The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
What do you think about Peter Jackson adding a new character in The Desolation of Smaug movie?
message 251:
by
Benja
(last edited Jan 26, 2014 05:46AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 26, 2014 05:44AM
It wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact the character is defined by her sex and nothing else.
reply
|
flag
Christopher wrote: "Peter Jackson needs to go write his own stories and film them instead of ruining Tolkien's genius. He's a putz in my estimation.If you take a hard look at Hollywood these days, it's pretty self-e..."
The dramatics are really having their heyday.
Of course they would never make the Hobbit faithfull to the book, just like the amazing LOTR was not entirely faithfull to the books. But LOTR is an amazing
collection of movies that proved that only a fan could have made and leave the core intact.
The Hobbit in 3 parts has come from writing the script and worked better in 3 parts than two according Jackson and his wife. While for Tolkien the Hobbit turned out to be a prequel as a book Jackson has the advantage of having ALL of Toliens writings and making the movies fit better in Tolkiens world. He does that because he loves that Tolkien world and if he does tinker a wee bit with some of its content then that is fine we me.
For me the movie & book fanatics are rarely taken seriously as both are differnt media, but with Jackson I can only say that we got the best person to do the job and so far, five movies into the series, I am more than happy with what I have seen. There are some things I would do different, but then again I would not be capable of creating such a big production and have the vision to do so. Jackson has shown he does and while I enjoy the books on their merits the movies are a very good ambassador from Tolkiens writings and adpated to modern standards.
I am sure that Tolkien would have enjoyed himself a lot were he sitting in the cinema.
Benja wrote: "It wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact the character is defined by her sex and nothing else."She's not only defines by her sex. PJ added other qualities and traits, such as the fact that she's captain of the guard, the fact that she's a silvan elf. The fact that racial prejudice isn't one of her qualities. If you choose just to see her for her sex then that's your perspective.
Iris wrote: "Benja wrote: "It wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact the character is defined by her sex and nothing else."She's not only defines by her sex. PJ added other qualities and traits, such as ..."
She's only defined as a character through her insta-love for Kili. Everything she does in the movie is because of him and for him. Let's face it, Jackson figured he desperately needed a female character and couldn't think of a better way of introducing one other than as a romantic foil for "the hot dwarf". Clear that out and she's just a gender bender of Legolas.
Benja wrote: "Iris wrote: "Benja wrote: "It wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact the character is defined by her sex and nothing else."She's not only defines by her sex. PJ added other qualities and tra..."
It's not that he wanted a Female character, it's that he wanted Evangeline Lilly in his movie. He stated that had he met her before he did his original trilogy he would have cast her as Arwen, so when he made this one he jumped at the chance of putting her in as an Elf because he really wanted her to play one.
Iris wrote: "It's not that he wanted a Female character, it's that he wanted Evangeline Lilly in his movie. He stated that had he met her before he did his original trilogy he would have cast her as Arwen, so when he made this one he jumped at the chance of putting her in as an Elf because he really wanted her to play one."I think you should always take what film makers say about their films and actors with a grain of salt. More often than not they are putting a spin on the decisions they made after reviewing the marketing data. PJ and his Tolkien adaptations engage in a lot of that kind of thing... even in comparison to an industry that more or less exists on it.
Iris wrote: "Benja wrote: "Iris wrote: "Benja wrote: "It wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact the character is defined by her sex and nothing else."She's not only defines by her sex. PJ added other qua..."
I like Lilly, and have no issue with her acting. But your point sort of defeats many of the earlier comments saying the movie had to have a strong female added for modern movie success/marketing. Adding her solely because PJ liked her and needed to create a role for her seems a stretch.
Her being an elf was set in stone as there are few humans to enter the storyline until Laketown and none of any significance other than the eventual hero.
The "hot" dwarf is something else I hated to be honest. Few of the dwarfs looked appropriate for their roles, and this gave the appearance of being CGI lazy. But again, it was to get young girls to swoon along with the young boys for Lilly. A discredit to the book in my opinion.
I don't see what it matters at this point. That three movie nightmare isn't the book I loved as a kid anyway.
Zhanaestilinski wrote: "Well yeah it would be a wonderful addition considering the only strong and PROMINENT female role in the Hobbit was Galadriel and all she did was stand in sunset watching Gandalf watch her while sh..."<I agree, that dragon is so far my favorite dragon ever!
I think the new character sucks. The Hobbit is perfect as it is.
Jackson should have made the Hobbit in one film. He had to add characters and drag out the battle scenes to excruciating lengths just to fill time. However, if he had to add a character, he chose a great actress for the role. I don't mind spending time looking at Evangeline Lily.
