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

by Mrs Figg Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:30 pm

what I like here is that even if you love Jackson, people here dont try to belittle you or give snide comments. I love LOTR but I dont feel that its 'not allowed' or anything. Whereas on TORn if you dont tow the party line people soon get nasty. Here its a mixture of opinions.

by halfwise Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:49 pm

So long as you accept that Petty will hang on to any argument like a persistent pup on a pant leg, then yeah, it's pretty much live and let live here. Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:16 am

Hey! Thats not true Mad

I will hang on like a Scots hobbit to his last buckie barrel, but only if a better bigger fuller buckie barrel doesnt come along.

by bungobaggins Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:02 am

Eldorion wrote:
Ringdrotten wrote:The shackles actually didn't bother me that much. You could ask the same question about his clothes - do they turn into fur? It's an issue in most fantasy stories with shapeshifters, it's the same in Harry Potter.

Re: clothes ... wasn't Beorn naked when we saw him turn back into a human? We didn't see him get dressed but it presumably happened between scene cuts. I don't remember if we saw him turn into a bear and/or if he would have had time to strip before transforming, though.

We do get a nice shot of Beorn's fine ass as he transforms back into a man, so the clothes must either be torn off, or he strips before shape shifting. We haven't seen him turn into a bear, yet, and I really don't think we'll see this in TABA.

by bungobaggins Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:06 am

The voice of the Necromancer sounds like Benny Cucumberpatch with clogged sinuses and a cold.

by David H Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:06 am

We might get Beorn->Bear in TABA though, at Battle of 5 Armies. It would be just the sort of shot that PJ might like to try to play with his new CGI toys.

by Sinister71 Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:16 pm

Eldorion wrote:Or maybe -- going out on a limb here -- there's just a lot of people on TORn who enjoy the films and the site attracts more such people because like-minded people often flock together (we've seen the same thing on this site, just in reverse).

I might agree to some small degree, BUT when actual Tolkien fans do migrate to TORn they are made to feel like their opinion is not important and constantly berated until the either leave on their own or driven out/ banned for not changing their views. Nothing wrong with it being a very Peter Jackson friendly site, They IMO though should quit lying to people by claiming to be a Tolkien site since if you post in areas that are more movie friendly with ideals or facts that Tolkien provided you are warned that you are trolling. If the site were truly a Tolkien site there should be no problem with making his ideas known no matter how much the movie is liked by some

by Mrs Figg Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:25 pm

I think they pretty much rely on the goodwill of PJ and co for funds, so I suppose they dont want it to turn into a purist outpost. Its obvious they weed out anyone who doesnt tow their line or who upsets the apple cart, its just the way they roll. Its heavily biased for PJ and thats just the way it is over there. Its a cozy enclave for the movie lovers to drool over Thorins hair. Its probably better staying away but I cant resist a post or two when it gets ridiculous.

by feanor 1999 Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:42 pm

Ayup All...

Peter Jackson's failure has been with his scripts, not usually his actual filmmaking. And that has to bring the others he 'hangs around' with, IE The Coven, into question. I think with DOS they've taken notice of those Tolkien fans who think this as they even gave GDT a credit for his contribution on DOS, maybe to make it look as if it wasn't ALL his (PJs) and the covens fault this time around. However, I think in the case of DOS I would take exception this time about his (PJs) filmmaking skills as the 'Gold smelting' shenanigans was even worser, IMO, than the trolls and the great goblin crap. Truly cringeworthy. Fortunately (?) for TABA, all they have to do is kill the dragon and give us a two hour BO5A. Can't wait ... Wink

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:55 pm

PJ's manner of film making puzzles me.
Once upon a time he had to work on a ridiculously small budget, where every shot would be a potential drain, its hard to believe he made those films in the same haphazard manner he has done LotR''s and even more so with TH.
The scenes he shot in both sets of film, then changed his mind about and reshot or dumped entirely or shot something new instead is ridiculous, and the bits that never saw light of day probably cost ten times as much as what he once had to make an entire film on.

