The Hobbit Movie Forum » Hobbit Movie

1. pettytyrant
   Member

   Our Head newshound Chris over on Forumshire tracked this down.

   http://www.rotoruadailypost.co.nz/news/taupos-rapid-allure-to-hobbit/1249290/

   Now this has really got my crabbit on big style! I am not happy. It is exactly how PJ ruined and undermined the world of ME in LOtR's and he is doing it again.
   The whole purpose of the elves putting the barrels in the river is to safely deliver them to the awaiting men of Lake Town further down stream. If they had to pass through rapids and over waterfalls they would be smashed and pounded to matchsticks by the time they got there. And as far I can recall the Men of Laketown aren't running a matchstick franchise.
   In the book the river starts swift as its forced through a channel then widens out into a steady but calm current. It is not a fairground ride.
   It is as if PJ can't help himself, if there is a ledge the big book of movie cliches says someone has to dangle from it and if there is a river journey the big book of movie cliches says there must be exciting rapids and a waterfall to go over.
   Its going to be another wasted 10- 15 minutes of film at the expense of character development and plot, same as these falsely heightened scenes of drama were in LotR's.
   Please PJ stop this sort of rubbish now before its too late to change it.

   Posted 3 months ago #
2. Kendalf
   Member

   "It is exactly how PJ ruined and undermined the world of ME in LOtR's and he is doing it again."

   No, Petty, it's not and he isn't. It's the same canny Director's instinct to take some events in the books which are banal, or pedestrian, or too-lightly-sketched, or even off-page(!) and turn them into exciting, engaging cinema for mainstream (geddit?) audiences. All he's doing is giving us a thrill. The barrels (I'll bet) will remain intact as will, therefore, the elves' purpose in depositing them.

   "Its going to be another wasted 10- 15 minutes of film"

   I can't see it lasting more than 3 or 4 to be honest...and being quite an exciting 3 or 4 minutes at that.

   Posted 3 months ago #
3. Eldorion
   Member

   >> "The barrels (I'll bet) will remain intact as will, therefore, the elves' purpose in depositing them." - Kendalf

   Against all odds and reason, of course, which breaks the internal logic of the story that Tolkien valued so highly for the sake of some cheap "thrills" (the outcome of which is well-known to all who have read the book and easily predictable to those who haven't). ;)

   Posted 3 months ago #
4. Kendalf
   Member

   Sorry, there's no odds or reason or logic being broken here.

   If the Elves in _this_ film know that the river in _this_ film gets a little perilous around the bend, why wouldn't they make barrels to cope with the fact? What _would_ be "against all odds and reason" is if they used and employed barrels that _weren't_ capable of withstanding the use they routinely put them to.

   Eldo - "the outcome of which is...easily predictable to those who haven't"

   I've got to disagree. It's not predictable in the slightest. At all. What's the guarantee to the uninitiated audience member that one or two of the dwarves don't make it through this? Boromir didn't make it to the end of the trilogy; Character X* isn't going to make it to Season 2 of Game of Thrones. By your logic, authors and directors shouldn't bother placing obstacles and perils and dangers in the paths of their protagonists because the readers and viewers presume they've got to make it to the next book / series / end of the film.

   A sedate paddle down a river is being replaced by a thrilling moment of peril, increasing audiences' engagement with, and investment in, their little adventurers. I see no crime here.

   *To avoid spoiling for anyone!!

   Posted 3 months ago #
5. julia mellor
   Member

   The thing is that the river needs to flow quickly instead of slowly, we have to actually see the barrels move, if they are in a sedate meandering river it would take too long to show the scene, it would take far longer than 5 minutes, and that is wasted time and also it would lack the sense of danger they are in, as some of them become waterlogged and almost drownded. It is done for cinematic purposes, there is no dastardly plot to undermine Tolkien behind it, its just filming logic.

   Posted 3 months ago #
6. Marvin Chang
   Member

   I think this is much ado about nothing. Yes, the woman in the article said the canyon turns into a "fast-flowing waterfall," but if you look at the picture it's not really a waterfall; it's a fast section of river with a few rapids that I would happily take my canoe down. The picture does not imply an overly hairy escape, a few bumps on a couple rocks is not going to destroy the barrels. I think the picture shown is that swift section Petty quoted from the book, and I don't think it will constitute a very long shot. My guess is that 3 or 4 minutes might even be too long.

