Amph One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rings of Power, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings & Middle-earth films

I think you mean 80s and 90s-era design aesthetic. If the LOTR films conformed to the 70s popular imagination, the films would have looked like a Hildebrandt Bros. painting. Child of the 70s that I am, I would have preferred that, but Howe and Lee are more progressive and intricate than the Hildebrandts, and from what I understand, Jackson preferred their softer, more muted and low-key style.

 

I'm thinking back to how big Faeries was back in the late 70s, but maybe you're right most of the artwork I'm thinking about is early 80s.

In general I recognize that it's an ingrate's complaint on my part.

 

Meh. I'm an ingrate when it comes to the LOTR films, too, but mainly I dislike the script(s). The design elements are fairly solid, IMSIO.

 

I think everything looks great in the LOTR films, with the exception of the Army of the Dead and the Oliphaunts. The Hobbit has some good designs, but a lot of not-so-good stuff too... the trolls and the goblins don't look very good to me, for example. And I think (as I mentioned before) that the Hobbit has a bit too much of that effect (from color saturation and filters, I think) where everything looks like you're looking at it through a layer of watercolor paint or something.

 

Heck yes and will be worth it!

 

EHT my problem with the Hobbit is not the design asthetics (I pretty much loved all of that), but with the story alterations. While in LOTR they made sense (giving Arwen a bigger role for example), they were still few and far between. It was a bit of the opposite in The Hobbit movies. Some things I didn't like:

- Having Legolas be Bolg's nemesis instead of Beorn
- The love triangle
- Giving Saruman's role in the text to Galadriel (it seems the only reason was that she was Boyens's favorite character)
- Alfrid taking the role of the Master (who was played brilliantly by Stephen Fry)
- Having Azog take more of a starring role than Bolg (the latter of which was in the book)
- Having Thorin kill Azog instead of Dain (what better way to assert Dain's claim to awesomeness/the kingship than by killing the guy that killed so many Dwarves?)

That being said, I still thought AUJ was pretty much perfect. The only change I would have made would have been to give Azog's role to Bolg. DOS was also pretty good - the only changes I would have made there would have been to cut the Legolas and Tauriel stuff that happens after the Dwarves leave the Woodland Realm, as well as the love triangle scenes. BOFA was disappointing to me though, there is too much that I wish were different to list, and that saddens me, as it had such potential

 

What did you think of Cumberbatch as Smaug and the whole "chase the dwarves around Erebor" sequence in DOS?

 

This may surprise some people since I am a bit of a book purist, but I really liked the chase around Erebor. It's a bit unrealistic to me, but seeing more of Smaug was totally worth it. I thought Cumberbatch was freaking amazing as well.

 

Yeah, I really had no problems with any of the Smaug scenes in either of the movies he appeared in.

Regarding the points about story alterations, I'm always interested to read people's thoughts on all of that, but I don't have much to add since I have only seen the Middle-earth movies (I haven't read any of the books).

 

I liked the fact that Peter Jackson trimmed down the first part of Fellowship of the Ring (while, ironically, expanding the Hobbit into three movies). No Tom Bombadill, no barrow wights in the FOTR movie vs the book (that was the slowest part of the book).

 

He said that Saruman agreed - that is, agreed with the rest of the "White Council" - to an attack on Dol Guldur. His assent is framed in the context of his own motivations, and should probably not be taken as indication that he was solely responsible.

Tom Bombadil turns the proceedings into a musical, and when Bombadil goes the Barrow-wights go along with him. I don't think we need the Middle-earth equivalent of Cop Rock.

 

My favourite part is after they escape the Barrow Wights, and Bombadil convinces them all to strip naked ad skip through the fields.

 

So...I wrapped up the Hobbit trilogy a few weeks back. I saw AUJ in theaters, and really liked it. Had some problems with throwing Azog in there, but other than that I thought it was great. I didn't get to catch either DOS or BOFA in theaters (when you have a little one, you kinda gotta pick and choose your theatrical excursions...and sometimes the timing just doesn't work out with babysitters).

I saw DOS earlier in the year and...was not impressed. It was the culmination of my worries of turning this single book into three movies. The movie felt like so much padding. The orc attack on Laketown felt superfluous, as was the angle of Fili (or Kili? Can never keep the dwarves straight, even when I read the book) being struck by a poison arrow--which then leads to three of the dwarves being left behind. A plot device that leads no where, by the way, since they have no problems getting to the Lonely Mountain safe and sound in BOFA.

