)- I meant to put that up a few days ago but forgot, he says a lot of stuff that has also occured to me about the state of film and why PJ's type of 'solution' is a big mistake that will only make the situation worse.

by Eldorion Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:54 pm

That's definitely true. When a movie or TV show comes out that people really like and connect with, it will be a success. The movie industry has faced problems with declining ticket sales for years, but you still have massive successes. Look at another movie to come out last year: The Hunger Games. The books had a large fanbase but it broke into mainstream culture as a whole because people enjoyed the film. It grossed $100 million more in North America than An Unexpected Journey would make despite being released in non-prime blockbuster season (March) and not having ticket premiums for 3D, much less high frame rate.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:56 pm

Its always about story and characters- you can have all the cgi, all the 3D gimmicks, hell you can smellovision if you like- if there is no story and character strength to it its a pig in a poke.