Wednesday, 21 December 2011
I truly wish I could enjoy this...
See, I loved The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring when it came out. I was just so blown away to see an adaptation that actually stuck to the books to a degree most supposed adaptations dismiss as "unnecessary," "unfilmable" or otherwise "undesireable," that I ranted and raved about it for ages. Then The Two Towers came out, and I started to pick at the threads. I started to become bothered by the changes. By the time of The Return of the King, most of my enthusiasm for the franchise was replaced with a nagging preoccupation with a little voice saying "no, this isn't the best possible adaptation of The Lord of the Rings we could hope for." Best we could get given Hollywood's boundless stupidity and soulless money-oriented goals? Perhaps. Best we could hope for, though?
So the trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Two Parter hit the 'net, and the Tolkien fandom rejoiced. And why not? Everything I saw in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was plain in evidence, in all the good and bad it entails. Lots of gorgeous scenery, astounding attention to detail in the costuming, props and sets, sweeping catchy orchestral score, the occasional direct quote from Tolkien that gets me grinning madly, tempered by maudlin melodrama like Galadriel brushing away Gandalf's hair, lots of cod-Bergman staring-into-the-middle-distance, and needless tie-ins to the previous films.
I just feel like such a Grinch, you know? So many people are looking forward to this, and I'm almost positive that those people are not going to be disappointed. Everything from the Jackson trilogy is probably going to be in this, and while everyone dismisses the stupid alterations and redundant additions as "necessary to the process of adaptation" while they enjoy themselves, I'm just going to be stuck in a huff. There are few upcoming films I wish I could be excited about. I wish I could watch a trailer for The freaking Hobbit and feel the same convulsions of joy I did on seeing, say, the trailer for Jurassic Park. But I can't.
To be frank, I'm feeling something of a malaise. I haven't seen a single trailer that engenders any degree of enthusiasm or excitement in me for any upcoming film, be it anticipated blockbusters like The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises, appeals to my Scottish sensibilities like Brave, or pleasant surprises like The Wicker Tree. Even the initial "that doesn't actually look that bad" optimism from John Carter and Wrath of the Titans (I'm surprised as you are) is dampened by cynicism. Have I truly become a cynical old grump at last? Did Conan the Barbarian break something in my brain, shorting the Optimism fuse for ever? Or will the anticipated Prometheus trailer restore some sense of excitement?
Oh well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's not you. Movies, especially Hollywood movies, are a rapidly decaying, debased form of entertainment, and popular art isn't doing too well in general.
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to John Carter, Brave, and The Hobbit, but it's not with the quivering must-have-now anticipation I used to feel when something really awesome was coming over the horizon. More along the lines of "Ah, okay, that might worth seeing in the theater if I have the time...."
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Two Parter
ReplyDeleteHigh five.
I think "Theology/Civilization" is a far better Shire theme than "Concerning Hobbits". It just sounds sappy to me now.
I also don't like how they're reconfiguring The Hobbit into "The Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit", but I suppose it was inevitable given that LOTR was filmed first.
By including Frodo, etc., I fear the movies may be like the Star Wars prequels where one simply has to watch the older ones first. The movies are prequels, the book has a sequel, big difference.
Movies based on myths/legends/fairytales don't have the baggage that adaptations of beloved books have, they're public domain and anything is fair game. Besides Wrath of the Titans there are a few others in the works.
It makes my brain thingy hurt. The dwarves still look mostly wrong (ESPECIALLY Thorin) and, yeah, the hair brushing business is actually infuriating.
ReplyDeleteI experienced the same sense of diminishing returns when I saw LOTR ten years ago. FOTR got me all excited, enough to overlook the character changes. With the mangling of in TT of Theoden and the events in Rohan I knew a rot had set in and it only worsened with RK. This, I sadly suspect, will only be more and more of the same. But, hey, it will probably look pretty.
Well, I mostly liked it, with a couple exceptions (too many references to LOTR and a bit too prequel-y in feel, though I'm hoping that's more of a marketing decision). I do like everything I've seen of Freeman and love "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold."
ReplyDeleteWhile I am inclined to agree with you on every annnoying Hollywood tinkering trick I have to admit this is pretty much flawlessly rendered from what I can see. Having only just read the book not so long ago (to please my girlfriend) I recognized everything here (...well, almost everything outside of said tinkering). Strangely I must have read a certain Burroughs novel countless times since I was a young teen and from a certain Diney production trailer I recognize virtually NOTHING from that-although I did see bits of "Star Wars:Attack of the Clones" and "Avatar" in the trailer and I congratulated myself for recognizing the hero from that other Disney effort "Prince of Persia"-which I have not seen. As for "Conan The Barbarian 3D" ...go thou to the kraken and shudder. Happy Solstice!
