I was ok with the length. I could even deal with the changes. The silly all digital actions scenes and all digital orcs were bad though. Really bad.
***** The Lord of the Rings: Official Thread *****
222,585 Views |
1947 Replies |
Last: 17 days ago by The Porkchop Express
Again, I really like the cut I linked above. Many well made scenes with some scenes that are absolutely perfect:
1. Dwarves singing Misty Mountains Cold is chill inducing.
2. Riddles in the dark is what an adaptation is supposed to be.
3. Bilbo's interaction with Smaug was exceptional
Those are the three S-tier scenes to me. However, I loved seeing many of the same things from the books. At the end of the day, this could have been one long movie. I am not in agreement that it could have effectively been shortened down to 2.5 hours and still given me what I wanted. However, the 4-hour cut the video I linked is talking about turns out to be a fantastic adaptation of a beloved book.
1. Dwarves singing Misty Mountains Cold is chill inducing.
2. Riddles in the dark is what an adaptation is supposed to be.
3. Bilbo's interaction with Smaug was exceptional
Those are the three S-tier scenes to me. However, I loved seeing many of the same things from the books. At the end of the day, this could have been one long movie. I am not in agreement that it could have effectively been shortened down to 2.5 hours and still given me what I wanted. However, the 4-hour cut the video I linked is talking about turns out to be a fantastic adaptation of a beloved book.
and.... wrong thread, sorry boys!
About the only thing I even remember about The Hobbit was the debate around how it was filmed (60fps?) and how hot Evangeline Lilly was.
YouBet said:
About the only thing I even remember about The Hobbit was the debate around how it was filmed (60fps?) and how hot Evangeline Lilly was.
The Hobbit: The Ride, a.k.a randomly inserted whitewater rafting orc battle wiped out wide swaths of the movie in my memory. I've kind of fixated on the bad. Looking forward to watching the cut linked above.
I don't think the problem with The Hobbit movies was the length -- I think it was the method chosen to tell the story. A cinematic trilogy just wasn't the best way to do it. IMO The Hobbit lends itself to a series of 20 minute episodes pretty perfectly. Especially until they get to the mountain the book is very much a series of adventures, each of which with their own buildup, climax, and conclusion.
bagger05 said:
I don't think the problem with The Hobbit movies was the length -- I think it was the method chosen to tell the story. A cinematic trilogy just wasn't the best way to do it. IMO The Hobbit lends itself to a series of 20 minute episodes pretty perfectly. Especially until they get to the mountain the book is very much a series of adventures, each of which with their own buildup, climax, and conclusion.
That. An episodic style could work, but then the format would change when they reach the mountain.
I think a big part of the issue is that Jackson either wanted or was pressured to make another LOTR from material that is only superficially similar to LOTR (a group of people go from point A to point B). I tend to disbelieve studio meddling: The man brought in money (and awards) hand over fist from LOTR - and that was seen as a huge gamble. Now the studios want to mess with him? I just find it hard to believe.
That all said, I think adapting The Hobbit as a direct prequel to LOTR by including material from the appendices could work. However, it would just require committing to the more serious and mature tone of LOTR or to the charm and whimsy of The Hobbit. The existing movies tried to be both and succeeded at neither.
The Tolkien Professor had a podcast on the problems with adapting The Hobbit, specifically with doing it after the LOTR movies. He basically said if you made it consistent with the tone of the book, the people who had only seen the movies wouldn't like it and if you made it consistent with the LOTR movies, the people that had read the books would be disappointed. Basically, tonally they were between a rock and a hard place since The Hobbit is very much a children's book.
Quincey P. Morris said:
The Tolkien Professor had a podcast on the problems with adapting The Hobbit, specifically with doing it after the LOTR movies. He basically said if you made it consistent with the tone of the book, the people who had only seen the movies wouldn't like it and if you made it consistent with the LOTR movies, the people that had read the books would be disappointed. Basically, tonally they were between a rock and a hard place since The Hobbit is very much a children's book.
That too.
I imagine there is some parallel universe in which The Hobbit received a critically and commercially successful adaptation, and so the inevitable followup in LOTR was doomed because the general audience were essentially expecting the same type of film again.
Granted, I also expect this to be a big challenge for Amazon in their upcoming adaptation. The Second Age is very much a Machiavellian setting, driven by the rivalries and disputes of rulers, political factions, and kingdoms, rather than Hobbit frivolity. However, if Amazon makes a series that faithfully represents the era the general audience will scream about how they transformed Middle-Earth into GOT.
