The Hobbit
Pages
| Author | Topic: The Hobbit |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 05:28
Profile
While I agree that the scene you've mentioned does vary somewhat from the story's progression in the book, I can see how it was also necessary for purposes of establishing dramatic tension for that part of the storyline. Aside from the encounter with Shelab (which is actually from the end of the second book), there really isn't a whole lot going on with the Frodo-Sam storyline that makes for excellent film. PJ would have had to come up with something from whole cloth at some point, otherwise. Also, that one moment of discord set up Sam's resolute return and subsequent affirmation of their relationship just a few scenes later. You could also look at that breakdown as a foreshadow of the encounter at the Crack of Doom, when the ring finally overwhelms Frodo. In summary: I think it works. I also think the movies flesh out those relationships in their 7-8 hours of total running time in ways that Tolkein never managed in his text, which could be quite wooden in places, but your mileage may vary. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 07:15
Profile
Drew: I think you will find the total running time little under 10 hours (theatrical cut) :P As much as I love the films, I still think the books are better. It's only that the films are so much better than what I would have expected them to be. I also thought the way how characters and their relations to one another were presented well executed, while the books go much deeper. -------------------- Always try to be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 22:04
Profile
An old friend of mine once wrote a long English paper about Frodo's relationships with Sam and Gollum on the way to Mount Doom. He struck upon the idea that these relationships mirror conflicts within Frodo himself: that there is are in effect Gollum and Sam parts of Frodo, and that Frodo's internal struggles both affect the relationships among the three actual characters, and are in turn affected by them. And while the idea had never occurred to me before, once he pointed it out it seemed pretty compelling. Frodo is kind of erratic. You can put it all down to the Ring, but his psychology is still pretty opaque. The notion that it is mirrored in the scenes we do see, with Sam and Gollum, opens a window on it. What you see through it makes sense of Frodo's odd attitudes and behavior. So there can be a lot more psychological depth in LOTR than one might imagine, whether it was really put there deliberately by Tolkien, or just happened as indirect consequences of the kind of story he was telling. This sort of thing doesn't come across in a movie very well. But I agree the films did a fine job of complementing the books, translating them into a different medium about as well as could be done. -------------------- Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 22:26
Profile
Homepage
I really need to read those books... . Locmaar: What I mean, as I think I've said before, is that music and sound, in a film, should be treated with sensitivity and respect. If you want to compare this to actors, then think of Sound as a separate character. Do you want that character to be shouting directions at the so-called "third wall"? Or do you want that character to be contributing something, to be an active participant in the story and the film? And... In Star Wars I did not need to be told that Darth Vader was a mean S.O.B., it's evident in the story and with a good actor it's evident in the acting. The actor Lucas hired (I forget his name) to play Anakin in the Revenge of the Sith is talented enough an actor to portray his very human transformation without that little gimmick of lowering his head and looking out past his eyebrows. Nor did I need that overbearing soundtrack to tell me how to feel. We all know human psychology and with a somewhat better script there would've been no need for an emotive, orchestral soundtrack to tell us that something distressing is happening. We know it personally, and we understand it just on cues of the story and the performances. If you wish to add sound, then there should be a purpose to that sound. Fellini knew how to use sound. Kubrick knew how to use sound. Tarkovsky and Bergman knew how to use sound. Werner Herzog knows how to use sound. David Lynch, as I've said before, is an absolute master of sound, although at times he, too, lapses into manipulative elements. I don't blame him for that. Somebody here mentioned, a while ago, that laugh tracks can be useful in TV shows that feature sensitive jokes. I'd argue that a show like the Sarah Silverman Show, especially, is no less funny for the lack of a laughtrack. In fact, it'd most likely be less funny if it had a soundtrack. The Family Guy features 'sensitive' material also and its that very sensitivity of the material that makes the joke funny... without a laugh track. Slarty: If you want examples: You can probably take nearly any soundtrack coming from a Spielberg