There and Back Again Anticipation thread [SPOILERS]

[yovargas]

Somebody recently posted a clip from the EE on Facebook…where Pippin is looking for Merry after the battle and finally finds him.

I love that scene.

I like that scene too, but it pales next to the scene when Thorin and Balin re-enter Erebor. Everything about the latter scene is superior, the writing, the directing and most of all the acting.

And yet I could have hardly cared less about either Thorin and Balin at that point, or any other point.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I understand that. I, however, do.

I went back and watched that scene with Merry and Pippin, and honestly, it is quite bad. I can no longer say that I like it, or that I care about the characters. The writing and acting is just plain awful.

[Smaug's voice]

The writing is awful at several points in AUJ and DOS as well. (worse, actually)
As for acting. Of course I think it is wrong to compare them to someone as talented as Martin Freeman. They just got lucky in casting, is all. Just as they did with Sire IM.
And I truly do not find it "awful" atleast.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I understand that. I, however, do.

I went back and watched that scene with Merry and Pippin, and honestly, it is quite bad. I can no longer say that I like it, or that I care about the characters. The writing and acting is just plain awful.

No surprise, but I couldn't agree more. Boyd and Monahan are awful throughout the films, IMO. And the writing for most of LOTR is so clunky, that I have trouble understanding how anyone could think PB and J wrote great scripts for the LOTR films (though I fully respect that opinion).

DOS doesn't have a great script, by any means, but the occasional emotional moments seem to ring truer than the overwrought emotional moments in LOTR.

Nevertheless, there are so many excellent scriptwriters out there that I will forever be severely disappointed that Tolkien was adapted by the PB and J trio. Their hearts were (and are) most certainly in it, but I think they don't have the writing skills to do an adaptation justice. For the most part, their characters just spout lines at each other, rather than interact in a genuine way. I think of them as makers of "fan films," as opposed to solid films in their own right.

But I'll shut up now.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The writing is awful at several points in AUJ and DOS as well. (worse, actually)
As for acting. Of course I think it is wrong to compare them to someone as talented as Martin Freeman. They just got lucky in casting, is all. Just as they did with Sire IM.
And I truly do not find it "awful" atleast.

By contrast, nearly every single actor and actress in Game of Thrones is excellent, including the children. They are also given better material (and better direction, IMO) so that helps.

Shutting up again.

[kzer_za]

I agree that PJ, Fran, and Philippa generally aren't great writers when they veer far from Tolkien, though there are some invented scenes I like. But I'm pretty sure the LotR scripts contain a whole lot more of Tolkien's dialogue than the Hobbit movies, especially if you include close paraphrases and transpositions.

Admittedly, the Hobbit movies do have less bad jokes than LotR and probably less clunker lines. They have bigger far-reaching structural mistakes, though. Azog in AUJ and the Laketown attack in DoS bother me more than anything changed in LotR, even Denethor. And while the Gandalf-at-Dol-Guldur stuff sort of works, will it be worth it in the end? I'm not sure.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Part of the problem is that PJ did a lot more violence to actual characters and situations that existed in the LOTR books, while in DOS, most of his ridiculous shenanigans occur in scenes (and situations) that didn't even exist in the book.

So for me, the degradation of Denethor (and the poor execution of iconic scenes in which he participates) is far worse than having Legolas fight orcs in the streets of Laketown. The first involves a great character (and great scenes) being completely butchered, while the latter is invented stuff that is easily ignored, lopped off in a fan edit, or accepted as a piece of Tolkien-inspired fan art.

That's why I never hated the warg attack in TTT as much as most fans did. To me, it wasn't competing with a great scene from the book, and it was generally well-executed. And in that context of limited expectations, it actually succeeding in feeling like Tolkien (minus some of the dumb Gimli stuff).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I largely agree with that. As for Dol Guldur, it was definitely a highlight of my recent rewatch of DoS, and I think it genuinely one of the best things that Jackson has done. Comparing it to anything similar in the LOTR films, e.g., the confrontations with Saruman (Wizard Fu and the Voice of Saruman) and the WitchKing, as well anything involving Sauron, it makes me thankful that these Hobbit films exist just to have something this good of this nature.

