|
And I don't want none of that girly stuff added into the two 2-hour movies that are being adapted out of one relatively short children's story.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
I did read the article but I guess I was too eager to sperg so that was forgotten as soon as I read it. How embarrassing, sorry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
Viridiant posted:I did read the article but I guess I was too eager to sperg so that was forgotten as soon as I read it. How embarrassing, sorry about that. It's okay because you still have the best avatar on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
The Aragorn/Arwen romance plot is literally cobbled together out of actual LotR text and some stuff out of the Silmarillion. Aside from entirely replacing Glorfindel at the Ford (and given that they backed off the Helm's Deep thing), why is including their arc so objectionable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Before LOTR came out I was sure that Liv Tyler would firebomb the whole film. To this day she's one of my favorites. I don't know what it is but the moment she started speaking Elvish...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
arioch posted:The Aragorn/Arwen romance plot is literally cobbled together out of actual LotR text and some stuff out of the Silmarillion. Aside from entirely replacing Glorfindel at the Ford (and given that they backed off the Helm's Deep thing), why is including their arc so objectionable? More people are upset about the romantic undertones coming up in the Hobbit film, not as many are upset about the Aragorn/Arwen stuff, because that stuff was true to source. I liked that it was there, I just thought it was handled a bit poorly at times. Can we all calm down with the "sperg" poo poo? What's the fun in a thread like this if it's nothing but page after page of "I am excited about this." "I too am excited about this." "I like the book but I also like the movie and have nothing to say about either but that I like them." I think being able to critique something you like is fun. I'm nervous about the upcoming romantic Hobbit stuff. It's implied that it wont' actually GO anywhere, but the fact that they've cast a fairly well known actress and given the character a name and a slot in the previews, I don't think it's going to be brushed past as quickly as I hope it will. edit: I get that I could be wrong, but it just makes me nervous! Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
I'm going to take a guess that it won't really be a romance, more like a hot elf and the least disgusting dwarf having some sexual tension when the elves are trying to interrogate the dwarves as to the purpose of their journey. I don't think that would bother me too much. (just glad they didn't make the romance involve Bilbo!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:(just glad they didn't make the romance involve Bilbo!) Bilbo has a most disturbing Game of Thrones-esque tryst with Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Half the fans hang themselves, the other half furiously masturbate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
See you joke, but I would probably actually hang myself
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Bilbo has a most disturbing Game of Thrones-esque tryst with Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Half the fans hang themselves, the other half furiously masturbate. There's an autoerotic asphyxiation joke in there somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
It's possible the romantic subplot will play into the final battle at the Lonely Mountain. Maybe Jackson wants a little more ambiguity amongst the Dwarves and their unwavering allegiance to Thorin. If Kili or whoever has some emotional connection to one of the Elves that Thorin is prepared to kill, it adds more complexity to the battle than simply "Dwarves vs Men vs Elves". There would be tangible cost to their decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
There already was ambiguity, though. Thorin's orders were starving them in the mountain. They weren't happy with the situation I don't know that we need to introduce a whole new character if all she's doing is meeting a need that's already been met.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
But that's not an emotional connection. They're hungry and annoyed. That doesn't resonate nearly as strongly as being told you're going to do battle with someone you care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:But that's not an emotional connection. They're hungry and annoyed. That doesn't resonate nearly as strongly as being told you're going to do battle with someone you care about. You mean like if Bilbo suddenly changed sides and was kicked out by Thorin, to their dismay? Yes something like that might be effective, and stir up more feelings of conflict as they realize they're out of food and their leader isn't showing signs of relenting Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Bilbo is not a Dwarf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
