The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[IainC]

By mistake clicked this thread but Fuck You, Morgan Freeman will fulfill his destiny as the Narrator of All Life On Earth.

That was David Attenborough.

[Ironwood]

 

[Phildo]

For a second there, all I could think of was Dave Attell.  Now that would be something.

Morgan Freeman lost his credentials when he lent God's Voice to the 10%-of-your-brain theory.

[Khaldun]

Morgan Freeman is not exactly picky about who he rents out God's Voice to.

[NowhereMan]

Mainstreaming stuff like the Secret also serves for highlighting who you know shouldn't be trusted with complicated decisions.

[Venkman]

Wow, so a lot of different points raised here, but I'll focus on your Hobbit one about the audience.

The Hobbit had a different literary audience than LoTR; however, the movie market is the same. Further, the Hobbit movies were only greenlit because of the success of the LoTR ones, in a time horizon typical for movies, rather than separate by 20+ years. Even if they punted to different directors like they did with Potter, it wasn't like they were going to have LoTR be PG-13 and The Hobbit be General Audiences, just because 70-90 years ago the source material was written that way.

Further, the Potter movies are not a good comparison, in part because there's a very clear living memory overlap between peak zeitgeist of the book franchise, the still-living author, and the movies, largely seen by all the same people who read the almost-as-recently-released books. Potter is kinda closer to Game of Thrones, in that the success of certain aspects of parts of the story telling (ticket sales, chosen talent, etc) absolutely effects how the author continues and closes out the series.

Tolkien didn't need to worry about the twitterstorm of outrage over killing off certain characters, and certainly doesn't have locked-in control over which elves they decide were actually alive and when.

[eldaec]

Tolkien didn't need to worry about the twitterstorm of outrage over killing off certain characters, and certainly doesn't have locked-in control over which elves they decide were actually alive and when.

Don't know about that. An entire subculture was born around objecting to Frodo going off to die at the end of LotR.

[Johny Cee]

Apologies in advance, going to have to sirbruce (who has a reddit account you can search for, by the way!) this:

Wow, so a lot of different points raised here, but I'll focus on your Hobbit one about the audience.

The Hobbit had a different literary audience than LoTR; however, the movie market is the same. Further, the Hobbit movies were only greenlit because of the success of the LoTR ones, in a time horizon typical for movies, rather than separate by 20+ years. Even if they punted to different directors like they did with Potter, it wasn't like they were going to have LoTR be PG-13 and The Hobbit be General Audiences, just because 70-90 years ago the source material was written that way.

Don't understand this.  I never said nor implied that it should be a children's movie, just pointed out that it was written for the children's category of fiction in regards to the approachability of the work and the level of effort from the audience needed to grok the narrative.  Children's (and YA) books make excellent film adaptions.  They are structured more like film with more similar pacing and regular action or menace (or humor!) events to keep low attention spans engaged.  Emotions tend to be exaggerated, again like mass-market audience film.  Etc.

And also, just because something is written or sold as a childrens or YA book doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed by or popular with adults.  His Dark Materials was YA, for instance, and that has a large adult fanbase.

Further, the Potter movies are not a good comparison, in part because there's a very clear living memory overlap between peak zeitgeist of the book franchise, the still-living author, and the movies, largely seen by all the same people who read the almost-as-recently-released books. Potter is kinda closer to Game of Thrones, in that the success of certain aspects of parts of the story telling (ticket sales, chosen talent, etc) absolutely effects how the author continues and closes out the series.

Tolkien didn't need to worry about the twitterstorm of outrage over killing off certain characters, and certainly doesn't have locked-in control over which elves they decide were actually alive and when.

Tolkien readership has had a number of peaks, usually around every 20 years.  Big in the '60s, came back in the late '70s and '80s when Epic Fantasy became the genre leader and crossed over into mainstream bestseller lists, again with the films, etc.  LotR or the Hobbit regularly topped end of year bestseller lists in the '90s as people seemed to love giving those fancy special editions as Christmas gifts.

The Tolkien Estate is regularly dripping out those giant History of Middle-Earth things as well as Children of Hurin, which hit best-seller lists.  Fuck, the old rec.arts.books.tolkien newsgroup had massive amounts of activity in the '90s considering we were still using Mosiac or whatever as a web browser....  and a thread about if balrogs had wings would garner hundreds of responses in a matter of days.

