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

Thanks Eldo- I also posted that on ToRN- it was what led to the banned posts!

Oooh, I bet they all got their undies in a bundle!   

Well the poster Bombadil did which is what lead to the banned posts.

But another poster was very kind and thanked me for putting clearly into words what others had been feeling but unable to vocalise.

As usual on ToRN though that only brings out those who can see no wrong in anything PJ does.

Literally the most bestest films ever made. 1,000 Oscars for you, Sir Peter Jackson.

 

oh
irony
i get it

Seriously though, I remember people saying after the nominations for AUJ were released in early 2013 that the Academy was going to hold out until the last movie to nominate it for a bunch of categories and then give them a clean sweep like with ROTK.

Wonder what they will say when it doesnt happen.

I think that all the Oscars LOTR won really went to some fans' heads. It's certainly an easy card to play in inter-fandom dick-measuring contests, if nothing else.

I think TH has been pretty completely emasculated as far as that goes....

Lightning doesn't strike twice. It was the right movie at the right time (ROTK I mean) since it was the first really well made fantasy film. Now everybody is trying to replicate that film, even PJ, an nobody has really tried something new in a while.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I used to think that- but then there was the Avengers movies and tv spin offs which were painfully dull with poor characters but they probably paid for his mortgage and his kids education s I can see why he did them.
And Dolls House of course, which was a good idea badly done. And he probably should not be let off too lightly for Alien: Resurrection either.
Even if he did redeem it somewhat by, ironically, resurrecting the crew in that film as the main cast of characters for  Firefly. WHich was brillaint and therefore immediately canned by the powers that be.   

I think the main reason Firefly bombed was the wimpy title combined with lack of promotion. I never watched it while it was out because a) I didn't know it was by Joss Whedon b) The title never aroused my cupidity when I saw it listed.

Years later friends mentioned to me what it was, and when I finally watched it I was aghast at what I had missed, and what I had helped to kill by my lack of support. If Fox had just $@#%!! promoted it by saying "the new science fiction adventure by Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer", they would have had droves of people watching it. Morons.

So its your fault!!!   

 

 

By the by, I would love to have been able to see where you posted this on TOR.N, and the responses of "Bombadi"l and other posters on that site.
It is a lovely write-up, and even introduces some new perspectives to the whole debate. Well done Petty!

Thanks Forest- I put it here- http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=767925;page=2;sb=post_time;so=DESC;mh=25;guest=118797898

Unfortunately the following exchange between Bombadil and myself has been pulled and is no longer there- although I do notice that someone else has responded since last I looked at that thread.

My goodness, that is some delicious Tolkien reasoning.
I don't really know what you are referencing when you say that the High Pass was made in the First Age and has been kept up for the interim; but I love definite Book-lore like that when it pops up.

From the Tolkien Gateway-

The High Pass was first created during the First Age by Oromë the Vala, in order to allow for a crossing of the mountains by the Eldar. Later the High Pass was used by the Dwarves, who connected their roads (the Great East Road and the Men-i-Naugrim through Mirkwood) with it

In the Second Age the High Pass was used by the army of Gil-galad and Elendil when they marched to Mordor in the War of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. After this war Isildur was slain by Orcs watching the way towards the pass.

During the later Third Age, the Pass became dangerous again because of the Orcs, only with the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, which nearly wiped out all Orcs of the mountains, did it became safe again. Nevertheless in T.A. 2940, the goblins of Goblin Town had burrowed their way back to it, and Bilbo Baggins and the Dwarves of Thorin were captured the next year during the Quest of Erebor.

During the War of the Ring, Grimbeorn the Old and the Beornings kept the High Pass open.

Excellent

I need to go make some dinner, but on the subject of DoS:
Can we agree that the slaying of the orc in Thranduil's Halls is antithetical to Elvish customs and morality?

Also, why have our hopes and dreams been so abused with this trilogy? I know how, but why???