Jack wrote: "Jackson should have made the Hobbit in one film. He had to add characters and drag out the battle scenes to excruciating lengths just to fill time. However, if he had to add a character, he chose a..."Lol agreed.
Yes, Jack, the battle scenes are way too long. This is my biggest gripe about the movie. I am just sick and tired of watching crappier movies like STAR WARS in which the good guys never get hurt despite the villains having clear shots. It is so unrealistic and boring. The barrel scene could have been the best in the movie but it was a dumbed down escape fiasco.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, Jack, the battle scenes are way too long. This is my biggest gripe about the movie. I am just sick and tired of watching crappier movies like STAR WARS in which the good guys never get hurt de..."Do you guys remember that scene at the end of "Fellowship of the Ring" when Aragorn fights that Uruk-hai chief who's about to execute the dying Boromir?
They go at each other with a fury, they're both bloodied, and Aragorn is exhausted before he finally manages to brutally pierce, then decapitate his foe. You can 'feel' the scene's realism to the point where you almost forget you're watching a movie.
There are no Spiderman moves in that scene, no overdone drama, no extreme special effects - nothing that attempts to make the scene more than it is. Above all, it has one set tone that is not disrupted by undignified comic relief.
Now compare that to most of the action we get in both Hobbit movies, but particularly "Desolation of Smaug", and you'll know what I'm getting at.
Honestly, I don't think that sense of "realism" (I often find that word a little dubious when talking about an action/adventure film, hence the quotes) that occurs in that fight scene lasts through the second LotR film, let alone the third. Legalos' video game archery and dwarf tossing pretty much turn it into a CGI exercise. That's all well and good for certain products, but it does lose a lot of the gravitas that I believe Tolkien was trying to convey.
Petter wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, Jack, the battle scenes are way too long. This is my biggest gripe about the movie. I am just sick and tired of watching crappier movies like STAR WARS in which the good guys ..."Yeah, you make some good points there, Gary. I always did like "Fellowship" more than the rest. :)
As a Tolkien fan I don't mind the added characters, there are very few films which stay completely faithful to the books they portray. The Hobbit is a children's book enjoyed by some adult Tolkien fans,if it were brought out today by a different author I wonder if it would be as well loved. To make the film successful they have had to expand it to appeal to a large cinema going audience - you will never keep everyone happy. I thought the first Hobbit film was a little boring but enjoyed part two. Who knows what we'll all be saying about the third one. Loved Lord of the Rings trilogy, that wasn't particularly faithful either.
The name is Geoffrey, not Gary.
Sorry, Geoffrey! I don't know how that happened, but I must have clicked your message for 'reply' by mistake.
Tolkien created this Middle earth Fantasy, he touched on characters and events lightly in a way, he made changes as he thought they would be best embracced by the audience of his time. For example, the clothing of the dwarves was pre school in the book, but it was comming out in the days of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Et tu, Gandolf was the head of the Dwarves initially, you see he got the names for the dwarves on an old Norse "poem" it is called a "poem" but it reads like a Bible, The wizard was "Bladorthin" but he decided that wasn't a very catchy name apparently, he thought Gandolf would make a better name for a wizard, so, Bladorthin was religated to the ranks of being a long, past, decessed, Dwarfe King, and Gandolf became the wizard. I am not convinced the if JRR Tolkien were survived today, that he would object to a few changes to his story to beef it up and make his veiwers of today, more satisfied, and that old book actually needed a fresh coat of paint. The story as Tolkien wrote it just brush stroked over some of the more exciting parts of the story, the battle was barley detailed at all, not words of the epic battle that took the lives of our favorite two dwarves, just an after the fact obituary, no gradual decline into the addiction of Thorin, just, overnight he was an addicted jerk and Dain who was not yet addicted, not feeling obliged to give the Lakeman the share of the treasure that was theirs, stolen from them by Smaug, despite that they only have thir treasre and Mountain back thanks to the aime of Bard and the total lose of their Home.Tolkien basically made cartoon characters of the Dwarves and then expected us to take them seriously as warriors and then broke our hearts as the characters we'd been pulling for throughout the story failed us, I felt betrayed by how bad the head dwarves turned out to be and by the lose of the lives of the 2 dwarves that were good at heart, which left Dain, another jerk as the new King under the mountain. The only Dwarfe that remained likeable was Balin. The Hobbit recieved nothing from the dwarves for all his saving them multiple times. So, I say here here to Peter for bringing forward more of the story which was hidden in the shadows, for adding Legolas to the cast and a love story for Kili and I wouldn't mind at all if Kili were mearly wounded in battle and lives to land his lady love! and if all are set in stone that Dain must remain the new King, then the reason could be as simpl as this, Kili chose to decline, just as Aragorn did,being King was not his thing.