ReplyDeleteDeep breaths.
ReplyDeletesometimes people change and the things that appealed to you when you were younger dont hold as much as they do now.I learned to separate my expectations . While I dont think I'll go see the hobbit in theatres ( and im sure it'll be fine,like you i love the fellowship and while i enjoy the other two, it's strictly as movies , not adaptations,as i said I taught myself to separate my expectation). by doing this I learned not to let things bother me so much and just enjoy myself.
ReplyDeleteThat said out of the aforementioned, i could honestly care less about the avengers, but I think the dark knight rises may knock it out of the park. And I always get hyped for a daniel craig bond, pierce brosnans die another day nearly killed it for me. and dont get me started on bonds deviations. dont let anything take away from the things you do enjoy, life is too short pal-enjoy your holidays all,@steve: drop me a line brother ! Cheers and good holidays to all-Mario
"To be frank, I'm feeling something of a malaise. I haven't seen a single trailer that engenders any degree of enthusiasm or excitement in me for any upcoming film, be it anticipated blockbusters like The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises, appeals to my Scottish sensibilities like Brave, or pleasant surprises like The Wicker Tree. Even the initial "that doesn't actually look that bad" optimism from John Carter and Wrath of the Titans (I'm surprised as you are) is dampened by cynicism. Have I truly become a cynical old grump at last? Did Conan the Barbarian break something in my brain, shorting the Optimism fuse for ever? Or will the anticipated Prometheus trailer restore some sense of excitement?"
ReplyDeletePoets always hate those in power. To them perfection is always just behind the last corner, or beyond the next. - REH, The Phoenix on the Sword
I found the LOTR movies overall to be good adaptations. FOTR is my favorite but it has nothing to do with faithfulness. I just like band of heroes taking on a quest and travelling trough amazing scenery.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Lotr or Hobbit after the movies came out and I think it must have been years before the first movie I touched the books last time. So not remembering everything and not being Tolkien enthusiast which I used to be I really didn't care about the deviations in Lotr movies.
I'm quite positive about this film. Only worrying thing is the expansion of the back-story. IIRC the back-story of Hobbit (later written?) in form of The Quest for Erebor and lotr appendices will be added to this film to give more screen time to characters such as Gandalf. And at one time there was talk about a completely new elf exclusive to the movies. I don't that is there then one or not.
About that Galadriel/Gandalf scene I hope it is just Galadriel saying to the weary Gandalf that he should be the head of the White Council or something. Changing something is more annoying than coming up with something extra.
I feel pretty much the same as you do. Everyone is excited about The Hobbit, and there are some positive things about the trailer, but it's clear that Jackson will once again have completely missed the spirit of the story. It'll probably be a fine fantasy film, but not a fine adaptation of Tolkien's work.
ReplyDeleteOne of the better comments about Jackson's LOTR I read was that in the book, elves are repeatedly shown as being essentially joyful -- singing, laughing, etc. In the movie, they're almost universally dour.
ReplyDeleteI think Conan broke you, Al. I mean, you've had a level of access and involvement with that film unlike anything you've had before. The problem is, you've changed, but the film industry hasn't. By that, I mean: it's always been this way.
ReplyDeleteSo, now you know. That doesn't mean everything coming out now until the end of time is shite. It just means that, like someone who learns magic for the first time, that you can sit back and appreciate it when a trick works technically, even if you know how it is done.
It's okay to rejoice in movies that are a success, particularly in the Geek Milieu. And knowing what you know now--namely, that the machine that turns these baubles out has two settings; either broad strokes or fine details, but not both--you can take those little victories for what they are and be happy and flattered that the shite you're into is cool enough to be appropriated by popular culture and repackaged. Because, in the end, it pretty much is.
funny Al I remember the first movie that I saw and said then ( trying to sound so mature lol)it was more style over substance, then I read the book and really began to take note over the differences between lit and film and other media.
ReplyDeleteBothered me for a while as to why things had to be so different. scrutinized alot and got annoyed when I saw deviation.But again over time I've made peace with it, for whatever reasons I have , I just made peace with it . Anyway i was about 14 or 15 it was summer 1991 or 1992 and that movie was called Jurassic Park.And today I thoroughly enjoy it. cheers again bud-Mario
Crisis for humankind.