But Neither is this new elf lady? You said "someone they care about." the point is Bilbo's become their companion, multiple times their savior, and their good friend, only to suddenly turn sides at the height of their uncertainty and get banished by their leader who is ignoring their needs for his pride. Just as effective without the nonsense pandering. And if you're teasing my spoilers, I'm only doing it because I thought that's what we were doing, for the sake of those who haven't read the book but want to talk about the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Let me clarify. In the post you were responding to, I was imagining that this romantic subplot would help flesh out the characterization for the Dwarves. Yes, I recall what Bilbo did at the end. Why? Because the book is super-duper short, and in its current status does not hold enough plot for two distinct films. The Hobbit has characterization. The Hobbit does not have characterization for the Dwarves. The book has two or three notable Dwarves, and 10 or so names. That's really all they are. And having most of your cast be completely mute and forgettable does not a good movie make. So I'm imagining that what Peter Jackson is doing here is killing two birds with one stone. 1. Flesh out a Dwarf character so the audience has an actual character to care about. 2. Add increased tension in the finale, as well as add to the run time. Okay three things 3. Pander slightly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
That's just another thing that gets to me. I hate the idea of taking a story that, I acknowledge, is sorely short on ladies, and introducing a character solely so that we can give a bigger poo poo about one of the main guys. It doesn't solve a thing. Like you said, it's two whole films. They don't have to pander and toss more tired bullshit and two dimensional pretty faces to fill it out with character moments if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
The movie isn't out yet. If you liked LOTR at all you need to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt here. It's completely possible for him to make up a character and throw it in an established universe and make it work. That's why he has all those shiny gold things in his office. When the movie comes out and Kate-from-Lost-Elf is a two dimensional, tired, pandering whatever, then feel free to complain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
So then what is the thread for? You could say the same thing to all the people talking about how excited they are. It's not out yet. Talk about how much you like it once you've seen it? I get that talking about elements they're introducing that make you feel nervous is a personal affront to the skills of Peter Holy Jackson and his Infallible Judgement, but I really don't get why this thread seems so anxious to shush up any pre-movie comparisons between the text and what they've given us with the film. Some people see the previews and think, oh boy. Some people see them and think, oh dear. I don't see why this thread can't be host to both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:So then what is the thread for? You could say the same thing to all the people talking about how excited they are. It's not out yet. Talk about how much you like it once you've seen it? quote:tired bullshit and two dimensional pretty faces Someone could look at the Dwarves' costumes and go + "Oh cool I like their distinctiveness!" or - "I hate how slapsticky they all look!" These are two legitimate positions you could take before seeing the movie, because at least you've seen something. But when it comes to a plot you know nothing about with a character you haven't seen, calling it 'tired bullshit' is too negative of a reaction. I'm not trying to stifle your creative bitching. Just bitch about something you have any tangible evidence against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
I'm basing my judgements on past Hollywood decisions to randomly stick a woman character into a male-oriented story. These characters are typically 2 dimensional, forced into tired, bullshit romantic subplots for the "women audiences." That's what this looks like. It's what it very likely is. They've introduced a woman character and their only justification so far is: she's a romantic interest. From afar, maybe? Still unnecessary. But even let's say it's not. Let's say she's going to be a richly developed character with a ton of her own backstory and we're all going to care about her. How is that not blatant fluffing for time. We have thirteen dwarves to learn about who actually have bearing on the plot. If they didn't somehow dig up enough from the appendices to fill two movies, why make two movies? I get that I haven't seen it yet, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, I've a reasonable basis to assume it's going to quack like one too. And I am thinking "oh dear." I'm thinking, "oh dear, another loving random rear end insertion of a cardboard cutout girl for the audience to look at in case nobody wants to watch two movies of sausage fest  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:We have thirteen dwarves to learn about who actually have bearing on the plot. No, we don't. It's the very lack of any bearing on the plot that makes adding characters for them to interact with, yes even gross female ones, a good thing. It's the very thing that started this discussion off to begin with. They do almost nothing. They're just names. Having new characters and love interests and enemies isn't "fluffing" the plot. It's creating one. The book is too short with too few characters to fill out two films. This is not a typical "addition just for the sake of pandering to a female market". This is expansive storytelling. quote:"oh dear, another loving random rear end insertion of a cardboard cutout girl for the audience to look at in case nobody wants to watch two movies of sausage fest "
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