film for an example of blatant manipulative behavior. The soundtracks of most Hollywood films are blatantly manipulative. When you use orchestrations to convey a scary moment, a sad moment, a sympathetic moment, a cute moment... that's telling an audience whom, like Synergy adds, the director apparently feels is too dumb to get the point . . . or else knows that the script is poor and therefore requires that extra sugar coating to make it palatable. There are good writers around. There are talented filmmakers. The industry blocks them. Hollywood wants money, not art. Back to the Hobbit: I, too, am interested to see how the film turns out. Del Toro is a smart and daring director, though imperfect. For one, he ruined Pan's Labyrinth at the end by trying to unite the two worlds of reality and fantasy... then the feel-good ending directly following the girl's death -- that was necessary, I know, to pull the auidence back from the death of the protagonist, but I felt her death was unnecessary. The blood of an innocent? I don't know... but... that's a nut in itself that I don't want to get into. But, in short: Like Gilliam, he still doesn't seem to trust his audience enough. I think he should surrender himself to his art, and trust that his audience will follow. Both should take Bergman's advice and Tarkovsky's advice. It's not for nothing that those two filmmakers are considered two of the greatest in history. They both have faithful followings, and always will. Spielberg will fade. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 23:23
Profile
Okay, I still get your point. It has something to do with a film being as close to what you'd call perfect, if I interpret your words correctly. That's fine. I don't see, however, how art/storytelling/craft needs to be a competition. Every story needs to be told in an adequate manner. That said: I don't feel that I have to convince you how my opinion is better than your's. It's just that I can enjoy a lot of films you cannot, while I can also enjoy the films dear to you, because I love Kubrick's, Bergman's, Lynch's, Herzog's work. ;) It's a different form of film-making because they tell different storys. Cronenberg also has a couple of daunting films out there. They use music, often by Howard Shore. -------------------- Always try to be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 2473
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 23:24
Profile
I do agree that we don't need soundtracks to tell us what to feel. However, that doesn't mean that if the script/acting is good enough to tell us what to feel, soundtracks are totally unnecessary. For some of us, soundtracks actually enhance the feeling conveyed by the script/acting. And in many cases, in a delightful manner. Posts: 23 | Registered: Friday, January 10 2003 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 15:40
Profile
Critiquing action movies on the basis of their artistic merit is like criticizing the quality of a Taco Bell burrito - it's shooting fish in a barrel. Nevertheless, both have a purpose, and both can be very, very good for what they are. [ Sunday, May 11, 2008 17:35: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 16:31
Profile
Soundtracks are not included because directors think the viewers lack intelligent. Jaws is a fine movie, and the soundtrack of that movie is one of the most important parts. The soundtrack made the shark much more realistic and threatening. I can almost guarantee if you watch Star Wars on mute with the subtitles the experience will be noticeably worse... -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum 真実長ガス Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 17967
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 17:05
Profile
Hey, It's THE Hobbit. Not animated. Posts: 0 | Registered: Sunday, May 11 2008 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 23:23
Profile
Homepage
Drew: The Lord of the Rings trilogy were not action movies! I think maybe that's the problem here: They were treated like action films, whereas, coming from people I know who've actually read the books, the books were anything but a description of a simple action adventure. And even action movies don't need nonstop orchestral encouragement . . . have you seen Wages of Fear? Sullust: Are you kidding? In what way is a soundtrack necessary to encourage a person's emotional response to sharks? Ask anybody you know: Do sharks scare you? C'mon... . ...And... the reason why you feel the original Star Wars would be worse for the watching is because the script is poor, not to mention the acting. (Well, at least Harrison Ford could act.) But having seen that movie again just recently I'll contend that the soundtrack, while charming, doesn't actually add anything to the film . . . and perhaps without it Lucas and friends would've been forced to realize that they needed to think over their script a little more, and perhaps hire better actors. Wiz: As I've been trying to say: I'm trying to describe the difference between a good soundtrack