|
Post by nolaflacav on Dec 29, 2012 8:43:51 GMT -6
Sorry to disagree Jake, but the scenes with Radagast definitely fall into the "whole cloth" category. Radagast is mentioned by name once in the Hobbit (and that is it, he is mentioned), his only interaction with other characters is in LOTR, where he meet Gandalf on the road and reports that Saruman wants to talk with him about the Nazgul crossing the river. The impetus for Gandalf's capture at Isengard... which Jackson completely left out of THAT movie. In the book there is no battle between the orcs and the dwarves/Bilbo/Gandalf after their encounter with the trolls and they slip into Rivendell quietly and unmolested. That entire sequence is "whole cloth" I could not have said it any better. Whatever it is that you just said!
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 29, 2012 10:25:27 GMT -6
Sorry, Gordon, but you must have a different definition of "whole cloth" than I do. I am counting the Appendices as fair game for source material, which give rise to the Radagast sequence. And the Orcs did have it in for the Dwarves, whether you like it or not. I don't mind adding a battle to a conflict that already existed if that improves the flow of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Dec 29, 2012 10:47:21 GMT -6
I guess that you are right, we do have entirely different meanings for the term "whole cloth". I take that to mean "entirely fictitious" or "a fabrication"
I never said that the orcs didnt have it in for the dwarves, I defy you to show me where I said that. There is no question that is fact.
The scene in question is completely counter to the story in the book. The presence of Radagast in the movie is completely counter to the book.
I dont mind adding a battle or a dialogue for the sake of the flow of the movie either, and there have been many alterations that Jackson has made from the books in the four movies to date. The dialogue that I mentioned between Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman is entirely plausible (though the presence of the Necromancer in Mirkwood was accepted by Gandalf and Elrond long before Smaug took over the Lonely Mountain.)
But the scene in question has no way of being plausible in the context of the book.
When you say "I don't mind adding a battle to a conflict that already existed if that improves the flow of the story" , fine, that is a personal preference... but it does run counter to your claim that there is nothing made of whole cloth in the movie... the scene in question is... it is a complete fabrication by Jackson.
Sorry, guess I am more of a purist in these things than you are. I LIKE the story that Tolkein presents and have not found any "improvements" that Jackson has introduced in this movie of the past movies. Given the length of this particular movie, the scene in question is bloat that could have been left on the cutting room floor and not detracted from the story as Jackson was telling it... TOTALLY unnecessary and made of whole cloth.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 29, 2012 11:03:51 GMT -6
Easy, big fella! You don't have to "defy" me to show you anything. We just have different definitions.
I have no problem with him including "plausible" scenes that are suggested by other Tolkien sources (Appendices, Silmarillion, etc.). Now, if they had gone to Disney World or invented magic flying machines or formed a Dancing Dwarves of Erebor mistrel show or come upon Sleeping Beauty, then I'd have had a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 29, 2012 23:49:24 GMT -6
I've been thinking about this issue more and more over the last few days. Many people (like Gordon apparently) really seem offended by the fact that the Peter Jackson movies are not slavishly true to the novel. And that's cool; if that is important to you, more power to you. I won't claim that you are wrong in your opinion.
But personally, I'd rather ENJOY a movie than hate it. As long as it is fun, enjoyable, and holds my attention, I don't need to be an ideologue about it being word for word true to the source material. A movie will NEVER be identical to a novel. A movie maker will ALWAYS impose his particular interpretation onto his work. I don't have a problem with that. As long as it is fun and enjoyable, I am a happy camper.
If Gordon or others find that unacceptable, I won't presume to disagree with them. It just doesn't bother ME, as long as the end result is fun and rings true. Obviously, this is a personal decision, and we can't expect others to share our opinions. That's what makes the world go around.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Dec 30, 2012 12:44:54 GMT -6
Jake, I respect your thoughtful consideration of my position on this. You obviously have gone the extra mile to see the position I have taken on this matter.
But consider wider genres, and I would bet that you feel the same way I do about other movies.
Case in point, I do not know if you have seen The Iron Lady. I did not find a thread here about it. The movie covers the political life of Margaret Thatcher. I can imagine that you would find it disrespectful of her life and her politics. Though most of it is true, there are several points where, for reasons you mentioned above, "liberties" were taken with the story for dramatic effect. (Personally I was VERY disappointed with the movie, I felt it sacrificed her accomplishments in favor of a focus on her problems with dementia in her latter years).
I am sure that if you mentally search through movies that you have seen you will find many that failed to endear themselves to you because they altered the facts of the story for a reason that you did not approve, regardless of whether they ch-ch-changes made the movie more entertaining.
And yes, I realize that my example is a movie which is not, to my knowledge, based on a novel, but rather based on historical facts, and the interpretation of those facts, emphasizing some, deemphasizing others.
But in certain respects, if the writer of the novel is not in collaboration in writing the screenplay, the person who is writing the screenplay is rewriting the "history" to fit their own concepts and bias of that "history."
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 30, 2012 14:56:26 GMT -6
I was never overly-pleased with the Roger Moore era James Bond movies, because they made the cold-blooded humourless assassin of the books into a frivolous popinjay. But they were made for a different audience than Bond Purists, and I didn't take offense at it. I enjoyed them for what they were. I certainly never used words like "bloated" or "painful to endure" or "embarrassingly ridiculous" to describe them.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 9, 2013 1:06:07 GMT -6
Saw "The Hobbit" again today (second viewing). I enjoyed it even better than the first time! Will have to try to squeeze in one more viewing before it leaves the big screen.
I saw each of the three LOTR movies FOUR TIMES in the theater. Of course, I didn't have a puppy in those days, and was able to be more liberal (Yikes!) with my time. But I'll try to squeeze in three viewings of this one.
|
|