The Hobbit ~ coming to a theater near you... maybe.

Akrasia · Post by **Akrasia** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:40 pm

serleran wrote:
... and, I got about 50 pages in, put it down, and said "f this!" Boring. Trivial...

Well, the first part of the Fellowship is probably the 'slowest' of the trilogy. Many people report that after they get through the first half of that book things really take off.

Myself, I love Tolkien's work, especially the 'encyclopedia' stuff. I'm probably one of the few people who actively prefer the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales over the LotR.

serleran wrote:
...

Give me Beowulf or The Nibelungen Cycle any day. At least those are exciting.

Both sources for the LotR.

Tolkien's essay on Beowulf is considered a classic.
_________________
While it is unlikely to interest most of you, here is my 'cunning' blog: http://dailyakrasia.blogspot.com/

Keolander · Post by **Keolander** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:55 pm

BeZurKur wrote:
and Aragorn cutting the head off the Mouth of Sauron goes against the spirit. The last one gets me the most; I've heard people defend the action as "it makes sense to do." I suppose that's why Aragorn is the King: he's made of better stuff than most people.

That scene is one of the primary reasons I did not buy, nor even watch, the extended edition of The Return of the King. Not only did Jackson screw up The Mouth of Sauron (he was a Black Numenorean and would have looked no different than Aragorn) but to have Aragorn attack him when he was under a flag of embassy was completely and totally WRONG! I get snickers when I say it, but I think the cartoon version of The Return of the King is closer to the novel than that of the movie by Jackson. At least in the cartoon almost all the characters are there, with the exceptions of Legolas, Gimli, Beregond and Bergil. Others that didn't make into the movies are there such as Elladan, Elrohir and Prince Imrahil (all seen in the Last Debate scene), and for cripes sakes, Aragorn has BOTH the Star of the North (Elendilmir) and the Elessar Stone on!

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:03 pm

Keolander wrote:
That scene is one of the primary reasons I did not buy, nor even watch, the extended edition of The Return of the King. Not only did Jackson screw up The Mouth of Sauron (he was a Black Numenorean and would have looked no different than Aragorn) but to have Aragorn attack him when he was under a flag of embassy was completely and totally WRONG!

You're not the only one. While Aragon's actions didn't totally bother me, I was a bit dissappointed with The Mouth when I saw the extended version of the film. I thought PJ would have made him look more human, but decisively sinister in feeling and words. But I realize that this aspect of the film was totally hollywood, and can ultimatly see why PJ changed it ($$$).

......................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:30 pm

Akrasia wrote:
Myself, I love Tolkien's work, especially the 'encyclopedia' stuff. I'm probably one of the few people who actively prefer the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales over the LotR.

I am with you, I prefer the Silmarillion over The Lord of the Rings, although the two books are quite different, and perhaps comparing them is not "correct".

And, PJ did a really disgusting job with LoTR. If he had read the letters of Tolkien, he would have known what he could be allowed to do with the characters and what not. Sadly, he did all that Tolkien thought was wrong. One for all, Elrond goes to Aragorn to bring him the sword?! Elrond, mighty King of Elves, goes to a lowly man when he has yet to become a King as he requested for giving him the hand of his daughter...

This shows how very little PJ understood of the book (if he ever read them).

Let's hope he does not destroy the hobbit, too...

Arioch · Post by **Arioch** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:21 pm

well aragorn was a realative though distant through time
ken
_________________
Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics

Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you

Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour

WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ?
http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:10 pm

Nothing would better guarantee me not seeing a film version of The Hobbit than Peter Jackson directing.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

Inkpot · Post by **Inkpot** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:14 pm

The Return of the King brought in a total of 11 Oscars and the entire trilogy brought in I don't know how many billions of dollars. I think it's pretty clear what the general public thinks of PJ's deviations from the novels. It's an adaptation, folks. They're fun, exciting movies. Get over it (said in the nicest possible way).

Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:26 am

Inkpot wrote:
The Return of the King brought in a total of 11 Oscars and the entire trilogy brought in I don't know how many billions of dollars. I think it's pretty clear what the general public thinks of PJ's deviations from the novels. It's an adaptation, folks. They're fun, exciting movies. Get over it (said in the nicest possible way).

I don't begrudge anyone liking them, they're just not my cup of tea. Well, more than that -- I strongly dislike them (enough that I haven't even seen #3). But I'm not offended that other people like them. If PJ directs The Hobbit, more power to him. But I won't be going to see it.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:20 pm

Same here, if someone likes the films, it's ok. Actually they would be nice films if they weren't marketed as "lord of the rings".

And Oscars do not tell much about the artistic quality of a film. I would look at some other prizes, like Cannes, Berlin or Venezia.

Antonio

Inkpot · Post by **Inkpot** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:23 pm

Then what do the Oscars signify, exactly?

Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:40 pm

Inkpot wrote:
Then what do the Oscars signify, exactly?

Ink

I do not know, considering the films that lately have been granted the prize. Commercial success does not equate art.

