Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
I remember you people having an insane amount of "likes" (and posts) on the temp boards.
When I told you chances were I'd grow as obsessive-compulsive with the Hobbit soundtrack as I were with the LOTR one...
A little bit from the track "Out of the Frying Pan" (roughly at 3:40-4:05), which I've taken to name Thorin's Theme (given how heroicly badass it is), struck me as odd, seeing as it's in the midst of a dissonant passage.
While it does share some similarities with the tracks I've linked to earlier ("Erebor" and "The Dwarf Lords"), it sounded strikingly familiar for other reasons. And I found that its rhythm, tone, and perhaps even its melody were rather close to favourite works: the opera Le Cid by Massenet (act I, scene 2 - the hero's knighting mass) and the soundtrack to El Cid by Miklos Rozsa (more specifically, the King's Champion theme).
Here is a link to a streaming audio of the opera. The relevant part is at 19:50-20:45.
El Cid's soundtrack (pay attention to the 3:30-4:05 mark).
I don't know if it's a conscious homage or if it's inadvertent, but either way it's rather interesting... I wonder if we can read something into it, or if I'm just overanalysing the thing.
I can't watch any of these videos you've been posting because of different copyright laws in different countries. Luckily I have he soundtrack anyway, but I'm sure others don't.
Just an FYI. And yeah, I see a tiny similarity. I always like Rózsa's stuff, and I'd imagine Shore takes some inspiration from him, since they both do/did music for epics.
@Todd the Jedi
I'm a bit bummed that some of you aren't able to access to the tracks directy from the videos... At least I provided enough details so that people can find them in a viable format if they are so inclined. Given how I can't know who has access to what, it's the best I can do, I think.
It's funny, all the tracks for the extended edition are available on youtube as "low-def" I guess, while the high def is not available to watch in America, at least.
Oh I ardently agree and have said as much for years. Rogue-1-and-a-half's excellent summary, upthread on p. 151, of ~18 movies clarifies that much would be lost in any 3-film theatrical presentation. Three story cycles per season for six seasons would be a fan's dream come true! For example, Season One would cover Creation, the Elves in Valinor, the crafting of the Jewels, Maedhros's rescue by Fingon, etc. perhaps climaxing with Thingol's leaving the Noldor.
Either way, Armitage as Beren would be inspired casting, absolute genius.
Well, the man had to be quite exceptional to make the daughter of and Elf (Thingol) and a Maia (Melian) fall in love with him, and Armitage has proved that he's perhaps the most knowledgeable of the cast, bar Christopher Lee and maybe Ian McKellen. When they were asked about what obscure Tolkien fact they knew, he came up with the story of the Nauglamir, which happened during Beren's time...
Ha hah hee hoo, exaggerations are funnies.
The LOTR movies cover about 100 pages per hour (~10 hours for ~1000 pages), and had to delete or summarize whole reams of material. The Hobbit movies cover about 33 pages per hour (~9 hours for ~300 pages), allowing each page of the source material to be adapted, and for scenes only summarized to be fully dramatized.
If you don't want to see the movies, don't see them. The complaint about book-to-film adaptations has traditionally been "they had to cut out x", but now the complaint seems to be "they left x in"! I don't understand this objection and it will have to be explained very carefully to me. If you enjoy TH and TLOTR -- books and/or movies -- then it seems reasonable that you'll want Jackson and co. to cover all Hobbit-related material. If you dislike the source material or the movies, what are you doing in a fan thread discussing them?
I posted a joke that almost every active member of this discussion 'liked' and you reply with an irrational emotional moment. Inhale, exhale, repeat. It's gonna be ok, sir...
In invite you, in the interest of fairness, to point to a single instance of my "irrational emotion" in the referenced post. If I didn't get your joke and I responded all serious-like (to the behind-the-hand tittering from the gallery), hey, I apologize: tone can be hard to discern on a message-board, and I didn't realize your point was facetious. In that light, I believe my response was perfectly rational and logical.
Exaggerations are more often than not jokes.
Several people have explained why they don't think the material in the Hobbit justifies three movies. I, for one, would have liked to see a few snips; I think when translating a book to a screen, and a different method of taking it in, one should cut a little material. Movies can feel bogged down in a way that boos don't. PJ managed it fabulously, in my opinion, with the LOTR movies.