^^ I said we have thirteen dwarves to learn about. That's the same thing you said. We have a lot of dwarves and a lot of time to learn. So many dwarves in fact, that I'd be hesitant to introduce any extra characters who don't have any bearing on the plot to clutter things up!FrensaGeran posted:No, we don't. It's the very lack of any bearing on the plot that makes adding characters for them to interact with, yes even gross female ones, a good thing. It's the very thing that started this discussion off to begin with. They do almost nothing. They're just names. Having new characters and love interests and enemies isn't "fluffing" the plot. It's creating one. The book is too short with too few characters to fill out two films. This is not a typical "addition just for the sake of pandering to a female market". This is expansive storytelling. They're pulling from the appendices. There's MORE than enough in there for more plot. Even backstory about the dwarves! I get that I haven't seen it, please stop condescending. I'm saying even the legit excuses you are giving don't quite justify (for me!) the introduction of yet another character in a sea of characters, especially given Hollywood's tendency to just kind of place extra ladies into places so the audience can look at a pretty person for a moment. edit: I'm not even saying the whole movie is ruined for me! I'm saying that this particular element is very worrying for me because it strikes a couple of nerves. Just like how earlier in the last loving "how dare you criticize PJ" clusterfuck I said that the movies were done as well as anyone could ever do them and that they are a work of art, but I think certain decisions made were terrible ones for the story. I can like a thing and still have a problem with parts of it, holy moly. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
This was condescension: Huntersoninski posted:You mean like if Bilbo suddenly changed sides and was kicked out by Thorin, to their dismay? Yes something like that might be effective, and stir up more feelings of conflict as they realize they're out of food and their leader isn't showing signs of relenting
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:This was condescension: Hey at least I didn't order you what to loving think. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
You know, it is an elf character, so it's not too unreasonable that she should be pretty.  I'm also not bothered by having a little more of lives of the woodelves fleshed out- bilbo was sneaking around there for weeks (months?). Some of the exposition about the elves and their king may have to come via dialog in the movie, so why not make some actual recognizable elven characters too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:You know, it is an elf character, so it's not too unreasonable that she should be pretty. You missed my point, but okay. quote:I'm also not bothered by having a little more of lives of the woodelves fleshed out- bilbo was sneaking around there for weeks (months?). Some of the exposition about the elves and their king may have to come via dialog in the movie, so why not make some actual recognizable elven characters too? I'm not bothered by the idea having woodelves, but I do think it would be a bit of a bunnytrail to introduce a rich cast of elves to get attached to in this particular story. I mean to spend days or weeks with them in the film would be a bit like having left Tom Bombadil in the FOTR: fun, but where would it get us?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
We are clearly going to get more perspectives in these films than just Bilbo and the dwarves, definitely from the white council, and very possibly the woodelves and Dain's dwarves too. Having one or two additional characters beyond the two woodelf characters we "have" to have (Thranduil and by virtue of the LOTR, Legolas) doesn't seem like overload to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
So would you be ok with a gay love story between two of the dwarves, since it's pandering but not by the addition of a brand new character? Your point is pretty dumb an you're getting pretty worked up over something that you literally only read a sentence and know nothing more about. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't like the idea of it, but I haven't heard enough to make a judgement." Instead you're making sweeping generalizations about the filmmakers intentions, something of which you know absolutely nothing about. Did you piss in your panties about the invented character Lurtz (I think that was his name), the Uruk-Hai from FOTR? I mean after all, there was more than enough in the 3 books (and appendices) to tell the story of LOTR without having to add characters. This elf may be the same thing. She's not so much a character as she is a means to an end. Much like Lurtz in FOTR. He had no character development, just was a main bad guy that would make for a cool showdown at the film's denouement. This elf woman may serve as a means to an end, a way to differentiate one dwarf from another. To increase the individual stakes for one of the main characters in The Hobbit 2's climax. You may think that's unnecessary because there's enough characters already but that is an awfully dumb nitpick. It's dumb because this isnt The Hobbit put to film, it's a film adaptation of The Hobbit. There is a difference. Peter Jackson has earned the right to tweak the story as he sees fit, and if you can't handle that I suggest not even bothering to see the movie because you'll probably want to hang yourself about 5 minutes in when Bombur makes his first fart joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