Cheers,

Antonio

Inkpot · Post by **Inkpot** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:42 pm

No...commercial success guarantees the continuance of art.
Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 pm

Inkpot wrote:
No...commercial success guarantees the continuance of art.
Ink

Heh, a commercial success guarantees the high likelihood of a sequel!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

Inkpot · Post by **Inkpot** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:04 pm

Welcome to capitolism!

Art is only as good as the audience who appreciates it. If people appreciate it, they will buy it (or support it via other means). If no one appreciates it, they won't buy it, and the point behind the whole endeavor is moot.

The vast majority of the public like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, which is why it was such a commercial success. Are there errors? Tons of them. Does this mean the films are evil? Not at all. Different strokes for different folks.

/cue Gary Coleman, Todd Willis, and Dana Plato appearance.

Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:20 pm

Inkpot wrote:
Does this mean the films are evil? Not at all. Different strokes for different folks.

Evil? No. Personally, subjectively, irritating, yes.
And I don't claim to be rational about this.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

huds0n · Post by **huds0n** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:26 pm

Inkpot wrote:
Then what do the Oscars signify, exactly?

Ink

Think of it this way Ink. To win an Oscar, you don't need a majority vote by the members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences (which, btw, who makes up the voting body of the Academy?). Because there are generally 5 nominees in each category (at least all the major categories anyway), all you really need is 26 percent of the vote. Just enough to ensure that the other 4 nominees in that category don't win.
_________________
Richard McBain

Trolllord Games

Convention Coordinator

Executive Director - TrollCon, Winter Dark
richard@trolllord.com

------------------------------------------

ALEA IACTA EST - THE DIE IS CAST

Inkpot · Post by **Inkpot** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:13 pm

Wow....I had no idea. I mean, I guess I always knew the Oscars would pretty much rigged, but......damn.

Ah well....I dug the films. I can't really think of any other fantasy films that were done half as well. Is it JUST the fact that PJ deviated so much from the novels that make some people hate the movies so much? If not...then what is your basis for comparison? I mean, while I love the fantasy film genre, let's face it....the majority of fantasy films are pretty laughable when stacked up against other genres. Dare I mention the first D&D film? *shudders*

The LOTR films, when taken BY THEMSELVES, are very enjoyable, entertaining films, in my humble opinion.

Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

Metathiax · Post by **Metathiax** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:21 pm

I find some of the criticism (here and elsewhere) about the LotR movies to be overly harsh. I know there are some hardcore fans out there but they have to realise that it is strictly impossible to perfectly translate such rich books into films. I can't think of any way they could've made them any better (except for a couple of goofy special effects) under realistic circumstances. Who did a better job at adapting a novel than PJ? Especially of the fantasy genre which tend to produce among the cheesiest films ever, D&D the movie anyone??? (is it just me or, in addition of not having any redeeming quality, was this film literally made with the intention of mocking its source material?) I for one, would certainly go see and enjoy the Hobbit if it were to be made with the same mould, flaws and all.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

andakitty · Post by **andakitty** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:47 pm

I'm with the minority here, I liked the films much better than the books. Some of the scenes I consider among the best ever filmed. Like the lighting of the beacons to summon the Rohirrim.

And the fact that this is one of the two best, bar none, attempts at giving fantasy a serious treatment in Hollywood should earn it some leeway, IMO. It and the Harry Potter movies have possibly finally made fantasy a 'real' genre in the minds of movie makers. I mean, think about it. What was the best fantasy, swords and sorcery movie previously? Maybe Conan?

Akrasia · Post by **Akrasia** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:01 am

Metathiax wrote:
... it is strictly impossible to perfectly translate such rich books into films. I can't think of any way they could've made them any better (except for a couple of goofy special effects) under realistic circumstances. Who did a better job at adapting a novel than PJ? Especially of the fantasy genre which tend to produce among the cheesiest films ever ...

I agree with this.

While I prefer Tolkien's written work over the films -- especially the less popular stuff like The Silmarillion (and even his essay on Beowulf!) -- the films were very good given the constraints of the medium.

To think that the LotR could have been perfectly translated into film format without changing or loosing anything is absurd. Peter Jackson did about the best job that could be expected, given the need to ensure that the films appealed to a wide audience.
_________________
While it is unlikely to interest most of you, here is my 'cunning' blog: http://dailyakrasia.blogspot.com/

JRR · Post by **JRR** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:18 am

I realize you can't translate some things to film, and some things need to be cut for time constraints, but COME ON, there was absolutely no reason to change some things just for the hell of it. Why the character assassination of Faramir? Wherefore is "Die, foul Dwimmerlake?" Why make Sam leave Frodo? (which he never did, except when he briefly thought he was dead.) Some things these megalomaniac directors think they have to change just to put their fingerprints on the film.
_________________
You face 99 beserkers, 99 beserkers, 99 beserkers, and 99 beserkers.

Will your stalwart band choose to Fight, Advance, or Run?

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:29 am

Akrasia wrote:
To think that the LotR could have been perfectly translated into film format without changing or loosing anything is absurd. Peter Jackson did about the best job that could be expected, given the need to ensure that the films appealed to a wide audience.

