What film did you watch last night?
- Thread starter Richeh
- Start date
Caporegime
I think you will find they may use parts from The Similarion and Unfinished Tales in The Hobbit movies.
Other than that, you are in titled to your own view, it's wrong but it is yours
The three hobbit films is a pee taking cash grab. Two films out of one book shorter than any of the books in LotR is bad enough. A third to bridge it to LotR for the idiots in the audience is just stupid.
And for the record... They are already making silly changes to the hobbit, like including characters from LotR who aren't even in the hobbit, so the herp a derpers have someone to recognise.
Soldato
This is a pretty common feeling about the films, and it's one (as an aspiring filmmaker) ive spent many hours considering. I'll attempt to try and figure out with you, so i apologise for the long post.
I didnt like the books. I felt it chock-full of boring, meandering wishy-wash. It's great if you like leaves and poetry and family trees but as a story, it's an incredibly difficult read. Herein, however, lies the problem.
LOTR is not a story. Not really. What Tolkien did was literally create a world. He created a planet with a huge population and history and fully working languages with grammar and tense and evolution of their own. The book wasnt a story, it was a legend. It could almost have been a real history. There was, of course, a story within it. Of Frodo and a ring and some wizards and whatnot; but it's really buried in there in what is, without argument, quite a difficult read.
Now here's where the translation to film is interesting.
The story translates relatively well to film, as it turns out. As a basic structure, i mean. in reality the story is 30+ hours long so an absolute transfer is impossible and in any case, people who argue that a film "doesnt follow the book" dont truly understand how films work. And thats ok. If a film is good, you shouldnt notice how films work. It should literally never enter your thoughts. You should never say "that part was too long" or "that was too fast" because a truly good film is like a truly good pie... everything just works well together and you're left considering what a damn tasty pie it was; not trying to figure out which ingredient stood out the most and why it bothered you.
So the merits of the LOTR film wasn't really the story. We all know Frodo and Sam are a bit pro-homo, and Frodo is a massive whiney git by the end and there are 8 endings that drag out. That's never been in contention. The merits in LOTR is the sheer production of the film series.
If you're interested in the way films are made, the special features for LOTR are truly incredible. It's almost impossible to even describe the sheer scale of the production to someone who isnt interested in film production. But i'll give it a bash.
An entire economy for an actual country was rebuilt on the back of these films. The sets were beyond anything made before for any film. And they were made twice, once big and once small. And i dont mean just the walls and doors, i mean every knob, accessory and detail. The sheer scale of the production in terms of man hours and actual hours. Hobbiton, for example, famously built 2 years before filming to allow all the flowers to grow in and look like a working, worn in village. Edoras, built on an actual mountain in full scale with each bit carried up by helicopter. I can think of 2 completely brand new ways of filmmaking invented on the set of LOTR: Forced perspective with a moving camera, never done before. A new computer program that was designed to create thousands of "extras" that all acted independently and reacted to their environment. These are big deals.
So to cut this short (i could honestly talk at great length about this, it's my passion), the high praise for LOTR is actually quite the opposite of what you describe. Most of the "fanboys" from the books dont like the films. Christopher Tolkien absolutely despises the films. There were certain changes made to the story to allow for a film translation as filmmaking doesnt follow the same conventions as writing a novel (we can discuss that too but ive typed enough!). Most of the praise for the films comes from the sheer, unmatched scale of the behemoth production. It had never been done before and it hasnt been done since. It truly changed the way films are made (consider it yourself, how many films since 2001 are trilogies? People are willing to watch a story stretched over several episodes now).
If you dont like them, that's fine, i can actually totally understand it. Im in love with them, but not for the story. I can totally see why people would find it irritating and slow. I try to not be a fanboy about it, but i do genuinely find the project fascinating and awe inspiring.
Interestingly the studio initially refused to let The Hobbit become a trilogy of films. Jackson had to beg them over and over, as they were bringing material in from Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales as well as just The Hobbit. They did that to give a more complete view of Middle Earth, and so that it ties in easier with LOTR as a work of fiction, not just as a prequel.
Sorry. Giant Wall of Text Crits You for A Billion Damage.
Soldato
Oh I know they are cashing in on it, After watching it though I don't care. It's an excellent film, If he can repeat that with at least one of the others then I will be happy. Means I have something to look forward to at the cinema, Not a lot more big budget I can think of this year that I'm looking forward to half as much. I've a feeling it's going to work out for them just fine.
