CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Middle-Earth Films
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Middle-Earth Films - Page 3

post #101 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post


Because the threat of the story has always been in Sauron regaining physical form.  Sauron appearing to nearly kill Aragorn is the clearest definition of things being at their darkest just before the ring is destroyed.

It's the right creative choice, and Jackson only pulled back because fans complained that it wasn't in the book.

Also the troll just conveniently running off is silly.
Agreed that it's the right choice, dramatically, in having Aragon confront Sauron; there's just no way to do it that in any way enhances Aragon as a character, or completes his arc. There's no winning the battle, and he already passed the "Isildur Test" when he rejected The Ring back in the first film.

Sauron's onscreen absence was always a problem from a screenwriting perspective.
post #102 of 552

Yeah, the design change on Sauron has always bugged me - in FOTR that eye felt more metaphorical/less real, but then nope, literal eye on top of Barad-Dur.

 

I do love the eye's "WTF?!" reaction when Frodo puts the ring on in ROTK, as well as its "OH CRAP!" reaction when the ring is destroyed, but that's more cheesy than threatening.

post #103 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post

Yeah, the design change on Sauron has always bugged me - in FOTR that eye felt more metaphorical/less real, but then nope, literal eye on top of Barad-Dur.

I do love the eye's "WTF?!" reaction when Frodo puts the ring on in ROTK, as well as its "OH CRAP!" reaction when the ring is destroyed, but that's more cheesy than threatening.
Reading the books over the years, I always imagined a red eye peering from the top tower of the fortress, red on black -- not so huge as to be visible, but rather visible due to the sheer magnitude of its malice. I too preferred the eye (rounder, trippier) in FELLOWSHIP; when it changed in TOWERS, I assumed the reasons were "literalism" and "way 2 vagina lol".

Interestingly, Bara-dur and the eye were both presented lighthouse-fashion in the Rankin/Bass RETURN OF THE KING, as well.
post #104 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


I'm getting the distinct impression you dig THE HOBBIT way more than LORD OF THE RINGS.

Which is fine.

I just can't agree.

 

Oh yeah man you'd totally be right. The themes in the Hobbit just feel way more relevant, to me personally. I certainly don't begrudge LotR, it is laden with a lot of stuff I absolutely adore. And I almost certainly swing too hard on it because I feel protective of the Hobbit films - they get a bad rap, which is in a lot of ways undeserved. They're full of excess and bloat, but they're audacious as all hell and there's not a single character I don't adore. Fat Dwarf, ehhhh. But Lawyer Dwarf, TBI Dwarf, nerdy Youth Dwarf, Dwarf with the ridiculous beard. I love those guys. 

You know whose great.

 

This motherfucker! Random ass Bofur. He has two absolutely lovely moments - when he talks to Bilbo while he's trying to sneak out of the Mountain Giant pass, and when he talks to Bilbo again when he's trying to leave the house in Laketown - they're just really well done character moments. Damn near all of them get some kind of shine - its an incredible balancing act and I feel more appreciative of it every time I watch the thing, warts and all.

post #105 of 552
Thread Starter 
I also like the part where Bofur, against all odds, releases the best of the post-Beatle-breakup solo albums.
post #106 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post

Reading the books over the years, I always imagined a red eye peering from the top tower of the fortress, red on black -- not so huge as to be visible, but rather visible due to the sheer magnitude of its malice. I too preferred the eye (rounder, trippier) in FELLOWSHIP; when it changed in TOWERS, I assumed the reasons were "literalism" and "way 2 vagina lol".

Interestingly, Bara-dur and the eye were both presented lighthouse-fashion in the Rankin/Bass RETURN OF THE KING, as well.
I always thought the eye was just Sauron's sigil, his way of presenting himself, rather than a physical presence.

And, yeah, the problem with an embodied Sauron is that he can't be embodied without the ring. So whatever they did for the climax and Sauron needed to work around that.
post #107 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


Agreed that it's the right choice, dramatically, in having Aragon confront Sauron; there's just no way to do it that in any way enhances Aragon as a character, or completes his arc. There's no winning the battle, and he already passed the "Isildur Test" when he rejected The Ring back in the first film.

Sauron's onscreen absence was always a problem from a screenwriting perspective.

 

Fighting a troll doesn't enhance or complete things any better, though.  I'm with Shape; go with what pops best visually and dramatically. 

