Re: In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS

by RA Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:20 am

Radaghast wrote:
Pettytyrant101 wrote:Beowulf was an interesting example of that- technically it was superb in its time yet the eye is not fooled entirely. (For some reason fat faces same more realistic than thin ones)

Gawd, did I ever hate this movie

Angelina Jolie was there for some reason...

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:49 am

And Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Brendan Gleeson...

Very Happy

by bungobaggins Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:09 am

Radaghast wrote:
Pettytyrant101 wrote:Beowulf was an interesting example of that- technically it was superb in its time yet the eye is not fooled entirely. (For some reason fat faces same more realistic than thin ones)

Gawd, did I ever hate this movie

by azriel Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:19 am

Sexy women with voluptuous figures, smouldering eyes & pouty lips are there to pull in the punters when the producers/directors have an icky-wicky niggly feeling that maybe,just maybe, their film might be lacking something............. Eye candy often walks the brain completely off ANY (if there is one ?) story. women like male eye candy to, but, we are shrewder.

by Mrs Figg Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:47 pm

malickfan wrote: Incidently, Figgs, what do you think Jackson got right with LOTR in comparison to The Hobbit? Were they purely better films (even Petty would agree with that-to an extent), or stronger/bolder adapatations..

...

well to make it simple, I think PJ got LOTR perfect in nearly every way. But you answered the question for me in that TH seems like a parody of all the things PJ liked most in LOTR, like the humour for example. I like the humour in LOTR I find it funny and endearing, but the humour in TH is just vulgar and it feels modern and wrong. LOTR was lightyears better in every respect imo. PJ reined in his liking for obvious humour and spectacle in LOTR to the right side of great, it depends on whether you think spectacle is bad, I dont, I like spectacle when its needed and LOTR had the balance right. Theres no equivalent of the barrel rides in LOTR no matter how spectacular it got, even Oliphaunt riding was tame compared to that stuff. I like Oliphaunt riding. Embarassed

I thought Leggy was pretty cool. Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:19 pm

For me I see no difference at all between surfing on a shield, single handedly taking down an oliphaunt, running a mile on fire and the barrel sequence- its all the same utter nonsense- completely immersion breaking, utterly implausible and downright physically impossible and utterly misplaced in the work of Tolkien.

I find it very hard to comprehend how one can be acceptable and the other beyond the pale, they are the same thing.

The humour in LotR's is also vulgar, consisting often of burping and farting, its just as modern and just as misplaced- as is much of the general dialogue which is full of modern sentence structuring that Tolkien would never, ever use.

For me LotR's is like the Wizard of Oz before they pull the curtain back- lots of folk were fooled into thinking they were seeing the all powerful OZ, but TH saw the curtain pulled aside and everyone could see it was just a load of not very impressive tricks. Some of us never fell for the tricks first time out. And its the exact same bag of tricks in both sets of films.

by Ringdrotten Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:38 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

For me LotR's is like the Wizard of Oz before they pull the curtain back- lots of folk were fooled into thinking they were seeing the all powerful OZ, but TH saw the curtain pulled aside and everyone could see it was just a load of not very impressive tricks. Some of us never fell for the tricks first time out. And its the exact same bag of tricks in both sets of films.

Having seen DOS and hated it for 4 months now, I still love the first trilogy and do not feel I was "fooled" by some trick. I liked LotR. That might be hard to comprehend for some, but that's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. LotR had great scenes: The opening of FotR, Gandalf speaking to Frodo in Moria, Boromir telling Aragorn about Minas Tirith, Faramir finally understanding Frodo (though Faramir in TT is mostly an insult to the character from the book, I agree), Sam trying to encourage Frodo when they're on the slopes of Mount Doom, when they've destroyed the ring and are remembering the Shire, the ending of RotK - these are scenes very much in line with the book. I could list more, and there are scenes that are changed or rewritten, but still work for me. DOS had next to no scenes like that. It was horrible from the beginning. There are silly "DOS-like" scenes in the LotR trilogy too, but for me they're not enough to ruin the rest of the films. They're beautiful films both storywise and visually, and as a 10-hour version of my favourite story they serve just fine in my opinion, something the TH trilogy never will.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:50 pm

From my POV its all a bit odd. I spent years complaining about these things in LotR's with the majority of people claiming they were masterpieces. Then TH comes out and all the same people are complaining about them- and all their complaints are exactly the same things Ive been complaining about LoTR's for all this time.
The only explanation I have for this is people, for whatever reason, never saw, or choose not to see, all these things being wrong in the first place.
Its as infuriating to me as it is inexplicable.

by bungobaggins Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:54 pm

Nostalgia goggles!

