DoS extended edition recommendations

ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! finally something from the book done halfway decent, Beorn still looks like shit though

Bluebottle wrote:Actually, looking at the upswing in activity when someone offers a contrary opinion, I'm not so sure. If anything I'd say it shows people around here value the debate.

I wasn't trying to imply that people here don't value debate, more that there just aren't a ton of opportunities for it (on this topic, not others) anymore because so many people have become disillusioned with the films.  And that there's a risk of a forum becoming an echo chamber when that goes on for too long.  But newcomers like BN are a breath of fresh air (and even better when they stick around) and I think the challenge to the consensus helps keep things fresh and makes everyone flex their mental muscles and mentally review their positions in order to participate in the debate, which sometimes even results in people changing those positions.

Bluebottle wrote:Now, none of this is opinion in my opinion. Jacksons style differes widely from Tolkien and to me it makes the movies feel conflicted and uncohesive.

{{{I think I get what you mean though. }}}

Oh, i wasn't trying to imply that you were tryig to imply anything. Just makig an observation.

Reginald D Hunter, an American comedian who works in the UK, said something I liked on a TV show. "I'm American, there's no subtext to my compliment."

Something like that anyway.

ok my two cents Worth.

LOTR. Jackson took a beloved book and with its pages fashioned a living creature full of wonder and beauty.

TH. Jackson took a beloved book, ripped its heart out and shat in the hole.

nuff said.

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:Now, none of this is opinion in my opinion. Jacksons style differes widely from Tolkien and to me it makes the movies feel conflicted and uncohesive.

{{{I think I get what you mean though. }}}

Haha. That's pretty much exactly how it was meant to be read though.

Mrs Figg wrote:ok my two cents Worth.

LOTR. Jackson took a beloved book and with its pages fashioned a living creature full of wonder and beauty.

TH. Jackson took a beloved book, ripped its heart out and shat in the hole.

nuff said.

Pretty much.

Though I would say LotRs was streamlined, made simply into the more sellable heroic epic romantic story that's the basis of the book. Removing a lot of the subtelity, and losing some of the true depth and greatness of the work.

And there were some odd parts added, and some odd changes in the plot and story that ended up just creating paradoxes and problems. Hints at what was to come in the Hobbit, you could call it.

I can't really agree with that. There are too many flaws in TH that can be seen in putative form in LOTR to consider them so separately. Although TH certainly introduced a lot of its own flaws.

Well, I'd put it as simply as; the LotRs movies work as movies despite their flaws, the Hobbit movies doesn't.

I'd certainly agree with that.

Sinister71 wrote:

ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! finally something from the book done halfway decent, Beorn still looks like shit though

And they left it out.

As far as Im aware, New Zealand is a young-ish country Inhabitant wise.So, Im guessing Peejers doesnt feel the similar sort of history that we British ( sometimes ) feel. We can trace the UK's history miles back. So, when Tolkien wrote of Middle Earth he had something to draw on, our history. He wove it lovingly into the books he wrote.We feel it as we read, its recognizable to us. We associated with ME, it felt like us, us from a bygone time. Thats what peejers is lacking. He has no feel, no heart & so it feels lacking in TH, it feels cold & heartless, a big empty gap. And what does peejers do to fill this empty gap ? he fills it with his idea of humour, fun & action. His vision is a million miles away from the one I have. I dont need to go far to imagine the Shire, its around me in the countryside, the woods,the grass I put my toes through. Tolkien made this place a richer place, through his imagination & its stayed, lasted over the years. Will yours stay peejers ??

Bluebottle wrote:

Sinister71 wrote:

ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! finally something from the book done halfway decent, Beorn still looks like shit though

And they left it out.

I know right... that scene is great. and for it to only make the EE is crazy. Instead we get a obviously CGI bear chasing the company to his home. A scene that pretty much sucks

I'm reluctant to try to psychoanalyze PJ in that way since none of us know him.  I get the sense that he's not as interested in all the lore stuff (which is cool; plenty of people just enjoy LOTR for the story and Tolkien himself leaned towards that perspective at times), or at least it wasn't his biggest passion.  But they've actually upped the emphasis on Dwarvish history in The Hobbit (that's about the only thing in the Appendices that actually is somewhat relevant to TH), relatively speaking, although the book is not nearly as heavy on the faux-history as LOTR is.

Bluebottle wrote:The major problem I have with the movies is that while you on the one hand have Tolkiens original story book, you don't have Jacksons story in the movies. You have Tolkiens story with Jacksons alterations and additions. Now, can altering and adding to a story work if it's done in the same style as the original? Sure, though Jackson and co have never struck me as very competent writers. Their alterations in the LotRs movies seldom failed to create paradoxes and plot problems that didn't exist in the original. But Jacksons style is widely divergent from Tolkiens, so in the altered and added to versions you get story parts conflicting and dragging in the completely opposite directions.

Now, none of this is opinion in my opinion. Jacksons style differes widely from Tolkien and to me it makes the movies feel conflicted and uncohesive.

