Re: Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:59 pm

Gleams of Tolkien in an otherwise sea of PJ shit.

by Radaghast Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:59 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:''I can see, however, many fans walking away from this movie feeling that this franchise has gone off the rails and into the world of self-indulgence. We all have our opinions and expectations, but I personally do not hold to the idea that Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have gone too far. One thing that must be remembered overall is that this is just one interpretation of a 75-year-old story. Do I think it is a good interpretation? Absolutely!''

this deserves a -

One thing just occurred to me about this statement: why is TH open to interpretation? The story looks pretty straightforward and simple to me.
Is Green Eggs and Ham or Charlotte's Web also open to interpretation? Rolling Eyes

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/08/84178-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-will-keep-fans-talking-for-years/

by Eldorion Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:02 am

I assume they mean that any adaptation is inevitably going to be affected by the director's and writers' interpretation of the book. I'm never sure why people feel the need to bring this up, though. I guess it's the same sort of thing as the "relax, no one is stealing the books from the shelves" defense.

by Radaghast Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:09 am

Well, he says "it's just one interpretation" implying TH is open to interpretation. Personally, I think the only thing that's up for interpretation is the stone giants Very Happy

by Bluebottle Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:18 am

It is starting to sound a little bit like that american Fawlty Towers adaptation where they decided to write out Basil. Laughing

by Radaghast Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:20 am

Bluebottle wrote:It is starting to sound a little bit like that american Fawlty Towers adaptation where they decided to write out Basil.

Huh. I've never heard of that.

After Googling it, I see they've tried three American remakes Shocked

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:22 am

Wonder if its as bad as there attempt to remake Red Dwarf. Evil or Very Mad

by Eldorion Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:01 am

One of the people from TORn's "Happy Hobbit" video series has also reviewed DOS. It's immensely spoilery, but I skimmed through and picked out a few highlights.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/07/84192-a-feast-of-starlight-a-review-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/

Character changes:

On Tauriel:

Adaptation and interpretation:

by bungobaggins Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:12 am

My snarky reaction:

by Radaghast Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:34 am

Feh (in response to the review, not bungo's comments).

by Tinuviel Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:27 am

I kind of already got the spoiled vibe from Leggy in FOTR when they made him interrupt so much during the Council of Elrond. So I guess now he's just a mini Thranduil... I mean they are related, so I guess it makes sense. Ugh. Why couldn't they JUST have brought Legolas back and done this? Why does he need to be jealous?

by Radaghast Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:30 am

They want to show how went from hating dwarves to eventually starting to warm up to them. Or something.

by Eldorion Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:32 am

Yep, I imagine that's what they're pushing towards. But they can't have him get too chummy with Dwarves, because then his actions in FOTR won't make any sense. So they're trying to create a character arc that ends partway through, with the understanding that people who care will go back and rewatch the earlier films.

...Have I mentioned how much I hate the very idea of prequels? Laughing

by Radaghast Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:35 am

Of course, in the book, the feud between Thorin and his band started when they were imprisoned by the elves and it wasn't that much of a big deal. But of course, because of lazy screenwriting, one must "never trust an elf!" and so all this BS backstory has to be shoehorned in.

by Eldorion Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:56 am

Well, neither Thorin nor the Elven-king were especially trusting of each other in the book for a number of reasons. But yeah, they've definitely ratcheted up the racial tension factor for the movies. Also, rewatching AUJ last night, I couldn't help noticing how ridiculously racist Gandalf is against Dwarves. He's constantly complaining about "the stubborness of Dwarves" or how he's "had enough of Dwarves for one day". I honestly don't remember if it was that bad in the book but I don't think it was.

by Radaghast Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:00 am

Eldorion wrote:He's constantly complaining about "the stubborness of Dwarves" or how he's "had enough of Dwarves for one day". I honestly don't remember if it was that bad in the book but I don't think it was.

Interesting. I don't think so either but it gives me a good reason to reread the book to find out.