Actually the "hobbit" receives his fair share of the loot, but limited it to what could be reasonably transported. He ended up very wealthy just the same, and this is clearly pointed out in the books.
Gary wrote: "Yay! Can this elf "snowboard" on a shield down a flight of stairs while shooting arrows too? Everything Jackson does to change a classic literary masterpiece is wonderful! I hope he does another..."
I completely agree with you. I hate that Jackson has strayed so much from the source material, all to create a blockbuster for the masses.
I completely agree with you. I hate that Jackson has strayed so much from the source material, all to create a blockbuster for the masses.
Arthur Rankin died yesterday, and, for my money. the 75 minute Rankin/Bass HOBBIT cartoon beats Jackson's bloated remakes.
As much as I liked Tauriel, I was annoyed that they put her in the middle of a love triangle.
Adding a new character as main character was a bad idea.
But the biggest mistake was turning the Hobbit into three movies when it could've been made in one or two. With all this extra time to fill, I think this set the stage for many of the other problems.
But the biggest mistake was turning the Hobbit into three movies when it could've been made in one or two. With all this extra time to fill, I think this set the stage for many of the other problems.
I def don't approve, i feel is ruins the fact that Gimli and Legolas' relationship doesn't mean much, they were the first Dwarf and Elf EVER to get along, i do not approve. Period.
S wrote: "Arthur Rankin died yesterday, and, for my money. the 75 minute Rankin/Bass HOBBIT cartoon beats Jackson's bloated remakes."You are so right. RIP Mr. Rankin.
Dominique wrote: "It all depends on how well she does, though as a tolkienite I hate him already. He's destroyed several Lotr characters, cut out an entire scene, and added in a random plot twist. I'm waiting to se..."
I'm with you. I'm appalled by what Peter Jackson has done to the books and characters. The movies make me gag.
Lol, agreed, but I'm more hurt by the fact to doesn't make Gimli and Legolas' friendship such a big deal, THAT was the first dwarf-elf friendship ^_^
He also pretty much gutted the Gimli/Galadriel relationship.... THAT was the first dwarf-elf romance. Seriously, some of Tolkien's best lines in the whole trilogy tossed right out, and the majority of it related in a slow, narrative flashback. Pathetic.
Galadriel was already married!!!!! :O and no, that was not romance, I'm sorry to harsh our mellow
Sorry if this harshes the mellow still further... but married people can still have romances with people other than their spouses.Besides, the "physical consumation" shall we say of dwarf-elf adoration isn't really the point in such a romance.
Edit: On the other hand, maybe that's where hobbits really come from.
Yeah I know, but Idc. PJ still messed up big time, and I was just stating my opinion.
Gary wrote: "He also pretty much gutted the Gimli/Galadriel relationship.... THAT was the first dwarf-elf romance...."Romance? I think it was more fans-idol kind of relationship. Galadriel is so beautiful many loves her, but it does not mean that she loves them back.
Even Gandalf can not resist Galadriel's charm.
Galadriel is admired, respected and feared by others.
I remember the watchmen movie - they made it exactly like the comic book and bragged about how true to the comic book they were - then admitted that what made an epic comic book did not make a very good film and apologised for it. Thats often true. Books include characters thoughts and emotions and does not translate to film. Action car chases, random explosions etc make for a good film, but are extremely lacking in a book, so rarely found.
There are many very good books that if translated to film exactly as written would lack the thrill and the pull to make a good film. Or even would be confusing because of the aspects of the book that will not translate to film. They then would not make the money they could and the movie industry is about making money. Therefore it makes Hollywood sense to tweak the books, to add or subtract to make the most thrilling compelling movie they can. Its not the book, its a movie "based" on the book. Inspired by the book. But it is generally not the book.
But then if every movie was just the book I had already read, they would be pretty dull and boring. I don't want that. The movie Hobbit desolation of smaug was fun, so I enjoyed it. I felt the first Hobbit movie was boring. I enjoyed all the lord of the rings films, yet I hated the third lord of the rings book, I found it boring.
But if you think that this is bad, compare the Bourne films to the Bourne books of the same name!!!!!
Grimnir wrote: "But if you think that this is bad, compare the Bourne films to the Bourne books of the same name!!!!." To me the Bourne movies are one of the few examples of a movie being better than the book. I couldn't even finish the books as they were so badly written.