^^ Holy poo poo, you guys ARE just in love with Peter Jackson! And personal insults to too, NOW who's upset? It's all the same, you're free to talk about the film and speculate UNLESS YOU'RE DISSING PETER JACKSON. HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE WANTS. I've said it again and again, I'm excited for the movie. I can like a thing without liking every part of the thing. I can look forward to something and still be worried about it. Holy poo poo dude. BetterLekNextTime posted:We are clearly going to get more perspectives in these films than just Bilbo and the dwarves, definitely from the white council, and very possibly the woodelves and Dain's dwarves too. Having one or two additional characters beyond the two woodelf characters we "have" to have (Thranduil and by virtue of the LOTR, Legolas) doesn't seem like overload to me. That's fine, but it does seem, if not like "overload," like "extra padding" or "pandering" to me. It's just a shame they can't introduce a female character (aside from Galadriel, very possibly the only one in the films with a name) as a character, but instead as a love interest. It feels like pandering, and while I'd love to be proven wrong and am looking forward to the chance, I have this hunch Hollywood is going to do what it always does and pander. That is my worry. Rat Patrol fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:^^ Holy poo poo, you guys ARE just in love with Peter Jackson! And personal insults to too, NOW who's upset? I kind of agree with you, but given that we KNOW there are going to have 2 movies, I'm hopeful that they pad it with something interesting. I guess I'd be more worried about this if they were only making one film instead of 2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I kind of agree with you, but given that we KNOW there are going to have 2 movies, I'm hopeful that they pad it with something interesting. I guess I'd be more worried about this if they were only making one film instead of 2. I'm just hanging in there. I'm worried, but I'm also open to being proven wrong. poo poo, I'd be so excited to be proven wrong about this, but I've just got this sinking feeling I'm gonna come out of this going "it was so great, I just wish they hadn't..." I hope not though. The casting and the look of everything we've seen so far is just about perfect (though I'm still not totally sold on rock-in-head or maggie simpson hair. gonna have to see it in action)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:^^ Holy poo poo, you guys ARE just in love with Peter Jackson! And personal insults to too, NOW who's upset? Wow dude. I'm not sure what you considered an insult, but you need to relax. With all the CAPSS!!!! And basically pretending like we're telling you that you can't feel a certain way about something which you believe, when basically what we're actually trying to tell you is that your concerns are out of proportion with the given information. We literally know one sentence about this character and you've gone on and on about it like someone killed your childhood. It could literally be cut from the film like Arwen at Helm's Deep and you would have worried for nothing. As for the idea that this thread should be more than just "I like this" and "I can't wait for this", I agree to an extent. But honestly, hearing people bitch about something they literally know almost nothing about is not interesting or fun. I kind of want this thread to be one of those two things. And if you're not willing to let us tell you why you're possibly wrong in the way you feel, or that your fears are out of proportion to the reality of the situation, then you're just being a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Wow dude. I'm not sure what you considered an insult, but you need to relax. With all the CAPSS!!!! quote:We literally know one sentence about this character and you've gone on and on about it like someone killed your childhood. And you responded as if I'd insulted your girlfriend. quote:It could literally be cut from the film like Arwen at Helm's Deep and you would have worried for nothing. Like I said, I'm waiting forward to the film, and I'm prepared to be wrong. However, it's just something to talk about. I think talking about an upcoming film is fun, even when you're talking about elements that worry you and the problems they might cause. quote:As for the idea that this thread should be more than just "I like this" and "I can't wait for this", I agree to an extent. But honestly, hearing people bitch about something they literally know almost nothing about is not interesting or fun. Not fun for you. quote:I kind of want this thread to be one of those two things. Well, I'm sorry, I didn't realize this thread was at the mercy of what you wanted! quote:And if you're not willing to let us tell you why you're possibly wrong in the way you feel, or that your fears are out of proportion to the reality of the situation, then you're just being a hypocrite. I've said it. I've said it again and again. I hope to be proven wrong by this movie. I am excited for this movie. I am looking forward to this movie. I've said why I find some of the changes worrying, and others have said why they haven't. What's the loving difference, except one hurts your feelings for PJ? I can be excited for a thing and still find some news problematic. I'm sorry if I sound a bit defensive for your tastes, but it seems like any time anybody brings up a preference for the original texts vs. the adaptations, they're immediately shot down as a nerd, a sperg, and obsessed with "master tolkien." It's very irritating! Especially considering it all comes across as "Stop being so in love with Tolkien - be in love with Peter Jackson like me!!!" I've said all the things you claim you want me to hear to make this thread just right for your tastes. I'm prepared to be proven wrong by the film, I think Jackson is very talented, and I'm looking forward to the movie. But if we're not allowed to say anything else, then this thread is gonna be loving boring til December.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
