Re: The Desolation of Smaug pre-release thread [3] [SPOILERS]

[Tinuviel]

Bechdel test... possibly? And I recall a conversation once had on one of the forums about the Hobbits being feminine in quality, so he really was, in a backwards way, feminist.

As far as Tauriel, I'm glad that the backstory was cut out of the final edit, because I would have thrown my popcorn at the screen and possibly have been kicked out of the theater. I think, however, her cliche might go really well with a "I don't give a f***" Thranduil. I really hope what Lee Pace said about him is played out in the film, I can see that being an interesting take on immortality. All we've seen yet of it is elegance and grace, which aren't really character traits. When you've lived so long, little things don't matter and neither do little people. If there's some cliche Tauriel line (like the one from the vlog) followed by a dryly delivered blunt response by Thranduil, I may stay sane.

[Norc]

I think thrandy sounds so cool

[Pettytyrant101]

No wonder the Tauriel actress has been getting in her pre-emptive 'dont hate me' speeches- she knows how bad this shite is- dont hate me because my character has a generic clichéd fantasy background story that an 8 year old Dungeons and Dragons player would be too embarrassed to use.

[Bluebottle]

It really is rather striking when you separate the parts of Boyens and Walsh original writing, like Tauriel and the Azog nonsense, from their rewriting of Tolkiens work. The drop in quality is quite jarring.

More than anything it shows how well structured and original Tolkiens work was when it was realeased. To the degree that it still feels original today while Boyens and Walsh parts stand out as painfully derivative. I don't think the "fanfiction" word is bandied around this much for no reason.

Now how that reflects on Oscar winning screenwriters in general? I wouldn't really like to say.

[Bluebottle]

No wonder the Tauriel actress has been getting in her pre-emptive 'dont hate me'  speeches- she knows how bad this shite is- dont hate me because my character has a generic clichéd fantasy background story that an 8 year old Dungeons and Dragons player would be too embarrassed to use.

Yeah I wonder if that is why Martin Freeman seemed so dejected in his appearance as well. For people who is used to work in a different way, Jacksons "making it up as you go along" style of film making could be quite a shock to the system.

[Mrs Figg]

I'm taking classes right now that are obsessed with feminine energy and equality, one of them saying that LOTR fails in terms of a feminist rating because every female in the story is talking about a man or does things because of men, which is mainly true, but then again it was written during a time when women were still being characterized as objects for men. Tolkien gives the women in his stories a beauty and strength that wasn't fathomed when he was growing up. Quite frankly, I wish he'd made a female character for the Hobbit, but it's a kids book; nobody (should) be worrying about how gender-equal it is!

Are you referring to the Bechdel Test?  It's a useful point to bring up when you're trying to raise awareness about gender roles in fiction, but it's never worked (and I don't think was ever intended to be) a test that you apply to a work to see how feminist/pro-gender equality it is.  There are plenty of non-feminist works of fiction that pass the Bechdel Test.

That's not to imply that Tolkien's writings are a model of gender equality or anything, though I think he's sometimes given more shit than he deserves (not necessarily by anyone on here).

As a woman I think this feminine energy thing in the Hobbit is political correct rubbish. and I dont think Tolkiens women were all about men. Galadriel certainly wasnt, she had a Kingdom to run. Eowyn doesnt either (in a strange way) you would think she is all about her love for Aragorn, but she loved his freedom and noble cause more than she loved the man. Goldberry is a strange Nature entity who just happens to live with Tom Bombadil. Maybe only Arwen is under developed in the book.

[Mrs Figg]

No wonder the Tauriel actress has been getting in her pre-emptive 'dont hate me'  speeches- she knows how bad this shite is- dont hate me because my character has a generic clichéd fantasy background story that an 8 year old Dungeons and Dragons player would be too embarrassed to use.

Yeah I wonder if that is why Martin Freeman seemed so dejected in his appearance as well. For people who is used to work in a different way, Jacksons "making it up as you go along" style of film making could be quite a shock to the system.

I agree, poor Martin looked very uncomfortable, he looked like he hated every second of that false schmoozefest.

[Pettytyrant101]

but she loved his freedom and noble cause more than she loved the man. - Figg

Couldnt agree more- indeed Aragorn says as much himself to Eomer when she in the Houses of Healing.

In fairness with Martin maybe he was jet lagged or something- but yeah, thats as unenthusiastic as I have ever seen him looking.

[Bluebottle]

Yeah, that's probably a more likely explenation.

Though it is striking the amount of actors who have come out with the story of several new pages of script on the day of shooting written the night before. And I would say it shows in the finished product.

