Re: The Desolation of Smaug pre-release thread [2] [SPOILERS]

by bungobaggins Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:17 pm

I think I've read all that stuff before, but it's still unsettling.

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

Tolkien, what a bore. Amirite?

Oh, to hell with it all. The masses are going to like it anyways.

by RA Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:47 pm

Really trying hard to not be phased by this. It's..... not....working.

by Mrs Figg Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:32 pm

yeah eat my shorts PJ

by RA Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:39 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It all sounds like bad fanfiction- they have this amateurish desire to connect everything to everything else, nothing is allowed to happen in isolation for them.

Doing so makes the world seem smaller. I thought this was a "tale that grew in the telling," Jackson. Tolkien knew what that phrase meant, but Jackson's not even sticking to this distorted version properly.

by bungobaggins Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:26 pm

Listen to this! What a joke! Ha!

https://youtu.be/yvFMEzqpBak?t=22m6s

When it comes to The Hobbit, Tolkien clearly cared about action set pieces and scatological humor!

by Eldorion Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:23 am

It's interesting to track the evolution of PJ's comments on the story as he stopped feeling pressure to genuflect to Tolkien and was able to come into his own as a storyteller. As more and more people accepted his version of LOTR even with its changes, PJ's tone in interviews and documentaries changed as well. He still pays lip service to Tolkien, of course, but he's much more comfortable talking about things he wanted to change or "improve".

by Tinuviel Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:25 am

Fame went to his head. But then again, if enough people are telling him he's doing something right, he'll believe that indeed it is right.

by Eldorion Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:05 am

I actually lean more towards the interpretation that he never cared much about adapting Tolkien and that he simply felt able to stop pretending as much after FOTR. But this gets dangerously close to accusing PJ of lying about his own life and tastes, which I'm uncomfortable doing. Still, I think it's safe to say that PJ or, at the very least, many of his defenders over the years have greatly exaggerated the extent to which he is a fan of the book (much less a Tolkien scholar). You don't see as much of that these days, though.

by Sinister71 Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:38 am

For me I think Jackson at least showed some reverence with LOTR.There must have been at least some admiration for the story to begin with. I know Jackson made changes but they at least felt organic and natural while still feeling like LOTR even if only in a small way. Things did get more and more out there as the series went on but it wasn't WAY out there, or as drastic like the Hobbit. I think Jackson preferred the complex story of LOTR in comparison to the simple linear adventure tale of the Hobbit.

I think that's where the Hobbit lost Jackson. When the tale became simple and not overly complex he didn't know where to go with it to fit what he did with LOTR. Sadly I think he failed with trying to mesh the two. With The Hobbit he just went completely OTT and there were probably too many people telling him what a great job he is doing. That he merely believed them, instead of stepping back and looking at how the films would flow together as a single piece of work. Instead of two separate trilogies.

For me the Hobbit film doesn't feel like the Hobbit story. Personally I think its the over complication of the story that does that. And in his attempt to make the Hobbit feel more like LOTR Jackson failed IMO because the Hobbit has none of the tone of LOTR. It takes comic relief and tries to make it serious and complex and just muddies the complete story. A story which to me Jackson never really cared about anyways

by Eldorion Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:41 am

I probably did overstate my earlier post. Razz

But while Jackson clearly had to care about the story since he invested so many years of his life into retelling it, I don't think that he ever cared about making a faithful adaptation despite his many claims to the contrary. I wish he had, but I don't think PJ was ever under any obligation to make faithfulness a priority. I just wish he'd been more open about his intentions (and not pretended to be a fan of the book when actually he read it once and forgot about it for 20 years).

by bungobaggins Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:41 am

I'm really curious to hear what they say in the EE commentary (or if they even address any of the issues I want to hear about), but I don't want to spend money on the damn movie again. urgh Mad

by Sinister71 Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:53 am

i didn't buy it the first time it was a gift. One that I really haven't watched at all. Why waste my time I don't really care for much other than the first 45 minutes anyways. there are some bits and pieces throughout but overall its just too OTT for my tastes in middle earth

by bungobaggins Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:55 am

I'm sure I'd just end up getting crabbit about it again. Best not bother.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:16 pm

I stick to my long term belief that Pj wanted to do Bakshi's film 'better' more than he ever wanted to make a film of the book, which he only read once, after seeing Bakshi's film.
All PJ's influences are cinematic, its Ray Harryhausen, its King Kong. Its all the films he made as a kid and as a teenager writ large.
PJ's first love is a certain style of cinema.
With LotR's it never was about Tolkiens work, it was Bakshi's, and doing it 'right' as Pj saw it.
Apart from the obvious similarities in how FotR is paced, and actual shots used, many of the changes are things PJ is on record as being things he was disapointed by in Bakshis- such as the troll only showing a foot in the door, he wanted it to come barging in and to see it in a big fight, that for him would have been better, so that was what he did in his version- to claim PJ made LotR's out of a love of either Tolkien or the books is completely misplaced I believe. I dont think for a moment either were important, or strong influencing factors.