Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Jar Jar Binks, Mar 21, 2011.
I assumed they called it Erebor in The Hobbit, but I just looked and I can't find it anywhere.
First two major issues with your point here and in your next point of:
First the vast majority of directors never produce something original, they almost always are working from some one else's vision. That's because they aren't the one who generally writes films.
Even Jackson who works with a writing team is generally considered the least active as a writer.
So the idea that for most directors be it published work that's the basis of your film or work that is a new screenplay by whomever, its still not original.
Just because Joe Blow public may not have access to it first, doesn't mean its is original creation. It absolutely isn't.
Let alone even with original screenplays and even if the director is the primary writer and is credited with the story idea as well, it will still have the impact of many, many others in being brought to the screen.
Look at how much a Ralph McQuire shaped the Star Wars Universe.
In fact you can have a piece of work that was written by someone else that you get as much directorial cues from as a story you craft yourself, or from production designers, or storyboard artists, or from many other sources that don't spring from your own mind.
ANd to state that "The man can't do anything new. By doing this film he's catering to his own limitations as a film-maker" is an utter falsehood. There is no basis what so ever factual in such a statement. Period.
Now he might not improve his craft, that's always mathematically possible, but it is also statistically unlikely.
For example as a singer, I can sing the same work throughout the years. That doesn't mean I don't improve my craft, or improve my interpretation of the material as I grow older. In fact, its general the opposite of what occurs.
Choosing to do something that you love is limiting yourself, often it actually is rewarding yourself.
And please, please, please remember this, the first Tolkien project Jackson brought to US studios to do was in fact the Hobbit. He was told there was no way he would ever be able to work on that project. That then lead him to LoTR, an unoriginal piece of work that is considered by many to be his crowning achievement.
Well, it sounds very much like a LOTR type thing. It's far more formalistic and meant to evoke an old language as opposed to being playful like the Hobbit is.
It will fit the tone of the movie, which seems to straddle the line (more playful than LOTR, but willing too evoke it as a bridge between the films).
And no five-syllable words to upset people.
He rewarded himself with King Kong, a mere vanity project... now he has a huge vanity project that will take up three films. Sadly, it could be an awesome movie... uh, movies, but -let's not forget, it's strictly a vanity project every bit as much as Kong was, or every bit as much as Superman Returns was for Bryan Singer. Vanity projects almost never age well, and often stand out as odd eggs on otherwise decent director resumes.
I was quite fond of the LOTR Wargs. For me this big bad wolves thing is a step back.
All films age, and most the vast majority don't age well.
And here is something people judge vanity projects and say oh this or that didn't work (when in fact you can actually do that to pretty much every film in creation, as is there anything in the motion Picture universe where every aspect of a film production is done without error or the possibility of someone else not doing some aspects better.
If Singer had done Superman Returns without having his love of the Donnor films, you do understand that the film Superman Returns could have been a much worse film.
In King Kong, out of his mainstream films, his two date two dream based projects King Kong and LoTR have far better critical reception then his other modern project.
We have several examples of films (superman films) Kong Films that are dramatically worse. If those people didn't have the love for the project just think instead of being hampered by that love, they might have turned out far worse material.
You and me don't know that, nor can we state with any authority whatsoever that those projects are worse due to the film makers really wanting to do them, as opposed to another project that they just might take for the job.
The original production make no secret of how disappointed they were in the Wargs of Two Towers. Both in design and ina ctual use.
Actual use because they never properly planned out the Warg battle, I don't remember what it was about the design but I have read several things mentioning the design element of it as well, and that might also be tied to the quick we have to get these done, and we didn't actually plan it out like most of the rest of the larger sequences.
They had a few other scenes like that in the films, but most of those had some modifications done in pickups to polish them up, I don't think they did any pickups for the Warg sequence.
I understand that it is within the realm of possibilities, yes, but I can't imagine how it could have been worse, let alone "much worse".
But they weren't "Wargs." I actually got confused by them because I remembered the Wolf-Wargs but didn't remember the big beast things. Although it's at least reconcilable either way because these are smaller Wargs for Goblins.
ETA: I believe this was a change that Benecio del Toro wanted, fwiw.
I thought the Warg attack was just incredible - virtuoso filmmaking. But the design of the beasts themselves was arguably lacking. They were touted as huge f***-off bear-wolves where you'd "die of fright" if you encountered one, but that didn't seem to really come across on screen. Maybe it's that they were too shaggy to be as intimidating as they could have been, or something.
Eh, now that there's going to be 3 films, they might include Balin's fate after all.
I don't think they're going to extend the timeline beyond the movie timeline all the way to the death of Balin.
I find Returns to be the 2nd best of the Superman Films I have seen with 2 of them being some of the worst films I saw the year they were released, so I have no problem thinking that a film can significantly worse. Same applies for King Kong with the Jackson being far better then the worst of that concept. And both of the films are films that both various user groups or even critics in general find to be bad or even average films, just not really god or great films.
Clearly that isn't the case since the framing of this story is set at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring, and that is (especially with the compressing of time it took between Bilbo & Frodo's birthday and the start of Frodo's journey in the film series) almost certain to be after the fall of Moria.
But since the framing of the story is to have Bilbo telling Frodo (or writing it down in "There and Back, Again, A Hobbit's Tale"), he wouldn't be aware of Balin's ultimate fate.
So regardless it shouldn't be part of the film.
That's funny because they didn't have the attack planned out when they filmed the plates of it, so basically they just had all the actors to a lot of faking being attacked, and then just tried to make a full scene out of that rough footage. As a sequence it is probably the most done on the fly part of all three films.
Never had a problem withe the warg battle. It was a huge, frantic, confusing mess. Just like a real battle would be.
As for their look, they struck me as being based on primitive ancestors of wolves, Just like most of Mordors other beasts of burden
Its going to be a trilogy?
They were shaped like hyenas. I thought they were giant hyenas.
Yeah, that was the intention, wasn't it? Terrific idea.
I look at it the other way around, that is to say the wargs we saw in LotR were more of a mongrel breed out of Mordor (maybe crossed with some hyena-like Haradrim beast) while the Hobbit ones are the Angband thoroughbreds.
Separate names with a comma.