Re: More Hobbit pictures [4] SPOILER THREAD

[bungobaggins]

I really disliked AUJ.

Edit: To be clear, DOS diverges far more from the book, but as a film I think it works better.  At least it is not so crushingly boring and uninterested in its own narrative.  That still doesn't make it a good (much less great) movie though.

I really don't think DOS works as a better film. I feel that it had the opposite problem that AUJ had, except it resulted in the same effect.

The beginning is a series of fast moving set pieces that get us to Lake-town and Erebor very quickly, the same way the second half of AUJ was a series of fast moving set pieces with little rest.

The ending of DOS is one long action set piece that is drawn out to no end, which resulted in me getting bored. The beginning of AUJ is a lot of set up and drags quite a bit, and despite quite a bit of it being from the book, is not the most thrilling thing to behold.

In my mind AUJ had too much set up and exposition that resulted in boredom, DOS had too much action that resulted in boredom. I didn't feel that there was a proper balance. It just felt like a lot of colorful and wild vignettes strung together, with Peter Jackson holding them up and saying (rather unconvincingly), "Look, this is a movie!"

That's definitely the feeling I got from watching it. Maybe it will go down easier a second time, if I can get used to the HFR.

[Mrs Figg]

I really disliked AUJ.

Edit: To be clear, DOS diverges far more from the book, but as a film I think it works better.  At least it is not so crushingly boring and uninterested in its own narrative.  That still doesn't make it a good (much less great) movie though.

I found DOS crushingly boring, fast paced but boring, AUJ was slow paced but boring, but at least I could sit through it without wanting to chew the furniture.

[Eldorion]

And I've read UT, but what's the difference between that and HOME?

Unfinished Tales is a single (though hefty) volume containing a collection of stories and various notes by Tolkien.  Most of them don't really have anything in common with each other, ranging from versions of the legends of Tuor and Turambar to background notes on LOTR.  While none of the tales are finished, as the name implies, most of them are in a fairly advanced state of composition and include notes that outline how they were supposed to end.  It's presented more or less as an anthology of minor Middle-earth works with small amounts of commentary by Christopher Tolkien, mostly limited to footnotes.

The History of Middle-earth is a series of 12 rather significant volumes.  It is mostly comprised of Tolkien's unpublished writings from various stages of his life, but they are mostly in a much rougher state than UT, and include much more commentary from Christopher.  Rather than being an anthology of Tolkien's writings, it's more a scholarly study by Christopher of the evolution of his father's world, interspersed with extracts from the archives.  It's not something you read just to see the tales, but rather something you read if you want to engage in scholarly study of Tolkien's works.  The volumes are mostly arranged topically, starting with some of the earliest stages of the mythology composed during World War I and concluding with some of Tolkien's final notes in the last month of his life.  The bulk of the series covers the evolution of The Silmarillion and its constituent tales, but it also includes precursors to the legend of Numenor and the history of The Lord of the Rings and its Appendices.  For information on The Hobbit, however, you have to turn to the two volume history of that work, edited by John D. Rateliff.

[Eldorion]

I envy you your ability to enjoy films based on books for what they are, whatever that may be. I've never been able to do that except for LotR, but I suspect that was because I was so young when I first watched the films and did not fully understand the book. I didn't fully understand the films, either.

I think this might be the difference in our perspectives on the films. The first time I saw the LOTR films, I had already read and fallen in love with the books some years prior, and I was perturbed by many of the changes even though I still enjoyed the films overall. It's never been difficult for me to view the films as both an impressive cinematic achievement and a major departure from Tolkien's story. When it comes to The Hobbit, obviously DOS diverges far more than AUJ did, but I still thought it was the more entertaining film. Neither is a "good" film by normal critical standards, though (IMO obviously).

The first time I saw them I didn't care as much for the scenes I love most today ("character scenes", for want of a better word), I cared more for the action scenes. The LotR trilogy, however much it deviates from the book, has such great character building scenes, which was completely lacking from DOS. There was a couple of them, sure, but they feel odd and out of place, like something taken from another film altogether.

AUJ was lacking in character scenes as well, I thought moreso than DOS. For as much of a slap in the face to Tolkien as the Legolas/Kili/Tauriel love triangle is -- and for as trite and cliche as it is -- it at least represents something happening on screen and characters doing things for personal motivations rather than because it drives the plot forward. And the action scenes in DOS were better than AUJ, despite still not being very good. I hope you notice that I'm qualifying all of my praise for DOS because I still didn't like it, and I'm not certain how I will rank The Hobbit films after watching it again, but it did seem more eventful and entertaining to me.

[Radaghast]

On second thought, I did actually peruse the first two books of THoME.

[halfwise]

The parts of UT that pertain to LotR are later writings, and it shows. The earlier parts drag on a bit in comparison. Cirion and Eorl I found to be the most fascinating, and the essays on the Pukel men is absolutely charming. The Disaster at the Gladden Fields and the Hunt for the Ring are of course required reading. There are many treasures in Unfinished Tales.

[chris63]

[chris63]

[azriel]

 

[RA]

I think that strikes at what's wrong with Thorin in a weird way. These films try to make him seem like a badass of some sort but fall flat in my opinion; it feels fake and as a result hilarious   

[Mrs Figg]

 

[Radaghast]

Thorin needs his Arkenfraggle.

[RA]

Character motivation is important.

[Pettytyrant101]

I know Azriel put a pic of 'baby Smaug' somewhere but I cant find what thread it was in   - I thought Id stick Smaugs head on it to see how it looked-

[Amarië]

That's a fire fox, isn't it? What does that fox say?

[Pettytyrant101]

I think the fox look about the face was Tolkiens way of conveying his cunning, foxes being in fairytales usually the cunning ones.

[Radaghast]

The R/B cartoon Smaug had a foxy sort of face.

[Amarië]

Inspired by Chinese dragons I guess? At least reading about the different types of dragons makes me think Smaug is the Norse or Chinese type, long and snake like. While Glaurung is the more dino-ish type.

[Pettytyrant101]

I'd lean towards Norse- he looks like a classic north european Wyrm to me.

[Radaghast]

I imagine Glaurung to have a Komodo dragon body type, since he crawls on all fours.

The flying dragons should, logically anyway, resemble birds, structurally—jmho.

[Bluebottle]

[Radaghast]

Cool

Is that Stephen Fry?

[Pettytyrant101]

Yup- and the program title is the same as the book by his late good friend Douglas Adams, about species going extinct.

[Radaghast]

Ah. Interesting.

[Bluebottle]

Spot on Petty.   

Yes, it's with Stephen Fry going around searching out species that were dangling on the edge of extinction when Douglas Adams and the other guy, Mark Cowardine, did the same journey in the 80's.

Highly recomended watch.