Re: 'The Battle of the Five Armies' in theatres | SPOILERS

by Mrs Figg Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:21 pm

The set up of Sauron, the Rings, the Last Alliance and Isildur were pretty important for non book readers. PJ didn't assume everyone had read the books.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:28 pm

But that's my point Figg- the people I asked had not read the books- and out of those the purist edit, with the information given in context and chronologically, as opposed to in a flashback at the start and again at the start of RotK, which seems to make it harder for non-book readers to remember the details and connect the dots across three films- was clearer to follow than PJ's cut.

by Mrs Figg Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:01 pm

I know non book readers who didn't have any problem with the intro, on the contrary it helped them get a better overall picture of the historical background. Its clearly spelled out. it is also useful during the Council of Elrond. It sets up isildur and Aragorns relationship, it cleverly set up Aragorns relationship with the Ring and why he was isildurs heir. We need that intro.

by malickfan Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:28 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But that's my point Figg- the people I asked had not read the books- and out of those the purist edit, with the information given in context and chronologically, as opposed to in a flashback at the start and again at the start of RotK, which seems to make it harder for non-book readers to remember the details and connect the dots across three films- was clearer to follow than PJ's cut.

To be brutually honest, I'm not sure my 10 year old self would have enjoyed FOTR as much if there wasn't a big, epic action prologue kicking of the film, the shire stuff would probably come across as quite slow and quaint in a blockbuster. Having all the backstory talked about by Gandalf in the Shire or Rivendell works well in the book, but film is a visual medium, as Figgs said Jackson wasn't just making the films for hardcore Tolkien fans, he was making a blockbuster for the masses, he had enough pressure as it was, slowing the pace of the film by sticking to the book's wakward structure wouldn't have done him many favours I don't think.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:31 pm

But you can give exactly the same information during Shadows of the Past- long before the Council anyway so it has no effect on that, and in context which makes it much clearer how it connects directly to Frodo.

'I'm not sure my 10 year old self would have enjoyed FOTR as much if there wasn't a big, epic action prologue kicking of the film, the shire stuff would probably come across as quite slow and quaint in a blockbuster.'- Malick

No offense but I dont think a Lotr'S film should be aimed at 10 year olds any more than the book is. And you still get the big blockbuster stiff- its not given as exposition but as a flashback, the only difference is its moved about fifteen minutes into the film and into context rather than right at the start with no context.

by malickfan Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:37 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

No offense but I dont think a Lotr'S film should be aimed at 10 year olds any more than the book is.

Didn't say Jackson was right, but he had a job and goal to do, he was honest from the start (i.m.o) that he never that interested in making a true to Tolkien film, rather using the books as a springboard to make the fantasy epic he had always wanted to see.

You try securing a $300 million Dollar budget for a purist adaptation of LOTR, neither rights holders or the studios would be interested, you can argue about whether LOTR is suited to adaptation as a blockbuster or not, but you can't argue with the results, like it or not many millions of 10 year olds were captivated by the films, so Jackson suceeded at what he wanted to do.

Not saying it's right mind...

by Bluebottle Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:47 pm

I'm not sure that's an either or for me.

I'm not sure you can equate closeness to the work you're adapting with a less commercially viable product.

The producer behing the movie adaptation of Gone with the Wind had an interesting perspective on this. (Writing to one of the adapting screenwriters.)

“We have an even greater problem in Gone With the Wind, because it is so fresh in people’s minds. In the case of ninety-nine people out of a hundred who read and saw Copperfield, there were many years between the reading and the seeing. In the case of Gone With the Wind there will be only a matter of months, and people seem to be simply passionate about the details of the book.

All of this is a prologue to saying that I urge you very strongly indeed against making minor changes, a few of which you have indicated in your adaptation, and which I will note fully. These minor changes may give us slight improvements, but there will be five or ten million readers on our heads for them; where, for the most part, they will recognize the obvious necessity of our making drastic cuts.

I feel, too, that we should not attempt to correct seeming faults of construction. I have learned to avoid trying to improve on success. One never knows what chemicals have gone to make up something that has appealed to millions of people, and how many seeming faults of construction have been part of the whole, and how much the balance would be offset by making changes that we in our innocence, or even in our ability, consider wrong. “

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:50 pm

You try securing a $300 million Dollar budget for a purist adaptation of LOTR- Malick

Well Ive said before I dont think it is suitable for blockbuster adaptation, but I dont think to make a blockbuster you have to open with a huge effects scene- its not mandatory its just expected. Its the safe option I agree, but that doesnt make it the best or the right option.
Would FotR have flopped had that big blockbuster opening being moved 15 minutes further into the script after setting up the Shire? I dont think it would have.