ReplyDeleteIt could just be something to do with the time of the year, comrade.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the massive detour with Aragorn falling off a cliff, floating down a river, and riding back to Helm's Deep anyway was "necessary to the process of adaptation."
ReplyDeleteI wonder why so many people are fine with the damn Frodo framing device, and the White Council stuff being expanded upon. Perhaps they really just want more adventures in Middle-earth, not really a film of "The Hobbit". I've seen comments wondering why Aragorn isn't in it also.
ReplyDeleteWhy even call it "The Hobbit" at this point when big chunks of it are really tangential to said hobbit? They might as well be honest and call it "The Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit".
Why couldn't it have been like the original Star Wars which works as well (or even better) as a stand-alone movie as it does as part of a bigger saga? What if George Lucas had started the prequels with Luke talking to Obi-Wan's Force ghost?
We do not need to see the White Council fight Sauron and we do not need to see Frodo. Why do so few see this? I feel like talking to a wall most of the time.
Thankfully there is other stuff to look forward to.
It's not you. Movies, especially Hollywood movies, are a rapidly decaying, debased form of entertainment, and popular art isn't doing too well in general.
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to John Carter, Brave, and The Hobbit, but it's not with the quivering must-have-now anticipation I used to feel when something really awesome was coming over the horizon. More along the lines of "Ah, okay, that might worth seeing in the theater if I have the time...."
Sadly, watching the trailer for Prometheus elicited the same reaction. It didn't help that it was basically a remake of the trailer for Alien. Perhaps it's just the rut the trailer industry is in right now, but I can't recall a single really iconic, different trailer in recent memory. Teasers, however, tend to be much more exciting and interesting to me.
High five.
I think "Theology/Civilization" is a far better Shire theme than "Concerning Hobbits". It just sounds sappy to me now.
I was partial to "The Search" as a Shire theme: warm and whimsical, but with heart and inner strength. "Concerning Hobbits" was just another one of those "pan pipes make everything soulful" cliches coming in the wake of Braveheart and run into the ground by Titanic.
By including Frodo, etc., I fear the movies may be like the Star Wars prequels where one simply has to watch the older ones first. The movies are prequels, the book has a sequel, big difference.
My fear is that, as with Lucas, Jackson's increased clout may mean some of his more questionable ideas which would normally be nixed would get a pass. When the only people stopping him are the people who made Aragorn a wimp, Faramir a brute and Denethor a cartoon, that can be problematic. Jackson, like Lucas, is someone who needs someone to tell him "no, this is a stupid idea" while still giving him reign over his GOOD ideas. And Jackson DID have good ideas.
It makes my brain thingy hurt.
Mine too, Wasp.
Well, I mostly liked it, with a couple exceptions (too many references to LOTR and a bit too prequel-y in feel, though I'm hoping that's more of a marketing decision). I do like everything I've seen of Freeman and love "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold."
I loved that, though the part with them standing up in turn was exactly what I mean by maudlin cod-Bergman. It just seemed stilted and stagey, and not in the Shakespearean way. Still, I'm glad the songs are in it, and they're wisely going for the rousing drinking-song ambience Tolkien intended over Snow White-inspired silliness.
While I am inclined to agree with you on every annnoying Hollywood tinkering trick I have to admit this is pretty much flawlessly rendered from what I can see. Having only just read the book not so long ago (to please my girlfriend) I recognized everything here (...well, almost everything outside of said tinkering).
It certainly does look recognizable as an adaptation of The Hobbit, no question there. But there's just that niggling little voice...
sometimes people change and the things that appealed to you when you were younger dont hold as much as they do now.I learned to separate my expectations . While I dont think I'll go see the hobbit in theatres ( and im sure it'll be fine,like you i love the fellowship and while i enjoy the other two, it's strictly as movies , not adaptations,as i said I taught myself to separate my expectation). by doing this I learned not to let things bother me so much and just enjoy myself.
ReplyDeleteI try, Valka knows I try, but it's just so hard, dernit! The only times I've managed to separate adaptations from the source material is Disney films, and even then sometimes I can't do it (goddamn Jungle Book and Tarzan).
Poets always hate those in power. To them perfection is always just behind the last corner, or beyond the next. - REH, The Phoenix on the Sword
Who you callin' poet? Still, a relevant sentiment.
I found the LOTR movies overall to be good adaptations. FOTR is my favorite but it has nothing to do with faithfulness. I just like band of heroes taking on a quest and travelling trough amazing scenery.