In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS - Page 11 NostalgiaGoggles

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:01 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:From my POV its all a bit odd. I spent years complaining about these things in LotR's with the majority of people claiming they were masterpieces. Then TH comes out and all the same people are complaining about them- and all their complaints are exactly the same things Ive been complaining about LoTR's for all this time.
The only explanation I have for this is people, for whatever reason, never saw, or choose not to see, all these things being wrong in the first place.
Its as infuriating to me as it is inexplicable.

Not to disagree with you (since I dislike the movies at least as much as you do), but I think the LotR movies benefit from having more from the source, while the the TH movies are mostly filler. The outlandishness stands out less.

by Ringdrotten Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:10 pm

Gandalf never smoke pot or rode bunny sleighs. Orcs used to be people in costumes and look more real than CGI Azog and goblins. Frodo and Sam had lines to say, Bilbo in DOS was given a word or two. Gimli looked like a dwarf, Thorin and most of his company look like models from a men's fashion magazine. The LotR films suffer from being based on a very extensive source material and writers who liked their ideas better, but the first trilogy's flaws aren't even comparable to DOS's - DOS features the locations from the book, but nothing more, everything else is made up by the writers. You can see that a bit of passion, joy and soul went into the making of LotR, whereas in TH the ringing of the till is all you can hear and see. If the fact that am able to like LotR and at the same time hate TH infuriates you, then have a drink and rant about it to the barmaid for all I care.

Nothing personal, I'd still like to be on the mail list for your edits Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:15 pm

There is more of the source in LotR's, in that the outline of the book is more present and there is less pure PJ invention.
But from the very start there are fundamental issues that are the same as in TH- modern phrasing and dialogue, giving far to much information to the viewer ahead of the story and characters, implausible action sequences, crude misplaced humour, bad characterisations, the insistence that every character has to have a character arc and 'be on a journey', alterations that confuse the story rather than clarify it.
And LotR's has fundamental flaws- the end makes no sense in the context of the film just watched. The books main themes are absent or so mishandled as to alter their significance and meaning all together.
And thats putting aside the simple problems of PJ's OTT sensibilities, these are serious flaws in any film let alone an adaptation of the most popular work of fiction of the last hundred years.

Ringdrotten its not individuals that infuriate me as such (well except Mrs Figg obviously Very Happy

), its the seeming awareness of one films flaws whilst wilfully ignoring (it seems to me) or worse denying there are any flaws at all in LotR's that's infuriating.

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:27 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ringdrotten its not individuals that infuriate me as such (well except Mrs Figg obviously ), its the seeming awareness of one films flaws whilst wilfully ignoring (it seems to me) or worse denying there are any flaws at all in LotR's that's infuriating.

To be fair, this happens with more than a few movies. The Dark Knight, for instance, is rife with flaws, but its fans either don't see them or don't care. It's considered one of the best, if not the best, of its genre Shrugging

by Eldorion Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:58 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The only explanation I have for this is people, for whatever reason, never saw, or choose not to see, all these things being wrong in the first place.
Its as infuriating to me as it is inexplicable.

First of all, take a deep breath and then smoke some pipe weed, man.

In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS - Page 11 23HpHXc

Second, I don't find it particularly inexplicable that people are willing to overlook flaws in a movie if there are enough parts that they really enjoy. PJ's craft has definitely declined since he was making LOTR, and even though the beginnings of this were evident in TTT and ROTK, it was on a different scale than in TH. Perhaps more importantly, TH lacks many of the things that PJ did well in LOTR (a large developed cast, battles between armies, a multitude of different cultures, etc.).* I think a lot of people have a threshold of enjoyment, where if a movie surpasses it, they don't care to dwell on the parts they disliked, but if a movie falls below it, they'll latch onto every little flaw and tear it down. I know I sometimes find myself doing this.

*Regardless of whether or not you feel these were done well, a lot of other people did, and they're things that are missing in TH. Also notice that none of what I mentioned has anything to do with how close it was or wasn't to the book. Wink

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:06 pm

First of all, take a deep breath and then smoke some pipe weed, man.- Eldo

No! I am a crabbit bastard damn it and I retain the right to be crabbit!!