Soldato
This is another thing that kinda bothers me.
Studios arent making films for you. They're making films to make money. It IS a business. 90% of films are financed by the studio system (which is awful) to target 90% of the population... people who want to spend a couple of hours escaping their mundane lives.
There are plenty of arthouse/indie/independant/grindhouse movies out there for you if you dont like profiteering. And they're good, too. You knew before going in that The Hobbit was out there to make money. It was never showcased as anything else. That doesnt mean that the decision to make three films is literally only to make more money. Jackson had to beg the studio, New Line were totally against it.
The Herp-a-derpers are as legitimate an audience as you are. If LOTR/The Hobbit was made as a film to target the hardcore fans you'd have had a long, boring series of movies that would have sold half a million seats, as opposed to teh ridiculous world-changing monster it became.
Associate
Big trouble in little china town
Soldato
^Big trouble in little China. 
Rate it high or I'm sending the boys round
I know where you work.
Rate it high or I'm sending the boys round
I know where you work.
Caporegime
You're right up to a point... I'm sure the studios would love it if I did go to see their films, after all. That would mean more money - yay! But they lose a sale if they flagrantly exploit their audience - boo!
DampCat said:
It's not even about that. I don't mind films being made for profit at all. I just mind something as blatant as making three films out of a short children's book. That's absurd.
DampCat said:
I've not been in
I'll watch it on DVD, I think.DampCat said:
No, and I'm the first one to defend the artistic decisions that had to be made to get the LotR films to be watchable. The books are long and dull enough as it is, never mind trying to make those into films for a mainstream audience. But there were three books, and three films. There were not 9 films.
Soldato
If The Hobbit was made first and made into 3 films with the same success as LOTR, i can promise you that LOTR would have been 9, or at th every least 6. The production changed what people were willing to sit through.
Soldato
Evil Dead 2 - It's so bad, but in such an entertaining way, I couldn't possibly rate it lower than 7/10
Caporegime
Production of what?
Soldato
The Production that is LOTR.
The A-Team - was better than I thought it would be and I really quite enjoyed the first half, after that it went downhill. 3/5
Soldato
The thing is, there are several things in the book, which have no weight or meaning until you have read or seen LOTR.
I think the parts added to the Hobbit fit well and so far its pretty close to the book. If it had been a word for word copy of the book I doubt it would have been anywhere near as good in all honesty.
I think the parts added to the Hobbit fit well and so far its pretty close to the book. If it had been a word for word copy of the book I doubt it would have been anywhere near as good in all honesty.
Caporegime
Watched The Impossible a couple of nights a go. Only a few dry eyes in the place!
7/10
7/10
Just finished watching The Hunter, with William Dafoe. I really rreccommend anyone to watch this, it's a powerful story about a guy hunting a species previously thought extinct, with a powerful ending, and William Dafoe is awesome as ever.
Check it out on IMDB, but do yourself a favour and don't view any major spoilers, just watch the movie and enjoy.
After watching this yesterday I completely agree. The Hobbit should only have been one uber film... certainly not three (!) 3hr movies. The storyline is about 10x less epic than LOTR, and it was never meant to be anything more than a comparatively short tale, at a time when LOTR was still a glimmer in the proverbial eye.
After watching the movie and the amount that parts of the story are filled our or dragged along, it's clear that Mr Jackson is cynically milking the cash cow. Now, given that I love fantasy to death, and even a mediocre Tolkien movie is better than most of the guff around, it could be argued that it is a marginally acceptable cynical milking... but it is one nonetheless.
IMO it would have been unbelievably amazing as a single high impact 3hr movie though. Alas, people will pay, and the movies will regardless make millions.
Check it out on IMDB, but do yourself a favour and don't view any major spoilers, just watch the movie and enjoy.
After watching this yesterday I completely agree. The Hobbit should only have been one uber film... certainly not three (!) 3hr movies. The storyline is about 10x less epic than LOTR, and it was never meant to be anything more than a comparatively short tale, at a time when LOTR was still a glimmer in the proverbial eye.
After watching the movie and the amount that parts of the story are filled our or dragged along, it's clear that Mr Jackson is cynically milking the cash cow. Now, given that I love fantasy to death, and even a mediocre Tolkien movie is better than most of the guff around, it could be argued that it is a marginally acceptable cynical milking... but it is one nonetheless.
IMO it would have been unbelievably amazing as a single high impact 3hr movie though. Alas, people will pay, and the movies will regardless make millions.