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

[Sinister71]

well I think for what they did include for LOTR they got most of it right. Not perfect but the material they included I thought was well done and fairly tasteful. As to what they left out, I really didn't mind so much but i have said before, I prefer the Hobbit to LOTR anyways Love both but the Hobbit edges out LOTR every time for me. That's why I'm more critical of the Hobbit than LOTR I guess.

In a perfect world we could have had FOTR part 1 and 2, TTT part 1 and 2, ROTK part 1 and 2. All 3 hour films... With all the little nooks and crannies of every part of the books. But that at the time would have been impractical since even filming LOTR was a high risk prospect. Which worked out in the film makers favor obviously. But at the time it was unknown if the films would be a success, the timing could have very well been wrong and the films flopped. Thankfully they didn't IMO but anyways Jackson had to make 3 films one for each book so obviously things needed to be cut. I think they did a god job telling the story for cinema in the time constraints they had for each film, and 3 hours was still a pretty long film.

The Hobbit is the complete opposite one book made into 3 films with a vast majority of the films made up fan fiction. Yeah Jackson had some in LOTR but in comparison it was minimal compared to the Hobbit. At least there were some scenes from LOTR that felt like the book. The Hobbit nothing was sacred and left unaltered from the book. Even the iconic scenes you figure would have been a shoe in for a respectable treatment got altered to the bare skeleton and rebuild it into something similar but completely different.

[RA]

75% for Fellowship
40% for Two Towers
60% for Return of the King
20% for AUJ

[RA]

My rating.  

[halfwise]

hmm... (75 + 40 + 60)/3 = 58.3%   we are pretty close on our assessment!

Petty, going word for word is an unfair comparison.  You also have to go by plot points and general meaning of the dialogue.  How much you weight exact wording versus "screen translation" is tricky, but the movies were more recognizably LoTR than not.

[Sinister71]

I agree Halfwise between 60 and 70% is about right IMO. i also agree with RA about 20% on the Hobbit thus far. Some of the scenes were there they were just similar but different... Which is not the same to me  

[RA]

I'm getting fearful that DOS won't even make 15% for me  

[Lancebloke]

I think that LotR at least had the feel of middle earth, even if PJ managed to translate a lot of the ancient texts in to something a bit different (sometimes completely different) from Tolkien.

The Hobbit thus far just doesn't have that feel to it to me. Felt like any other fantasy film. I don't think it would have fared so well were it not for the success of the LotRs.

[Pettytyrant101]

Petty, going word for word is an unfair comparison. You also have to go by plot points and general meaning of the dialogue. - Halfwise

I am not talking about a word for word version- just having the actual story and the same characters would have been a start.

LotR's is a bullet point version of the story, most of the points are there but completely changed in circumstances.
TH is no different, most of its there- the party, the singing, the trolls, Rivendell, Stone giants- its just the circumstances and characters that are all screwed up- exactly the same as in LotR's.
I really cant see a great deal of difference in the manner or quality of the writing between the two sets of films.
Main difference is FotR played some lip service to Tolkien fans, or at least gave the impression they did in the making of it, and so successfully did they give that impression that even some avid book fans seem tricked when they watch it into not noticing how bad an adaptation it actually is.

[Mrs Figg]

For me LoTR was maybe 60-70% book come to life, the Hobbit was about 30-40%.

I agree Halfy, only for me it was 99.9% for LOTR, and 10-20% The Hobbit.

[Mrs Figg]

I think that LotR at least had the feel of middle earth, even if PJ managed to translate a lot of the ancient texts in to something a bit different (sometimes completely different) from Tolkien.

The Hobbit thus far just doesn't have that feel to it to me. Felt like any other fantasy film. I don't think it would have fared so well were it not for the success of the LotRs.

yes LOTR did have that mysterious atmosphere of ME, The Hobbit just feels like Tolkien by numbers, it doesnt have any depth.