For now all I feel I can do is give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt. I think he handled the love interests in Lord of the Rings really well, and I admit that's all I have to go off of. That's probably pretty flimsy though, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
They're insulting you because your posts are terrible. The "insults" are fairly mild compared to how bad your posts are, in fact. Sure, I've contributed to the "I'm anticipating these movies" with no deeper content but we don't have many new details to discuss and you're flying off the deep end and making an rear end of yourself over almost literally nothing. Liv Tyler was hot as hell in the LotR movies. I imagine Evangeline Lilly will be in The Hobbit movies. This is enough to make it at least a little worth my while. I also get the impression that you haven't actually read The Hobbit recently. While it works to have a specific grouping of dwarves so that you have the right mythologival numbers going on, it would make for terrible film making to leave so many of them undefined. Remember how the old cartoon version just used re-colored copies of the same character to differentiate the characters? I mean, they would literally have the same one walk through a scene more than once, but with colors swapped to be multiple dwarves. Is that really what you want? The movies are going to need some padding since it's a children's book with very simple language and a very simple story (very simple language with deeper layers and a story I love, but still). A romantic sub-plot (assuming this will be something you can even call that) is consistent with the genre, grounds the characters in ways that are universal and will help the films appeal to a wider audience. The fact is, romance is expected to a certain extent in a story told so, well, romantically. There's velvet everywhere, the ideals are very romantic in the classical sense, etc. Romance slides into this genre very, very easily. There are some deeper things I could go into about how these unrequited or physically distant relationships appeal to the fantasy fanbase (shut-ins) since they can have all of the longing with none of the icky day-to-day issues that a real partnership has but I don't really think this is the place. To put it briefly, all the women who wish they were Liv Tyler so they could have Viggo Mortenson pine for them have a really easy time doing that in movies like this where the actions in the plot require the lovers to be distant. LotR is an easy place to do this and with all the things the dwarves have to do in The Hobbit, it should fit in nicely there as well. You're getting really worked up over something that will likely amount to five minutes of total screen time over two movies that you'll barely end up noticing, but will completely captivate giant sections of the audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:Liv Tyler was hot as hell in the LotR movies. I imagine Evangeline Lilly will be in The Hobbit movies. This is enough to make it at least a little worth my while. Yeah! gently caress the audience members who don't like looking at women! That's what they're there for! (that is actually my biggest problem with introducing a random woman character with no motive but a suggested romance) quote:Is that really what you want? NO. And never have I ever suggested all I wanted was a direct-from-book adaptation, you're putting words in my mouth so you can hate me easier. quote:The movies are going to need some padding since it's a children's book with very simple language and a very simple story I know.  quote:There are some deeper things I could go into about how these unrequited or physically distant relationships appeal to the fantasy fanbase (shut-ins) since they can have all of the longing with none of the icky day-to-day issues that a real partnership has but I don't really think this is the place. WHY NOT. Why can't this thread discuss poo poo? quote:To put it briefly, all the women who wish they were Liv Tyler so they could have Viggo Mortenson pine for them have a really easy time doing that in movies like this where the actions in the plot require the lovers to be distant. My problem is this idea that women audience members require a love story to get immersed in the movie. It's just not true. quote:You're getting really worked up over something that will likely amount to five minutes of total screen time over two movies that you'll barely end up noticing, but will completely captivate giant sections of the audience. I really hope so! I just don't get why a thread like this can't be host to some speculation and discussion, even if it turns out to be incorrect in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:Yeah! gently caress the audience members who don't like looking at women! That's what they're there for! (that is actually my biggest problem with introducing a random woman character with no motive but a suggested romance) quote:WHY NOT. Why can't this thread discuss poo poo? quote:My problem is this idea that women audience members require a love story to get immersed in the movie. It's just not true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Putting Arwen more front and center was a masterstroke that looks obvious in hindsight. If JRRT rewrote LOTR I think he would incorporate it himself. I think the best part is it nicely sets up the love triangle with Eowyn that is pushed to the background in the books (and it "humanized" Aragorn) Everyone likes love stories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 14:59
|
|