We'll see what Amazon does.
I think they'll be fine so long as they don't go over the top bloody or start throwing in elven orgies or something. Doesn't the Tolkien Estate have a hand in all of this?
They do have a great deal of creative control, and apparently possess some form of a veto.Quincey P. Morris said:
I think they'll be fine so long as they don't go over the top bloody or start throwing in elven orgies or something. Doesn't the Tolkien Estate have a hand in all of this?
The issue is the Estate is now led by Tolkiens grand and great grandchildren. Who knows what their sentiment on those subjects are.
Personally, I don't think that something like an orgy would be out of place in late Numenor, especially under the sway of Sauron. And if you don't know how Celebrimbor meets his end, you're in for a surprise.
However, I'd prefer to keep nudity and extreme violence to a minimum. Allow it to be used sparingly for maximum impact when it does occur. And don't revel in it, like GOT does.
It's been mentioned before but part of all of what you guys mentioned was turning it from The Hobbit to The Dwarf and spending so much time focusing on Thorin's story, either to add length, add action, or conflict.
Doesn't work. Just made it a mess.
Doesn't work. Just made it a mess.
Completely disagree. Again, watching that cut with all the BS removed from the movie, it is a much better movie and enjoyable.
The Hobbit is supposed to be a story about.... a Hobbit. They took that movie and tried to give it as many story lines as the LotR. That was unnecessary. The tone of the movie really didn't matter, imo. Just make the story about Bilbo and everything that happens from Bilbo's point of view, and you have a great story.
The Hobbit is supposed to be a story about.... a Hobbit. They took that movie and tried to give it as many story lines as the LotR. That was unnecessary. The tone of the movie really didn't matter, imo. Just make the story about Bilbo and everything that happens from Bilbo's point of view, and you have a great story.
Apparently I didn't realize Andy Serkis did other voices in The Hobbit. Got to the trolls in the audiobook and he went write into his voices from the movie.
Maybe they should do a disclaimer card at the beginning of the show like Jackass or South Park that says some variation of:
This show is not the Peter Jackson movies. It's not the era of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. It's something very different, but we think you'll like it.
This show is not the Peter Jackson movies. It's not the era of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. It's something very different, but we think you'll like it.
What do y'all think? Worst fan cast, or could y'all do worse?
Saruman
I literally lol'd when I saw Nic Cage
Frodo - Jaden SmithQuote:
What do y'all think? Worst fan cast, or could y'all do worse?
Sam - Jonah Hill
Merry - Finn Wolfhard
Pippin - Pete Davidson
Aragorn - Hayden Christensen
Legolas - Tom Felton
Gimli - Mike Myers
Boromir - Brendan Fraser
Gandalf - Will Smith
Bernard Hill is incomparable as Theoden and the best part of LOTR for me, but Russell Crowe could make that role almost as bad ass as he made Jor- El in Man of Steel.
I agree with this. I want to introduce my 6 year old to things I enjoyed as a young adult, that are semi-suitable for him. Throwing things like gratuitous nudity or over the top violence into the mix, nixes that quickly.
You can make good films that both adults and kids can enjoy - that aren't cartoons and aren't GOT.
You can make good films that both adults and kids can enjoy - that aren't cartoons and aren't GOT.
Got a chuckle when I saw:
Leto as Aragorn
Tom Cruise as Elrond
And Nic Cage mentioned at all
Leto as Aragorn
Tom Cruise as Elrond
And Nic Cage mentioned at all
Amy Schumer as Galadriel is the best one listed. That is the worst casting ever.
Best news yet. Howard Shore in talks.
https://deadline.com/2021/09/the-lord-of-the-rings-composer-howard-shore-score-amazon-tv-series-middle-earth-jrr-tolkien-1234839274/
https://deadline.com/2021/09/the-lord-of-the-rings-composer-howard-shore-score-amazon-tv-series-middle-earth-jrr-tolkien-1234839274/
Bezos just flew himself, his brother, and two randos to space. There's no reason this can't happen.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Best news yet. Howard Shore in talks.
https://deadline.com/2021/09/the-lord-of-the-rings-composer-howard-shore-score-amazon-tv-series-middle-earth-jrr-tolkien-1234839274/
Shores music beyond any doubt elevated the LOTR movies. However, this gives me an uneasy feeling.
