"On The Music Of Middle Earth"

[Chen G. 3,944]

I was going to say that a lot of viewers would take that meeting to be the first since the Quest of Erebor, but than we know Gandalf has met Frodo before, which would suggest at least one visit by the wizard in between the two events, so I guess it's fine after all.

 

Oh well...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

so I guess it's fine after all.

 

 

Well that's a relief!

[Chen G. 3,944]

The visuals do mesh: each Hobbit film got more desaturated so the picture quality of Battle of the Five Armies complements Fellowship of the Ring nicely.

 

The tone works, too. The filmmakers (cleverly) dialed the dark elements of the book to the absolute extreme so it fits with the even more foreboding Lord of the Rings. In fact, that's one of the most oft-mentioned complaints about the adaptation.

 

Its not perfect, but it's damn well near that.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Let's agree to disagree!

[Chen G. 3,944]

Agreed!

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

28 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

I'm not sure why you, who seem to be a continuity nut, are bothered by an innocent throwaway line, yet have no problem with the contrasting LOTR and Hobbit visuals (the two trilogies couldn't look more different), the difference in tone between the two trilogies, the fact that Gandalf apparently never questioned Saruman regarding whether he actually dealt with Sauron like he said he would at the end of BOFA... The "You haven't age a day" should be the least of concerns for someone who would like the two trilogies to offer perfect continuity...

 

In fairness, it's not a completely throwaway line in the context of the story. The line is definitely there for a reason and has meaning...it's meant, in a subtle way, to suggest the One Ring's anti-ageing side effect on Bilbo. You'd only know this if you'd read the book (which I know you have), so it just sounded like polite banter to most viewers. But part of the beauty of these films is that they're full of hints for us book readers who know what to look for.

 

I mostly agree with you about the visual look and tone of the The Hobbit vs. LOTR (though I wouldn't say they look completely dissimilar). The frustrating part is, Jackson actually tried to match the look and tone, and for some reason just didn't pull it off. Well, I say for some reason, but there is a reason. They were basically just making it up as they went along.

[Jay 37,323]

59 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I actually think the success of FOTR and TTT ultimately caused Jackson to make decisions in editing and post on ROTK that he would not have made had all three films been put in the can at the same time...to that film's detriment. In that the stupid excesses that plagued The Hobbit were glimpsed in ROTK. Though only just, and obviously that film remains a masterpiece, just the lesser masterpiece of the three (though in some ways the most emotionally resonant).

 

Yes, Yes Yes.  THIS!!!!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 minute ago, BloodBoal said:

 

To me, apart from the designs (and even then, I would argue some of them clash with what was established in LOTR: Beorn, Radagast...), they do look quite dissimilar. "Completely" may be pushing it, but still, I don't see the visual continuity some people claim there is.

 

Film vs digital, 24fps vs 48fps (if we consider how PJ wants the Hobbit trilogy to be seen), good balance between location shooting/studio shooting/CG "enhancements" vs overuse of studio shooting and CG, men in suits for the Orcs vs CG Orcs, overall light color grading vs overgrading, "gritty" look vs bloom all over the place to give more of a "fantasy" look(?)

 

Like I said, I pretty much agree with you. Take yes for an answer.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

RIP bigatures

[BloodBoal 7,538]

RIP Alex Funke's career.

[Chen G. 3,944]

Bigatures have been extinct for a while now.

 

I wasn't expecting a film produced in the 2010s to have the same aesthetic behind its production value as a film made in the early 2000s. I wasn't expecting bigatures, 35mm, but given all of that - the transition between the two trilogies is still satisfying. Much better than, say, what Gareth Edwards tried to do with Rogue One and the original Star Wars.

 

And, most importantly, unlike that film, I like the story and characters of the Hobbit trilogy so much more. I like the tone and a lot of the dramatic beats, as well. And all of that can sand over a lot of shortcomings in terms of production value.

[KK 3,307]

At least Rogue One mostly looks good (CG Tarkin/Leia aside), The Hobbit doesn't. The latter is definitely the bigger offender in terms of visual and tonal continuity.

[Bofur01 245]

 

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Bigatures have been extinct for a while now. I wasn't expecting a film produced in the 2010s to have the same aesthetic behind its production value as a film made in the early 2000s. I wasn't expecting bigatures, 35mm, but given all of that - the transition between the two trilogies is still satisfying. Much better than, say, what Gareth Edwards tried to do with Rogue One and the original Star Wars.