It also, of course, is far superior to anything in Game of Thrones, which I feel fully justified in saying despite having never read a word of any of those books or seen a nanosecond of any episodes of the TV series, just because it allows me to poke at PtB.

[Smaug's voice]

Part of the problem is that PJ did a lot more violence to
actual characters and situations that existed in the LOTR books, while
in DOS, most of his ridiculous shenanigans occur in scenes (and
situations) that didn't even exist in the book.

So for me, the degradation of Denethor (and the poor execution of iconic
scenes in which he participates) is far worse than having Legolas fight
orcs in the streets of Laketown. The first involves a great character
(and great scenes) being completely butchered, while the latter is
invented stuff that is easily ignored, lopped off in a fan edit, or
accepted as a piece of Tolkien-inspired fan art.

That's why I never hated the warg attack in TTT as much as most fans
did. To me, it wasn't competing with a great scene from the book, and it
was generally well-executed. And in that context of limited
expectations, it actually succeeding in feeling like Tolkien
(minus some of the dumb Gimli stuff).

All of this has no effect on judging a film by its own merits of course. And I am pretty sure the mad Denethor, portrayed excellently by John Noble, bothers no one outside Tolkien-dom. I loved his moments before I read the books. (though the dive is off of course)

DoS has a number of weak performances. Most of them from the dwarves. So its odd to say the entire LR cast was bad. (in terms of acting; Viggo, IM, Noble, Hill, Otto, Urban, Bean etc. go along still as excellently as they were).

The tonal inconsistency is still highly present in DoS and your "crazy summer dream" similie doesn'nt work for me.

Imo, the only thing DoS is better than LR - is better humour, a better hero and better visuals. (expectedly).
DoS however lacks realism unlike LR.

[Smaug's voice]

I largely agree with that. As for Dol Guldur, it was
definitely a highlight of my recent rewatch of DoS, and I think it
genuinely one of the best things that Jackson has done. Comparing it to
anything similar in the LOTR films, e.g., the confrontations with
Saruman (Wizard Fu and the Voice of Saruman) and the WitchKing, as well
anything involving Sauron, it makes me thankful that these Hobbit films
exist just to have something this good of this nature.

It also, of course, is far superior to anything in Game of Thrones,
which I feel fully justified in saying despite having never read a word
of any of those books or seen a nanosecond of any episodes of the TV
series, just because it allows me to poke at PtB.

I loved that confrontation initially. But it poses many problems, most importantly the code of the Istari. The wizards are forbidden to force any of the free peoples of ME to any kind of action. Like kzer_za I doubt the pay-off wpuld be anything better. But I agree, it was a brilliant visual, that competes the Balrog scenes.


And having seen a 90s clip of GoT and disliking it intensely, I am sure GoT in time would stand out as an example of how a good tale can be brought so low by fan-service.

[kzer_za]

I largely agree with that. As for Dol Guldur, it was definitely a highlight of my recent rewatch of DoS, and I think it genuinely one of the best things that Jackson has done. Comparing it to anything similar in the LOTR films, e.g., the confrontations with Saruman (Wizard Fu and the Voice of Saruman) and the WitchKing, as well anything involving Sauron, it makes me thankful that these Hobbit films exist just to have something this good of this nature.

The visuals are very good, yes. I'm reserving judgment until we see how it pays off in TABA. It does unfortunately compete for screentime with the Bilbo-Smaug encounter, though far less egregiously than Laketown.

As for Voice of Saruman - it's an awkward and forced scene for a lot of reasons, but I really like some of the dialogue.