Though if you like the Jackson stuff and not the Tolkien stuff, or vice versa, maybe you can pull through and like it. Or perhaps you like both and don't mind. It doesn't work for me anyway, pushed together in the same movie.

I've never seen "story parts conflicting and dragging in completely opposite directions" in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies. I've only seen Tolkien fans making a big deal out what's in the book and what's not. Some of them tend to see problems where there are none.

Sinister71 wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:

Sinister71 wrote:

ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! finally something from the book done halfway decent, Beorn still looks like shit though

And they left it out.

I know right... that scene is great. and for it to only make the EE is crazy. Instead we get a obviously CGI bear chasing the company to his home. A scene that pretty much sucks

Who on (Middle) earth cares if it's a CGI bear?! As long as it looks real, which it does, it doesn't matter if it's CGI and some unknown type of bear, that they caught in the middle of Alaska.

Anyhow, I think the "CGI bear chasing the company" scene established Beorn as a very dangerous and impressive creature, and that makes the scene above more intense and funnier.

azriel wrote:His vision is a million miles away from the one I have.

Wow, am I glad that Peter Jackson adapted the books - and that you didn't!

Tolkien made this place a richer place, through his imagination & its stayed, lasted over the years. Will yours stay peejers ??

When they started making movies somewhere around the dawn of the twentieth century, movie-making was not considered to be a fine art form like paintings and books. Some people were like

But movies have come to stay, and the most popular ones will endure through time. So of course Peter Jackson's movies will stay.

I think, it's funny to see the reaction among some book readers, when their favourite books are adapted for the big screen:

The problem here BN is not in seeing a favourite book adapted, Ive seen plenty of those with varying results from good to bad, the problem here is that TH has been adapted so appallingly badly that it can hardly be considered a true adaptation at all.
The films suffer from the results of last minute changes and decisions that are ill thought through and rushed. The problem is that they are structurally inept, the narrative is incoherent and cringe worthy in execution of its dialogue, unless you like dialogue about the contents of dwarves trousers that is and it doesn't know who its main character is or which of its plots its the important central one.

David H wrote:
Hi BN, and welcome!

Thanks!  

On the other hand, I wasn't fond of the style of constantly cutting back and forth within the narrative. To me, watching LotR it's like listening to an intelligent person with ADHD try to tell a story. It's all interesting, but you just want to take them by the shoulders, look them in the eyes and say, "Focus! FOCUS!!!"

Since LOTR was some of the most focused movies I've ever seen with perfect pacing and almost seemless cross-cutting between different scenes, I must say that your statement sounds odd in my ears. In my eyes LOTR are slow movies, that take the necessary time to dwell on the atmosphere and on the emotions of the characters. ... But okay, YOU have a different experience than me, when you watch them, which just goes to show, that people are different, also in how they perceive things.

Do you think something was gained or lost by the choice in TH to film actors separately in front of a green screen rather than shooting together on real locations?

When I watch the Hobbit movies I never think about it. So there's my answer, I guess.

I think, it's because Peter Jackson doesn't only film the actors separately. No, far from. In many of the close-ups the actors are actually in the same room or in the same place. One of them might be standing on a stool or a small box or something like that, or the other are standing in a hole in the ground. And in other cases the actors were actually shot together, and then the actor who is supposed to be the biggest guy was cut of the picture, enlarged and then put back into the picture. (For instance, that's how they did the scene with Gandalf and Bilbo just outside Bagend.)

Besides that, what do YOU consider to be a "real location". They built big set pieces for many scenes (Bagend, Beorn's house, Laketown and so on), and they went to many different locations in New Zealand. So it's not all green screen, you know.

I wonder, why some people suddenly are making a big deal out Jackson's use of green screen in the Hobbit movies. He used the same technique in LOTR. Most of the scenes with Gandalf and Bilbo in Bagend plus the ones with Gandalf and Frodo (almost every scene where you see both faces or where they are walking or standing) were done exactly the same way. They also used forced perspective, but only for a very few shots.[/quote]

BN.filmz wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:The major problem I have with the movies is that while you on the one hand have Tolkiens original story book, you don't have Jacksons story in the movies. You have Tolkiens story with Jacksons alterations and additions. Now, can altering and adding to a story work if it's done in the same style as the original? Sure, though Jackson and co have never struck me as very competent writers. Their alterations in the LotRs movies seldom failed to create paradoxes and plot problems that didn't exist in the original. But Jacksons style is widely divergent from Tolkiens, so in the altered and added to versions you get story parts conflicting and dragging in the completely opposite directions.

Now, none of this is opinion in my opinion. Jacksons style differes widely from Tolkien and to me it makes the movies feel conflicted and uncohesive.

Though if you like the Jackson stuff and not the Tolkien stuff, or vice versa, maybe you can pull through and like it. Or perhaps you like both and don't mind. It doesn't work for me anyway, pushed together in the same movie.

I've never seen "story parts conflicting and dragging in completely opposite directions" in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies. I've only seen Tolkien fans making a big deal out what's in the book and what's not. Some of them tend to see problems where there are none.

