Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

more shite from TORn

''Of course some fans of the book may feel that the filmmakers took great liberties with the material that was given to them. At the same time, these liberties can also be looked upon as “expansions, ideas” inspired by it. Personally, I find The Hobbit book a bit generic in descriptions, characterizations, and plots (the first targeted readers being children). In this film adaptation, PJ and his team have let their imagination run with the material

''Nothing in this movie deviates from the messages of the book. It is visually enhanced and storywise expanded, but here at the end of all things, it is still Bilbo’s story and the dwarves quest we’re witnessing, so nothing is lost. Sometimes in order to honor a work of art, you need to absorb it completely as your own.''

WTF

Yeah, utter poppycock. Screw TORn.

 

Well, at least one person over there has some sense.

These "Tolkien fans" are great aren't they.   

That site might as well be called PeterJackson.net.

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=681109;sb=post_time;so=DESC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

A sane TorN voice!- will probably just get shouted down by those claiming PJ has improved Tolkien.   

wow, good find Johnny! It's good to see some people in TORN have not lapped up the koolaid.

Mrs Figg wrote:more shite from TORn

''Of course some fans of the book may feel that the filmmakers took great liberties with the material that was given to them. At the same time, these liberties can also be looked upon as “expansions, ideas” inspired by it. Personally, I find The Hobbit book a bit generic in descriptions, characterizations, and plots (the first targeted readers being children). In this film adaptation, PJ and his team have let their imagination run with the material

''Nothing in this movie deviates from the messages of the book. It is visually enhanced and storywise expanded, but here at the end of all things, it is still Bilbo’s story and the dwarves quest we’re witnessing, so nothing is lost. Sometimes in order to honor a work of art, you need to absorb it completely as your own.''

WTF

Bilbo's story? He had fewer scenes than I have fingers on my hands

Radaghast wrote:That site might as well be called PeterJackson.net.

Come to think of it, though, the One Ring is an evil thing, so maybe that site is aptly named after all

Yeah, that last quote is complete BS. What the hell does absorbing mean? I don't really care because they're just so wrong!

Yup.

Of course some fans of the book may feel that the filmmakers took great liberties with the material that was given to them. At the same time, these liberties can also be looked upon as “expansions, ideas” inspired by it. Personally, I find The Hobbit book a bit generic in descriptions, characterizations, and plots (the first targeted readers being children). In this film adaptation, PJ and his team have let their imagination run with the material

''Nothing in this movie deviates from the messages of the book. It is visually enhanced and storywise expanded, but here at the end of all things, it is still Bilbo’s story and the dwarves quest we’re witnessing, so nothing is lost. Sometimes in order to honor a work of art, you need to absorb it completely as your own.

This is a review of AUJ that I found on FB, but what the hey:

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/12/19/peter_jackson_doesnt_get_the_hobbit.html

I'll grant that Jackson's version is more exciting, in the same way that loading Ophelia with a suicide vest and having her blast herself to smithereens center-stage would liven up a production of Hamlet. But that wouldn't be Shakespeare.

Beautifully stated.    

Agreed. And a PJ adaptation of Hamlet would probably include that scene

Yeah, but as someone just said. When you maximise the excitement in every scene it kind of defeats the purpous.

The excitement takes on the quality of mundanity.   

I get the feeling we're gonna see TORN people wandering around all dazed and confused like people released from a cult.

There is one thing about that review I'm not sure is correct: the comment about Frodo heroically launching himself at Gollum. It seemed to me Frodo was trying to get the ring back. But I could be wrong.

He does launch himself Id say, he gets up, gives a snarling look at Gollum and charges for him.

I hate that bit it was the final straw for me as that reviewer rightly points out it completely undermines the entire point Tolkien was making and everything the story has been building to up until that point is thrown out the window and stomped all over rendering everything preceding it pointless (as well as meaning in pJ's Frodo has no reason to go on the ship at the end)

I agree he launches himself at Gollum, I'm just not sure it's for heroic reasons. I'm more than willing to accept that I'm wrong, though.

Yeah, I think that was a misstep in the review. I have to somewhat disagree with Petty here in that Jackson actually enhanced the point of Frodo's failure by Sam's reaction to him claiming the ring for his own.  I have to admit, in Tolkien's own version I'm not sure the theological point is made all that clear, but perhaps he didn't want to make it too obvious.

The point in Tolkien is that Frodo fails in the task because the task is impossible- in the book Frodo is incapable of any action whatsoever at that point let alone a rage induced assault on Gollum.

And by having Frodo directly play a part in the Rings destruction, and then him rejecting following it into the fire by taking Sam's hand and choosing to live on PJ gives a completion to his version that Tolkien most deliberately avoided.
It fundamentally alters the entire nature of the story, and was for me the crowning factor in my certainty that PJ and the Coven actually dont understand the book at all.

I'm pretty sure in the bonus material PJ talks about how in the original version of the scene, they did have Frodo basically push Gollum over the edge, but they reshot it so that Frodo was simply trying to regain the Ring and then both fell over during the struggle.

It does obscure the point of the scene (though as Halfy points out, it was subtle enough that most readers miss it), but I don't think it totally ruins the scene.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The point in Tolkien is that Frodo fails in the task because the task is impossible- in the book Frodo is incapable of any action whatsoever at that point let alone a rage induced assault on Gollum.

Frodo doesn't fail in the book because he is incapable of action. He fails because it's impossible for anyone to resist the temptation of the Ring at that point. He doesn't resist the Ring's temptation in the film either.