 

I like the story and characters of the Hobbit trilogy. I like the tone and a lot of the dramatic beats, as well. And that can sand over a lot of shortcomings in terms of production value.

 

Didn't WETA just put up a video about how they provided large models (if not quite bigatures) for Blade Runner 2049?

 

And ehhhh, I guess I disagree about Rogue One. It was great looking for a film shot on digital, with no bloom plastered all over the frame, and the effects are overall pretty damn good.

 

Also, the gap between Hobbit and LotR being shot (Say 11 years) is pretty small compared to the ca. 39 year gap between ANH and Rogue, so any visual continuity surely should have been much easier for PJ than Edwards. I suppose it's a shame that the 48fps 3D decision was made - without that, many more models could have been used, render times would be ca. 4x lower, maybe leading to better looking CG, and perhaps not quite so much bloom would have been added to "soften" the 48fps effect. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

The issue with the Bigatures in The Hobbit (at least according to Jackson) was how they'd look with the HFR. That wouldn't have been an issue with 2049.

[Chen G. 3,944]

Bigatures are still used. Nolan uses them in his Interstellar, but these are the exception, not the rule.

 

I didn't find Rogue One to be that good looking, and its story and character problems run way too deep.

 

You just need to accept that there are some people, who are of a critical mindset (rather than a fan's one), who still really like The Hobbit, rather than just saying that it's awful in any other thread, as if it was a matter of undeniable fact.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

You just need to accept that there are some people, who are of a critical mindset (rather than a fan's one), who still really like The Hobbit, rather than just saying that it's awful as if it was a matter of undeniable fact.

 

Who is this "you" you're directing this to?

Has anyone here said they don't accept your love of the films? Don't be a drama queen.

[Chen G. 3,944]

 

28 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Don't be a drama queen.

Fair. It's been a long day, though, so I guess the fatigue was talking there more than anything else. It's 2:30 in the morning here, after all.

 

But my point, at it's core, still stands. The self assuredness with which The Hobbit and its director are being denounced here is staggering. There is a lot to admire here and not in a faint-praise kind of way. And indeed, a lot of it is being admired by more than a few people who are serious students of the format of film.

 

Even if you don't appreciate the film, I do think you can at least find it in yourself to understand why someone else would rationally appreciate it. I certainly can do the opposite and understand the criticism being leveled, at least when it's leveled in a balanced way.

 

Than again, maybe it's just my academic sensibilities which are leading me to flinch from any statement, good or bad, that isn't preceded by half a dozen of expressions of self doubt. Oh well... 

[Barnald 365]

5 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Anyway, I don't like the way that scene plays in AUJ. It shows Bilbo witnessing Gollum kill that Goblin and lose the ring. So Bilbo knows the ring belongs to Gollum during the riddle game, and keeps it anyway. Which actually does make him a thief and fundamentally changes his character (even if what he did was understandable, given his life was at stake). In the book he just finds it.

 

An important distinction: We see it (like they weren't going to make a massive deal of it); Bilbo doesn't. Note how he pretty much stumbles across it in the next scene thanks to Sting's light; he isn't looking for it.

 

If Jackson wanted to show that, he'd have made it more explicit - a reaction shot from Bilbo, for example.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

16 hours ago, Barnald said:

 

An important distinction: We see it (like they weren't going to make a massive deal of it); Bilbo doesn't. Note how he pretty much stumbles across it in the next scene thanks to Sting's light; he isn't looking for it.

 

If Jackson wanted to show that, he'd have made it more explicit - a reaction shot from Bilbo, for example.

 

Bilbo absolutely sees it IMO. There's a cutaway shot him of staring straight at the fight as it's happening (in fact there are several such shots, including just before the ring falls off). It's very explicit (even happens in slow motion), and I'd argue if Jackson didn't want us to assume Bilbo saw it, he'd would have made that more explicit. And as a rule of thumb in a film, a character sees what the audience sees unless demonstrated otherwise. 

 

And the official audio description for the film describes the scene this way:

 

Quote

'Bilbo watches from behind some fungi as Gollum violently subdues his catch. As he does so, a ring falls from his loincloth and lands on a rock.'