Well, you are obviously one of the people I mentioned in the last paragraph then.

Good for you.

bungobaggins wrote:Bard: Hey Bragga.

(Bard holds up woman's undershirt.)

Bard: Your wife would look lovely in this.

Bragga: What do you know of my wife?

Bard: I know her as well as any man in this town.

That's not a "sexual joke" - it's a criticism of his wife's lack of ethics. Do you see Bard laugh at him or even smile?

Bluebottle wrote:

Well, you are obviously one of the people I mentioned in the last paragraph then.

Good for you.

Oh, you mean, I "like both and don't mind". ... Yes, that would be the right description of me.

I almost never read fiction books. My book shelves are filled with dictionaries and books about history, music and religion. The only fiction books I own, are Tolkien's books and the books of the veterinary Alf Wight (aka James Herriot).

I love the Herriot books. got a lovely annotated edition last year of the collected stories, its full of wonderful period detail and photographs in the annotations to things mentioned in the text.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The problem here BN is not in seeing a favourite book adapted, Ive seen plenty of those with varying results from good to bad, the problem here is that TH has been adapted so appallingly badly that it can hardly be considered a true adaptation at all.

As I've already said: An adaptation doesn't have to follow a book strictly in order to become a good or even wonderful movie.

To say that it isn't "a true adaptation" is just pure demagogy. As long as the main lines of the plot are there and the characters are there, it can rightfully be called a true adaptation. You can't expect all of the details to be the same; and you can't expect it to include every detail from the book. The word "adapt" means: "adjust, readjust, fit", so we shouldn't be surprised.

The films suffer from the results of last minute changes and decisions that are ill thought through and rushed.

No, they don't, and no they are not. ... Every decision Peter Jackson and his crew make, are well thought out. He's not a superficial person, but someone who discusses things with his co-writers and the rest of his team. He thinks things over, he tries out ideas and suggestions. In interviews on the internet and in all of the behind the camera-stuff, that you will find on the extended editions, there's sufficient evidence that he never rushes through things, and especially not things that concern the story and the characters.

The problem is that they are structurally inept, the narrative is incoherent

,

I disagree. Peter Jackson and his co-writers have made the Hobbot story much more coherent than it ever was in the book. The book is too episodic with new characters and creatures coming and going all the time, instead of having at least SOME recurring bad guys throughout the story. But what Tolkien wrote in the Appendices of LOTR gave Peter Jackson the material to give the adventures of Bilbo more significance in terms of the fate of Middle Earth and let Sauron have some influence on the enemies, that Bilbo and the dwarves encountered:

"When you think of the Battle of Pelennor, do not forget the battles in Dale and the valor of Durin's Folk. Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here to ruin and ash. But that has been adverted — because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring in Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth."

- Gandalf's words to Frodo and Gimli concerning the battle in Dale

"Among many cares [Gandalf] was troubled in mind by the perilous state of the North; because he knew then already that Sauron was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough, to attack Rivendell. But to resist any attempt from the East to regain the lands of Angmar and the northern passes in the mountains there were now only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills. And beyond them lay the desolation of the Dragon. The Dragon Sauron might use with terrible effect. How then could the end of Smaug be achieved?"

(Both quotes are from the chapter "Durin's Folk".)

and cringe worthy in execution of its dialogue

Well, what can I say? I think, the dialogue and the execution of is superb, as it always is Jackson's Middle Earth movies.

unless you like dialogue about the contents of dwarves trousers that is

Ohh, so one single joke, that you don't like, makes all of the dialogue in the rest of the movie "cringe worthy"? Could it be that you're generalizing a bit too much?

and it doesn't know who its main character is or which of its plots its the important central one.

The Hobbit movies are always clear about, who the main character is. Whenever Bilbo is around, we see everything through HIS eyes; not literally but through his reactions. But the fact that Bilbo is the main character, doesn't mean, that there aren't any other protagonists. No, there's also Gandalf and - to some degree - the dwarves. Some have said, that Thorin is the main character in 'The Desolation of Smaug', but actually we're never with Thorin the same way we're with Bilbo, because we don't always know where we've got Thorin. He is often silent, and most of the time he's reserved and grumpy. He is being unreasonable towards the elves (because of past events), and he often argues with Gandalf. And last but not least: he's not always being kind to Bilbo. We like him, but we don't sympathize with him the same way we do with Bilbo and Gandalf - no, we have our reservations about him. There's no way that he could ever be the main character.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I love the Herriot books.  got a lovely annotated edition last year of the collected stories, its full of wonderful period detail and photographs in the annotations to things mentioned in the text.

Sounds good!

Have you read Jim Wight's book "The real James Herriot - a memoir of my father"? It's a really good and very interesting book

Eldorion wrote:I can't really agree with that.  There are too many flaws in TH that can be seen in putative form in LOTR to consider them so separately.  Although TH certainly introduced a lot of its own flaws.

I can almost hear the strings playing sad music to accompany the big catastrophe, that this guy from New Zealand has caused.