Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

halfwise wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Nor can I think of another film maker who seems to start shooting a film without anything resembling a finished script.
On LotR's they were still making stuff up as far a long as the Battle of Pelannor, and in the commentary Boyen admits that they had no idea how to finish TT until Sam's speech came to mind.
How do you coherently shoot a script when you dont have a clue where its even going?

Sorry, but I have to correct you as your film history seems to be non-existent on this point.

Casablanca was shot with the script only partially done when shooting began, with the writer (there was only one after the Epsteins went off to other projects) frantically trying to stay ahead of the shooting.  Bogey would sometimes catch Howard Koch fretting about having written himself into a corner, he'd invite him to sit down with a whiskey and they'd work things out.  Ingrid Bergman would complain she didn't know how to play some scenes because she didn't know which man she'd end up with, it is claimed this made her acting more real as the character didn't know either.

The end result was one of the greatest movies ever made, and it was by no means an aberration.  This was part and parcel of the studio system in those days, when Hollywood was cranking out as many B movies as they could.  Yes, Casablanca was considered a B movie in those days, shot in haste, just part of the mill.  Perhaps this is why it came to represent MOVIES as a whole: Koch ended up mining many idioms in his haste, and Casablanca (and many others of that time) worked as a collage of the cinematic subconscious.

What has this to do with LotR and the Hobbit?  Simply that you can't fault the process, simply the decisions that they made.  Or perhaps you can: stream of consciousness movie making worked when movies were young, but now with our jaded palates we pick out the idioms immediately, and reject them as too easy.  PJ and Co should know better and steer clear.

A good story that considers the individual humanity and all it's quirks will always work, so long as a host of other things fall into place at the same time and the Director knows whar he's doing, as well as having the right actors and the right script and the right amount of money to do what needs to be done. Just set up all the perfect circumstances and have a lot of luck and you'll end up with the perfect movie. Simple really. You guys overthink too much.

I just didn't like the implied statement that all successful movies begin filming with a completed script.- Halfy

I wasnt implying that. I was actually thinking mainly of modern films when I made the comment.

And it is true that there are many films made on a last minute script.
But I would imply that most films, and most good films, go into shooting with a working script or at least a director with a vision of what he wants. And the sparks of genius made at the last minute are rarer than the crap made at the last minute.

PJ does not seem to have any sort of clue what he wants, especial on TH where he seems to be shooting a whole load of different ideas and abandoning them or cobbling scenes together from different places in the editing room afterwards.

But LotR's is not much better, poor Liv laments on the commentary that she wished she had played Arwen different in some scenes. I have no doubt that is because some she shot for warrior Arwen and some for stay at Rivendell Arwen, and the two performances she gave are understandably different and have to be awkwardly placed side by side in the finished product.
Not to mention the Helms Deep or Sauron fighting Aragorn stuff that went as far as the expense of actually shooting it before they realised what bad ideas they were.
And thats before getting to the script writers still not knowing how to end a film they had already shot most of, or making changes in every scene to the last minute.

It does not smack of a team that knows what they want or have a clear idea how to represent and adapt the original work. Its smacks of someone throwing infinite, very expensive pies at a wall and just seeing what sticks.

I don't mind minor revisions to the script. Honestly its something that would be necessary to iron out quirks within the script with the actors playing the parts. But what Jackson does is do complete rewrites of his own script because another more fantastical idea popped into his head and he felt it would be cooler than what he originally wrote. Seems like a waste of time and film to me. Which is a mute point now that film has been converted over to digital. Minor revisions help IMO fine tune the film where as a completely rewritten scene (as proven by John Rhyse Davis) leads the actor to not really bother with the current script because they know it will be changed some time later anyways.

As far as LOTR, the dialogue from the book will always be better. But Jackson proved (ESP WITH THE HOBBIT) that he feels that the dialogue is not an important part of the story. He feels he can replace any of Tolkien's dialogue with his, Walshes, and Boyens sub par dialogue because then they feel that they have written more of the script. For me though when they let Tolkien lead the direction of the story the scenes were far superior to the made up content or altered content, that they inserted into the films...