I see this as a sign that Amazon is focused on trying to recapture what came before, rather than allowing this production the opportunity to be its own thing. This is similar to the issue that plagued the Hobbit; it is clear that Jackson and the studios wanted another LOTR when the material they were adapting was nothing like LOTR, outside of superficial similarities in that people go from point A to point B.
Maybe. I see this more as low hanging fruit in terms of doing something people likely want. The problems with The Hobbit had a lot to do with choices in CGI and adding wrinkles to the story to up the action as well as changing the tone completely to align with the LOTR movies. That list issue doesn't exist as much with adapting The Silmarillion as it's arguably more serious in tone.
In short, bringing in Howard Shore to do the music is just an easy win.
In short, bringing in Howard Shore to do the music is just an easy win.
My wife has decided that she wants to read the LOTR trilogy.
She does not normally like fantasy books like this. Read and enjoyed Harry Potter, but that's barely into this kind of realm.
Y'all have any advice for getting her to stick with it? I think she is gonna get bogged down early on in FOTR when the hobbits are leaving the Shire and get into Tom Bombadil's land - although a very essential part of book 1 and the series it does go quite slow.
She does not normally like fantasy books like this. Read and enjoyed Harry Potter, but that's barely into this kind of realm.
Y'all have any advice for getting her to stick with it? I think she is gonna get bogged down early on in FOTR when the hobbits are leaving the Shire and get into Tom Bombadil's land - although a very essential part of book 1 and the series it does go quite slow.
She just needs to power through, but if she like suspense and horror the part with barrow wights may grab her.
Thank you for not calling out my silly error.
OnlyForNow said:
My wife has decided that she wants to read the LOTR trilogy.
She does not normally like fantasy books like this. Read and enjoyed Harry Potter, but that's barely into this kind of realm.
Y'all have any advice for getting her to stick with it? I think she is gonna get bogged down early on in FOTR when the hobbits are leaving the Shire and get into Tom Bombadil's land - although a very essential part of book 1 and the series it does go quite slow.
I'm not a fan of fantasy. Outside of LOTR (which I'm obviously very into) I've only completed Harry Potter primarily because I was in the age bracket that grew up alongside the books and I've read the first book or so of a couple of other fantasy series, none of which interested me. I'm much more into history, which is part of the appeal of this setting to me.
My advice is to read all the way through to the end of Book 1. If it doesn't appeal to her by then, it probably won't ever. No shame in that, my wife doesn't care for LOTR either.
She's never even seen or had a slight desire to watch the movies.
So I'm going to let her jump into the books first, I did FOTR movie and then binged the trilogy in like 2-3 weeks after the movie.
So I'm going to let her jump into the books first, I did FOTR movie and then binged the trilogy in like 2-3 weeks after the movie.
I don't know that I would mention certain things before she reads them, because she very well might enjoy them without having preconceived notions.
I would say that I know a lot of people just kind of skim through songs and things like that, so if she finds herself not enjoying that aspect she wouldn't miss any crucial parts of the story. Or if she feels like a description of something is getting bogged down, IMO I dont think its a big deal to skip to the next paragraph
I know of a few people that don't enjoy Tom Bombadil's character at all, for example
I would say that I know a lot of people just kind of skim through songs and things like that, so if she finds herself not enjoying that aspect she wouldn't miss any crucial parts of the story. Or if she feels like a description of something is getting bogged down, IMO I dont think its a big deal to skip to the next paragraph
I know of a few people that don't enjoy Tom Bombadil's character at all, for example
Same for my wife.OnlyForNow said:
She's never even seen or had a slight desire to watch the movies.
So I'm going to let her jump into the books first, I did FOTR movie and then binged the trilogy in like 2-3 weeks after the movie.
She thought Fellowship was cheesy (we started watching them during the February freeze) and we never finished the series.
If you've browsed this thread at all you'll see that I'm a book purist but even I was annoyed. She eagerly reads and watches teen dystopian fiction yet found this ridiculous?
I admit that first read through, Tom's house was boring as hell and the time they spent there felt wasted.
But I agree, jumping ahead a paragraph here and there, in the right places, won't kill the enjoyment of the book.
But I agree, jumping ahead a paragraph here and there, in the right places, won't kill the enjoyment of the book.
Featured Stories
See All
Potential of a 300-yard three-peat would be a Texas A&M first
by Olin Buchanan
46:01
12h ago
6.2k
6:32
8h ago
1.3k
12:32
13h ago
3.8k