Can we agree that the slaying of the orc in Thranduil's Halls is antithetical to Elvish customs and morality?- Forest

Yup I think we safely can.   

Definitely! It makes him the same as Azog. Maybe it's for a lame excuse of character development in BOFA?

And now for the more intriguing, and disturbing, question.
Why has this happened? Why must human endeavour (well, Kiwi endeavour) fail us time and again?
Lightning striking twice you say? We couldn't expect similar quality to the first trilogy?
There are many dependable directors capable of knowing their own limitations and working within them. Why did Tolkien's filmic legacy end up in the grasping hands of a man (and his Co.) who cannot understand what it is that he is holding.
Like an ignorant farmer breaking apart an ancient greek statue for use as a foundation to his chicken-coop.

I'll always bundle The Hobbit and the Narnia films together in my mind. Two satisfying works of calculated simplicity produced into horrifying bloodthirsty parodies of themselves.

Ive been struggling with that question for years Forest, I have'nt found anyways near a decent answer ! It will remain a mystery WHY anyone with the intelligence to build, run, operate a filming business, create weta, bargain with & get it together with, then, make the biggest pile of SHAT that is actually a simple yet heroic, absorbing undulating childs story, IL never know. Peejers is a victim of his own inflated ego, his vanity has pulled him into a dark recess in his mind. Pride goes before a fall & he has with The Hobbit ! We make cock ups in our lives but at least they are not public, one hopes ! but Peejers ? He got himself on the stage of publicity, accolades, nice shiny Oscars, endless magazines. His big beaming smile covered the world, now we can all see his nose dive   

Forest Shepherd wrote:There are many dependable directors capable of knowing their own limitations and working within them. Why did Tolkien's filmic legacy end up in the grasping hands of a man (and his Co.) who cannot understand what it is that he is holding.

I think the main reason is that PJ was the only one to actually try to do something with the material.  Well, that's not entirely true, but he did make the only serious attempt at the material post-Bakshi/RB (that I am aware of).  The book had a reputation of being extremely difficult to adapt, perhaps impossible.  People with experience in the fantasy genre like John Boorman (Excalibur) and Peter S. Beagle (The Last Unicorn) had gone up against the book and lost.  Beagle's script actually managed to appear on film -- the first half of it, anyway -- but the experience (and only modest returns) of the Bakshi film seem to have soured Saul Zaentz, who was content to sit on the rights for almost 20 years until a certain eager Kiwi came knocking.  Later, PJ was the driving force that prevented the project from being stripped down to a godawful single film, and he was able to convince New Line (with the help of a producer friend) to finance the project when no one else would.  So PJ can claim ownership over the cinematic version of Middle-earth not just because he directed the films, but because they would not have existed at all without him.

Of course, I don't think PJ went after LOTR because of a burning passion for the source material, and one can easily make the case that the LOTR films were popular because they successfully executed generic tropes of post-Tolkienian fantasy rather than getting to the heart of Tolkien's own writing, but that's might be an argument for another thread.  I will say though that I think PJ and Co. did make an effort at conveying some of the depth of LOTR beyond the hack-and-slash, but the results of this effort were very mixed.  Some scenes, like vision Arwen has of Aragorn's death (which is based on "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" but is integrated into the story in a way that reflects PJ's shifted focus) are very effective, but much else is skimmed over or stripped down, particularly the moral greyness of any character not named Gollum.  (One could make a case for Boromir being grey, but I think the flashback scene of him in TTT-EE actually makes him much less ambiguous, and puts the blame for his breakdown on the external corruptive influences of the Ring and of Denethor. It's a great scene, though.)

Forest Shepherd wrote:
Like an ignorant farmer breaking apart an ancient greek statue for use as a foundation to his chicken-coop.

Stereotypes!   

You can unearth thousands of priceless artifacts while plowing the fields or digging ditches and post holes. Do you get any credit?
NO! That goes to the archaeologists!
But you break up one little Greek statue for your chicken coop, and all of a sudden the whole world brands you as ignorant!