That doesn't mean I don't like AUJ, because I do. If I didn't, I would just write it off and not bother discussing it. We critique because we like it but have our own opinions about what would have made it even better. That's what discussion boards are for, discussing what we liked and what we didn't. That doesn't mean if we like it we shouldn't critique or if we didn't like it we shouldn't bother to engage in a discussion about why we didn't.
Yes. Natalie is always correct.
Got through the spiders. Yuck. Smaug just got pissed after Bilbo's first foray into the mountain. I have stopped there. My childhood memories were that Bilbo went in once and Smaug jumped out and attacked the city and fell to Bard's arrow. So it is nice to see that possibly Smaug will get a decent amount of dominating dragon time on screen.
It would be a waste of Benedict Cumberbatch's talent if it was anything less.
Well this first part isn't even talking, he sees his cup is missing and goes off around the mountain in mayhem searching for perps, chasing horses, breathing dragonfire, and scaring everyone in the group and such as they run down the tunnel.
There have been two live action films that showcased great dragon action; Dragonslayer and Reign Of Fire. There is no other film I can call iconic aside from these two as far as well done dragon effects and aura of power. I want to love what I see in the next Hobbit film. I want to look at the effects of Smaug and think, "Yeah, THAT, is awesome dragon mayhem."
I really really like Draco from Dragonheart (done by ILM! And voiced by Sean Connery!). Even though that film isn't particularly good (fairly clichéd story), it has a special place in my heart because it was filmed in Slovakia, and particularly in my home region.
P.S.: Everton, you don't have to like this comment.
Well, there's a reason why the second film is titled The Desolation of Smaug, after all. It wouldn't be all that fun if (aside from a bout with spiders and some more insight into the Dol Guldur subplot) there wasn't a decent amount of Smaug vs Dwarves/Hobbits/Men/Elves... They have to show just how much of a WMD he was, to justify Gandalf's worries about the fate of ME, should Smaug suddenly decide that an alliance with Sauron was worth his while.
In short, TDOS will be about the destruction of the Big Bad Smaug, and TABA about the Battle of the Five Armies and the defeat of the Bigger Bad the Necromancer. Or, as somebody put it, "everybody fights Cumberbatch".
And come to think of it, the expansion of Azog's role may be a stroke of genius. If he leads one of the five armies, imagine the moral dilemma faced by Thorin: does he stay in Erebor reconquered, or does he accomplish the vengeance promised to his forefathers by going out to fight the White Orc? I think it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out in the movies.
Conversely, you do have to like any future EWOTs.
I don't think there's going to be much of a surprise here. Azog was tacked onto the trilogy solely to give Thorin an adversary as foil for his last-minute heroism in the battle of the five armies. It's so obvious pretty much anyone remotely interested in the films sees it coming from the moment Azog is introduced.
I do agree with you that it's somewhat shrewd and will help make the battle of the five armies more intimate and something other than just an endless action scene, akin to Eowyn's moment in the battle of Pelennor fields. Aiming for that payoff in Hobbit 3 really took a toll on part 1 though. I hope it's worth it.
I'm still shocked that McKellen didn't know Gandalf's original name when he was on the Colbert Report. That may be a sign he didn't read The Silmarillion, but it's also in The Two Towers.
Azog's presence took a toll on the end of the film, yes, but I really like (despite the changes) the flashback sequence to the Battle of Azanulbizar. Ken Stott delivers his lines of 'narration' beautifully... "There is one I could follow. There is one I could call king" - gets me every time. Thorin is shown to be a worthy leader. A brave man. In a film adaptation that's something worth underlining early on. So I think Azog does have merit in AUJ. His appearance at the end though, is lamentable. I can see why they did it, but there was already enough peril present on the page to see the film out. After the Azanulbizar flashback I would've kept Azog back until TABA, keeping Thorin (albeit unknowingly) waiting for his big showdown.
Or just that it's ****ing hard to remember a bunch of names. "Gandalf" and "Mithrandir" are both used more frequently than... "Olorin"? Or whatever.
Yeah, I'm sorry I don't know who Aragorn's 2nd cousin on his mother's side was even though Tolkien probably mapped that out.
He didn't. Only the line of his male ancestors back to Isildur, Elendil, and all the way back to Elros (Elrond's brother).
Mar, I do love a good nerd and you are a good nerd.