Some of the choices they made I like figgs can live with but others I completely see Petty's point (esp about Glofindel).. I still think LOTR were good films. The Hobbit is just crap and basically a train wreck you want to look away but its so horrific you can't

I liked the idea of Arwen taking Glorfindel's role. I didn't think it was done well, that's my problem with it. She could have done it without being a Warrior Maid. All they needed to do was read what Tolkien wrote about Luthien, remove the magical powers and some of the mystical qualities, and it could have been wonderful. Even Glorfindel wasn't portrayed mythologically. Understatement could have been the order of the day. I see no reason Arwen could not have appeared like Glorfindel as a shining being bearing fire (where mythology was suggested in the original). Tolkien's scenes - with or without Glorfindel - would have made great film. Arwen and Aragorn's meeting on the road could have been easily underplayed, and beautifully. Subtlety of course is not PJ's bag. Arwen as Glorfindel is one of those rare things where Tolkien might have been improved in my opinion - done right, underplayed, and using Luthien as a template or guide, hinted at but not writ large.

I think Sin hit on a large part of the problem: thinking they could do something "really cool" instead of what was in the book.

halfwise wrote:I think Sin hit on a large part of the problem: thinking they could do something "really cool" instead of what was in the book.

Tolkien was so uncool he recreated cool. People don't see it though, except subliminally, it's why he's still popular. He was a one-off.

I think they should have kept Glorfindel, its not the Arwen idea is a terrible one, its a bad one but an understandable bad one- but I strangely enough think audiences can cope with the idea of characters who come and go, you know like happens in real life when you travel somewhere, meet some people, and move on and never see them again.
I dont understand why film seems to see it as such a problem or be so afraid of the idea.

I think the major problem was that they wanted to represent Arwen as the important person that she was, and that can't be done with the short shrift she's given in the books.

Not if you also incorporate the information in the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn which they had the rights too.
But they couldnt even get that right- why on earth they thought it was a good idea not to include Elronds condition for marriage I have no idea, or hint much more at the father son relationship between him and Aragorn, and how painful a decision Aragorn is making, which in turn colours his personality in the book.
They could have included Frodo's vision of Aragorn and Arwen betrothing their love for one another in Lothlorien, and expanded it using the scene in the appendix to include her rejection of the darkness.
There is material they could have adapted and worked with that is substantially superior to the material they invented to replace it.

Doug Walker, creator of "5 Second Movies" and the Nostalgia Critic has finally posted his thoughts on DOS. He's not a Tolkien nut like us, so you'll have to forgive his lack of knowledge, but he makes some good points, especially his thoughts about the climax and how cutting back and forth between three dark/gray environments and how that doesn't really work cinematically.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/specials/42143-hobbit-2-and-commentary-week

I agree with all that except about replacing Glorfindel with Arwen being a bad idea. I think it was a very good one, Petty, providing it had stayed closer to Tolkien's version of Glorfindel's scenes. If PJ had incorporated what you suggest from the Appendix, then her replacing Glorfindel would have been a nice opportunity to introduce her into the story. I'm willing to accept a little licence for the film makers. If Tolkien was still about, I might even have writtten to him suggesting the change to the book as well. I'm sure he would have listened to reason. He wasn't Scottish remember. Come to think of it, Pippin could have been a girl hobbit... mmm...

Would having Legolas come instead have been better? I mean then there wouldn't be a warrior princess vibe attached to Arwen, considering she never does it again and is supposed to represent love in the trilogy. How does her fighting off Nazgul really fit?

And on a side note about Leggy. I'm rewatching ROTK and he knows an awful lot about the world for being an isolationist elf who we are lead to believe hasn't often ever left Mirkwood in TH.

I almost said the same thing Tin - Legolas would have performed the role nicely. But why have a warrior at all? Luthien wasn't a warrior as such, but she was competent and had Elvish power, so why not Arwen? With the sad shortage of female characters, I think Arwen is the one for me. Not suggesting Legolas wasn't just as pretty though.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:As I have said before (with evidence!) there is nothing fundamentally different in the manner in which the scripts for both films came about, or in the poorness of the invented dialogue, or in the deviations from book characters, or the complete failure to understand and convey the respective books relevant themes.

The scale is greater in TH but the exact same script problems are evident and persist in both.

Compare two adaptations- can you honestly say compared to the BBC version that the character of film Frodo is the same as this one in the same situation? Or that PJ's account is an improvement for Frodo? Or the dialogue better?  Or that PJ's is a more faithful or better adaptation?

I really need to get a hold of a copy of the radio play. It's a nice juxtaposition with these latest films. Reminds me that adaptations don't have to be bad for the finished product to be good.

Orwell wrote:I almost said the same thing Tin - Legolas would have performed the role nicely. But why have a warrior at all? Luthien wasn't a warrior as such, but she was competent and had Elvish power, so why not Arwen? With the sad shortage of female characters, I think Arwen is the one for me. Not suggesting Legolas wasn't just as pretty though.  