and a bad soundtrack. Spielberg has no (read: zero) artistic respect for sound. He sees it only as a means of encouraging emotion which, honestly, is natural to the human experience of a film and does not need encouragement. Nor am I looking for "perfect films". There are an awful lot of very "imperfect" films that I have high respect for. All that I ask of any artist is that they are honest: That's the most vital thing. If an artist is not honest, then how can I be expected to follow their lead faithfully? How can I accept a work that I do not trust? And in film: as people here have already mentioned, film is an extremely vital and versatile [and underexploited!] art form. David Lynch, as imperfect as he is (and he's very imperfect) gets this better than a very good majority of well-known directors of our time. He's obsessed with every element of film . . . and with sound, as I've said several times before, he is not at all lazy. In fact: I was one of those people who, directly after seeing Lynch's Inland Empire, defended it. I did agree and still agree with most people's opinion that the film was a disaster. However, as I was watching the film I soon came to realize exactly what I was watching: I wasn't watching a story . . . I was watching David Lynch. To me, the film was a landscape of David Lynch. I'll take that over Spielberg any day. Lynch is an artist. Spielberg's a mere entertainer. And before anyone raises the virtues of Entertainment, which I accept: I'll point out that I've yet to meet anybody who's read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and has come to the conclusion that it is, and was meant as, mere entertainment and nothing more. How about this: Imagine if Jeff Vogel decided to add a loud, imposing orchestral soundtrack to Avernum and/or Geneforge. How would that affect the feel of the game and the gameplay? [ Sunday, May 11, 2008 23:39: Message edited by: Evnissyen ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 00:37
Profile
quote:Sorry, the 'imperfect' came up since you mentioned you thought Mr del Toro an imperfect director. Which is fine by me, but I don't know what sort of message your aiming to get across by calling him that. The above question is easily answered: were the music any good, I'd like it. I don't think LOTR were action films nor conceived as shallow entertainment - but why mustn't these factor in? And I wonder: why does David Lynch spend so much time with creating the proper sound? Could it be... wait, no.. he's not manipulating the audience, is he? Star Wars clearly was a better film with the music, because it would have sucked grossly without it. So how didn't the music add to it? Howard Shore's soundtrack added a lot to Peter Jackson's films, in my humble opinion, and it wasn't about telling me how to feel. Setting a mood is a different thing. And frankly, it's not about being dishonest and not trusting your audience. [ Monday, May 12, 2008 00:39: Message edited by: Locmaar ] -------------------- Always try to be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 2473
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 01:23
Profile
quote:Yes, i get it. But its your description that i don't agree with. You seem to think that any soundtrack which enhances the emotions is bad. I think they are the among the best. quote:Again, i disagree here. While watching a scene, would you like to know that you are supposed to feel a certain emotion or actually feel it yourself? Would you like to get involved in a movie and enjoy it completely or just stay away and calculate the emotions you are supposed to feel? It is not always a case of soundtracks conveying what the script can't. Its often one adding to the other. If there is nothing dishonest about the script or acting conveying certain emotions, i don't see what is dishonest about the soundtrack doing the same. Sound & music is art too. And if a scene is supposed to evoke an emotion, every element of the scene has a part to play in it. quote:If done properly, it can add to the atmosphere of the game. Many of us are happy with the way it is now cause it lets us play our choice of songs while playing. However, i don't think you would want to do that while watching a movie. Posts: 23 | Registered: Friday, January 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 01:26
Profile
Homepage