All scripts undergo changes during filming- sometimes for reasons outwith the makers control- weather, illness ect, sometimes from additions made by the cast, sometimes in the editing room for pacing or mood reasons.
But Ive never known of films where they even change their mind after they have technically finished shooting the film, and go on to shoot another films worth of made up stuff. Nor can I think of another film maker who seems to start shooting a film without anything resembling a finished script.
On LotR's they were still making stuff up as far a long as the Battle of Pelannor, and in the commentary Boyen admits that they had no idea how to finish TT until Sam's speech came to mind.
How do you coherently shoot a script when you dont have a clue where its even going?
The answer, based on the evidence of the finished products, is that you dont.
In LOttR' the script is the worst thing about the production, the same is true of TH but its also saddled with PJs apparent obsession with using new tech to show of ever more over the top spectacle.

But then this is a Hollywood trend towards pure spectacle, its no wonder all the upcoming drama writers look to TV instead these days.

PJ and his like are hammering the final nails in the coffin of cinema.

by Eldorion Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:07 pm

RIP film as an artform

1902-2013

by bungobaggins Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:08 pm

Eldorion wrote:RIP film as an artform

1902-2013

by bungobaggins Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:09 pm

You know, DOS still sucks, but I think I'm over it. I just don't really care anymore. It makes AUJ look a little better in terms of adaptation (a little better), but I'm over it.

by Eldorion Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:24 pm

I guess it's easier for me to not let it go since I've been carrying the "PJ is overrated" flag for years (or until Petty stole it from me Mad

) and was never expecting all that much from these films. But yeah, I don't carry any resentment for The Hobbit with me. I do wish that they had ended up being better films because it would have been cool to see and would hopefully have introduced more people to the story, but at the end of the day, it's just a movie.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:28 pm

"I've been carrying the "PJ is overrated" flag for years (or until Petty stole it from me"- Eldo

I stole nothing, its just that from all your bolshy liberal Pj talk at the time I assumed you must have dropped it! Twisted Evil

by bungobaggins Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:28 pm

All I have left to do is roll my eyes at TABA and PJ's stint in Middle-earth will finally be over. cheers

by Mrs Figg Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:29 pm

How do you coherently shoot a script when you dont have a clue where its even going?
The answer, based on the evidence of the finished products, is that you dont. based on the evidence in TH, the creative madness really worked in the LOTR films
In LOttR' the script is the worst thing about the production, no it wasnt. the script was great.the same is true of TH its true of TH ok but its also saddled with PJs apparent obsession with using new tech to show of ever more over the top spectacle. Petty

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:36 pm

As I have said before (with evidence!) there is nothing fundamentally different in the manner in which the scripts for both films came about, or in the poorness of the invented dialogue, or in the deviations from book characters, or the complete failure to understand and convey the respective books relevant themes.

The scale is greater in TH but the exact same script problems are evident and persist in both.

Compare two adaptations- can you honestly say compared to the BBC version that the character of film Frodo is the same as this one in the same situation? Or that PJ's account is an improvement for Frodo? Or the dialogue better? Or that PJ's is a more faithful or better adaptation?

by feanor 1999 Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:11 pm

Ayup Jason,

Never a truer word or two. These films are a case of more (money) making a worse film. As an aside I watched Star Trek ' Into Darkness' for the first time today and really enjoyed it. Now there's a featurette on the DVD where the director explains how a sequence if Chris pine and mr Cumbersnatch enter the real baddies 'Black Enterprise'. It was made in the Spruce Gooses hangar, and involved the two actors being zipped along it rather quickly on wires and dropped onto the floor. The sequence could have been done on a computer but was done live 'in camera' because the director thought it looked better and because it actually was easier than messing about with computers in this instance. It was a good sequence and refreshing in an effects heavy movie to see something of the 'art of deception' used instead of the old Quantel paintbrush for once. And I even liked mr cumbersbatches performance too ! I must be coming down with something ! It's a pity we're going to get a 'boring' CGI battle.

by Mrs Figg Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:27 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:As I have said before (with evidence!) there is nothing fundamentally different in the manner in which the scripts for both films came about, or in the poorness of the invented dialogue, or in the deviations from book characters, or the complete failure to understand and convey the respective books relevant themes.
nope

The scale is greater in TH but the exact same script problems are evident and persist in both. nope

Compare two adaptations- can you honestly say compared to the BBC version that the character of film Frodo is the same as this one in the same situation? Or that PJ's account is an improvement for Frodo? Or the dialogue better? Or that PJ's is a more faithful or better adaptation?
yep

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:48 pm

You need to give some explanation for that last one for it to stand ground. Such as? What makes PJ's more faithful when it uses almost none of the dialogue, changes one of the characters and reduces the main character to baggage with no dialogue?