[Tinuviel]

Sorry was about to post something Eldo already did!!!

[Sinister71]

The Hobbit thus far just doesn't have that feel to it to me. Felt like any other fantasy film. I don't think it would have fared so well were it not for the success of the LotRs.

I completely agree with this statement Lance. If it weren't for LOTR and its success the Hobbit might have either never been made (which IMO after seeing Jackson's take would NOT be a bad thing) or might have had a different director and direction to it. Something which might not have been a bad thing either. But sadly were stuck with a version of the Hobbit which shows Tolkien no respect and mocks his beloved book IMO

[Sinister71]

After reading this statement it looks like there will be more changes in store.

“We are putting things in the extended cut that are going to play straight into the second film,” explains Jackson, “like this character Girion, who is defending [the city of] Dale using black arrows against Smaug. And the black arrows play a part in an ongoing story, for they are the one thing that can pierce the dragon’s hide.”

Something which IMO means there will be no weak spot in Smaug's armor other wise why would the black arrow need to "pierce the dragon's hide". This leads me to wonder will Bilbo see the bare spot on Smaug's left breast? Will the thrush deliver the message to Bard? And from other comments made, Why is the black arrow being fired from a ballista? When Bard clearly has used it before. I do think it's cool they are showing Girion but the timelines must be changed.

"Arrow!" said the bowman. "Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!"

So why isn't Bard firing the black arrow from his bow? In the trailer the show Girion firing a ballista presumably with Black arrow(s) meaning more than one. It becomes more apparent to me every day that Jackson has no clue what the story of the Hobbit was about. How could he get LOTR so right to so many fans (not you petty  ) and completely get the Hobbit oh so wrong. Not that he cares about people who dislike his treatment of Tolkien:

"Ah, not really. I don't pay a hell of a lot of attention. Every time you do something people are going to like it, people are going to hate it. You tend to make the movies on the basis you are making them for the people who are going to like them and not worrying too much about people who don't like them."

And not worrying about telling the story from the book either.

[Pettytyrant101]

I suspect the black arrow will indeed be completely changed, the stills of Smaug from the trailer would seem to indicate there is no chest of embedded jewels (which is a pretty bloody iconic sort of thing to leave out) and therefore no bare patch either.

[Sinister71]

I suspect the black arrow will indeed be completely changed, the stills of Smaug from the trailer would seem to indicate there is no chest of embedded jewels (which is a pretty bloody iconic sort of thing to leave out) and therefore no bare patch either.

I think my biggest indicator that it changed is the fact they are showing what is supposed to be Girion firing a ballista at something. Which I will assume is Smaug when he first destroyed Dale. Which would seem to be another change. I just am baffled as to why they can't get the story right. I mean I think a bowman with a regular arrow shot from his bow would be more thrilling than someone firing a ballista. But this is Peter Jackson's Hobbit we are talking about. Why should he do anything that is in the book when everyone knows he can do it better than Tolkien (note sarcasm)

[Tinuviel]

I couldn't find it in English. I'm assuming this is the extended edition trailer you're referring to? If not, what are you referring to?  

[Sinister71]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ&feature=player_embedded

the scene with Girion and the black arrow(s) is at 1:39/1:40  

[Tinuviel]

OHHHHHH! I see!!!!!!!
I always assumed that was another flashback to when Dale was originally desolated, especially based off of the light color scheme in comparison to the darker tones that are used earlier in the trailer.

[Sinister71]

From my understanding it is Bards ancestor Girion but its unknown if that is the attack of Smaug or if it is another dragon. But it is said to be Girion firing the black arrow(s)plural Which if one is fired from a ballista why wouldn't the one that Bard has be? Something is screaming in my mind they are going to make it a big deal for Bard to get to the ballista and he will not fire the lethal arrow from his bow. And technically a ballista could be considered a big crossbow off sorts. I can just see Jackson botching this just like he has every other major event in the films so far.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just been reading the interview that Sin posted over at Bree, among the tumbleweed, I wouldnt advise it, if like me you are prone to the sort of crabbit explosions that risk spilling your buckie  

'Specific characters that were also tricky to adapt were the Dragon Smaug, and Bard the Bowman as the latter is "undeserved in the story … finding how to make him work within the story was a bit of a trick as well" says co-writer Philippa Boyens. To do that, they fleshed out the Lake-town sequences a lot and added some fresh character dynamics.'  