Well, Star Wars I'll give a break, because it was, essentially, entertainment. I would've liked more from the prequels, though. As for Lord of the Rings... I was hurt when I saw the Fellowship (that being the only one I saw all the way through) because I was hoping for something more artful and artistic. Unfortunately Peter Jackson -- or Hollywood -- compromised the film by creating some sort of freakish hybrid of art and mindless entertainment. I was angry because I knew what potential Peter Jackson had in his hands (and I was a fan of his work), and he did not carry it through. The soundtrack ruined the entire film for me because it was distracting, and because it made me feel like I was being manipulated (which I was) and this I resented . . . and that distracted me even more. And this isn't even mentioning the over-wrought special effects (more distraction) and a few little gimmicks of the sort that drive me crazy, and a few things that did not make any sense. All this made me angry because of what I saw as a great thing tragically lost to the cruel god Hollywood . . . and I didn't even read the book. I can only imagine that if I'd read the trilogy I'd probably be angrier. I wanted to observe the characters. I wanted to know more about them. What I got instead was an insensitive soundtrack, outlandish special effects, lots of gratuitous swooping and close-ups, a nonsensical battle scene and a horse that, somehow, could not catch up with our heroes despite being just a few yards behind at one point. Mostly I thought there was too much emphasis on action and too little on character. And that was just the first film. I saw part of, I think, the second film, the one where the trees march (the trees were actually beautifully animated)... and I though that that one was better and I actually did enjoy the siege scene although I didn't like how it was cut up between there and the enchanted trees... I forgive that because sometimes, those things can't be helped, in a film. My comment on Del Toro being imperfect: Have I gone into my complaints with Pan's Labyrinth? There were a bunch. I don't want to get into it. I think I've insulted people enough already with my opinions and my big mouth. I should know when to stop, I suppose. I'm opinionated, and I love film, and I'm an artist who knows art... visual, audial, and written. So... I can be very, very critical. I can also be very forgiving when I see interesting things, when I see honesty and daring. I think I've mentioned a whole bunch of filmmakers, already, who fit that category. I don't expect everyone to be Tarkovsky & Bergman; that would be ridiculous. I just want people to be honest, and trust the audience instead of treating us like idiots and, in the process, degrading their work. I also have a tendency to ramble. Well, enough of me! Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 01:45
Profile
Homepage
Okay, there's a good reason why I'm double posting, but first: Wiz: I prefer to be in control of my own emotions. As for music "adding something" to the film: 1. I think I already answered that question, as to my regard for the role of sound in film (which is that too many filmmakers have too little respect for it); 2. Filmmakers that use recorded songs are more often than not, I think, filmmakers that have a healthy respect for sound. I don't like that the cinematographers, writers (when not the direct), sound directors and even set designers get little recognition in comparison with the director and especially the leading actor/actress(es). Some cinematographers deserve to be advertised in bold lettering for the work they do. I do agree with you about one thing (if not the above): I, too, like to play my own music while playing games. Now, my reason for double posting, which is a short list, off the top of my head, of some films that I think are great: L'Eau Froid (I cannot watch this film without getting emotional) Buffet Froid (or mostly anything, really, by Bertrand Blier) The Dreamlife of Angels Crows Hour of the Wolf (Bergman) Winter Light (Bergman) The Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky) A Short Film About Killing (from Kieslowski's Decalogue) Blue (Kieslowski) Ratcatcher ...maybe I'll add more later... maybe other people can add their own lists... . [ Monday, May 12, 2008 01:50: Message edited by: Evnissyen ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 02:30
Profile
I would prefer it if you'd stop mentioning being an artist in a way that sounds as though you feel your opinion on the matter is more valuable than others'. Art is not a contest, knowing things about art doesn't make you superior in judging how people perceive a film. The world would be a poor, unhappy place if there were such a thing as a truth about art being true. I know of three film versions of Lord of the Rings: Ralph Bakshi's animated picture, Peter Jackson's partially animated picture, and the one in my head when I read the book. I like the last one best, but I'll be damned if I break Peter Jackson's film against my vision in order to be annoyed. Here is why: I do realize that filming a book - an unfilmable one at that - is an interpretation of said book. It's how the people involved in the film interprete the book. A good director will use their vision to supplement his and thus deliver a collective interpretation of a story. In Lord of the Rings there are - among others' - Ian McKellen's view on parts of the story, Viggo Mortensen's, Richard Taylor's, Alan Lee's, John Howe's, Fran Walsh's, and Howard Shore's as well. You don't like Howard Shore's view on the story? No problem. I do and we can agree to disagree. You don't like Gandalf's hat? I'm sure Ngila Dickson can live with that, even though she might