I still need to rewatch DoS at home, by the way. Haven't seen it since it left theaters.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I loved that confrontation initially. But it poses many problems, most importantly the code of the Istari. The wizards are forbidden to force any of the free peoples of ME to any kind of action.

I'm not understanding what you are saying here. In what way is Gandalf forcing any of the free peoples of Middle-earth to any kind of action by confronting Sauron himself?

[Passdagas the Brown]

SV,

If I watched a 90 second clip of the LOTR films, and judged all three films by it, I imagine you would be criticizing me pretty harshly.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Part of the problem is that PJ did a lot more violence to
actual characters and situations that existed in the LOTR books, while
in DOS, most of his ridiculous shenanigans occur in scenes (and
situations) that didn't even exist in the book.

So for me, the degradation of Denethor (and the poor execution of iconic
scenes in which he participates) is far worse than having Legolas fight
orcs in the streets of Laketown. The first involves a great character
(and great scenes) being completely butchered, while the latter is
invented stuff that is easily ignored, lopped off in a fan edit, or
accepted as a piece of Tolkien-inspired fan art.

That's why I never hated the warg attack in TTT as much as most fans
did. To me, it wasn't competing with a great scene from the book, and it
was generally well-executed. And in that context of limited
expectations, it actually succeeding in feeling like Tolkien
(minus some of the dumb Gimli stuff).

All of this has no effect on judging a film by its own merits of course. And I am pretty sure the mad Denethor, portrayed excellently by John Noble, bothers no one outside Tolkien-dom. I loved his moments before I read the books. (though the dive is off of course)

DoS has a number of weak performances. Most of them from the dwarves. So its odd to say the entire LR cast was bad. (in terms of acting; Viggo, IM, Noble, Hill, Otto, Urban, Bean etc. go along still as excellently as they were).

The tonal inconsistency is still highly present in DoS and your "crazy summer dream" similie doesn'nt work for me.

Imo, the only thing DoS is better than LR - is better humour, a better hero and better visuals. (expectedly).
DoS however lacks realism unlike LR.

I said "fever dream."

And to clarify, I find the LOTR films deeply lacking as both films and adaptations. As adaptations of great books, they annoy me. And as films in their own right, I find them very mediocre.

Except for those sublime moments yovargas keeps reminding me of.

[Smaug's voice]

I loved that confrontation initially. But it poses many problems, most importantly the code of the Istari. The wizards are forbidden to force any of the free peoples of ME to any kind of action.

I'm not understanding what you are saying here. In what way is Gandalf forcing any of the free peoples of Middle-earth to any kind of action by confronting Sauron himself?

By endangering himself, he is forcing the White Council to take action, is it not? Rather than the WC (a majority of which are the free peoples of ME) deciding on their own to attack Dol Guldur, Gandalf is using force - all be it, in an indirect manner - to make them attack Sauron. I do not find it that different from Gandalf taking up Denethor's place at Minas Tirith by force (except the latter is more ham-handed)


I also have held the notion that wizards do not use magic unless at dire need. Hence, his confrontation with Balrog or driving away the Nazguls are the rare examples of the extent of his magic. So I am not sure if Gandalf the Grey is allowed to use that much power in a direct confrontation with the Necromancer. As an Istar, his power was severely limited, and was to be used only in great need to protect the interests of ME. Gandalf the White was allowed to use more power, but I am not sure that at this point, when he is not even sure if this is Sauron, that Gandalf should be using full force.

SV,

If I watched a 90 second clip of the LOTR films, and judged all three films by it, I imagine you would be criticizing me pretty harshly. Wink

I know I am wrong in judging it by that clip of course, but that clip just showed me what they really intend to promote from the show.
Flying heads,limbs, graphic dead bodies,lots of blood, sex - it all covered a good 70% of it.
My friend who is a GoT-addict said that he has seen all the commentaries and interviews from the makers of the show, and they talk very very little about characters or the plot or the theme of the story. It's mostly about more action, more twists and more graphics. I am not sure of this, it may be a hyperbole - perhaps you can confirm? Though if true, that shows again the sentimentality of the makers.
imo of course. Not pushing my views over anyone else's.
(Apologies for derailing the thread though.)