Boyens and Walsh's single favorite character to write for was Smaug whom Walsh calls a "beautiful character to be given to adapt to a screenplay". Boyens agrees, labelling the dragon "Wonderful. A true psychopath."

I thought Tolkiens dialogue for him for more than brilliant, so how much should there be for them to write, let alone be their favourite to write for. The thought of them making up lots of Smaug dialogue, given they imitate Tolkien and understand his writing style about as well as a roller skating polar bear does, is a frightening thought.

'There's certain things that I want to see play, like the moment when-- Because Galadriel and Gandalf never have a scene, and now they do and we managed to get some stuff in there. So when she's told that he's fallen in Lord of the Rings, 'Where is Gandalf? I would like to speak to him,' it will mean so much more. When you go into Moria and you see that tomb and it's Balin's tomb and Ori wrote those words 'drums in the deep'."

Except as they cut most of the dialogue to make way for an endless troll fight Gandalf doesn't actually tell the audience in the film version that Ori wrote the book, or even mention him   and all the info about the dwarves colony and who was part of it is lost and Frodo seems to have no inclination either in the film who these dwarves were.

key sequence from the books that is being recreated is the attack by giant spiders in the dark forest of Mirkwood. The creatures are the offspring of the ancient creature of Shelob whom we glimpsed in "The Lord of the Rings: "The Return of the King". Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo Baggins, called filming that scene an intense day: "Because it was physically and emotionally quite draining. It was quite draining. Because for him, all this stuff was coming out of him that he had no idea was in there. Killing, a killing rage that came out of fear, and then we went into hate, which for Bilbo is a real difficult thing to handle, I think."


Bilbo in a killing rage?!  This isnt Resorvoir Rings. I think I might be in a killing rage by the time I leave the cinema.  

"When the dwarves come to Dale, it's a ruined city, there's dead bodies, or remains, mummified bodies, there's a lot of ash, there's a lot of burnt out windows and doors, a lot of foliage has grown up through the city. And we arrive there midwinter, so there's a bit of snow."

Mummified? So what Dale is high enough up the mountainside now it never thaws?  

On Jackson, among the usual word sof high raise like 'visionary' ect-

'he's always been very, very careful to make the movie that he wants to make.'- Brophy

'he pushes you harder and harder and harder and you think that's the last take and he'll always ask you for another one'- Armitage

"He's very much the boss. He's not just the hired director, he's the producer, he's the mind behind it all and the imagination behind it all."- McKellan

McKellan, making sure everyone knows where the blame lies.  

http://www.darkhorizons.com/features/1693/set-visit-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug

[Mrs Figg]

  Boyens and the other one sound like they are writing for a student Rag Week Play the way they so casually rewrite everything.

[bungobaggins]

Wait, so Smaug is officially the Norman Bates of Middle-earth?

[Lancebloke]

From reading some of that, they really may as well have hired Michael Bay for this.

But I bet for all the moaning around here, I am going to be the only one that actually votes with their feet. The first I will see of it will be when it comes out on telly (as I pay for that anyway).

You are just encouraging it all!!      

[Eldorion]

Well you could always buy a ticket to another movie (I see Tyler Perry's A Madea Christmas comes out on the same day ) and then sneak into DOS.

[Ringdrotten]

"Except as they cut most of the dialogue to make way for an endless troll fight Gandalf doesn't actually tell the audience in the film version that Ori wrote the book, or even mention him "

Good point