Going into the LOTR films, Jackson knew this and really did a good job of engaging the large and rabid fanbase.  He co-opted the two most popular Tolkien artists (yes, that was a thing and people made a living doing it) to do the image work, consulted the experts or got them on the payroll, regularly gave exclusives to folks like theonering.net, etc.  He even managed to diffuse potential problems like when the more prominent role for Arwen leaked, or cutting Bombabdil (both of which worked very well), which created firestorms everywhere from Tolkien specific sites to AICN and movie gossip sites.

The Hobbit really feels like Jackson is only invested in a couple of the set-pieces, and he is far more open to either glossing over or heavily changing the rest in a rush to get to the next set-piece.


As for Potter, Rowling already had more success and money then she knew what to do with before the first movie.  She could have completely phoned in the remaining three books and they still would have moved hundreds of millions of copies.  If anything, I'd say its closer to her resenting aspects of the fandom in the way she handled the epilogue to the final book and things like the "Dumbledore was gay" comment she made after the series had ended.

Martin, on the other hand, is definitely a guy that is completely dependent on the TV series.  He only sold like 3-5 million books total across all his works before the TV show blew up, and since has sold about 30 million more.  The TV show is going to start to diverge pretty heavily as it is caught up to the books in many plotlines, and the remaining plotlines would be television poison to adapt (Dany does nothing for two seasons, than events reset, yah!)  There is no way Martin is going to squeeze out the remaining 2-3 books to stay ahead of the show, and HBO isn't going to allow their current number one attraction to languish while he gets his shit together.

[Johny Cee]

I'm going to throw this out there:

I'd have no problem with radical departures from the book if I thought it actually worked as a film.  I've read some of the Constantine comics, and really enjoyed the film despite it being pretty close to an "in name only" adaption.  I love Dune, and enjoyed alot of Lynch's film despite the changes.

I was just kind of bored by the Hobbit movies so far.  The first had the great Gollum scene, and the second had the great Smaug/Bilbo scene, which redeemed them quite a bit... but the rest has just been pretty meh.  I just don't think they gel well as films.  The pacing feels off, Bilbo is the main character but he disappears or is sidelined from the narrative for large chunks, parts seem very awkwardly cut into the film, the action like Goblintown and the barrel ride feels without weight or consequence.  There is a real tone problem, where it bounces back and forth from super-cartoony to serious.

[Ironwood]

I have to agree with that.

[Cyrrex]

Yeah, that's it exactly.  As a fanboi I am mildly annoyed by the departure from the source material, but the real problem is that the shit he makes up on his own is rather terrible.  The whole barrel scene is so rage-inducingly stupid and unplausible that no mere words can describe it.  Having Legolas appear is fine, but making him look like some airbrushed creepazoid from another plane of existence is not (let alone all the improbably arrow launching skills).  The first 2 minutes of the Smaug scene was cool.  The following 20 minutes of Smaug bumbling around being unable to munch a single dwarf or hobbit, despite having apparently never failed to munch dwarf in the past, was RETARDED.  Yeah, retarded.

And hot dwarves (dwarfs?)....FUCKING STOP THAT STUPID SHIT.

[Johny Cee]

I'm going to throw this out there:

I'd have no problem with radical departures from the book if I thought it actually worked as a film.  I've read some of the Constantine comics, and really enjoyed the film despite it being pretty close to an "in name only" adaption.  I love Dune, and enjoyed alot of Lynch's film despite the changes.

I was just kind of bored by the Hobbit movies so far.  The first had the great Gollum scene, and the second had the great Smaug/Bilbo scene, which redeemed them quite a bit... but the rest has just been pretty meh.  I just don't think they gel well as films.  The pacing feels off, Bilbo is the main character but he disappears or is sidelined from the narrative for large chunks, parts seem very awkwardly cut into the film, the action like Goblintown and the barrel ride feels without weight or consequence.  There is a real tone problem, where it bounces back and forth from super-cartoony to serious.

Okay, I'm going to come clean:

I love Lynch's Dune.  Fuck if I know why.  I mean, everything from Patrick Stewart carrying around the toy-breed dog to how hammy and weird and creepy (and obviously wanting Sting's package) Baron Harkonnen was.  The whole damn thing no matter how good or bad or ridiculous.