   Posted 3 months ago #
7. pettytyrant
   Member

   Its a lack of faith in PJ- I can already see this scene in my head without having to go to the cinema! Its a cliche, the rapids and the waterfall, the faux drama and spectacle- and it doesn't make sense with the puropse of sending the barrels down the river for reuse.
   I dont know why peole seem to continue believing in the face of the evidence that PJ will somehow do this scene subtly and not hugely melodramtically. This is the man who turned a troll poking a toe through a doorway into a 20 minute fight scene and who threw out the excellent dialogue of Gandalf and Saruman for a ludicrous stick fight. What makes you think he will not make this as overblown as everything in LotR's? And the fact they are shooting the scene in rapids only seems to add weight to that view I believe.

   Posted 3 months ago #
8. julia mellor
   Member

   I think it will be fine, they didnt go overboard with the river in FOTR, it was well done. anyway in the book it describes some rapids just after Thranduils palace so its not out of context, and photos are never exactly like film anyway.

   Posted 3 months ago #
9. Kendalf
   Member

   Petty - "I can already see this scene in my head without having to go to the cinema! Its a cliche, the rapids and the waterfall, the faux drama and spectacle"

   I can see it, too! After all, there's not a great deal that can happen, is there? Doesn't stop me wanting to witness it, though, and I imagine that, to the 75% of the audience that haven't read the book (and the 90% that haven't read it in years), it'll be a visually and emotionally arresting sequence. It's only "faux" drama to you because you've read the book; to that 75% it's "real" drama.

   EDIT: And let's remember. As many of us have been postulating, this sequence may, in fact, provide the (joint) climax to Part I. Yet _another_ reason to make it more thrilling than it is in the novel.

   Posted 3 months ago #
10. Palo Stoney
    Member

    From what little knowledge I have of film making, spending a day dropping barrels into a river may only encapsulate a very quick snatch of action on the big screen, maybe only a couple of seconds of a bigger scene. Just think of the effort that Sean Bean went through in marching up a mountain (as he was scared of the helicopter ride) for a scene that lasted less than a minute.

    The Hobbit is a wondeful book but has very little action for a fantasy film, the book is all about the set up of the scene with often the result over & done with very quickly, or done retrospectively (Smaug being taken down, the BO5A). As Kendalf says, they're making a move to capture & excite audiences, so scenes will have to be changed to be exciting or just make dramatic sense. Bard shooting down Smaug within a couple of paragraphs of being introduced to him is a bug bear for me in respect of the book. I'm sure we all need a bit more spectacle & (dare I say) a bit of a journey for Bard laid down before he does his heroics!

    Posted 3 months ago #
11. jon
    Member

    Really, it depends on what Jackson does with the footage in the final production - whether he make an abuse of that scene or not. He could go either way. So it's all just speculation until we see the final product.

    Posted 3 months ago #
12. pettytyrant
    Member

    It is speculating but not in the dark, atleast not entirely. You can look at PJ and the Covens previous treatment in LotR's -where they favoured spectacle over content- and you can look at other films they have made in the 'blockbuster' genre- such as King Kong- where spectacle replaces content.
    There does seem to be a pattern there.

    Posted 3 months ago #
13. jon
    Member

    Petty - Generally speaking agreed. But the question that runs through my mind is this: will Jackson's ability increase w/age or degenerate? Even tho I have my own criticisms of the movies, they still went in some senses far beyond my expectations, and parts of them I like quite a bit. So it begs the question postulated above. Will he increase in story-telling ability w/age or just sell cheap? I tend to think that since w/the previous movies he squeezed in essence two Tolkien "books" into each and w/this movie he's making the point of taking two movies for the sake of a single book he may be making room to be truer to the original story than last time.

    Posted 3 months ago #
14. pettytyrant
    Member

    I dont think what he likes- ie spectacle and over the top stuff- has changed at all since his Bad Taste days. Its what he likes. I don't see any signs in shooting the barrel scene in a rapid, or dwarves fighting the trolls, or xena the elven guard, or axe in the head dwarf that this is changing.

    Posted 3 months ago #
15. julia mellor
    Member

    I think we are forgetting something glaringly obvious here, every director has their individual style and quirks and visual markers, that make them interesting and fresh. Peeder Jigsons style is visually arresting and rich, with humour laced intertwixed and intertwined with genuine drama, it can be rich meat for some but at least its not boring. I like his stamp on LOTR and I am sure I will like the Hobbit too. I like visual spectacle, it made LOTR great to watch.