But the whole stubbornness thing comes from Thorin's hatred of ALL elves (when, in the movie, he only has reason to hate the Wood-elves) and that doesn't exist in the book.

by Eldorion Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:18 am

After the Quickbeam review I commented on the significance of TORn finally calling out Jackson for his deviations. Well, their third review is up, and it's got more bad news on that front. Razz

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/08/84178-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-will-keep-fans-talking-for-years/

I was asked, on a scale of 1-10, how much did Jackson and Company diverge from the text, and I can best put it this way. If the more controversial divergences from The Lord of the Rings (Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, Frodo sending Sam away, etc.) were to rate a 5 or 6 on this scale, then The Desolation of Smaug clocks in at about an 8 or a 9. There are alterations, expansions, completely new plot threads and, of course, an entirely new main character. How fans react to this is going to be varied and loud. I can’t discuss those too much without getting into heavy spoilers, so I’ll save that for later. For now, I’ll focus on my general feelings without getting too specific.

by Tinuviel Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:19 am

I'm re-reading the part of the Hobbit that will pertain to DOS, and came across this handy passage.

"In ancient days th had had wars with some of the dwarves, whom they accused of steaing their treasure. It is only fair to say the the dwarves gave a differnt account, and siad that they only took what was their due, for the elf-king had bargained with them to shape his raw gold and silver, and had afterwards refused to give them their pay. If the elf-king had a weakness it was for treasure, especially for silver and whire gems; and though his hoard was rich, he was ever eager for more, since he had not yetas great a treasure as other elf-lords of old. His people neither mined nor worked metals or jewels, nor did they bother much with trade or with tilling the earth. All this was well known to every dwarf, though Thorin's family had had nothing to do with the old quarrel I have spoken of.

So, what I gather PJ meant to show at the beginning of AUJ with the jewels thing was the dwarves refusing to pay Thranduil because he refused to pay them. It's a stretch, but it's kind of the only thing that could make sense. Still, that scene doesn't explain anything out of context, and it makes it look like there's a constant quarrel between the King of the Wood and the King of the Mountain, which seems to be false.

by bungobaggins Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:47 am

Eldorion wrote:After the Quickbeam review I commented on the significance of TORn finally calling out Jackson for his deviations. Well, their third review is up, and it's got more bad news on that front.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/08/84178-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-will-keep-fans-talking-for-years/

I was asked, on a scale of 1-10, how much did Jackson and Company diverge from the text, and I can best put it this way. If the more controversial divergences from The Lord of the Rings (Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, Frodo sending Sam away, etc.) were to rate a 5 or 6 on this scale, then The Desolation of Smaug clocks in at about an 8 or a 9. There are alterations, expansions, completely new plot threads and, of course, an entirely new main character. How fans react to this is going to be varied and loud. I can’t discuss those too much without getting into heavy spoilers, so I’ll save that for later. For now, I’ll focus on my general feelings without getting too specific.

But I rate those LOTR changes at an 8 or 9. Shrugging

Looks like we'll need to go to 11.

Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS - Page 11 Spinaltap_eleven

by azriel Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:32 am

You could say that Tolkien has put each level of society in his story ? We have dwarves, lower class you might say, workers, long hours, dirty work, like Miners ? washer women ? think of England in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Hobbits, country folk, a level up, hard work but, not 9 people in a family living in a 2 room cottage. Elves, top of the tree, Snobs to you & I, hardly worked, lived off mummy & daddy, Sauron = Government, Orcs & other baddies, Governments officials. Gandalf & other wizards, People tired of oppression & making a stand for themselves. I think you could look into LOTRs & make any assimilation's you like ? But in the 1930's things were moving in this country, poverty, working conditions, Laws being looked into, The Great depression, collapse of industry, (which I think Tolkien wanted to show up in the setting with Saruman & his burning of Fangorn to revive industry & make it produce) We had just come out of one world war...(The First Age ?) now heading for another. Did Tolkien hint & leave subtle nudges to life in Britain in his time ? Clues & nudges to how life can rule you ? Was this a way of, in fantasy, him shouting back ?