[Pettytyrant101]

I agree Blue, it was the same on LotR's the further on it got, to the pint where actor were getting rewrites sent to their hotels, then waking in the morning to find it had been rewritten again, only to find by the time they got on set it was all changed again.

My own view of PJ's film making is that he doesnt make a film in his head before he starts, or even whilst he is making it, he makes a film in the editing room out of all the different shoots he does of everything.
He seems to shoot huge amounts of material much of which never sees the light of day (probably just as well if what we are getting is supposed to be the 'good' stuff)

[Mrs Figg]

I want to see all that stuff left over. I bet there are some goodies like Faramirs wedding.

[Bluebottle]

Yeah, there probably is some good stuff left over. But if it's just more of the Aragorn fighting Sauron variety I'd rather not see it.

[David H]

Yeah, that's probably a more likely explenation.

Though it is striking the amount of actors who have come out with the story of several new pages of script on the day of shooting written the night before. And I would say it shows in the finished product.

Hi Blue.

I agree about the quality of the finished product, but I'd like to point out that a lot of really good, and even great movies were made like that, with the writers changing the script hourly.  If you like Bogart, Casablanca and African Queen come to mind.  PotC 1 was another example. The thing is, when you're writing spontaneously like that, the director is usually relying on the acting talent that can improvise, like Bogy and Depp, to sort it all out for them.  

But when PJ stands his talent against a green screen and asks them to have their dialog with a tennis ball.......   Well, you can't really blame the actors for not bailing him out like they did in LotR.

[Mrs Figg]

yes good point Dave. classically trained actors like Sir Ian hated the green screen, I mean where's the challenge and the enjoyment in an empty room?  

[malickfan]

On the other hand Christopher Lee has stated he likes the challenge of greenscreen-it's the 'purest' form of acting as you can only go off your own imagination.

[Mrs Figg]

I can understand that if its a radio play, thats fair enough, the Actors are using their imaginations, but they didnt sign up for that in a film. Most actors thrive on the energy up close and personal like theatre acting. I am no expert but I imagine its cold and soulless acting to a tennis ball.

[malickfan]

Well frankly I'd probably prefer acting with a tennis ball than Christopher Lee the guy is a legend but slighty scary all the same!.

In anycase as indicted earlier in this thread on Jackson's films the final product isn't necessarily what the actors signed up for...

[Mrs Figg]

agreed  

[Orwell]

I agree about the quality of the finished product, but I'd like to point out that a lot of really good, and even great movies were made like that, with the writers changing the script hourly.  If you like Bogart, Casablanca and African Queen come to mind.  PotC 1 was another example. The thing is, when you're writing spontaneously like that, the director is usually relying on the acting talent that can improvise, like Bogy and Depp, to sort it all out for them.

What would The Wizard of Oz be without those rewrites. Especially the Ruby Slippers bit (apparently).

[Bluebottle]

Hello Dave.

Yes, I certainly agree it can be a very effective style of film making. A lot of gloriously good stuff has been made that way.

I don't know how well it fits the Hobbit though. If that is because of the people involved or if Tolkiens story just doesn't fit that kind of treatment? I'm not really sure.

It's certainly not my primary criticism of the film, and if the film worked on it's own merit I don't think I would quibble with it. But I think we saw, with the Lord of the Rings films as well, that a lack of thinking things true could caertainly have some rather unfortunate consequences for the story at times.

[Orwell]

Bluebottle said: "...that a lack of thinking things true could caertainly have some rather unfotunate consequences for the story at times."

[Bluebottle]

 

Well some of Tolkiens story survived, at leat in the Lord of the Rings.

[David H]

What would The Wizard of Oz be without those rewrites. Especially the Ruby Slippers bit (apparently).

Hmmm...Let me think. 
Maybe a faithful adaptation?
Especially the Silver Shoes bit  (apparently)

[David H]

Hello Dave.

Yes, I certainly agree it can be a very effective style of film making. A lot of gloriously good stuff has been made that way.

I don't know how well it fits the Hobbit though. If that is because of the people involved or if Tolkiens story just doesn't fit that kind of treatment? I'm not really sure.

I personally don't think it's a good fit for the Hobbit, both because it's an adaptation rather than an original script (which would allow for more improvisation), and because it's grown into 3 movies (for reasons I'd rather not even think about  ) I'd say that the bigger the project the more important it is to plan everything well in advance and stick to the plan. But that's not how PJ rolls.

[Orwell]

Hmmm...Let me think. 
Maybe a faithful adaptation?
Especially the Silver Shoes  bit  (apparently)

On much reflection (apparently) I think the problem is the book, David. If it wasn't for the book, you could sit and watch the movie untrammelled by thoughts of what was in the book. Here to help!