Funny, I hated the Bourne movies and loved the books. Go figure!
Chloe wrote: "I def don't approve, i feel is ruins the fact that Gimli and Legolas' relationship doesn't mean much, they were the first Dwarf and Elf EVER to get along, i do not approve. Period."Thats not entirely true. the dwarves and elves could get along in the first age. For example the dwarves that helpt building menegroth, the stronghold of Melian and Thingol. but you are right at the point that it is the first friendship in the second and the third age
Sorry, yes, that's why I meant...
I think the enmity between Dwarves and some of the Elven tribes owes as much to chance, fate or culture as to race. The Dwarves of the Blue Mountains in the First Age got along great with the Noldor; both peoples had great love for crafting. They even allied in war against Morgoth once. Until that blasted Silmaril came along, the Dwarves and Sindar of Doriath also worked fine together, although close and warm relations might be stretching it. There was plenty of space in Beleriand for Dwarves and Elves alike, with no competition for resources and several reasons to work together. Later, in the Second Age, the Noldor of Eregion who crafted the Rings of Power were friends with the Dwarves of Moria next door.
Still, they are both extremely proud people who remember grudges forever. The Silmaril incident in Menegroth and the mayhem that followed lived on for a very long time. Furthermore, when Sauron devastated Eregion the Dwarves of Moria shut their gates rather than come to the Noldor's aid. When king Thingol insulted the Dwarven craftsmen who worked for him, he probably expressed widely held opinions among his people. It is tempting to blame the Silmaril, but Thingol was as arrogant on an average day as any Elf that ever lived. And the Dwarves for their part got so riled up that they actually KILLED him. Issues of race, culture and chance or fate blended to form a perfectly stupid disaster.
As for relations between Dwarves and Wood Elves, Silvans, those two groups have never had anything in common that I can think of. We only need to take a look at their different life styles; the former are militant industrialists who view the world in terms of resources, the latter are militant environmentalists who adapt themselves to the forest and seek to preserve it at any cost. There is precious little common ground between them, but fortunately they rarely need to meet. Well, that's the way I see it. Feel free to fire back!
Lord of the Rings was written by an English professor at Oxford with nothing to do. It was WW2 and all the young men were off at war. Women were virtually non existent to them during the the 30's and it got worse during WW2. About the only women in Lord was either Galadrial (his mother?!!) or at home making dinner or watching the kids.Then, of course, there was the blatant racism of the Southerns on their elephants. The Brits say they never had racism. If one says that the heroes of the tale were all upper class in manner and behavior and the orcs were all lower class, maybe there is truth to the statement. One would never be allowed in Rivendell with a Cockney accent.
Then, there is Tom Bombadill, Tolkein's favorite character, the one character the ring had no power.
Lots of holes in Lord of the Rings, yet I read it three times. I simply noted the holes and kept going.
Grumbling at the changes is spoofed in a very silly music video from New Zealand:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7oZB7onK4
Tolkein was very much a professor of his time. It's not surprising that only a few women were in his books. There were few women in his classes. One must not forget the Ring was written during WW2 when there was damned little for Oxford professors to do--other than write and talk about their writing to their also-sidelined peers.
I heard someone else's opinion. I can't comment as I haven't read all of the lord of the rings books (in fact I'm just getting to reading the first one right now) but he says that three films wasn't enough to tell a good story of that trilogy. Three films for The Hobbit on the other hand is more than enough and I'm really happy with the results. I hope these wonderful films end up creating more fans of these epic story's.
Adding characters is lame. The movies decline in quality as they go. But it is still the Hobbit, still Middle Earth, and Jackson has captured much of it. Not as much as in LOTR and he has cheapened the book somewhat. But it is still a good movie.
It is like when in LOTR put and give more deep to Arwen. In the books she was less prominent.
Lord of the Rings was written during WW2 and it pretty much follows the war. Sauron, of course, was Hitler.Well, we are a long way from WW2 and the challenges are different. Naturally, the story changes.
Tolkien has said that LOTR wasn't specifically about the Nazis. He considered it a universal story. Of course, he was a product of his time, but still, the author says it's not so.
Angela wrote: "Zhanaestilinski wrote: "Well yeah it would be a wonderful addition considering the only strong and PROMINENT female role in the Hobbit was Galadriel and all she did was stand in sunset watching Ga..."Smaug is the best FX dragon in film history, but he talks too much.
And the time was WW2. Six and a half years of war, bombings, missiles and ruin everywhere. That included Oxford.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