So if PJ went with the Luthien vibe, then perhaps Legolas Glorfindel or who ever would stay with the hobbits and Aragorn would ride with Frodo to the ford, there met my Arwen when they cross the river, who then sings or chants her spell that makes the water horses arrive, then show a subtle look between her and Aragorn so we know there's something there, but not quite sure what.

Not sure that would necessarily be better than what was in the book, but it would be more compelling film maybe!

I agree with all that except about replacing Glorfindel with Arwen being a bad idea. I think it was a very good one, Petty, providing it had stayed closer to Tolkien's version of Glorfindel's scenes.- Orwell


I think no matter what you do in the scene as soon as you put Arwen in it you promote her and Aragorn's story and releationship above the actual drama of the situation.
I think its a bad idea because dramatically it will always rob that scene of tension.
PJ however seems to have embraced this problem an made it much worse by at the same time as introducing Arwen and Aragorns relationship he reduces Frodo' role in events to non-existant.

Bakshi replaced Glorfindel with Legolas in his version, but he didnt alter much of the dialogue, he just gave it to Legolas to say and that for me works betterthan using Arwen as the emphasis remains on Frodo's plight.


RA- I highly recommend th eplays they are not perfect, but there is a lot to enjoy in them- some bits I'd uploaded for arguments past!-

Barliman Butterbur-



The Dead Marshes (somehow creepier on raio than PJ could manage with the visuals   )



The Voice of Saruman



I also like quite a few of the songs in it too- some like this one are not actually in the play except as extracts and stuff Treebeard hums and sings to himself but the BBC released a soundtrack album too that had full versions of all the songs, this one joins the Ent List of Living Creaures withthe song about the Ent-wives-



Sam singing the ballad of Gil-Galad as they approach Weathertop-

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Arwen- I'm the faster rider. I'll take him.

Bwah-hah-hah-hah! "Faster rider"?!

Arwen - I do not fear them.  (well there goes the sense of dread and peril- they replace a wounded weary little hobbit with a powerful elf who doesnt even fear the Riders)

Good point. It's just a boring chase scene in the movie. Not much tension to speak of compared to the book. Funny, since PJ tries to get tension out of every possible other scene, he thwarts tension in the ones that have the most in the book.

Ayup All...

I remember either Jacksie or Bouens saying that the main problem with Tolkien was that there were too many characters. Especially ones who really only said one sentence or so, even if it was important, and then disappeared. They said that to explain who all these people were and what they were doing where they were was simply too expensive and was why most of these characters either had to be amalgamated into one person, or simply be replaced by a more 'permanent' character saying their line. I can see where they're coming from, but it doesn't help if you lose someone you like like the prince of Dol Amroth or say, Ioreth. But in Jacksies world I guess it can happen to anyone...

My problem with that approach is that it assumes two things- people cant handle the concept of characters who come and then go (even though it happens in real life all the time), and secondly that you have to explain ever character and their background and give them an arc to establish them (which never happens when you meet someone for the first time in real life).

Sometimes mystery is actually good. Glorfindel became a fan of readers of the book precisely because he seems so important and powerful and yet only appears in that one section.

I cant remember which showman first said it but 'leave them wanting more' is not a bad maxim.

But thats how I like it, a little bit of mystery. The comings & goings of people make life interesting & wanting to be alive ! I dont want to be spoon fed by someone who thinks Im to dumb to know better ! Peejers has taken all the essence & mystery out of not just The Hobbit but most of LOTRs to ! Sometimes its good to have known someone for only a short while, it gives you a memory to look back on, especially if its a good memory ?

One of his worst sins for my money in PJ's LotR's is telling the viewer way more than they should know way too soon, and usually long before the characters do.

The Black Riders are a good example, in the book there is a passing reference by Gandalf to the holders of the Ring rings, but few people, Frodo included, make the connection when the Riders first show up- they are just scary and mysterious, and largely scary because they are mysterious and unknown.

In PJ's version we have seen the riders leave Mordor with orders to hunt down Frodo (so we see Mordor too about 2 films too early) we have seen them ride into the Shire and behead a hobbit before the films main characters even know they exist.

And he does it all the time- fills the viewer in on everything before it actually happens.
Nothing is left to come out at the natural place in the story, its all foreshadowed, or shown to soon.

Totally agree Petty !  

Me too !

He does it at every available opportunity. Gandalf's absence is probably the most egregious example. Showing a Rock-em-Sock-em Wizards sequence was, in Peejer's mind, more exciting than not showing Gandalf at all   

Scott Lynch is a Minnesota based fantasy author best known for his Gentleman Bastards series.