[pants]

Okay, I'm going to come clean:

I love Lynch's Dune.  Fuck if I know why.  I mean, everything from Patrick Stewart carrying around the toy-breed dog to how hammy and weird and creepy (and obviously wanting Sting's package) Baron Harkonnen was.  The whole damn thing no matter how good or bad or ridiculous.

Yeah, I'll back you up on that.  I thought the whole voice-weapon thing was a nice departure from the book as well.  I never really got the hate for the movie.

[Abagadro]

Its awesome because it has great source material combined with Lynch in the prime of his weirdness. It's nothing like the book but it is still great. I bet there is some really, really good cut of that movie out in theoretical land that was never quite made because of the battles between Lynch and De Laurentiis.  I think Jodoworski's version would have collapsed under its own weight. Lynch is just sane enough to pull it off.

[Khaldun]

I have to agree with that.

Yeah. The whole thing doesn't feel like Bilbo's story any more. It's like he got HIS SCENE at the end of the first film, and that's it. Forget him saving the dwarves in the forest, coming up with the barrels, being the guy who mans up with the dragon, and then mans up again with the Arkenstone. What Jackson decided to do, and it's way more subtle than the bad action setpieces, is make it so that all of Bilbo's decisiveness and maturation are a result of subtle corruption by the Ring. That just misses the point 100%. The dwarves don't count in the original because they're redshirts in Bilbo's story. Which is ok as long as it stays Bilbo's story. As soon as it's not, they'd better be more interesting than "Hat Guy", "Gay Dwarf", "Elf-Loving Pervert Dwarf" and "Fat Dwarf". Which they're not.

[Johny Cee]

One of the more interesting things I read somewhere:

The Hobbit has the tone it does because Bilbo is the guy that wrote it down.  At heart, he's silly and goofy and generally a good guy.

LOTR is written by Frodo, who is serious and sad prematurely mature...  and the final happily ever after ending with Frodo getting to go off with the elves?  That has to be written by Sam, who is kinder and wants everything to turn out well and believes in fairy tales.  So in all likelihood, Frodo actually goes off to live with some elves in hospice care before dying prematurely from his wounds but Sam wrote him (and other members of the Fellowship) a happily ever after.

[UnSub]

Morgan Freeman is not exactly picky about who he rents out God's Voice to.

He's from the Christopher Walken and Samuel L Jackson School of Actors Gotta Work.

I'll go off and see Hobbit 3 with absolutely no expectations, then wait for the inevitable news that Peter Jackson is turning The Silmarillion into a trilogy starring Legolas.

[Evildrider]

I'll go off and see Hobbit 3 with absolutely no expectations, then wait for the inevitable news that Peter Jackson is turning The Silmarillion into a trilogy starring Legolas.

He's already said that is not gonna happen.  Tolkien's family holds all the rights to anything not Hobbit or LOTR and they hate Jackson's work.

[Maven]

The marketing campaign for this movie is over the top, mainly in its posters. So much gravitas for a film no one will care about in a year.

[Tannhauser]

I'll go off and see Hobbit 3 with absolutely no expectations, then wait for the inevitable news that Peter Jackson is turning The Silmarillion into a trilogy starring Legolas.

He's already said that is not gonna happen.  Tolkien's family holds all the rights to anything not Hobbit or LOTR and they hate Jackson's work.

Christopher Tolkien is around 90 years old.  Hollywood can wait and back dump trucks of cash on his kids.  Then we'll have 'Beren and Luthien: A Love Story' starring Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez.

[Soulflame]

YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

If this happens, there will be a reckoning, sir.

[Phildo]

Luthien really does love him like a love song.

[Venkman]

I'll go off and see Hobbit 3 with absolutely no expectations, then wait for the inevitable news that Peter Jackson is turning The Silmarillion into a trilogy starring Legolas.

He's already said that is not gonna happen.  Tolkien's family holds all the rights to anything not Hobbit or LOTR and they hate Jackson's work.

Christopher Tolkien is around 90 years old.  Hollywood can wait and back dump trucks of cash on his kids.  Then we'll have 'Beren and Luthien: A Love Story' starring Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez.

This. By the time Battle of Five Arms is on Netflix, it'll be time to remaster the then-15 year old Fellowship of the Ring in Avatar-esque 3D quality. That'll give another two years of someone to come along with a movie adaption of some part of the Simarrillion or even some part of LoTR dedicated to Tom Bambodil or Trolls or The Corsairs or whatever other shit they can define to the Nth degree based on some note spit in the margins of some other Tolkien script they dig up from Masada or wherever.