Blue I agree with what he says, needless minor changes and changes to structure and arcs are gambling with a winning formula. And PJ's adaptation are full of those sort of changes.

by Bluebottle Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:38 pm

It's very pertinent. And interesting that he says so, not from any sort of loyalty to the author, but because that's what gives the best result in his experience of adapting other works to the medium of movies.

by Mrs Figg Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:25 pm

well the intro was enjoyable to watch and that is good enough for me.

by Mrs Figg Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:46 pm

just cos

by Radaghast Mon May 25, 2015 1:26 pm

Love HT. I'll have to watch that later. And, for good measure, here's CinemaSins (apologies if this has been posted before).

Full disclosure: I haven't seen this movie. Nor do I have any desire to. I feel I've already seen it thanks to reviews and footage from the above videos.

by malickfan Mon May 25, 2015 8:36 pm

I haven't seen this movie. Nor do I have any desire to. I feel I've already seen it thanks to reviews and footage from the above videos

You weren't missing much, expect more of the same...only less of it.

At least AUJ and DOS felt more or less like finished films I could imagine Jackson being happy with, BOFTA felt rushed and unfinished, it certainly makes a change complaining a PJ film is to short...

Still think it was a bad idea hiring the editor of The (Not really that) Lovely Bones to edit all three films one after the other...

by Radaghast Mon May 25, 2015 10:44 pm

malickfan wrote:
I haven't seen this movie. Nor do I have any desire to. I feel I've already seen it thanks to reviews and footage from the above videos

You weren't missing much, expect more of the same...only less of it.

At least AUJ and DOS felt more or less like finished films I could imagine Jackson being happy with, BOFTA felt rushed and unfinished, it certainly makes a change complaining a PJ film is to short...

Still think it was a bad idea hiring the editor of The (Not really that) Lovely Bones to edit all three films one after the other...

Wow, if the two previous movies felt more like finished movies than the final film, that's a huge FAIL.

Anyway, I'm sure you're right and I don't care who edited and how, I'm sure I'd still hate it.

by chris63 Tue May 26, 2015 4:29 am

Well i watched it finally having bought the blu-ray when it first came out.
Can't believe i had tears in my eyes when Thorin died. (must have been something in my eye)

'The Battle of the Five Armies' in theatres | SPOILERS - Page 19 Sf1oA3k

'The Battle of the Five Armies' in theatres | SPOILERS - Page 19 Sf1oA3k

by halfwise Tue May 26, 2015 1:07 pm

I don't even remember Thorin's death scene in the movie. Was it anything like the book?

by azriel Tue May 26, 2015 5:35 pm

Thorin's death could have been from a Japanese tragedy. It was stupid, wrongly timed & over the top. Didnt mean sweet fook all. Ive seen 'death' scenes like his many times before, the heroic slip sliding of paper thin ice, will he drop thru & freeze to death ! Oh God no ! or will he leap to his feet like a well chosen Angel of God & smite his enemy at the last dying breath ? Er.....nope. It was staged ( badly) & cliched & we all knew what was fooking coming & glad of it ! get this shit over & done with ! No sense of danger ( only the danger of falling asleep) no tension, no one cared, goodbye, lets go home.

by Forest Shepherd Tue May 26, 2015 5:38 pm

It was pretty ballstacularly bad, yes.

by Bluebottle Tue May 26, 2015 7:41 pm

They kind of took the template from the book, with Fili adn Kili dying defending Thorin. They just lost the defending part. And changed every other detail. Shrugging

by malickfan Tue May 26, 2015 7:59 pm

I didn't mind the actual death scene (though the ludicrous fight before hand is another matter Evil or Very Mad

) , as you guys know I wasn't a big fan of Armitage, but it was really nicely played by him and Freeman (one of the few moments in this trilogy that more or less matched how I'd pictured things), those tears on his face were certainly very believable, and it got more than a few noises of shock in my screening...

by bungobaggins Wed May 27, 2015 12:27 am

"Stay here, search the lower levels. I've got this." - Fili, ~~J.R.R. Tolkien~~ Probably Phillipa Boyens

by chris63 Wed May 27, 2015 3:07 am

halfwise wrote:I don't even remember Thorin's death scene in the movie. Was it anything like the book?

No in the book he was surrounded by his friends in the film it was just Bilbo and an ice rink.
Dont no weather he was after the Arkenstone or the Stanley Cup. Razz

by Eldorion Wed May 27, 2015 3:17 am

Chris:

Might be in part because its' late, but I'm cryin' here... Laughing

by chris63 Wed May 27, 2015 3:39 am

I thought it was funny also Very Happy

by bungobaggins Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:00 pm

Okay get a load of this. Last night I caught the end of "Cliffhanger" starring Sylvester Stallone, and I happened to catch this little tidbit near the end that was eerily close to the end of the fight between Thorin and Azog in Bofa.

https://youtu.be/YPZDfnTtft4?t=1h59m26s