[Passdagas the Brown]

That's quite possibly the least accurate description of the GoT commentaries I can imagine! The commentaries are almost exclusively focused on the character development. This is a very, very character-heavy show. Far more than most fantasy or sci-fi on either the big or small screens.

Yes there's violence and blood and sex (and a little soap opera-ish pettiness), but those elements pale in comparison to the care with which the characters are treated. Just watch Jaime Lannister's character arc through season 3, for example. Astounding.

And IMO, the show is much better than the books. And I rarely feel that way about adaptations.

The GoT makers (Weiss and Benioff) are former English literature majors with quite sophisticated ideas about character and narrative (and they choose directors that are excellent filmmakers). IMO, minus the so-called "sexposition," and the uninteresting stuff with Ramsay Bolton and Theon, their execution of this adaptation has been close to flawless (even if you don't like the tone of the GoT story).

I think if they put their heads together for a tonally faithful LOTR TV series, we would very quickly forget that Peter Jackson's films even exist!

[Elentári]

Part of the problem is that PJ did a lot more violence to
actual characters and situations that existed in the LOTR books, while
in DOS, most of his ridiculous shenanigans occur in scenes (and
situations) that didn't even exist in the book.

So for me, the degradation of Denethor (and the poor execution of iconic
scenes in which he participates) is far worse than having Legolas fight
orcs in the streets of Laketown. The first involves a great character
(and great scenes) being completely butchered, while the latter is
invented stuff that is easily ignored, lopped off in a fan edit, or
accepted as a piece of Tolkien-inspired fan art.

That's why I never hated the warg attack in TTT as much as most fans
did. To me, it wasn't competing with a great scene from the book, and it
was generally well-executed. And in that context of limited
expectations, it actually succeeding in feeling like Tolkien
(minus some of the dumb Gimli stuff).

All of this has no effect on judging a film by its own merits of course. And I am pretty sure the mad Denethor, portrayed excellently by John Noble, bothers no one outside Tolkien-dom. I loved his moments before I read the books. (though the dive is off of course)

DoS has a number of weak performances. Most of them from the dwarves. So its odd to say the entire LR cast was bad. (in terms of acting; Viggo, IM, Noble, Hill, Otto, Urban, Bean etc. go along still as excellently as they were).

The tonal inconsistency is still highly present in DoS and your "crazy summer dream" similie doesn'nt work for me.

Imo, the only thing DoS is better than LR - is better humour, a better hero and better visuals. (expectedly).
DoS however lacks realism unlike LR.

Hard to jump into a discussion so far along, but as usual I tend to side with SV in my feelings on this...

I don't understand the apparent need to pull LotR apart to somehow justify TH being "better." It's all subjective...some like AUJ better than DoS and vice versa for differing reasons, whether it be faithfulness to the story or tonally or pacing...simply better as a movie in its own right. But most would agree that LotR was "better" in terms of taking the material seriously, treating fantasy with realism, and emotional draw.

I never had a problem with Merry or Pippin as far as acting goes - two young actors doing their best with what the script gave them. If you don't like their characterization, then the blame lies with PJ for the largest part. Yes, Pippin's immature studpidity was verging on the grating but it beautifully set up his scenes in RotK where he realized the seriousness and futility of hate and war.

One thing I detest about TH:AUJ, in particular, though, is the fact that much of the time to me it comes across as almost a parody of LotR. The tonal shift in DoS was welcome, but in return we got less of Tolkien's story and more of PJ's "epic action scenes" and invented material. And that's before we get on to the subject of Thorin's "hero-ization" to the point where I've seen fans crying that "he deserves" his revenge on Azog after all he's suffered...