I don't care as long as the movies are fun. I only found Tolkien well after D&D, EQ and WoW, so I have no more love for that authenticity than I do Norrathian Legend 

[Tannhauser]

PISTOLS AT DAWN SIR!

[Lantyssa]

That makes a good movie title.

[disKret]

Morgan Freeman is not exactly picky about who he rents out God's Voice to.

He's from the Christopher Walken and Samuel L Jackson School of Actors Gotta Work.

I'll go off and see Hobbit 3 with absolutely no expectations, then wait for the inevitable news that Peter Jackson is turning The Silmarillion into a trilogy starring Legolas.

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/10/07/peter-jackson-announces-plans-for-72-part-movie-series-of-the-silmarillion/

[eldaec]

I have to agree with that.

What Jackson decided to do, and it's way more subtle than the bad action setpieces, is make it so that all of Bilbo's decisiveness and maturation are a result of subtle corruption by the Ring. That just misses the point 100%.

I suspect it has more to with Fran Walsh and Pippa 'Faramir-not-being-a dickhead-would-totally-undercut-the-power-of-the-ring' Boyens.

Even in LotR the screenplay doesn't quite trust Tolkien to be good at plot past about half way into Two Towers. It becomes more of a thing in each of the six films.

I'm still looking forward to this one though.

[Ironwood]

Don't get me started on Faramir.  That totally ripped the character in two.  It was horrible.

[shiznitz]

I have to agree with that.

What Jackson decided to do, and it's way more subtle than the bad action setpieces, is make it so that all of Bilbo's decisiveness and maturation are a result of subtle corruption by the Ring.

One could argue that is a valid interpretation.  I wouldn't argue that but it should not be discarded as completely outrageous.

[Ironwood]

No, it's nonsense.

He starts being 'proper' Bilbo long before he finds the ring.  It starts with the Trolls, for example.

The Ring is an enabler of him being a proper 'hero' (because, let's face it, invisibility helps him DO the shit he thinks up), but it's never, ever the Reason.

[Samwise]

Don't get me started on Faramir.  That totally ripped the character in two.  It was horrible.

Yeah, I was a fan of the Jackson movies right up until the exact instant that they fucked up Faramir, because that was one of my favorite scenes in the book and there was absolutely no reason to get it completely wrong.

[Ironwood]

Of all the fuckups, it was the most heinous.

Bear in mind, I still am a fan of the movies and I'm not a frother - I don't care about many of the changes they did, indeed some I like.

However, they utterly missed the mark with Faramir (no pun intended), as he was meant to be someone who shows Aragorn isn't the only 'Good Guy'.  Instead, everyone apart from Aragorn was a cunt.

[Soulflame]

I am glad there's other people who absolutely hate (or at least strongly dislike) the handling of Faramir in The Two Towers.

[lamaros]

I'm sure I've said it before, but the only things the movies got right were how long and boring and obsessed with landscape they were. They missed/changed a lot of things that collectively distorted a lit of the things I found more interesting in the books.

Noting that I am not really a fan of the books though, so I don't really care that much. But one has to post about something.

[Tannhauser]

The problem is Book Faramir has no arc.  Noble Faramir falls over himself to help this strange 'hobbit' on his way to Mordor with the Ring of Power. "Best of luck!  Have fun storming Mount Doom!"

Movie Faramir starts as a suspicious jerk.  He threatens Frodo, nearly kills Gollum and drags them to Gondor.  Why?  So maybe his dad will say 'good job' as he gets his mitts on the Ring.

Faramir wises up and frees Frodo, knowing this will incur even more ire from his dad.  Sure enough, Pop sends him on a suicide mission and off goes Faramir to the meat grinder.  Faramir would die to gain even a small amount of love from his father.  Movie Faramir represents the strength of the Men of Gondor.  Not Boromir, fatally tempted by the ring and certainly not Denethor who thought he could withstand the gaze of Sauron. You need Movie Faramir to show Gondor was worth saving, that there still was strength and nobility in the land of Men.  It also makes it more plausible that Aragorn can lead the Gondorians all the way to the Black Gate, to almost certain ruin.

Controversial? Sure, I was surprised too but I understand very well why they changed him.