That could be why I like it, too: it had this sense of energy, drama and excitement that I found strangely lacking in the others. For some reason everything felt stagnant and slow in the succeeding films. It's as if they took all the Arwen bits from the first film and decided to apply it to the rest of the narrative.
I hated the Arwen bits.
It'll probably be a fine fantasy film, but not a fine adaptation of Tolkien's work.
Best way to look at it, I think. If you occasionally find yourself grinning ear-to-ear over something the film did right, all the better, but this is probably going to be just like the other three films.
One of the better comments about Jackson's LOTR I read was that in the book, elves are repeatedly shown as being essentially joyful -- singing, laughing, etc. In the movie, they're almost universally dour.
Pop-culture elves seem to have transformed into pop-culture Vulcans. Pointy ear confusion?
It's okay to rejoice in movies that are a success, particularly in the Geek Milieu. And knowing what you know now--namely, that the machine that turns these baubles out has two settings; either broad strokes or fine details, but not both--you can take those little victories for what they are and be happy and flattered that the shite you're into is cool enough to be appropriated by popular culture and repackaged. Because, in the end, it pretty much is.
Believe me, I'm ecstatic that The Lord of the Rings has a place in popular culture beyond the cliche basement-dwelling culture. I think it's great I can quote one or two lines from the book that were in the film, and people would know what I was talking about. That's all great, and the sort of thing I'd love nothing more for other beloved properties.
At the same time, though, it would be nice if the hordes of LotR film-lovers would cut the curmudgeonly old geezers a bit of slack. I've had LotR film fans arguing that if I didn't like the film, then I didn't understand the book to begin with. That every single one of the film's changes was for the better, and that the films are superior to the books in every way. It can get a bit grating at times, is all.
funny Al I remember the first movie that I saw and said then ( trying to sound so mature lol)it was more style over substance, then I read the book and really began to take note over the differences between lit and film and other media.
ReplyDeleteBothered me for a while as to why things had to be so different. scrutinized alot and got annoyed when I saw deviation.But again over time I've made peace with it, for whatever reasons I have , I just made peace with it . Anyway i was about 14 or 15 it was summer 1991 or 1992 and that movie was called Jurassic Park.And today I thoroughly enjoy it.
Heh, there's another film adaptation I have issues with, though I'm one of those mutants who thought the film did, in fact, improve on the book in some regards. Mostly because Crichton, much as I enjoy his work, was alive and happy to cooperate with the filmmakers, and was himself appreciative of elements that were done better in adaptations of his books.
Crisis for humankind.
Oh no!
It could just be something to do with the time of the year, comrade.
And what happened, then? Well, in Scotland they say - that Bad Scot's small heart grew three sizes that day...
I fail to see how the massive detour with Aragorn falling off a cliff, floating down a river, and riding back to Helm's Deep anyway was "necessary to the process of adaptation."
Yeah, that wasn't one of the finer moments of the trilogy. Still, I've heard people defend it as "you have to have tension!"
I wonder why so many people are fine with the damn Frodo framing device, and the White Council stuff being expanded upon. Perhaps they really just want more adventures in Middle-earth, not really a film of "The Hobbit". I've seen comments wondering why Aragorn isn't in it also.
ReplyDeleteTo be frank, that's one of the changes I hate the least, if only because we have some actual Tolkien prose/dialogue that could be implemented. Definitely wouldn't be how I would go about it, but infinitely preferable than the Elfy Sue I'm dreading.
Why even call it "The Hobbit" at this point when big chunks of it are really tangential to said hobbit? They might as well be honest and call it "The Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit".
The LotR franchise has become massive business, and I wouldn't be surprised if they went that route.
We do not need to see the White Council fight Sauron and we do not need to see Frodo. Why do so few see this? I feel like talking to a wall most of the time.
I've heard that this was the original intention: that The Hobbit would just be The Hobbit, and the second film would be a "midquel" featuring stuff like Dol Guldur, the Necromancer, the White Council and whatnot. I would've preferred it that way: at least then they could be honest about the fact that this is fan fiction (based on the appendices and Lost Tales they may be). But I guess they felt either they couldn't sell a LotR film not directly based on a novel, or they thought it would break up the narrative better, like what they did with The Two Towers.
I do hope Kerr does a fan edit when the film comes out on DVD, just to show that an adaptation that hewed closer to Tolkien could be possible.
OT/ but...
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas, Al! I hope your holiday is filled with joy, happiness and much making rather merry!