 

So that would seem to definitely suggest Bilbo sees the ring fly off.

 

EDIT: I just checked it out again, and I can see your point. But I do think if Jackson didn't intend for Bilbo to see what happened it would have (or should have) been made more clear. Bilbo is after all looking at the fight as it happens. It's true that Bilbo doesn't go looking for the ring straight away, but I just attributed that to  finding a worthless ring not being his priority at the moment. I saw it as "Oh, so that's what flew out of his loincloth". Though again I concede your interpretation is reasonable. I'd like to see how the screenplay describes the scene.

 

Anyway, another reason Jackson should have just stuck with what Professor Tolkien wrote, which worked just fine.

 

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Why the fuck is this at 2 pages

[KK 3,307]

You made the mistake of opening a thread in the Tolkien subforum!

 

Fly, you fool!

[mstrox 6,647]

This Tolkien thread needs more Star Wars content!

[gkgyver 1,645]

5 hours ago, Jay said:

 

Yes, Yes Yes.  THIS!!!!

 

How?

They were shot at the same time, mostly. And Jackson certainly had a structure in mind before Fellowship was even out. I don't see any major negative influences on RotK from the previous success that could have happened during 2003.

The only thing that influences RotK in an odd way is the whole Arwen story, which may or may not have been included at a later point. 

[Jay 37,323]

Yea, that's the entire point.  They had a structure that they set out with, then PJ became a mad man at some point during TTT time and while TTT escaped mostly unharmed, ROTK is full of excess and is edited within an inch of its life, causing Shore to write and rewrite cues, and key scenes like Sam with the statues and an explanation for the Arwen stuff got cut and never restored, not to mention the footage that the new Dangerous Passes iterations would have scored, etc.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed!

[Chen G. 3,944]

I love Return of the King preety much as it is. It's a bigger film than the other two, so trouble in the editing bay were warranted. And again, when you make a bigger film, you're going to make more missteps. Doesn't make the film less good.

 

Would have enjoyed a bit more development with Denethor. But other than that, it's great.

[Barnald 365]

9 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Bilbo absolutely sees it IMO. There's a cutaway shot him of staring straight at the fight as it's happening (in fact there are several such shots, including just before the ring falls off). It's very explicit (even happens in slow motion), and I'd argue if Jackson didn't want us to assume Bilbo saw it, he'd would have made that more explicit. And as a rule of thumb in a film, a character sees what the audience sees unless demonstrated otherwise. 

 

And the official audio description for the film describes the scene this way:

 

 

So that would seem to definitely suggest Bilbo sees the ring fly off.

 

EDIT: I just checked it out again, and I can see your point. But I still think if Jackson didn't intend for Bilbo to see what happened it would have (or should have) been made more clear. Bilbo is after all looking at the fight as it happens. It's true that Bilbo doesn't go looking for the ring straight away, but I just attributed that to  finding a worthless ring not being his priority at the moment. I saw it as "Oh, so that's what flew out of his loincloth". Though again I concede your interpretation is reasonable. I'd like to see how the screenplay describes the scene.

 

Anyway, another reason Jackson should have just stuck with what Professor Tolkien wrote, which worked just fine.

 

 

The official audio quote you cite doesn't support the logic that Bilbo sees the ring fall - Bilbo watches Gollum violently subdue his catch; as he (being Gollum) does so, a ring falls from his loincloth and lands on a rock'. Nothing about Bilbo seeing that particular thing happen.

 

I would also bear in mind that the cave is probably intended to be a lot darker than it appears (illuminated for the benefit of us and indeed the production crew), so I doubt Bilbo would see it. You could probably see the outline of two people fighting (note the reflection on Gollum's eyes for an indication of how dark it really is), but something that small flying out?

 

The ring was always going to be a big deal in these films, sometimes to their detriment (I've have much preferred a less ominous tone at the closing of BotFA). It would have been nice if Jackson just had Bilbo coming across it, but I understand why he went with the big reveal, even if it did cause confusion.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

2 hours ago, Barnald said:

The official audio quote you cite doesn't support the logic that Bilbo sees the ring fall - Bilbo watches Gollum violently subdue his catch; as he (being Gollum) does so, a ring falls from his loincloth and lands on a rock'. Nothing about Bilbo seeing that particular thing happen.