 

Tolkien, for all his imagination, was not much of a dramatist.  I think there is a lot of room to punch up the written material without completely betraying the spirit of the thing.

post #108 of 552
If you kept Saruman around, he could have featured in the final battle as a Sauron surrogate, perhaps with the mantle of Saruman of Many Colors.

It's no more faithful to Tolkien, but it gives them an enemy who has been present and active since FELLOWSHIP.

Then you could have Wormtongue kill him after the battle or something.

I'm just brainstorming.
post #109 of 552

I never got the impression that the eye atop the tower was Sauron himself, but more a manifestation of his will.  That he was sitting in some dark throne room atop the tower throwing his malice into this giant flaming eye through which he observed his domain.

 

I do wish this had been in the film somehow though:

 

Quote:
“And as the captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell.”

 

You could have done that, and then, after the hush, that's when all hell breaks loose and Mordor starts falling apart.

post #110 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


Agreed that it's the right choice, dramatically, in having Aragon confront Sauron; there's just no way to do it that in any way enhances Aragon as a character, or completes his arc. There's no winning the battle, and he already passed the "Isildur Test" when he rejected The Ring back in the first film.

Sauron's onscreen absence was always a problem from a screenwriting perspective.

 

I think having Sauron appear for a duel in which...

 

a) Aragorn physically bests him, with the Ring's destruction banishing his spirit forever

 

b) Sauron whomps Aragorn, with Aragorn being saved by the Ring's destruction

 

...would be a mistake. The first diminishes Sauron, reducing him to a force which can be physically fought against, and physically defeated. I know he's physically fought umpteen times in the whole Middle-Earth history, but in the context of The Lord of the Rings, he's a shadowy force of evil, and that works best for the story's themes. 

 

The second adds an unnecessary ticking clock, and makes the ending a little more obvious. If we know Sauron's about to slam his mace into Aragorn's face, we'll know exactly when the Ring's going to fall into the fire.

 

I read LotR when I was 12, in the summer before the first film came out. I was initially surprised and disappointed that Sauron never appeared - Star Wars, Harry Potter, and other fantasy stories had taught me to expect a big confrontation with the final villain. It initially seems less dramatic, but ultimately, I am very glad they backtracked on this change.Aragorn vs. Sauron would be a cool visual, but it would be at the expense of the more original, trippier imagery of the interaction between the black gate, Barad-dur, and Mount Doom. There are tonnes of stories - many of which take massive cues from LotR - in which the big villain and the big hero duke it out at the end. The fact they don't is in itself a good thing, simply because it feels compulsory, and the fact that they don't feels more novel. Aragorn is a true king going against the armies of the devil - he's settling a moral score more than a personal one. Sauron's absence from the field makes him seem more nightmarish, which makes Aragorn and his friends seem braver. 

post #111 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
 

You could have done that, and then, after the hush, that's when all hell breaks loose and Mordor starts falling apart.

 

Yup - this was something I was really disappointed didn't appear. I think it might be one of those things that would be inherently cheesy in CGI - I imagine something like Imhotep's face in the sand in The Mummy. It would need to be treated very subtly - a shadow in the pyroclastic cloud, rather than an emoting figure. Something like Voldemort's sign in the Harry Potter films could have worked.

 

post #112 of 552
Very very little about these Hobbit movies bother me. I love the world and I love the imagery so so much. The SW prequels these ain't. I get the comparison because of the order of release and the quality of the newer as compared to the older ones but man...they are so not the cringe fests that Lucas served up. Hell, Ian McKellan as Gandalf the GREY (not the White...very important distinction) is worth it all ALONE. To say nothing of getting one last bit of work from Sir Christopher Lee. I can think of worse ways for my all time favorite actor to end his legendary career. I absolutely have zero issue with the changes from the book. If you hate the changes, that's one thing...but hating them just BECAUSE there are changes I don't ever understand. If I want exactly the book...I'll read IT (still my fave of Tolkien's works)..
Edited by Fraid uh noman - 1/5/17 at 1:15pm
post #113 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

If you kept Saruman around, he could have featured in the final battle as a Sauron surrogate, perhaps with the mantle of Saruman of Many Colors.

It's no more faithful to Tolkien, but it gives them an enemy who has been present and active since FELLOWSHIP.

Then you could have Wormtongue kill him after the battle or something.

I'm just brainstorming.