    Posted 3 months ago #
16. Kendalf
    Member

    Julia - "at least its not boring. I like his stamp on LOTR and I am sure I will like the Hobbit too. I like visual spectacle, it made LOTR great to watch"

    Precisely. It's been a fundamental prerequisite to being transported convincingly to another, magical realm, from Oz onwards. Making The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit _without_ visual spectacle would be utterly self-defeating. Hence (in this case) the rapids, which make all sorts of visual, dramatic, emotional and cinematic sense...

    Posted 3 months ago #
17. Orwell
    Member

    Julia - "at least its not boring. I like his stamp on LOTR and I am sure I will like the Hobbit too. I like visual spectacle, it made LOTR great to watch"

    Typical Bree-landish talk, what.

    Posted 3 months ago #
18. pettytyrant
    Member

    I have the same problem with all th eover the top hiegtened dramam I had in LotR's- it undermines the credible world Tolkien spent so much time carefully constructing. Faery creatures exist in Tolkien but the laws of physics still apply- the laws of economics still aplly etc- sending empty barrels for recovery through rapids and over waterfalls make no sense outside of the context of an overly dramatised film scene- it for me takes me out of the world of ME and reminds me I am just watching a film- it ruined LotR's for me and it looks set to do the same to TH.
    The world of ME and its 'reality' is fundemental to accepting the stories as 'history'- when PJ turns it all into shield surfing elves and rapid rides he destroys that completely.

    Posted 3 months ago #
19. Kendalf
    Member

    Petty - "the laws of economics still aplly etc- sending empty barrels for recovery through rapids and over waterfalls make no sense"

    Well, as I said earlier, if you know the river gets a little dicey (which the Elves would do), then you'd make robust barrels to cope with the fact. It'd certainly be quicker than trying to transport them over land through the unforgiving tangle of Mirkwood...

    Anyway, Jackson's priorities (and those of any other remotely sensible Director with $500 million of someone's else's money in their pocket) will lie in manufacturing engaging drama for his audiences rather than adhering to economic viability.

    Posted 3 months ago #
20. pettytyrant
    Member

    You seemed to have missed my point Kendalf which is not specifically about economics but about how Tolkien constructed his world. He is very, very careful to make it a real world, our real world- it has the same stars and moon. The same rules apply with a few exceptions for the faery elements but the whole thing hinges on the soliditiy of the underlying world created and its history. The reader buys into the fantasy because Tolkien has already sold them on the reality of the world.
    If you undermine that at every turn as Pj did in LotR all you are left with is an obvious run of the mill fantasy- may as well just go make a D&D movie rather than sully LotR's by reducing it to such a world.

    And as to them knowing the river gets dicey- Id like to see someone construct wooden wine barrels that will withstand rapids and waterfalls on a regular basis- the reason the elves send the barrels down that river is precisely because its NOT dicey.

    Posted 3 months ago #
21. Kendalf
    Member

    "He is very, very careful to make it a real world, our real world"

    Indeed. You're absolutely right. It is one of Tolkien's _unarguable_ strengths as a writer.

    But, to be honest, I see no threat to the underlying integrity of Middle-earth by including a 3-minute thrill-ride down some visually striking rapids and neither do I see any threat to audiences "buying in to the fantasy" because of it. Quite the opposite, in fact: their emotional engagement with their mini-protagonists will increase as will, therefore, their envelopment by the world and the tale...

    Posted 3 months ago #
22. pettytyrant
    Member

    Mine didn't in Lotr's Kendalf- quite the opposite- perhaps if it was a one off but it wont be- it will be implausible event on top of implausable event, same as LotR's which starts well in FotR in this regard and slowly but surely throws more and more of out of the window until you get to the travesty that is RotK. Its the cumulitive effect of it which creates the problem.
    TH is shaping up just the same way- a fantasy story set in a fantasy world. Not a story about faery set in our world (all be it a long time ago).
    The difference I think is crucial in Tolkien.

    Posted 3 months ago #
23. Joel Becker
    Member

    I would like to throw in my thoughts real quick-like. I tend to agree with petty here (but with a lesser degree of pessimism). It really doesn't make much sense to send barrels down a river with rapids if they are meant to be used again. However, it also depends on the nature and strength of the rapids. A waterfall, though, is too much. And a minor point, Kendalf: didn't the barrels originally come from Lake-town and not from the Elves? In fact, that would be more reason to not have a rapids scene because it would be difficult to bring the barrels up-river with rapids and waterfalls.