be sad. You don't like the way New Zealand was photographed and turned into Middle-earth? Andrew Lesnie and Alan Lee are forgiving men. You don't like the visual effects? Richard Taylor will probably be upset, but eventually get over it. What they might not easily forgive is this: In essence your saying that some of these people were dishonest in presenting their view of a book you haven't read, mainly because their view wasn't what you wanted to see. That's a bold line to deliver to people who devoted five to seven years working on the thing. As much as I like your thinking and your way of presenting your arguments, I don't like this arrogant way of passing down judgement concerning the honesty of people whose vision you don't share. That's wicked. You want your own view? Read the book! That's what I do. You want to see your interpretation on film? Too late. ;) [ Monday, May 12, 2008 02:32: Message edited by: Locmaar ] -------------------- Always try to be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Canned
Member # 7704
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 04:06
Profile
quote:You just hit the weak spot. Loccmar is intolerant. Being intolerant about intolerance is intolerance. Here's a question in relation to the emotion brought to this thread : why do we attach ourselves to words with emotional value? Now about Del Toro, a visionary artist of the 21st century directing "The Hobbit" : unexpected and bold. Too bold . In my opinion Hellboy was hard to realize because del toro restrained himself while doing the movie. Also hellboy fans are very demanding. Let's not talk about Tolkeen. He may fail again for the same reasons. -------------------- Darth vader isn't a mean S.O.B i am : my name is Stanley.Original.B... Posts: 312 | Registered: Sunday, November 26 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 06:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:But audiences are idiots, and so are artists. I'm extremely pessimistic about the capabilities of human reason, which is why I think that emotional manipulation is about the highest goal that an artist can aspire to. If you can distract a few million people from their problems for two hours, well, that's more than most people achieve in their jobs. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 07:30
Profile
quote:If you go back to the original manuscript, you'll see LotR was written for money. The publisher wanted hobbits and Strider was a hobbit. It was only in the later drafts that it evolved into more. Everyone has left out the even worse made for television animated version Return of the King which came out after it became clear that Ralph Bakshi was never going to complete his version. Peter Jackson should be given credit for attempting to convert a massive epic to film without losing most of the story. Music gets tacked on later in production unless the director has a vision of how to use it. Then it become integral and not turned over to someone else because the film is supposed to have it. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 07:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:Tolkien himself wrote that he wanted it to serve the purposes that mythology served in the past, and that he distrusted allegory in all its forms. I imagine that glamorizing and emotionalizing all of the movie scenes made the movies rather more glorious in overall effect, which makes them resemble old-fashioned mythology more. If you argue that the soundtrack to Star Wars didn't contribute anything to it, then I argue that you're nuts. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 08:14
Profile
A minor point, you cannot 'know' art. You can perceive something as art in your own mind; but that does not make it art. Nor is it disqualified from being art if you percieve it not to be so... -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum 真実長ガス Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 08:37
Profile
quote:Go ahead, ask me! No. Sharks don't scare me. They are dependable and reliable, predictably acting on instinct and in tune with their surroundings. Having fished among them, and for them, I can say I don't fear them. If you have some irrational fear of sharks, then that is your psychological issue, not one of sharks. I can say that meth-heads scare me. They are irrational, unreliable, and completely unpredictable. Plus, they are much more pervasive in the human world than are sharks. So, the music did help create that ominous feeling in Jaws, and indeed set up a number of generations to fear sharks. Suckah! -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 2473
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 09:16
Profile