[JewelSong]

The LOTR films grabbed me.

The two "Hobbit" films do not. The first one, with the Bag End scene and Martin Freeman's acting, had a fair shot at doing so. The second one…well….no.

Too much action for the sake of action. Too much deviation from the original story. IMHO.

I will go see the third one - I feel almost obligated to do so - but I doubt I will see it more than once. I had no desire to see DoS again and no desire to purchase the DVDs.

I saw FOTR only once in the theatres (I came late to it) but innumerable times on video. I saw TTT 10 times in the cinema and ROTK 6 times. Flaws and all, they grabbed me.

[Smaug's voice]

All of this has no effect on judging a film by its own merits of course. And I am pretty sure the mad Denethor, portrayed excellently by John Noble, bothers no one outside Tolkien-dom. I loved his moments before I read the books. (though the dive is off of course)

DoS has a number of weak performances. Most of them from the dwarves. So its odd to say the entire LR cast was bad. (in terms of acting; Viggo, IM, Noble, Hill, Otto, Urban, Bean etc. go along still as excellently as they were).

The tonal inconsistency is still highly present in DoS and your "crazy summer dream" similie doesn'nt work for me.

Imo, the only thing DoS is better than LR - is better humour, a better hero and better visuals. (expectedly).
DoS however lacks realism unlike LR.

Hard to jump into a discussion so far along, but as usual I tend to side with SV in my feelings on this...

I don't understand the apparent need to pull LotR apart to somehow justify TH being "better." It's all subjective...some like AUJ better than DoS and vice versa for differing reasons, whether it be faithfulness to the story or tonally or pacing...simply better as a movie in its own right. But most would agree that LotR was "better" in terms of taking the material seriously, treating fantasy with realism, and emotional draw.

I never had a problem with Merry or Pippin as far as acting goes - two young actors doing their best with what the script gave them. If you don't like their characterization, then the blame lies with PJ for the largest part. Yes, Pippin's immature studpidity was verging on the grating but it beautifully set up his scenes in RotK where he realized the seriousness and futility of hate and war.

One thing I detest about TH:AUJ, in particular, though, is the fact that much of the time to me it comes across as almost a parody of LotR. The tonal shift in DoS was welcome, but in return we got less of Tolkien's story and more of PJ's "epic action scenes" and invented material. And that's before we get on to the subject of Thorin's "hero-ization" to the point where I've seen fans crying that "he deserves" his revenge on Azog after all he's suffered...

Agreed with everything again.
Especially the pulling out of the LR films to designate TH better.
I wouldn't say AUJ was a parody of LR though - at times, yes. For instance Gandalf using a butterfly. But it has it's unique oments, especially the first half. However, the second half is almost nearly vacant of any redeeming qualities and is only saved by the excellent perofrmances from Bilbo, Gollum and Goblin-King. The Thorin-hug was the cherry on top.
DoS is a much better film. And I enjoyed it much more in the cinema than AUJ. But I find a certain lack of respect and seriousness for adapting a classic such as The Hobbit. I suspect that PJ does not think much of the book - and he won't be the only one though. I have known Tolkien-fans who dislike TH - which is why the string of changes and the apparent need for epification of the book.
It's a pity, I doubt if we will ever have such a pitch-perfect casting for an adaptation of The Hobbit again.

I think if they put their heads together for a tonally faithful LOTR TV series, we would very quickly forget that Peter Jackson's films even exist!

Well, we would never know. Would we?

[kzer_za]

I largely agree with that. As for Dol Guldur, it was definitely a highlight of my recent rewatch of DoS, and I think it genuinely one of the best things that Jackson has done. Comparing it to anything similar in the LOTR films, e.g., the confrontations with Saruman (Wizard Fu and the Voice of Saruman) and the WitchKing, as well anything involving Sauron, it makes me thankful that these Hobbit films exist just to have something this good of this nature.

I just realized - what about the Balrog?