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:42 am

I think thats the genius of Tolkiens applicability Azriel- you can read all those things into LotR's but they are not allegorical.

by Forest Shepherd Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:42 am

halfwise wrote:
azriel wrote: I love the whole Male flavour these films have ! I dont fooking want women all over the place, I dont want fainting, hair flicking,pouting, heart beating,bodice ripping,eye flirting,bimbo stylee fooking women in LOTRs OR The Hobbit !! Its not that kind of story !! Have fooking "Twilight" if thats what gets you tingly.
I'm trying to think of another movie that is full of Feminine Energy, one where guys would go to watch just to wallow in the babeness of it, and wouldn't want a guy in there spoiling it. Unfortunately Spice Girls keeps trying to intrude (and I keep swatting it down), but I know there has to be a girl movie that isn't all about getting guys. Is there? IS THERE?. There should be. Thelma and Louise I guess came close, since every guy in there was fiddled and dumped, so wasn't part of the image of women needing men.

Ok, so this listing didn't follow what you were asking here, but I think these examples of "feminine energy" in movies stand up the test of whether the main characters are simply obsessed with getting a guy or not.

The Help?
The Descent?
PJ's own Heavenly Creatures, Paradise Road, Fried Green Tomatoes, Mona Lisa Smile, The Kids Are Alright Steel Magnolias, Persepolis, Monster, The Color Purple, Erin Brokovich, Sucker Punch...

But then again, I think Natalee Portman's words (diluted-down wisdom from greater thinkers no doubt, but still) on the subject serve a point here:
"The fallacy in Hollywood is that if you’re making a 'feminist' story, the woman kicks ass and wins," Portman said. "That’s not feminist, that’s macho. A movie about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows a real person that we can empathize with." -Policymic, October 9, 2013

I haven't seen many lesbian-based-character-driven movies, but I'm sure there are some of those that meet these criteria.

Edit:

Eldorion wrote:Have I mentioned how much I hate the very idea of sequels?

Without the additions, and even with most of them, the only characters we see in The Hobbit are Bilbo, Gandalf, and Elrond.
Bilbo's character arc is interesting even when we do know how he will end up, Gandalf is Gandalf, and Elrond is simply Elrond.
I see no discomfort to be had, character-development wise.

by Bluebottle Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:10 pm

Another interesting bit from the "Indiewire" review:

If you think some of the dwarves had fuck all to do in 'An Unexpected Journey,' you probably can’t even imagine the sheer boredom that must have set in for actors playing anyone not named Thorin, Balin (Ken Stott), Dwalin (Graham McTavish) and to a lesser degree Bofur (James Nesbitt). Sure, the handsome Kili (Aidan Turner) gets his own subplot centering on a deathly injury and a coquettish flirtation with Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel, but again (sigh) it’s all narrative teases that amounts to TUNE INTO THE NEXT EPISODE TO FIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENS.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-starring-martin-freeman-ian-mckellen-more-20131206

by Mrs Figg Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:41 pm

''Bad book adaptations always make fans defensive because we don’t want the characters and world we so love to be misrepresented to the masses, yet that is far from the case here'' TORn

erm? scratch

OH the irony!

by Eldorion Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:52 pm

Forest Shepherd wrote:Without the additions, and even with most of them, the only characters we see in The Hobbit are Bilbo, Gandalf, and Elrond.
Bilbo's character arc is interesting even when we do know how he will end up, Gandalf is Gandalf, and Elrond is simply Elrond.
I see no discomfort to be had, character-development wise.

The Hobbit in and of itself is immune to most of the problems of prequels, simply because it is not a prequel. It was written first, making LOTR the sequel. But in the movies they have repeatedly shoehorned in references to LOTR and changed character arcs and plot details to make the story work more as a direct prequel to the films that have already been made. One of the things that jumped out at me most rewatching AUJ is how many lines of dialogue are lifted directly (or with minimal alteration) from the LOTR films. These are clearly not movies made for a fresh audience, but films for fans of PJ's previous work.