And it doesnt matter in my asessment whether they are closer to the book- the biggest flaws in LotR's as films for me are a lack of coherent meaning, and a story line that doesnt make sense as presented.
I have yet to meet someone who saw the films, knew nothing about the books, and can explain the ending.
Thats not just a flaw in adaptation, its a flaw in film making.

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:08 pm

Pipeweed is just tobacco, so I wouldn't recommend taking that up. And if you're already smoking that, quit Razz

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:09 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have yet to meet someone who saw the films, knew nothing about the books, and can explain the ending.
Thats not just a flaw in adaptation, its a flaw in film making.

Which ending are you talking about? The last movie had about 12 Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:11 pm

Pipeweed is just tobacco- Rhaddy

Not if you only watch Pj's version its not. Mad

And if I give up baccy people will tell me give up buckie next too Evil or Very Mad

And then what? I go on living too long, costing money, taking up space, annoying people like me in an old folks home? No Ill die of heart or lung failure at about 50 like a proper Scotsman should!

by Eldorion Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:14 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No! I am a crabbit bastard damn it and I retain the right to be crabbit!!

Oh, alright. I mainly just wanted an excuse to use that GIF. Razz

And it doesnt matter in my asessment whether they are closer to the book- the biggest flaws in LotR's as films for me are a lack of coherent meaning, and a story line that doesnt make sense as presented.

I actually agree with what you say, to a large extent, though clearly I don't think they overwhelm the good parts of the movie. PJ removed most of the thematic and spiritual messages from the story and didn't seem to understand most of what was left, but I don't think it's the themes that attract most people to LOTR, in any medium. The story and characters were definitely made more generic, but for the most part I think their arcs worked, even if they pedestrian at times. There are certainly a crapton of plot holes in LOTR (even after years of picking away at them I still get surprised by how many there are at times), but I for one am willing to just go along with the movie and enjoy the visual realization of Middle-earth (for which PJ deserves some credit as he had to capture the design team's work on film) and the quality performances.

I have yet to meet someone who saw the films, knew nothing about the books, and can explain the ending.
Thats not just a flaw in adaptation, its a flaw in film making.

I think I know what you're referring to, but would you mind refreshing my memory of what your specific beef with the ending was?

by Eldorion Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:15 pm

Radaghast wrote:Pipeweed is just tobacco, so I wouldn't recommend taking that up. And if you're already smoking that, quit

o rly?

Spoiler:

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:19 pm

The problem with the ending is it makes no sense- ask someone who doesn't know the book but has seen the film the following questions-

Why was Frodo going on a ship at the end?
What was the cause of his going?
Where was the ship going?
Would he be returning? If not, why not?

Anyone I have asked hums, haws and then guesses their way through the questions.

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:21 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And if I give up baccy people will tell me give up buckie next too And then what? I go on living too long, costing money, taking up space, annoying people like me in an old folks home? No Ill die of heart or lung failure at about 50 like a proper Scotsman should!

Oh, very well then, carry on Laughing

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:22 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The problem with the ending is it makes no sense- ask someone who doesn't know the book but has seen the film the following questions-

Why was Frodo going on a ship at the end?
What was the cause of his going?
Where was the ship going?
Would he be returning? If not, why not?

Anyone I have asked hums, haws and then guesses their way through the questions.

Peter, Phillipa and Fran figured the book readers would tell the non book-readers what was going on Laughing

by Radaghast Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:23 pm

Eldorion wrote:
Radaghast wrote:Pipeweed is just tobacco, so I wouldn't recommend taking that up. And if you're already smoking that, quit

o rly?

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:30 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:First of all, take a deep breath and then smoke some pipe weed, man.- Eldo

No! I am a crabbit bastard damn it and I retain the right to be crabbit!!

And it doesnt matter in my asessment whether they are closer to the book- the biggest flaws in LotR's as films for me are a lack of coherent meaning, and a story line that doesnt make sense as presented.
I have yet to meet someone who saw the films, knew nothing about the books, and can explain the ending.
Thats not just a flaw in adaptation, its a flaw in film making.

I went to see LOTR with someone who had never read the books, indeed didnt know who any of the characters were, or any of the story, also in a diferent Language to his (I saw them in English with an italian) and not only did he understand every part of the story, he found it so fascinating he went off to read the books. I didnt need to explain anything, there were no lacks in coherent meaning, whatever that means, and a storyline that was abundantly clear to all that watched. The story flowed well and the ending was pretty easy for the average adult with half a brain. Which in Mr Figgs case is no exaggeration. Shocked