Smaug was a plus in the movie, of course. But the chase between Smaug and the dwarves is so drawn out that it ceases to be any fun. And then...the movie just ends.

With BOFA, I was hoping to see some payoff for the needlessly added dwarves being stuck in Laketown, Bard being imprisoned additions to the story. Annnnnd...I was left not caring. Aside from Bard killing Smaug, I pretty much didn't care about anything going on in the first 20 minutes of the movie.

I dug seeing the White Council fight off Sauron and the Nine. And a lot of added stuff going into exactly what was driving Thorin mad was great.

But Alfie. Oh my God, why did Jackson and co. think that this character was a good idea? I didn't believe for one second that Bard would have kept this tool around, let around trust him to watch after his KIDS. The character was a joke; poorly conceived and executed.

And why the hell was Dain CG? I heard rumors that maybe the actor was sick or something of that nature? If that's the case, you RECAST. For the love of God, we're just not there yet with CG human faces.

But yeah, just overall greatly disappointed with this set of movies. AUJ showed a lot of promise, but it went downhill from there. I'm not a Tolkien purist. I saw the LOTR movies before I ever read the books, but good lord. If you're going to make changes, make sure they make sense or actually add to the story. Very few of the changes that were made accomplished that.

 

I'm that rare Tolkien fan who thinks the three Hobbit movies are -- in many ways -- an improvement on the book. The opinion that this simple children's adventure is sacrosanct, a perfect and unotouchable work of literature, is mistaken, IMSIO*. What Jackson and cohorts have achieved is to bring the level of detail, backstory and character development that we see in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, and applied it to The Hobbit. For TH is a direct, straightforward tale, unencumbered by any of the senses-provoking detail or feeling of scope or history that the author was so careful to construct in TLOTR. Once the decision was made to turn TH into films in the same style as the LOTR movies, it became essential to crank up the detail, backstory and scope to match the films already in existence. Therefore I approve of most of the changes and expansions that we see in TH movies. I'm awaiting the BOFA EE before I pronounce my final verdict.

*in my stupid internet opinion

 

Only problem I had with the LOTR films was the Faramir change. Loved that guy in the books.

 

Have you seen the extended edition of Two Towers, TX? It gives more detail on why Faramir does what he does, and makes him more sympathetic.

 

I liked Pete, Fran, and Philippa's explanation for his character change in the films. Just prefer Book Faramir to Film Faramir.

 

In general I object to the changes in the LOTR films, but giving Faramir a less superhuman and more credible response to the Ring within his grasp is one I happen to approve of. He's still the same person with the same core morality in the films, but it's believable to me that he would at least consider taking the Ring to give to his father.

 

Was anyone else thrown by the whole attempt of having some sort of last minute arc concerning Legolas and his mom? He has, like, one line about her in the middle of the film. And then, at the butt end, his dad says, "Your mother loved you very much."

Ummm...okay. Thanks? I already kind of thought that since she was his mom and there was nothing indicating she willfully abandoned him...

I don't know what's worse: that lame attempt of character building, or having Jimmy and the first mate discuss Heart of Darkness in King Kong.

 

Phauggh, that Conrad babble in Kong is one of the worst things about that entire film, which I otherwise mainly enjoy. "It's not an adventure story, is it?" "No, Jimmy: it's not!" As I understand it, this was a last-minute addition to the script, filmed in pick-ups. It's absolutely pointless, fake and poorly placed in the structure.

As to the Legolas' mommy issues, that's one thing I'm hoping to see fleshed out in the EE. I'm going to reserve judgement of the film and series as a whole until I see the final version.

 

Not only that, but in order to get what the hell they're talking about...you had to have read the book (which, at the time anyway, I had not)! Still overall a very good movie, but yeah, some of the poorly attempted character padding in Kong is a bit of a turn off.

 

Kong is another Jackson film that would benefit from some judicious trimming. I'd excise the majority of the boat trip and some of the early NYC scenes, while restoring a few of the EE bits, notably the Styracosaurus, which attacks the crew right out of the gate and greatly improves the pacing.

 

This reminds me... one of my issues with the EE's in general is that one should not feel like they can't have a fully formed opinion of a movie until almost a year after it came out in the theater, IMO.

 

It's the same with the LOTR:EEs, though. The theatrical versions are inferior and incomplete, IMSIO.