I for one find it mind-boggling anyone would adapt that scene and leave out the bit where Frodo refuses to leave his friends behind in danger and Glorfindel replies "I doubt very much your friends would be in danger if you were not with them, it is you Frodo, and that which you bear that brings us all into danger."

Did they (or do you) really think Aragorn's exchange with Arwen is better-

Aragorn- stay with them, I'll send horses for you.

Arwen- I'm the faster rider. I'll take him.

Aragorn- The road is too dangerous.

or

Arwen - I do not fear them. (well there goes the sense of dread and peril- they replace a wounded weary little hobbit with a powerful elf who doesnt even fear the Riders)

Aragorn- Ride hard and dont look back. (Really? Not even to see where the chasing riders are? :facepalm:

)

If you honestly think that is dialogue more worthy of inclusion than that which Tolkien gave us then I am amazed, as your own short stories on here have noticeably better dialogue than this tripe and nonsense.

by halfwise Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:21 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Nor can I think of another film maker who seems to start shooting a film without anything resembling a finished script.
On LotR's they were still making stuff up as far a long as the Battle of Pelannor, and in the commentary Boyen admits that they had no idea how to finish TT until Sam's speech came to mind.
How do you coherently shoot a script when you dont have a clue where its even going?

Sorry, but I have to correct you as your film history seems to be non-existent on this point.

Casablanca was shot with the script only partially done when shooting began, with the writer (there was only one after the Epsteins went off to other projects) frantically trying to stay ahead of the shooting. Bogey would sometimes catch Howard Koch fretting about having written himself into a corner, he'd invite him to sit down with a whiskey and they'd work things out. Ingrid Bergman would complain she didn't know how to play some scenes because she didn't know which man she'd end up with, it is claimed this made her acting more real as the character didn't know either.

The end result was one of the greatest movies ever made, and it was by no means an aberration. This was part and parcel of the studio system in those days, when Hollywood was cranking out as many B movies as they could. Yes, Casablanca was considered a B movie in those days, shot in haste, just part of the mill. Perhaps this is why it came to represent MOVIES as a whole: Koch ended up mining many idioms in his haste, and Casablanca (and many others of that time) worked as a collage of the cinematic subconscious.

What has this to do with LotR and the Hobbit? Simply that you can't fault the process, simply the decisions that they made. Or perhaps you can: stream of consciousness movie making worked when movies were young, but now with our jaded palates we pick out the idioms immediately, and reject them as too easy. PJ and Co should know better and steer clear.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:34 pm

Casbalanca was indeed a B movie, one of hundreds shot a year.
Its a very different scene now. LotR's was cheap by current blockbuster standards but it was never a budget film either. Things should have been much better thought through.
Casablanca was also being written by its author at the time, he did not have the luxury of adapting from a long established and studied existing book of mass popularity.
I dont think they really compare.

by halfwise Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:26 pm

It may not be fair to compare them, I just didn't like the implied statement that all successful movies begin filming with a completed script.

by **Orwell** Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:33 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:"I've been carrying the "PJ is overrated" flag for years (or until Petty stole it from me"- Eldo

I stole nothing, its just that from all your bolshy liberal Pj talk at the time I assumed you must have dropped it!

I of course am old enough to remember when GB and Eldo were this close. Nod

{{{Possibly even closer, Petty.... cyclops

}}}

I also remember Luthien as a young girl, though that may be due more to my inability to separate myth from history than my Alzheimers...

scratch

Oh gawd... I could end up a Christian yet! Shocked