We've talked about the batshittery that is the Boorman script, but combining Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron is actually not a bad choice if you absolutely have to condense things - seeing the mighty Saruman, whose voice was so compelling and so eloquent, reduced to nothing but a mouthpiece would be an interesting way to take that arc.

 

And yeah, count me as another who missed the cloud-image of Sauron - Tolkien's language is so vivid there and it's such a memorable image. I wonder why they cut it.

post #114 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post

We've talked about the batshittery that is the Boorman script, but combining Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron is actually not a bad choice if you absolutely have to condense things - seeing the mighty Saruman, whose voice was so compelling and so eloquent, reduced to nothing but a mouthpiece would be an interesting way to take that arc.
It actually gives the character a more humiliating end than the Jackson film does, which is truer to the spirit of Tolkien.

I really kinda hate Saruman's death scene in ROTK. So cheap-feeling and awkward.
post #115 of 552

Even if you're not down with Sauron or Saruman as Aragon's final physical challenge, there were better options than a troll, certainly?  There are still several Nazgul flying around the battle, although I suppose he's long since fought off several of them on Weathertop.  Still, they made for more distinct and otherworldy adversaries than trolls.

post #116 of 552
Wrong thread
post #117 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Even if you're not down with Sauron or Saruman as Aragon's final physical challenge, there were better options than a troll, certainly?  There are still several Nazgul flying around the battle, although I suppose he's long since fought off several of them on Weathertop.  Still, they made for more distinct and otherworldy adversaries than trolls.
Yeah, but you already had the Witch King thing with Eowyn.

I guess you could cut Eowyn altogether and save the Witch King for Aragorn. That would piss off the Tolkien purists but makes a level of dramatic sense.
post #118 of 552

Saruman at the Black Gate?

Man, ya'll reaching. Just go in on it, have Sauron roll up like he does at the very beginning of FotR, except not fully formed. Still mostly shadow, but rocking the recognizable armor.

 

People would be a little confused, but whatever. It would help explain away why the squad was able to just walk up into the Cracks of Doom. Dude should have posted a guard or some shit, but if everyone is rallied to the Gate for a Final Showdown, hey the back doors open.

 

We can get real fan wanky and have Aragorn grab Pippin (my man!)*, and front like he's got the Ring. Those assholes in Mordor wouldnt know one Hobbit from the next. Desperate times!! Let Sauron's desire for the Ring bring him out onto the field before he's ready (but he can still apparate cause the Ring actually is close enough, knamean?)

Yeah, the Black Gate could have gone a lot of different ways that would play off better than what we got, but you can really tell they were running out of time on that whole deal. The way the earth cracks open and neatly cleaves around the good guys, oooookaaay.

 

But no way can you lose Eowyn. Cause then you gotta re-work Eowyns final scene with Theoden, after dude gets crushed by a fuckin Nazgul. I aint having that.

 

*actually you gotta use Merry here, cause Sauron would recognize him. Aragorn rides out with Merry, says some pimp shit like YOU KILLED THE WRONG HOBBIT, FILTH OF MORDOR! WE WILL AVENGE OUR FRIEND!! YEEEEEEEEEAAAGH!!!!


Edited by Zhukov - 1/5/17 at 1:32pm
post #119 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Yeah, but you already had the Witch King thing with Eowyn.

I guess you could cut Eowyn altogether and save the Witch King for Aragorn. That would piss off the Tolkien purists but makes a level of dramatic sense.

 

There's a lot of nice dramatic stuff going on with Eowyn's defeat of the Witch King (the Macbeth prophecy; the fact that she fights him above her uncle's body; the fact that she and Merry represent two groups unlikely to show up on a medieval battlefield; the fact that she unnerves him a little (in the book she reveals that she's a woman before they duel - I wish they hadn't made it a one liner in the film)). Aragorn fighting him would make the Witch-King just another physical obstacle. 

 

Doing that would open the door to a lot of - totally fair - complaints about getting rid of the sole bit of physical female heroics in The Lord of the Rings for the sake of the male character who already does the most acts of physical bravery.  

 

There are several changes PJ et al. made for the better - when it came to the main beats - who fights who, when, etc. - I think they made the right call sticking to the book every time. 

post #120 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post

There's a lot of nice dramatic stuff going on with Eowyn's defeat of the Witch King (the Macbeth prophecy, the fact that she fights him above her uncle's body, the fact that she unnerves him a little (in the book she reveals that she's a woman before they duel - I wish they hadn't made it a one liner in the film)).

Doing that would open the door to a lot of - totally fair - complaints about getting rid of the sole bit of physical female heroics for the sake of the male character who already does the most acts of physical bravery.  
Yeah. But all that matters more in the books than the film, which doesn't play up the prophecy in the same way. In the movie, it's just an okay action beat.

But, yeah, the movie would be raked over the coals for sidelining the only real heroine.
post #121 of 552

Aragorn's 'For Frodo!' before charging in is limp as well.

 

Black Gate shoulda been full on survival terror. Dropping the ramps at Normandy. Its the only battle that doesn't work on any meaningful level (for me, at least).

post #122 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

NOOJ!

Use you powers of sorcery to get a quality screencap of the FLASHLIGHT OF SAURON, I can't find anything good on the internet.

 

You shall be rewarded!

rotk2095.jpg

 

rotk2096.jpg

 

rotk2039.jpg

 

rotk2246.jpg

 

 

Making the eye from a 2D image (quick and creepy) and into an actual 3D eye (really goofy) is a questionable move.  

 

I also thought about Metal Gear Solid back then.  I'm surprised I can't seem to find any parody videos putting that ALERT sound from the game on top of footage from the movie.

post #123 of 552
I just don't get this notion that Aragorn needed a one-on-one throwdown with a single Final Boss figure in the first place. His entire storyline is about him overcoming his hesitance and stepping up to reclaim his country as its leader, and it climaxes with him leading the united forces of Gondor and its allies into battle against the forces of Mordor. That's not a thing that would be more resonant if he had one specific bad guy to stab in the face.

Now, granted, the final battle wasn't well-handled, but nothing about that would've been solved by adding an endboss to it.
post #124 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Now, granted, the final battle wasn't well-handled, but nothing about that would've been solved by adding an endboss to it.
True enough.

It should have felt like the team getting swarmed by xenos in ALIENS: no way out, no way to win. Just a swarm of darkness guided by a malevolent will.
post #125 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Yeah, but you already had the Witch King thing with Eowyn.

I guess you could cut Eowyn altogether and save the Witch King for Aragorn. That would piss off the Tolkien purists but makes a level of dramatic sense.

 

You can't, nor should you, lose the Eowyn vs Witch King.  Which does make another Nazgul fight a bit redundant, but you cold have more than one of them surrounding him (and as many of his buds as you want to include).  Plus, it's not like a) we haven't seen troll fights before, or b) that he beats the troll or physically defeating it is even the point.  The point is he is making a final stand against an overwhelming opponent, to provide that ticking clock on the emotional conflict over on Mt. Doom.  Armored troll is about the least inspired version of that, though I'd say it is still basically functional.

post #126 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

I just don't get this notion that Aragorn needed a one-on-one throwdown with a single Final Boss figure in the first place. His entire storyline is about him overcoming his hesitance and stepping up to reclaim his country as its leader, and it climaxes with him leading the united forces of Gondor and its allies into battle against the forces of Mordor. That's not a thing that would be more resonant if he had one specific bad guy to stab in the face.

Now, granted, the final battle wasn't well-handled, but nothing about that would've been solved by adding an endboss to it.

 

I disagree, inasmuch as having a recognizable "hero" baddie helps give some shape and texture to any action sequence.  I agree that it shouldn't be an endboss in the sense that Aragorn "beats" them to end things.  It should be Frodo and Sam that win the battle, which the sequence gets right as is.  But since it has the troll in that position anyway, may as well swap it out for something more distinctive.

post #127 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

True enough.

It should have felt like the team getting swarmed by xenos in ALIENS: no way out, no way to win. Just a swarm of darkness guided by a malevolent will.
To expand on this, maybe the way to make Sauron felt a bit more through the narrative would be to make his armies and servants more elemental, like they're actual extensions of him.

Just a thought.

(Despite my aforementioned for Tolkien, I'm actually not a purist. I think Jackson et. al could have been a little more creative in how they reworked Tolkien into cinematic form. I think you can stay true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien while making substantial deviations.)
post #128 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I disagree, inasmuch as having a recognizable "hero" baddie helps give some shape and texture to any action sequence.  And since it has one anyway in the troll, may as well make it something more distinctive.
If you NEED a final boss, they could have done a Balrog, I guess. They show up in battles in THE SILMARILLION.
post #129 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I disagree, inasmuch as having a recognizable "hero" baddie helps give some shape and texture to any action sequence.  I agree that it shouldn't be an endboss in the sense that Aragorn "beats" them to end things.  It should be Frodo and Sam that win the battle, which the sequence gets right as is.  But since it has the troll in that position anyway, may as well swap it out for something more distinctive.
I don't think it would've mattered whether it was a troll or something bigger and scarier - it was a misstep to do it that way in the first place.
post #130 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

Even if you're not down with Sauron or Saruman as Aragon's final physical challenge, there were better options than a troll, certainly?  There are still several Nazgul flying around the battle, although I suppose he's long since fought off several of them on Weathertop.  Still, they made for more distinct and otherworldy adversaries than trolls.

 

Thing is, they'd already filmed a good chunk of the fight between Aragorn and Sauron, with Sauron being his huge armored self.  They needed something they could composite in over the existing footage, so the opponent had to be equal to Sauron's size.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

I just don't get this notion that Aragorn needed a one-on-one throwdown with a single Final Boss figure in the first place.

 

The scene in the EE with Aragorn confronting Sauron with the Palantir goes a bit of the way to showing this anyway.

post #131 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


If you NEED a final boss, they could have done a Balrog, I guess. They show up in battles in THE SILMARILLION.

 

"This foe is beyond any of you."  Which is probably another reason not to have Aragorn fight Sauron.  If the entire Fellowship fled in impotent terror from a single Balrog, but Aragorn can go toe to toe with Sauron, well, what's that make Sauron then?

post #132 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

You can't, nor should you, lose the Eowyn vs Witch King.  Which does make another Nazgul fight a bit redundant, but you cold have more than one of them surrounding him (and as many of his buds as you want to include).  Plus, it's not like a) we haven't seen troll fights before, or b) that he beats the troll or physically defeating it is even the point.  The point is he is making a final stand against an overwhelming opponent, to provide that ticking clock on the emotional conflict over on Mt. Doom.  Armored troll is about the least inspired version of that, though I'd say it is still basically functional.


Yeah, Eowyn vs. the Witch King is one of the defining moments of the books. That's one scene adaptations should not lose. It's not perhaps on par with a Hobbit adaption cutting, say, Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo v. Spiders, or Bilbo's conversation with Smaug, but it's still one of the big iconic scenes.

 

Even if they did action hero it up by shifting Eowyn's speech to just "I am no man!", that moment played like a motherfucker on opening day in 2003. One of the biggest, most sustained cheers I've ever heard at something in a film.

 

I think a smart way to do it would be have the Aragorn/Sauron palantir confrontation and get more juice out of that, then just have the Black Gates be a sheer overwhelming numbers game rather than a specific boss battle. Make it clear - total envelopment, no hope.

post #133 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

"This foe is beyond any of you."  Which is probably another reason not to have Aragorn fight Sauron.  If the entire Fellowship fled in impotent terror from a single Balrog, but Aragorn can go toe to toe with Sauron, well, what's that make Sauron then?
Exactly. Sauron's presence has been said to drive people mad.

Having him reduced to an action baddie just wouldn't work.
post #134 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Exactly. Sauron's presence has been said to drive people mad.

Having him reduced to an action baddie just wouldn't work.


Yeah. Again, that's why you play up Aragorn being able to battle him through force of will on the palantir. Now, how exactly you show that is a challenge, to be sure, but if it's pulled off, then it could probably work pretty well.

post #135 of 552
Honestly, a proper portrayal of Sauron needed a dose of David Lynch. He has a way of using sound and rhythm and color to make evil really feel elemental.
post #136 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Honestly, a proper portrayal of Sauron needed a dose of David Lynch. He has a way of using sound and rhythm and color to make evil really feel elemental.
Oh dude. Now I want to see this.
post #137 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Oh dude. Now I want to see this.
Just imagine how fucked-up Pippin's palantir vision would have be....
post #138 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


I don't think it would've mattered whether it was a troll or something bigger and scarier - it was a misstep to do it that way in the first place.

 

Well, that's where we differ.  I think there were enough scenes of the fellowship hacking through hordes of orcs as is.  A baddie "captain" of some sort helps lend the final battle more of a throughline and distinct character.  And having Aragorn lose that fight and facing the coup de grace when Mt. Doom blows makes for a personal, visceral dramatization of how in the end, it's Frodo and Sam's determination and lower-case heroism that saves the mighty heroes, rather than the other way around.  

post #139 of 552

"Imagine if David Lynch did the ________ franchise" is something that is always fun as a thought experiment, but that never seems like it could actually work in practice.  I know Sands just said "a dose", but that is some powerful spice to add to any broth.  

post #140 of 552
I always thought there was a missed opportunity with the Nazgul.

Tolkien wrote that their greatest asset was the fear that they inspired, since they would often fight unclothed (and therefore invisible). That seems like one hell of a sequence.
post #141 of 552

Fighting invisible people often doesn't come off that well, because it usually results in one person looking silly... or them still making SOMETHING about the invisible person visible.  The couple of seconds of Morpheus fighting the twins in Reloaded was kinda cool.

 

It's like movies that try to make upside-down gravity fights exciting.  It rarely seems to actually work (Matrix Revolutions, Tron Legacy).  It doesn't really add that much.

post #142 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Fighting invisible people often doesn't come off that well, because it usually results in one person looking silly... or them still making SOMETHING about the invisible person visible.  
I was thinking more like a PREDATOR kind of sequence... until one of the more magical character says some elvish shit and reveals them.
post #143 of 552

I'd say that the Nazgul were used quite effectively in FOTR (though the Bree fake-out is silly, even if it's directly from the book), less so in TTT/ROTK. Part of it comes down to the effectiveness of the sizes - this big, eerie-black-robed sniffing and shrieking guys looming over the tiny Hobbits. They're a very tangible presence, which goes away a bit when they get their huge winged steeds.

post #144 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I was thinking more like a PREDATOR kind of sequence... until one of the more magical character says some elvish shit and reveals them.

So less a fight and more of a horror/suspense/tension sequence?

 

That's better.

post #145 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

So less a fight and more of a horror/suspense/tension sequence?
Yeah.
post #146 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post

Strongly disagree on Gollum's portrayal in THE HOBBIT, as well as the execution of the sequence in general.

Bilbo was supposed to be terrified, and, for the first time on this journey, completely alone. Armed with a weapon he doesn't know how to use. Groping blindly, seeing nothing. Then this terrifying...thing...emerges from the impenetrable darkness, with only its eyes visible. This thing is wicked, crafty, sly, and deliberate...and it wants to EAT BILBO. Calling itself "my precious" is SCARY. For my money, Brother Theodore's vocal performance of this particular scene remains the best.

The movie junks all this. In Jackson's version, it's a serio-comic scene taking place in a well-lit cavern, with Martin Freeman doing his Martin Freeman thing, and Andy Serkis doing the Cute Sméagol/Bad-But-Still-Cute Gollum act from LORD OF THE RINGS. There's nothing scary or particularly menacing about the character, who is played for laughs repeatedly throughout. Most damaging is the way the film misappropriates the schizophrenia angle, which shouldn't even factor in at this point in the narrative. He still has the Ring; he's still all Gollum, all the time.

From the perspective of film making, I get why the sequence had to be brightened up, but it's too much. HFR 3D probably factored into it quite a bit. It looks like a set, and Bilbo never journeys far enough down to sell the idea that he's miles and miles from light or help or hope.

(Plus, they ruined the "Time" riddle by truncating it, which I absolutely cannot forgive!)

Zhukov, you never told me the source of your claim that there was a copyright issue surrounding the use of the "Misty Mountains" theme in the following HOBBIT films. Where did you hear/read that?

This is why I'm EXTREMELY happy to be a casual Tolkien fan.  If I cared this much about the source material every two frames I would be thrown into a Hulk like rage.  

post #147 of 552
"Good thing I'm not attached to the good stuff, or I wouldn't be able to enjoy the mediocre stuff nearly as much!"
post #148 of 552

I think calling something good mediocre to prop up something incredible is lame.  Negative nancy.  That scene is quite nice, despite the fact that you can see something better in your heads.

 

Nerds.  

post #149 of 552

Not a lot of medioce in these films. Maybe not everything is executed at the highest level possible, but mediocre is not accurate for pretty much anything here.

post #150 of 552
I'll freely admit that I'd like these movies a lot more if they didn't have the baggage of being associated with Tolkien.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Middle-Earth Films