    "From Lake-town the barrels were brought up the Forest River. Often they were just tied together like big rafts and poled or rowed up the stream; sometimes they were loaded on flat boats." The word *stream* doesn't seem to indicate rapids and waterfalls to me, and I doubt flat boats would do very well on such a river. But I guess those who haven't read the book won't the know the difference anyway when they see the movie... *sigh*

    Posted 3 months ago #
24. Kendalf
    Member

    Joel!

    I daresay you're absolutely correct, but I just think, like Marvin said five days ago, this is "much ado about nothing" and we're getting completely carried away here.

    The dramatic benefits of increasing the peril during this sequence (quite possibly the climax to Part I) greatly, greatly, greatly outweigh any possible detriment to the integrity of Tolkien's trading relationships.

    Posted 3 months ago #
25. pettytyrant
    Member

    But it damages the integrity of the created world Kendalf- even if the viewer doesnt know exactly why it doesnt make sense- somewhere deep down its there- thats fine if it only happens in this instance but we all know it wont. Within about ten mminutes in LotR's the viewer is meant to swallow Legolas leaping about a Mumakil and taking it down singlehanded, a man runing half a mile on fire and an army of ghosts killing everything by swarming over it and a mace the size of a volkswagon beetle being swung about like its nothing.
    Any integrity of the created world as a real place is so far away from that its out of sight- what reason do we have to assume from news like shooting this scene in rapids that this trend is not going to be continued to the further detriment of Tolkiens work?

    Posted 3 months ago #
26. Kendalf
    Member

    Petty - "(My engagement) didn't (grow) in Lotr's Kendalf- quite the opposite...(The Hobbit, too) will be implausible event on top of implausable event...it damages the integrity of the created world"

    Yes, to you. But, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, you're not a typical audience member, Petty :-) As an expert on the original text, when you witnessed more and more deviations so you became more and more disillusioned and that's why _you_ became disengaged.

    But that wasn't (and won't be) the case with the other 90% of the audience that haven't read the book in years, if at all. They won't even be _aware_ of the deviations from the source novel and (I'm willing to bet my life savings) won't be analysing the physical possibility and socio-economic viability of every action sequence, either.

    If the economic integrity of north-eastern Middle-earth really _is_ undermined by the inclusion of a thrilling, 3-minute barrel-ride (which I contend it is not), then so be it. The audience, and the film, will be better served by the added drama.

    Posted 3 months ago #
27. pettytyrant
    Member

    Again you seem to have missed my point Kendalf -is it wilful ;) - the audience dont need to know anything about the book. Its about what sort of a world they are presented with. The world presented to viewers in the last two LotR's films for example is clearly not the same one as in the book.
    The same looks to be true of TH.
    My contention is that in adapting a book to film, whilst innumerable changes are necessary, there is a duty to tranfer the basic blocks the writer set down as intact as possible.
    Everyone knows that what set Tolkien apart from other fantasy was the reality of the created world- therefore in adapting to film a fundemental to preserve is the reality of the created world- without its not Tolkien-but PJ chucks it out the window.
    Now the audience might not know he is chucking it out the window but the end result is a film much poorer than it should have been and I would argue less immersive becasue if the books reality had been invested in on film the characters and story would be more grounded and believable and less fantastical.
    And if you do know the book its even worse as you are continually jolted out of being immersed in the story by the ridiclousness of what you are watching.

    Posted 3 months ago #
28. julia mellor
    Member

    I really dont get where PJ undermined Tolkiens "reality" at every turn.

    Posted 3 months ago #
29. pettytyrant
    Member

    I could give you a very long list Julia of where the completely impossible or highly improbable occurs- hobbits are chucked about by trolls, Legolas leaps about like what he is a cgi elf- distances are a joke, a city can be run by one mad man, gigantic maces, people running about on fire, shooting arrows whilst surfing staircases on shields- theres loads and loads of it getting worse and worse as the films proceed- the list is frankly near endless.

    Posted 3 months ago #
30. Kendalf
    Member

    I'm certainly not missing your point intentionally, Petty. Perhaps you just need to make it a little more clearly ;-)

    I _think_ you're claiming that the book's "reality" needs to be preserved as closely as possible on screen and that doing so will increase audiences' immersion. Am I right?

    And that's _exactly_ what I'm arguing against here. Not in all circumstances, of course not, not remotely...but in this one.

    I think the films will be improved dramatically, visually and structurally by having this rapids sequence and audiences' immersion in the tale will increase as a direct consequence; you, on the other hand, think the films would be improved (and audiences' immersion increased) if they portrayed a realistic, viable trading route.

    Fair? :-)

    Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must register or log in to post.