Agreed. And if PJ didn't direct and make the film another would have and had his/her share of detracters. Let's face it, many people didn't want this film made and were against before it even begin filming.

I don't think there's a director on earth who could make this film and not have people that wouldn't like it.

Back to - book vs. movie or can one make a movie exactly like a book.

IMO, a movie based completely on Tolkien's work (word for word) either wouldn't work or wouldn't be a good movie.

Just my opinion.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:04 am

Metathiax wrote:
Who did a better job at adapting a novel than PJ?

Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather).

If Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is AD&D, the movies are 3e.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:08 am

Akrasia wrote:
To think that the LotR could have been perfectly translated into film format without changing or loosing anything is absurd. Peter Jackson did about the best job that could be expected, given the need to ensure that the films appealed to a wide audience.

No one thinks that the films had to be a 'perfect' adaptation. That's a straw man.

The problem isn't necessarily what Jackson deleted, it's what he added that was never there in the first place: the character assassinations of Theoden and Faramir, for example.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:21 am

dcs wrote:
The problem isn't necessarily what Jackson deleted, it's what he added that was never there in the first place: the character assassinations of Theoden and Faramir, for example.

Amen brother, amen!

I thought the movies were visually stunning and gorgeously shot and over all great movies, in and of themselves. But to call them true to the spirit is just plain wrong. I'm not going to go into a lengthy tirad or anything, but I will list some of the major (in my opinion) points that really turned me off of the movies.

1: Gimli as comic relief. Now I know everyone just loved Legolas, but, I'm sorry, Gimli is a much more interesting character and doesn't need to be reduced to Legolas' sidekick.

2: Elves at Helm's Deep?

3: The crazy love triangle between Aragron, Eowhyn (sp?), and Arwen.

4: The character assassination of Theodan and Faramir.

5: Sam being reduced to a bumbling idiot of a sidekick, which is, in my opinion, one of the major injustices to the spirit of the books. Sam is the everyman of the story and is there to show that everyman can be a hero.

There are more, but I don't want to start ranting.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:23 am

I will say this:

I didn't like Gimli being the "funny man." It struck me as wrong. One of the halflings should've been the runt of the punpack.

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:28 am

dcs wrote:
Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather).

If Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is AD&D, the movies are 3e.

Well that certainly was a very good adaptation, but I don't think anyone can compare Mario Puzo to Tolkien, and the subject matter is different. Fantasy imagery is going to be more open to interpretation than gangster sterotypes, so again, I don't think you can compare them.

Tolkien's work has been read, discussed and debated for a long time and so, there are going to be lots of folks who have their opinion/view of who, what, where & how characters act. They would most likely be against a movie version of the work. I was one of them and very skeptical of the movie, until I just pushed my book view out of my mind and just sat down and judged the movie on it's merits.

To me, the movie was outstanding, but not necessarily in the top 10 movies that I've watched, whereas the LoTR book is in the top 10 for sure.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

Metathiax · Post by **Metathiax** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:57 am

Quote:
2: Elves at Helm's Deep?

Point taken, logically, individuals of a wise immortal race would not waste their precious infinite lives in battle except under the most dire circumstances (even if they strive for good...), they would simply stand back and outlive their enemies whenever possible...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:01 am

Metathiax wrote:
Point taken, logically, individuals of a wise immortal race would not waste their infinite lives except under the most dire circumstances (even if they strive for good...), they would simply stand back and outlive their enemies whenever possible...

Which is exactly why elves r teh suk and dwarves kick ass!
Sorry...I've got nothing useful to add.

Akrasia · Post by **Akrasia** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:48 am

dcs wrote:
No one thinks that the films had to be a 'perfect' adaptation. That's a straw man.

The problem isn't necessarily what Jackson deleted, it's what he added that was never there in the first place: the character assassinations of Theoden and Faramir, for example.

Well, to clarify, I agree that some of Jackson's decisions were not true to the spirit of the LotR (and I think that the 'character assasination' of Denethor was far more serious than what he did with Theoden and Faramir, both of whom at least remained sympathetic, heroic characters in some sense; Denethor was a true 'tragic hero' in the novels, but comes across as a psychotic goof in the film).

So I probably should not have said 'best job possible' when describing the films.

However, I do think that Jackson did a 'very good job' in translating LotR, given the medium and market demands.

If Jackson only had to appease hardcore Tolkien fans, I have no doubt that we would have seen a very different set of films.

But he had to appease a wider audience, the majority of which would not be familiar with the novels at all. Given that constraint, I think he did a very good job (perhaps not the 'best possible', but much better than I feared, and much better than 99 percent of other directors).

As a hardcore Tolkien fan, I know I would have been frustrated by the films had I expected a completely faithful adaptation. However, I dropped that expectation right away, and subsequently enjoyed the films for what they were.
_________________
While it is unlikely to interest most of you, here is my 'cunning' blog: http://dailyakrasia.blogspot.com/