quote:Well then, how do you stand the script and the acting which, in your own words, should be able to tell you what emotion to feel? In fact, how do you stand any form of art which conveys some emotion or the other? I find it strange that you think you are losing control of your emotions when your hear soundtracks which can evoke emotions. I find it stranger that you don't think the same in the case of other form of artworks. quote:No, your argument that 'too many filmmakers have too little respect for it' doesn't answer that point. But that apart, you seem to think that conveying emotions is strictly the job of script and acting and as soon as a soundtrack starts doing that, it becomes manipulation and dishonest. Fine, that is your point of view. But as i said earlier, for many of us, sound and music too plays an integral part in making us feel the emotions. Hence, artists that use soundtracks to convey emotions are not dishonest, as you so blatantly put it. Rather, they just don't cater to your specific requirements. Posts: 23 | Registered: Friday, January 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 12:38
Profile
edit: I apologize for the double post. It (UBB) got out of control. [ Monday, May 12, 2008 12:57: Message edited by: Locmaar ] -------------------- Always try to be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 12:48
Profile
quote:Yes, Marsman. That's the thing I'm definitely intolerant about. Can't stand it, all this intolerane. Hate it, hate it, hate it... By the way: the name, for the time being, is Locmaar. One L, one o, one c, one m, two(!) a's one r. Why? I don't know. But... oh, heck... edit: @Randomizer: I never mentioned this dreadful piece of film for various reasons. But I admit that I almost enjoyed it... dadadada... when was young. [ Monday, May 12, 2008 12:49: Message edited by: Locmaar ] -------------------- Always try to be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, May 13 2008 00:13
Profile
Homepage
Oh, for the love of humanity. Wiz: I wish you'd spend more time reading my posts. I've already explained all of this. The artistic endeavor evokes emotion and thought, which creates art, as explained here. Art does not "make" you feel anything. It's your own thought and perception that does it. Salmon: If I'm not mistaken, Jaws was supposed to feed on people's fear of sharks. The "Danger! Danger!" score undercut this basic fear. But... if Spielberg's intention, in making Jaws, was to manipulate people into feeling more fearful of sharks than they already are... then that proves my point. In that sense: Perhaps the score was essential . . . to complete the brainwashing process, right? Locmaar: Okay, you make some good points. I do have to say that the use of New Zealand as Middle Earth (which, I think I heard, Jackson had to fight Hollywood for) was an excellent move and the imagery is beautiful. I just feel that the too-often restless camera movements are obstructive. My opinion on films-of-books is the same as my opinion of song covers. If you want to cover a song: make it into something new; make it into something different. Don't just re-record the song. It's the same with films . . . but maybe this is beside the point. Mars: If I'm being "intolerant" then it's intolerance of the degradation of art. Thuryl: I do not agree that audiences are dumb. I think that they are trained by Hollywood and their kind to be dumb. I think that the dumbing down of society is a vast and complicated problem. Randomizer: Interesting. I think you're right about the tacked-on music, too. I do not, in fact, know if the soundtrack was Jackson's decision or Hollywood's demand (I've always strongly suspected the latter... even after Kong). I've heard Jackson had to fight Hollywood pretty hard on a lot of issues, such as the "genuine" nature of the weaponry (for example: I love that the weapons in the trilogy were not all perfect, gleaming works of craft) and the fact that the film should be shot in New Zealand and nowhere else. I give him credit for a lot of stuff. I just think that there were certain things that, in the end, ruined the film for me. Kelandon: It surprises me that Tolkien should've said that he "distrusted allegory in all its forms", since my understanding has been that the trilogy was largely an allegorical response to WW2? I could be mistaken. No scholar, I am! Also, if you argue that I'm nuts, then you might be correct at least there . . . that doesn't mean my argument is wrong. Sullust: Isn't knowing identical to perceiving? Or should we throw away the word "knowledge" as a word that means nothing? Perhaps that would be best. Also: As I always say: If just one observer . . . even the creator alone . . . thinks that a human creation is art, then it's art. That's why the DADAists were right. So, I want to watch a film that gives me room to feel and think. Why is that wrong? Perhaps with all this resentment aimed at me for daring to suggest that soundtracks should be treated with respect: I should ask why so many people think that I should fall into line and accept (and like) what Hollywood, or anybody here who disagrees with me, tells me to? Isn't that intolerance? So, you're attacking me for not sharing the vision you share... wow. What wickedness! (To use Locmaar's word.) Whew! These lengthy responses are tiring. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |