[smile or i will kill you]

Originally Posted by Johnny Five

I doubt you're really in the minority on this.

I mostly agree with you. I don't think Azog was a "video-gamey" as you did, but most of the major orcs in the LotR films were more effective. I see no reason that Azog, at least, couldn't have been a actor in make-up and costume.

I wouldn't be surprised if the detrimental video-game quality of such characters wasn't exacerbated by the HFR now I think about it.

Most of the CGI did not benefit from the additional definition.

[smile or i will kill you]

Now if they had slapped some orcish make-up on someone like Nathan Jones, I think we would have been in business. Watch this video and tell me he wouldn't have made a perfect starting point for the character of Azog:

http://youtu.be/1NdkJshxuMQ?t=2m3s

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Azog blended well with the real Orc actors on screen too.

Totally disagree here. Maybe the HFR highlighted the disparity.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

It's mentioned in the films over and over how Uru-khai are superior to Orcs.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

You seem to forget that Azog is a freak Orc, He's giant in comparison to other Orcs and is albino (obviously). I can see why they went computer with him. I will also say that Azog ade up for not looking as convincing by actually having a character and lines, compared ot Lurtz. The fact that Azog can articulate as intelligently as any normal race, keeps himself clean, and almost killed all of our main heroes(without ending up getting killed himself) makes him a fart more intimidating screen presence than Lurtz.

I think you are missing my point here. I know the differences between Orcs and Uruk-hai.

I'm talking about visual countenance, not characterisation.

I know that Azog is a "freak orc" as you put it, but none of the things you mention here are valid reasons for making him a CGI character. Aside from the need for a family friendly vibe, they could have achieved everything you mention by using an actor in make-up and costume. Also, highlighting the fact that Azog "keeps himself clean" as a positive thing serves as a good analogy to reinforce my point about the sanitisation of the franchise. Orcs shouldn't be concerned with personal hygiene, be they albino, freak or otherwise! If anything, an abberation such as Azog should be appear more repugnant, nauseating and vicious than any of his kin, with a sly, burning intellect behind this baleful appearance. For me, it mostly failed on this front.

Now, I realise 300 is (supposedly) an adult movie, but something like this (albeit with the appropriate changes to the make-up to make it more orcish) would be 100% more effective and more in keeping with the orcs from the original LotR films:



Far more imposing, natural and realistic, no?

I know I'm not the only one who firmly believes that characterisation, screen presence and articulation are all more successfully achieveable with make-up, prosthetic augmentation and a sprinkling of post-production techniques.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Johnny Five

I doubt you're really in the minority on this.

I mostly agree with you. I don't think Azog was a "video-gamey" as you did, but most of the major orcs in the LotR films were more effective. I see no reason that Azog, at least, couldn't have been a actor in make-up and costume.

The character was obviously CGI but he seemed "solid" to me with real weight behind his actions.

The difference compaired to LOTR Orc's for me is that Azog was a role that needed more depth of character. In LOTR's they were afterall not primary antagonists and either bellowing monster or brutish Cockney thug that could be delivered in heavy makeup was enough. Azog needs to show emotion to a much greater degree for which CGI seems much a much better option as it was with Gollum.

In the battle of the CGI Hams I think Humphries easily trumped Blessed aswell, whatever the latters names Gungun boss was he never moved beyond a terrible cod jamacian cliche, Humphries Great Goblin to me had a nice wit to him with the "nobody really" line being very telling.

[smile or i will kill you]

Originally Posted by greenman

...Azog needs to show emotion to a much greater degree for which CGI seems much a much better option as it was with Gollum.

Granted, it is impossible to portray Gollum as he appears without him being CGI, but I saw nothing in Azog that couldn't have been portrayed by an actor, even one in heavy make-up.

If these shots of Bolg, son of Azog, are anything to go by, then maybe my sentiments aren't that misguided?

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by smile or i will kill you

I'm talking about visual countenance, not characterisation.

I think characterization can make detail on how convincing it looks mutew, because it's performance s convincing.

I know that Azog is a "freak orc" as you put it, but none of the things you mention here are valid reasons for making him a CGI character. Aside from the need for a family friendly vibe, they could have achieved everything you mention by using an actor in make-up and costume.

Do you also believe that the Navi'i could have been portrayed with actors? All the other Orcs(not Goblins) were portrayed with practical effects. There's clearly a reason they did him in CG, and it certainly wasn't to lighten the tone, considering the scene we're introduced to him, he brutally decapitates someone, and subsequently get's his arm cut off. IF you're going to go that far, then why try to make him look ore "kid" friendly?

Also, highlighting the fact that Azog "keeps himself clean" as a positive thing serves as a good analogy to reinforce my point about the sanitisation of the franchise. Orcs shouldn't be concerned with personal hygiene, be they albino, freak or otherwise! If anything, an abberation such as Azog should be appear more repugnant, nauseating and vicious than any of his kin, with a sly, burning intellect behind this baleful appearance. For me, it mostly failed on this front.

If you have a very two dimensional version of what evil should look like. To me, there is something very unsettling about this Orc because he is evidently concerned about hygiene. It implies intelligence and sophistication that the audience has not seen in any Orc in any movie prior. This makes him seem infinitely more dangerous because claerly he viewes himself as equal to any higher race of middle earth and goes out of his way to prove that. If all Orcs were like Azog, there'd be "no dawn for men", so to speak. And I don't mean if all Orc's were giant, I mean if they all thought like Azog did.

Far more imposing, natural and realistic, no?

Not....really....looks kind of silly. But I guess that's personal taste.

I know I'm not the only one who firmly believes that characterisation, screen presence and articulation are all more successfully achieveable with make-up, prosthetic augmentation and a sprinkling of post-production techniques.

Going to throw out that Azog has more screen presence, articulation, and characterization than any Orc, Goblin, or Uruk in the film series.

[The Plan]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

almost killed all of our main heroes(without ending up getting killed himself) makes him a fart more intimidating screen presence than Lurtz.

I hope that was intentional, because there's no way that computer generated albino clown was scarier than the orc-killing, knife-licking Lurtz. Idk how anyone could even compare the two in terms of intimidating screen presence.

[greenman]

The difference between Azog and Lutz though is that the latter is really only an extension of Saruman's villiany. He's an intimidating monster but not much more, he doesnt show any great intelligence or much in the way of emotion beyond bellowing rage.

Azog needs work as a self supporting antagonist, I think the CGI aids this by allowing much more subtley of emotion. The fashion in which he deals with his minions for example to me gives a much greater sense of both intelligence and arrogance while his pain at the loss of his hand makes his desire for vengence more understandable.

[Robert the Bruce]

Originally Posted by smile or i will kill you

Besides, shouldn't an orc chieftain be way more vulgar and frightening looking than an Uruk-hai anyway?

Certainly not. That said, 99.5% of the time I prefer real actor + makeup over a CGI character.

Let's play editor for a bit, assume that the movie should have been 2 films as originally planned. What parts do you edit out? I'm guessing a lot of The Shire would have gone, which breaks my heart because I thought the unexpected party was about as magical as it could have been. Definitely the goblin town would have been (thankfully) cut down to size. Radagast easily could have been cut out too. I dislike him more and more with every viewing. The birdcrap hair. The eyes rolling into his head when he smoked Old Toby. His stick insect "joke." His mannerisms in general. Not sure what PJ was going for there, but it didn't work and I wish it went.

[Milkyjoe]

Originally Posted by montferrat

Certainly not. That said, 99.5% of the time I prefer real actor + makeup over a CGI character.

Let's play editor for a bit, assume that the movie should have been 2 films as originally planned. What parts do you edit out? I'm guessing a lot of The Shire would have gone, which breaks my heart because I thought the unexpected party was about as magical as it could have been. Definitely the goblin town would have been (thankfully) cut down to size. Radagast easily could have been cut out too. I dislike him more and more with every viewing. The birdcrap hair. The eyes rolling into his head when he smoked Old Toby. His stick insect "joke." His mannerisms in general. Not sure what PJ was going for there, but it didn't work and I wish it went.

I think all these things, and the cartoonish CGI seem to come from a conflict of visions. I don't know how much of a singular vision Hobbit really is, or whether PJ had time to make the film his own, which is quite painful.

The cartoonish stuff certainly feels a lot more like Del Toro, and an effort to make it a kids film, but then you have another element to try and tie it into LOTR and make it more adult.

2 conflicting visions which work against each other, it makes me feel sad, but I dont think its fair to slate PJ for it. I think the Hobbit production was very troubled.

[Johnny Five]

Originally Posted by montferrat

Certainly not. That said, 99.5% of the time I prefer real actor + makeup over a CGI character.

Let's play editor for a bit, assume that the movie should have been 2 films as originally planned. What parts do you edit out? I'm guessing a lot of The Shire would have gone, which breaks my heart because I thought the unexpected party was about as magical as it could have been. Definitely the goblin town would have been (thankfully) cut down to size. Radagast easily could have been cut out too. I dislike him more and more with every viewing. The birdcrap hair. The eyes rolling into his head when he smoked Old Toby. His stick insect "joke." His mannerisms in general. Not sure what PJ was going for there, but it didn't work and I wish it went.

I can agree with pretty much everything here, at least to some degree.

I'd be worried that Beorn would have been cut (or at least reduced) if they stuck with two films, though.

As for the lame "pipeWEED" jokes...yeah. They've always annoyed me, but I wasn't at all surprised to see Jackson put that in. Also, Saruman ranting about Radagast taking to many mushrooms. Ugh.

[smile or i will kill you]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

I think characterization can make detail on how convincing it looks mutew, because it's performance s convincing.

I'm talking about why filmmakers feel the need to make certain characters 100% CGI, when utilising real actors would suffice, or perhaps even be preferable. You don't have an answer for this question, so you are saying my point is mute.

I feel like you are perhaps being deliberately obtuse. To reiterate once more, I'm not talking about characterisation, but pure visual aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Do you also believe that the Navi'i could have been portrayed with actors?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If 90% of the Navi had been portrayed by actors in make-up, but then a couple of them had been CGI creations, resulting in a jarring contrast, then you may have had a comparison.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

All the other Orcs(not Goblins) were portrayed with practical effects. There's clearly a reason they did him in CG, and it certainly wasn't to lighten the tone, considering the scene we're introduced to him, he brutally decapitates someone, and subsequently get's his arm cut off. IF you're going to go that far, then why try to make him look ore "kid" friendly?

If I'm totally wrong, what do you think the reason was then? I'm genuinely intrigued, but I get the feeling greenman may have already put forth your answer for you.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

If you have a very two dimensional version of what evil should look like. To me, there is something very unsettling about this Orc because he is evidently concerned about hygiene. It implies intelligence and sophistication that the audience has not seen in any Orc in any movie prior....

People who use soap unsettle you? Weird...

I'm just teasing, but as I've been constantly stating, I'm not talking about character traits. There is nothing you mention here that couldn't have been portrayed by a flesh and blood actor.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Going to throw out that Azog has more screen presence, articulation, and characterization than any Orc, Goblin, or Uruk in the film series.

Nobody is arguing that the character shouldn't fit all of these criteria.
None of these things would be any less present if he were portrayed by an actor.
None of these things put forward a valid reason for him to be 100% CGI!

Originally Posted by greenman

Azog needs work as a self supporting antagonist, I think the CGI aids this by allowing much more subtley of emotion. The fashion in which he deals with his minions for example to me gives a much greater sense of both intelligence and arrogance while his pain at the loss of his hand makes his desire for vengence more understandable.

I think this is possibly what Hipster Thor was getting at in a long-winded way?

When a character requires an out-of-proportion, freakish appearance, such as Gollum, then I can understand the decision to go heavy on the CGI. However, when a character could be more effectively portrayed with minimal post-production (ie. less work), then I fail to see the point of making them 100% CGI. Unless, of course, there is a commercial reason to do so.

Further still, I'm a little surprised that there are people here arguing that 100% CGI creations can convey "subtlety of emotion" and somehow give more "convincing performances" than human beings, especially when they are juxtaposed with real performances.

This line of thinking depresses me a little.

[TeamCanada]

Was thinking earlier, I may not rewatch it again until about 2015 when I buy a LOTR-Hobbit blu boxset.

I haven't yet upgraded my LOTR EEs to blu & I'd like to get them all together in one shot.

[smile or i will kill you]

Originally Posted by TeamCanada

Was thinking earlier, I may not rewatch it again until about 2015 when I buy a LOTR-Hobbit blu boxset.

I wonder if we will see any future Hobbit/LotR 'Special Editions', à la Star Wars?

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Milkyjoe

I think all these things, and the cartoonish CGI seem to come from a conflict of visions. I don't know how much of a singular vision Hobbit really is, or whether PJ had time to make the film his own, which is quite painful.

The cartoonish stuff certainly feels a lot more like Del Toro, and an effort to make it a kids film, but then you have another element to try and tie it into LOTR and make it more adult.

2 conflicting visions which work against each other, it makes me feel sad, but I dont think its fair to slate PJ for it. I think the Hobbit production was very troubled.

I think the Hobbit by its very nature needs to be a bit more "cartoonish" than LOTR, that more overty "bedtime story" fantasy and the charm that comes from it is really the books strenght at least until we get to Smaug and to ignore it would make for a rather bland film IMHO.

Radagast didnt really work for me either outside of maybe the Dol Guldor section but elsewhere I felt the film was largely successful at merging that tone with the one we saw in LOTR. It lacked the focused dymatic story and grand atmosphere of its predicessors but scene by scene I felt it was largely very enjoyable, generally because it brought out some of that charm of the book

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by montferrat

Let's play editor for a bit, assume that the movie should have been 2 films as originally planned. What parts do you edit out? I'm guessing a lot of The Shire would have gone, which breaks my heart because I thought the unexpected party was about as magical as it could have been. Definitely the goblin town would have been (thankfully) cut down to size. Radagast easily could have been cut out too. I dislike him more and more with every viewing. The birdcrap hair. The eyes rolling into his head when he smoked Old Toby. His stick insect "joke." His mannerisms in general. Not sure what PJ was going for there, but it didn't work and I wish it went.

I'm baffled why your first edit would be editing out the Shire.
That's ludicrous. Not only do you keep that but begin with it. You cut out Frodo and Ian Holm. The film starts with the narration...not by old Bilbo. In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. This establishes the story is about Bilbo.

Allow Thorin start to tell the story of Moria after dinner as he does in the book and then move into your big visuals. But don't make it so long that you take the attention away from Bilbo reacting to it. You can't forget the story is about Bilbo and not the dwarves. Loose Radagast. Lose the long violent reflection on Thorin to set up a rivalry with Azog. You don't do the council of Elrond at all. and you show Bilbo enjoying his time in Rivendell with the Elves. With all this shaved of then you carry forward to the spiders which is when Bilbo comes more into his own. And then ends probably as they come to the Misty Mountains and enter Laketown anticipating Bilbo's encounter with Smaug.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I'm baffled why your first edit would be editing out the Shire.
That's ludicrous. Not only do you keep that but begin with it. You cut out Frodo and Ian Holm. The film starts with the narration...not by old Bilbo. In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. This establishes the story is about Bilbo.

Allow Thorin start to tell the story of Moria after dinner as he does in the book and then move into your big visuals. But don't make it so long that you take the attention away from Bilbo reacting to it. You can't forget the story is about Bilbo and not the dwarves. Loose Radagast. Lose the long violent reflection on Thorin to set up a rivalry with Azog. You don't do the council of Elrond at all. and you show Bilbo enjoying his time in Rivendell with the Elves. With all this shaved of then you carry forward to the spiders which is when Bilbo comes more into his own. And then ends probably as they come to the Misty Mountains and enter Laketown anticipating Bilbo's encounter with Smaug.

Having watched the first film though my guess is that the shift to three films was probabley based on putting more of Tolkien back in as seemed to happen with LOTR.

Even with two films I think you still have the problem that the book up until the Lonely Mountain is very linear covering alot of events that really don't tie together that strongly. Bilbo starts to emerge as a hero by the time you get to Mirkwood but before that your dealing with lots of events(trolls, goblins, wargs, Beorn) were he's just an observer/fish out of water repeatly.

Part of the reason for the extra Thorin/Azog material is I'm sure to set things up down the line but also I'm guessing it was an atempt to provide a bit more of a framework to allow for more detail from the book.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by greenman

Having watched the first film though my guess is that the shift to three films was probabley based on putting more of Tolkien back in as seemed to happen with LOTR.

Even with two films I think you still have the problem that the book up until the Lonely Mountain is very linear covering alot of events that really don't tie together that strongly. Bilbo starts to emerge as a hero by the time you get to Mirkwood but before that your dealing with lots of events(trolls, goblins, wargs, Beorn) were he's just an observer/fish out of water repeatly.

Part of the reason for the extra Thorin/Azog material is I'm sure to set things up down the line but also I'm guessing it was an atempt to provide a bit more of a framework to allow for more detail from the book.

I am hoping and maybe even expecting he will justify his choices in the first part by what comes in the next two. A reviewer said its probably not fair to judge the film on this part alone and I'm inclined to agree. It would be hard to not make the film about Bilbo in part 2. I regret that his story emphasis has been wrong up until now. It seems Dwarves will get parts 1 and 3 and Bilbo gets part 2. Not the way I would have liked it but some people like it the way it is.

Bilbo is a charming character and I think they capture that well in the last third of the film. I don't agree that there isn't ample personality material to work with, but if its believed there isn't enough meaty material early on to create a substantive story you solve that by tightening it up and moving it along breezily not by stretching it out and stuffing it with filler.

[Atomic Cow]

(This post was in mod hell and isn't a direct response to the post above it)
People often suggest that Bilbo isn't very interesting at the beginning of the book and I found him and his attitudes
very charming. I don't see him as a character defined by his heroism but almost as important to the story is that he is the reluctant adventurer and he goes through pleasurable experiences and unpleasant ones like bad weather. And hes observing things around him and about himself and his situation.

And if a person can't think about that aspect of Bilbo being interesting, think about the casting of Martin Freeman. Think about Martin Freeman on The Office and how much you liked him. Your watching him react to the behavior of the people around him and he often isn't saying anything. But you know what he is thinking about.. You know he wants to be somewhere else that isn't so degrading and soul robbing. And you really feel for him. This material is much more mundane than The Hobbit but its so fun and funny and interesting and relatable. While we are getting big visual stories of the dwarves and their ancestors, in the book, Bilbo is thinking back on his relatives and their stories. But we don't see those. And Jackson doesn't really exploit Martin Freeman to good effect so we feel the various indignities and his miserable position or his joyful surprises and simple pleasures he finds with the elves of Rivendell. The equivalent on The Office might be we know hes getting on well and having great fun with Dawn the reeptionist. Its different but thats the kind of character work you can do with Bilbo. Even at this early point in the movies, we should be thinking, "I love this little guy." I cant wait to get back to part two of the story of Bilbo. because we love seeing him respond to various predicaments.. Maybe someone didn't see The Office. Maybe they saw Beasts of the Southern Wild. People refer to Bilbo as "plucky". This little girl is plucky and 34 inches tall. She's got an attitude. She's sour about some things. Some things annoy her. Some people and things she doesn't understand.. She makes big mistakes. She''s vulnerable, she's tougher than you would expect. Its just about a little girl having adventures in a topsy turvy world.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I am hoping and maybe even expecting he will justify his choices in the first part by what comes in the next two. A reviewer said its probably not fair to judge the film on this part alone and I'm inclined to agree. It would be hard to not make the film about Bilbo in part 2. I regret that his story emphasis has been wrong up until now. It seems Dwarves will get parts 1 and 3 and Bilbo gets part 2. Not the way I would have liked it but some people like it the way it is.

Bilbo is a charming character and I think they capture that well in the last third of the film. I don't agree that there isn't ample personality material to work with, but if its believed there isn't enough meaty material early on to create a substantive story you solve that by tightening it up and moving it along breezily not by stretching it out and stuffing it with filler.

I wouldnt say the first half of the book is lacking in personality but rather in direction. It just seems to me that the choice in an adaption was likely either to cut some of this material in 2 film series or to include it and then look to create a framework for it. Breezing though material to me rarely works in these kinds of adaptations, either go for a scene or cut it IMHO, inbetween just comes across as fan service.

In LOTR I'd say the choice was much easier because the story itself had a clearer focus thoughout and the amount of material was so much greater. A section like the the Old Forrest or the Barrows in FOTR for example had alot of cinematic potential but were an easy drop when you have the Nazgul chase happening directly before and afterwards.

Even if you cut out several sections of the journey in the Hobbit I'm not sure you come up with a story as interesting and aswell focused as FOTR. Perhaps a more focused film than the one we got but I can't honiestly say there was much of AUJ I didnt enjoy, Radagast was a little too cartoonish for me and the White Council was rather heavy on the exposition but besides that I felt it was alot of entertaining parts thats didnt quite add up to a whole.

Added to that I think the strenghtening of Thorins character potentially makes for a better payoff down the line.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by greenman

I wouldnt say the first half of the book is lacking in personality but rather in direction. It just seems to me that the choice in an adaption was likely either to cut some of this material in 2 film series or to include it and then look to create a framework for it. Breezing though material to me rarely works in these kinds of adaptations, either go for a scene or cut it IMHO, inbetween just comes across as fan service.

In LOTR I'd say the choice was much easier because the story itself had a clearer focus thoughout and the amount of material was so much greater. A section like the the Old Forrest or the Barrows in FOTR for example had alot of cinematic potential but were an easy drop when you have the Nazgul chase happening directly before and afterwards.

Even if you cut out several sections of the journey in the Hobbit I'm not sure you come up with a story as interesting and aswell focused as FOTR. Perhaps a more focused film than the one we got but I can't honiestly say there was much of AUJ I didnt enjoy, Radagast was a little too cartoonish for me and the White Council was rather heavy on the exposition but besides that I felt it was alot of entertaining parts thats didnt quite add up to a whole.

Added to that I think the strenghtening of Thorins character potentially makes for a better payoff down the line.

I hope you'll pick up my intent is not confrontational with you. Your not being that way with me. Its helping me work out my thoughts on first part of the trilogy.
I don't think that Lord of the Rings is so much more cohesive. The big surprise was that Peter Jackson managed to tell the story so successfully.

I'm not going to get the story of "The Hobbit" I wanted. Most of my complaints about the film center on that. You don't need to cut out parts of the Hobbit because they don't flow. Its an odyssey story with a central character. Which is not what Jackson is creating so far.

In the book you have a parlor scene and a pony ride, into which Jackson has inserted two action segments with bloody dwarf battles, and Radagast. After the trolls more Radagast and a Jedi Council meeting about Radagasts that didn't have Bilbo. I think we have agreement this doesn't flow.

The story is about someone the size of a child who goes out into the big world and encounters big scary challenges and great wonders. This is a beloved tale because people love Bilbo. As my last post is selling, I don't think you need to breeze through weak material. Its great material when Bilbo and his personality, his history, his size in the world is the entertainment value. Even to Dwarves Bilbo is small! Dwarves carry short swords. Bilbo carries a dagger.

You get told it. But how ofter do we ever really feel Bilbo's size and weight in An Unexpected Journey? It seems he's just one of several sizes people come in. In Game of Thrones what makes Tyrion Lanister so interesting is you never forget his size and position in the world. But he's a big man inside. Whether he's captured in a prison or in the arms of a prostitute or in a suit of armor or standing before a court.

So far this film shows what is probably true. Peter Jackson and his fans of this film are not enchanted by the story of Bilbo so much as he and they love that they are somehow connected to Lord of the Rings and those films. But to his credit near the end of the film we do see Jackson gets Bilbo's courage and bravery. Somehow he has to write his own new scenes to do that. But its at least a hopeful sign for the second film.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I hope you'll pick up my intent is not confrontational with you. Your not being that way with me. Its helping me work out my thoughts on first part of the trilogy.
I don't think that Lord of the Rings is so much more cohesive. The big surprise was that Peter Jackson managed to tell the story so successfully.

Thats fine you don't come across as confrontational to me, if you can remember my early days on this forum you'll know I relish a good Tolkien adaptation debate.

LOTR on the page isnt always focused but if you chop away that extra detail I think you have a small number of pretty clearly defined themes that flow though many sections. Most obviously you have the threat of Sauron and the Ring which Jackson uses almost constantly to drive the story.

I'm not going to get the story of "The Hobbit" I wanted. Most of my complaints about the film center on that. You don't need to cut out parts of the Hobbit because they don't flow. Its an odyssey story with a central character. Which is not what Jackson is creating so far.

In the book you have a parlor scene and a pony ride, into which Jackson has inserted two action segments with bloody dwarf battles, and Radagast. After the trolls more Radagast and a Jedi Council meeting about Radagasts that didn't have Bilbo. I think we have agreement this doesn't flow.

The story is about someone the size of a child who goes out into the big world and encounters big scary challenges and great wonders. This is a beloved tale because people love Bilbo. As my last post is selling, I don't think you need to breeze through weak material. Its great material when Bilbo and his personality, his history, his size in the world is the entertainment value. Even to Dwarves Bilbo is small! Dwarves carry short swords. Bilbo carries a dagger.

You get told it. But how ofter do we ever really feel Bilbo's size and weight in An Unexpected Journey? It seems he's just one of several sizes people come in. In Game of Thrones what makes Tyrion Lanister so interesting is you never forget his size and position in the world. But he's a big man inside. Whether he's captured in a prison or in the arms of a prostitute or in a suit of armor or standing before a court.

So far this film shows what is probably true. Peter Jackson and his fans of this film are not enchanted by the story of Bilbo so much as he and they love that they are somehow connected to Lord of the Rings and those films. But to his credit near the end of the film we do see Jackson gets Bilbo's courage and bravery. Somehow he has to write his own new scenes to do that. But its at least a hopeful sign for the second film.

As I said I think the problem is that on the page we really don't get to see a great deal of bravery from Bilbo until we get to Mirkwood. Up until that point the story might be told from his perspective but I think its really more of a travelog that Tolkien is able to breeze though by the nature of the medium, most obviously in the wit of his narration.

Ultimately you have a plot that features a long jounrey involving no over arching antagonist with Bilbo repeatly being a fish out of water(until Mirkwood) and the Dwarves bumbling incompetants saved by Gandalf(and then Bilbo). Not that those sections don't have anything of value in them(indeed the fact that they do does I'd guess explain the shift to three films) but I have a hard time seeing them sustain a film by themselves, what comes to mind for me is the first couple of Harry Potter films.

Again my feeling is that the likely alternative three films would be very heavy cutting removing sections such as the Trolls, Wargs, Beorn and maybe a good deal of the unexpected party. The White Council/Radagast scenes may mostly have been setup for the sequals but I felt the Thorin/Azog material while obviously doing the same to some degree also helped to give the film structure and so allowed for more material from the book to be included.

[Atomic Cow]

G

Originally Posted by greenman

Thats fine you don't come across as confrontational to me, if you can remember my early days on this forum you'll know I relish a good Tolkien adaptation debate.

LOTR on the page isnt always focused but if you chop away that extra detail I think you have a small number of pretty clearly defined themes that flow though many sections. Most obviously you have the threat of Sauron and the Ring which Jackson uses almost constantly to drive the story.



As I said I think the problem is that on the page we really don't get to see a great deal of bravery from Bilbo until we get to Mirkwood. Up until that point the story might be told from his perspective but I think its really more of a travelog that Tolkien is able to breeze though by the nature of the medium, most obviously in the wit of Tolkiens narration.

Ultimately you have a plot that features a long jounrey involving no over arching antagonist with Bilbo repeatly being a fish out of water(until Mirkwood) and the Dwarves bubbling incompetants saved by Gandalf(and then Bilbo). Not that those sections don't have anything of value in them(indeed the fact that they do does I'd guess explain the shift to three films) but I have a hard time seeing them sustain a film by themselves, what comes to mind for me is the first couple of Harry Potter films.

Again my feeling is that the likely alternative three films would be very heavy cutting removing sections such as the Trolls, Wargs, Beorn and maybe a good deal of the unexpected party. The White Council/Radagast scenes may mostly have been setup for the sequals but I felt the Thorin/Azog material while obviously doing the same to some degree also helped to give the film structure and so allowed for more material from the book to be included.

Based on your comments about Bilbo being brave as the meat on the plate that comes too late, I guess I have pretty much failed to sell my wares.

I was hoping to persuade Freeman can sell "ordinary guy" as good movie worthy material. Reluctant Bilbo of the Shire who is not heroic could have been the center of the story and be fun and entertaining by virtue of using Freeman's talents at showing his inner monologue with or without words. Sometimes you just know he is having secret fun being self impressed playing his little pranks. Which is really more fun than watching trolls.
When there is so much excess material in this film that isn't helping audiences, critics or even you enjoy the film. You easily make a two film movie by putting three times the emphasis on Bilbo and the events associated with Lord of the Rings. De emphasize killing and wars and middle earth politics and find more humor in the story and its personalities. In that context adding Azog is fine because it brings personality to something impersonal. And I'm okay with that. I'm puzzled don't talk about shaving Frodo or the opening down. But the unexpected party is disposable? I am a horrible argumenter when it comes to this film.

Whats been done with The Hobbit cant be undone.
I shall continue to hope for the best.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

G
Based on your comments about Bilbo being brave as the meat on the plate that comes too late, I guess I have pretty much failed to sell my wares.

I was hoping to persuade Freeman can sell "ordinary guy" as good movie worthy material. Reluctant Bilbo of the Shire who is not heroic could have been the center of the story and be fun and entertaining by virtue of using Freeman's talents at showing his inner monologue with or without words. Sometimes you just know he is having secret fun being self impressed playing his little pranks. Which is really more fun than watching trolls.

When there is so much excess material in this film that isn't helping audiences, critics or even you enjoy the film. You easily make a two film movie by putting three times the emphasis on Bilbo and the events associated with Lord of the Rings. De emphasize killing and wars and middle earth politics and find more humor in the story and its personalities. In that context adding Azog is fine because it brings personality to something impersonal. And I'm okay with that. I'm puzzled don't talk about shaving Frodo or the opening down. But the unexpected party is disposable? I am a horrible argumenter when it comes to this film.

Whats been done with The Hobbit cant be undone.
I shall continue to hope for the best.

The idea of possible making the Hobbit very inner monolong/narration heavy is for me the most obvious "what if" and something I thought might have been worth trying from the very start, espeically as you've got one of the best narrators in the world IMHO onhand in Ian Holm.

I felt Freeman was actually used quite heavly and to generally exellent effect, the problem for me is that I think theres only so often you can go back to that well without real change in the character without things becoming stale and slow.

In that first half of the book espeically though as I said I don't think its just Bilbo's personal story that provides the interest but the events/charcters involved. To cut out alot of those events in order to focus on sections were Bilbo is more proactive and grows as a character isnt something I'm sure I'd be in favour of.

To me a section like the Trolls was very sucessful in bringing that character off the page even if alot of the dialog wasnt. Equally I felt that alot of the banter between the Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf while often original was also very much in the spirit of the book and for me very enjoyable, indeed maybe my favourite aspect of the film.

The two key alterations in Jacksons adaptation for me are the White Council and Thorin. The first of those is difficult to judge from just one film, I didnt feel it added much to AUJ besides Gandalf's explaination of why he picked Bilbo but it could justify itself in terms of payoff plus of course explaining Gandalf's absense. The second while it did distract from Bilbo in terms of focus helped AUJ for me(and potentially the sequals) by creating a much more interesting character both in his own right and for Bilbo to play off, someone who's respect is worth earning.

My main criticism of the film would be that besides Bilbo/Gollum and the Goblin king the charm/banter largely dries up about halfway though Rivendell. Personally I'm hoping that the promised extended cut adds more of Bilbo in Rivendell and a scene or two of him and the Dwaves before the Goblins.

I spose it really comes down to expectations and my feeling was always that the first film would be more of an entertaining/charming return to middle earth than an dramatic epic like LOTR. The potential for similar drama for me is more in the material at the Lonely Mountain.

[Atomic Cow]

I had similar wishes for Rivendell as I think even as a connection to Return of the King it sets up Bilbo's affection for the elves.. The film lacks an innocent heart. I'm not upset with Jackson since he's always been upfront about not knowing how to do this material.
Spielberg would have been a better fit.
While I have no interested in an extended cut. I think an extended cut would
be adding insult to injury. When all three films have run their course maybe a trim cut that edits out as much as possible the appendices and Lord of the Rings
connective tissue?

[Atomic Cow]

I just remembered going over to Disney Animation back in the 90s and talking to a couple of the young
animators. I loved Tarzan by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It was one of my favorite books. I was so
disenchanted to discover neither of them liked the book. And one of them really didn't like it at all.

When I finally saw the film it was a Disney treatment so I cant expect too much. But I was
disappointed they glazed over Tarzan's education which was a really fascinating part of the book.
This is also true of the book Frankenstein. But I thought Disney might exploit this. Also Glenn Keane
drew some beautiful concept art that I thought captured some of the sexual tension between Tarzan and Jane.
This was also one of the best parts of the book which got wholly sanitized in the final product.

I think with these classics when the people producing them don't love the story it shows and what they do love
ends up in the finished product. Kevin Smith has that great story about interviewing with a director to write a Superman film an
he could do whatever he wanted as long as he included a battle with a giant mechanical spider. Well he did
't get the job but a couple years later Smith went to see Wild Wild West by the same director and the rest is history.

[greenman]

Personally for me while I don't think the end result was quiet as sucessful I got the sense that the Hobbit actually represented material that Jackson was more comfortable with. For me it felt like during LOTR he was having to keep his more cartoonish side at bay a good deal of the time.

I really did not get the sense that this was a film by a director who disliked the source material, I don't think such a director would have put as much time into covering its events and reflecting its tone. As I'v said I think it was more a case of Jackson believing the film needed more than was on the page to support an otherwise pretty faithful adaptation aswell as a desire to cover the White Council/Necromancer material.

Personally I felt he balanced that and keeping the tone close enough to LOTR to make the two compatable very well for a good deal of the film. It was only really around the middle that I felt Bilbo was pushed into the background too much and I'd be hopefully that can be corrected.

Rewatching a film with a potential extended cut in mind Rivendell did seem to stick out most to me, we get shots of Bilbo looking at it in amazement on arrival and with longing on departure but very little or him actually there, the Dwarves sudden departure aswell seems likely to cover something being left on the cutting room floor.

[Father Betrayed]

Originally Posted by smile or i will kill you

I wonder if we will see any future Hobbit/LotR 'Special Editions', à la Star Wars?

I see this as a self-fulfilling prophesy, don't you?

[Father Betrayed]

Originally Posted by greenman

Personally I felt he balanced that and keeping the tone close enough to LOTR to make the two compatable very well for a good deal of the film. It was only really around the middle that I felt Bilbo was pushed into the background too much and I'd be hopefully that can be corrected.

Sorry for jumping in the middle of your conversation with Atomic Cow -- which I've found interesting BTW. But I wanted to make an observation:

It seems to me that PJ could have satisfied you both by (1) tightening up the storyline and (2) focusing the narrative to a greater degree on Bilbo and his reactions to events. You both seem to believe that the film would have improved if PJ had at least shortened the scenes with Radagast, the trolls, and Goblintown. Perhaps you disagree on whether some of these scenes should have been cut altogether. But it seems fair to say that you both believe less of these scenes would be an improvement.

You also both seem to believe that more scenes in Rivendell (not of the Council per se) but of the dwarves' / Bilbo's interactions with elves (and how the elves lived) could have improved the story.

Both of you also seem to think that more focus on Bilbo (in general) -- in his interactions with the dwarves; in his gradual turn from a frightened, reticent character to one willing to embrace this journey; and so forth -- would have improved the story.

So I guess my point is that you both agree on certain changes that would have improved the story. Is this fair?

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by Father Betrayed

Sorry for jumping in the middle of your conversation with Atomic Cow -- which I've found interesting BTW. But I wanted to make an observation:

It seems to me that PJ could have satisfied you both by (1) tightening up the storyline and (2) focusing the narrative to a greater degree on Bilbo and his reactions to events. You both seem to believe that the film would have improved if PJ had at least shortened the scenes with Radagast, the trolls, and Goblintown. Perhaps you disagree on whether some of these scenes should have been cut altogether. But it seems fair to say that you both believe less of these scenes would be an improvement.

You also both seem to believe that more scenes in Rivendell (not of the Council per se) but of the dwarves' / Bilbo's interactions with elves (and how the elves lived) could have improved the story.

Both of you also seem to think that more focus on Bilbo (in general) -- in his interactions with the dwarves; in his gradual turn from a frightened, reticent character to one willing to embrace this journey; and so forth -- would have improved the story.

So I guess my point is that you both agree on certain changes that would have improved the story. Is this fair?

I could have wrote down my prediction for this first part of the Hobbit two years ago. It would be a little too ominous and not show real love for the original book just as it is. Martin Freeman was a really great choice. But I would have prefered David Tennant to carry off the funny flappable early Bilbo the book and his ability to be serious without being heavy. Even with cuts the tone is slightly off for me.

If it wasn't supposed to be about The Hobbit I like many of the scenes just fine especially the wonderful big opening. Greenman is easy company to talk to about this since we probably agree on more than we disagree. I'm just hardline on cutting all the non-Hobbit and keeping and adding what is The Hobbit. I think he's more about keeping what works and cutting anything that didn't.
He's more pliable and reasonable than myself. But you've summed it up pretty well.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Father Betrayed

Sorry for jumping in the middle of your conversation with Atomic Cow -- which I've found interesting BTW. But I wanted to make an observation:

It seems to me that PJ could have satisfied you both by (1) tightening up the storyline and (2) focusing the narrative to a greater degree on Bilbo and his reactions to events. You both seem to believe that the film would have improved if PJ had at least shortened the scenes with Radagast, the trolls, and Goblintown. Perhaps you disagree on whether some of these scenes should have been cut altogether. But it seems fair to say that you both believe less of these scenes would be an improvement.

You also both seem to believe that more scenes in Rivendell (not of the Council per se) but of the dwarves' / Bilbo's interactions with elves (and how the elves lived) could have improved the story.

Both of you also seem to think that more focus on Bilbo (in general) -- in his interactions with the dwarves; in his gradual turn from a frightened, reticent character to one willing to embrace this journey; and so forth -- would have improved the story.

So I guess my point is that you both agree on certain changes that would have improved the story. Is this fair?

I wouldnt say thats quiet it, The Goblin town chase and Radagast were a little gratuitous for me but the main difference of opinion between us seems to be whether the book as it is would be sucessful onscreen and whether cutting it down would have been a correct choice.

My view is that I do not believe the book as it is could have made a sucessful adaptation, at least its early stages. I think your just dealing with a narrantive thats too linear which while it maybe narrated from the perspective of one character doesnt really show much dymatic growth in that character.

One way to deal with that seems to be to cut back a great deal of the detail and focus on the areas where Bilbo does show much growth but to me this seems a much more difficult choice than LOTR. Rather than cutting out the odd section here and there I think your looking at more of a wholesale gutting of the story. Whats more unlike LOTR I'm not sure that even with that cutting the story you'd reveal is all that strong until you get to the Lonely Mountain.

While I don't believe that the first half of the book could support a film by itself that doesnt mean I don't think it has anything of value to give to an adaptation. For me its really the charm and Tolkiens wit that makes the book enjoyable just as alot of LOTR's attraction for me is the sense of atmosphere and history. What I suspect Jackson was trying to do was keep those elements while also looking to create a framework for them similar to the Ring quest.

Beyond the differences between "film viewers" and "readers" I'd say another problem the Hobbit has to deal with is expectation. LOTR's did I'd guess for alot of people rather come out of nowhere, even book readers may not have been aware of the production until the trailers started to appear. The adaptation of the Hobbit on the other hand has been debated to death for years which does IMHO create a situation where people become rather attacted to "their adaptation" and unable to look beyond it.