 

Like I said, I understand your perspective on the scene...I just see it differently.  At best it's sloppy filmmaking on Jackson's part.

 

9 hours ago, Jay said:

Yea, that's the entire point.  They had a structure that they set out with, then PJ became a mad man at some point during TTT time and while TTT escaped mostly unharmed, ROTK is full of excess and is edited within an inch of its life, causing Shore to write and rewrite cues, and key scenes like Sam with the statues and an explanation for the Arwen stuff got cut and never restored, not to mention the footage that the new Dangerous Passes iterations would have scored, etc.

 

Not to mention turning Legolas' antics up to 11, which is certainly something that was done in post, no doubt as a response to positive audience reaction to his (more subdued) gymnastics in the first two films. What he does in ROTK mostly works, and it's definitely a crowd pleasing scene, so I don't really have much of an issue with it except that, again, it's an example of the early stage excesses that would become such a hallmark of The Hobbit.  And there are other examples from ROTK, but since they've been discussed ad nauseam, no need to rehash it again here.

 

 

[Barnald 365]

I actually have a bigger problem with Legolas taking down the Mumakil than most of the shit he gets up to in The Hobbit (in regard to individual feats). In terms of antics in The Hobbit, that bat business is surely the biggest offender (thought the rock climbing is as bad). The chief issue is that he's clogging up the screen and doing those things at all.

 

I have no choice but to blame Tolkien for making Legolas Thranduil's son.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

So many scenes in ROTK only make sense if you will yourself not to think too hard about them.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

So many scenes in ROTK only make sense if you will yourself not to think too hard about them.

 

This holds true x1000 for Five Armies

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

5 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Can we go back to criticizing The Hobbit instead of ROTK? You guys are making fools of yourselves!

 

As I've said, ROTK is a masterpiece. It's just last among three masterpieces. Sadly, unlike Fellowship it's not quite perfect.

 

But you're quite right, Herr Boal, this is a thread for bashing The Hobbit. I made my (relatively minor) ROTK quibbles quite clear in your outstanding review thread of that stellar film.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Clearly Peter Jackson's talent was 100% derived from his layers of fat, which in retrospect was clearly sentient.  It would explain why it was all downhill starting with King Kong.

 

For serious, I specifically remember being oddly disappointed when the behind-the-scenes web videos for King Kong started coming out and he had lost weight and started wearing contacts.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yeah. Fat Jackson was definitely better.  

 

The studio should require catering by McDonald's only for any future films he makes.

[Chen G. 3,944]

19 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Clearly Peter Jackson's talent was 100% derived from his layers of fat, which in retrospect was clearly sentient.  It would explain why it was all downhill starting with King Kong.

 

I also really like King Kong.

 

Chris Hartwell does, too. Like The Hobbit, it is indeed flawed and certainly nowhere near as good as The Lord of the Rings, and yes it is very much an exercise in excess, but like Hartwell so astutely puts it, lets not confuse the forest for the trees.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Who?

[mstrox 6,647]

My main problem with King Kong was that it was overlong, but weirdly I enjoyed it a lot more in the extended version.  Still not one I'm going to revisit anytime soon.

 

1 minute ago, Nick1066 said:

Who?

 

Chris Hardwick - he hosted MTV's Singled Out in the 1990s and now he hosts talk shows about The Walking Dead.  That's who Chris Hartwell is.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Ah.

 

So I guess the next question is...why should I care about what Chris Hardwickwell thinks about King Kong?

[mstrox 6,647]

Well, he (Chris Hennah) WAS the art department manager on the film, so it seems like he should have some insight into the thing!

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yeah, but just because he starred in Thor doesn't make him an expert on King Kong!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yeah, I enjoyed Kong also. It's excesses are forgivable because they work well enough in the film...there's no LOTR it has to connect or live up to.

 

Though in the case of Kong, the theatrical cut is more than fine.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

King Kong is marred by some pretty bad performances.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Jack Black, who I actually like, is really, truly terrible in it.  Like hall of shame all-time bad.  The black guy and Billy Elliot are both awful, with a terribly written relationship/arc.  And I hate to say it, but Adrien Brody is pretty bad too.

 

Naomi Watts = good, Serkis = good.  Everyone else is either fine or bad.

 

The technical aspects of the film are excellent, lots of great "bigatures" still at that point.