Loads more.Oh my, are there more of those? They're amazing.
Edmond Dantès;113520868 said:
Edmond Dantès;113538247 said:On a serious note, Adam Brown (Ori) has seen the trailer for TBOTFA.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrownAds/status/470976121610469377
Film 3 certainly won't be lacking in the spectacle department.
LinkIt is the eternal argument - which was better, the book or the film? Should you watch Lord of the Rings first, or read the books? What about Game of Thrones - will reading the books now just ruin the suspense, or will it add to the back story?
Should they even bother making the last Hunger Games into a film?
Since the first film reel flickered into life, it has been an issue to contend with. And in recent years, every second book seems to have been thrown into the widening vortex of film or television adaptation. You cannot go to the movies without running the risk of seeing one of your favourite characters ruined forever, or watching every plotline you love being torn apart for the sake of a speedier narrative. If you think it is tough being in the audience, imagine the pressure brought to bear on the screenwriter or director trying to bring a much-loved book to life - or on the author, forced to relinquish control on a piece of their work.
So what is the recipe for a successful film adaptation? And how do some directors get it so wrong?
Oscar-winning screenwriter Philippa Boyens admits she could not bear to read Lord of the Rings ever again.
Her once-favourite book, which she had already read eight times before agreeing to co-write the screenplays with Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, will never be the same. She has dissected the actions of every dwarf, analysed each fight scene, gleaned minute details of every tree and rock and landscape.
"When you adapt it you kind of lose it forever, because you have a different knowledge of it now," Boyens says.
She is currently in the middle of post-production for the third instalment of the $500 million The Hobbit trilogy, her most recent work. The screenwriter says it is "hugely daunting" approaching a novel, especially one that has given rise to to as many passionate fans as the J R R Tolkien series.
While it was important to keep in mind how beloved the books were, it would be an error to let them dictate your every move, Boyens says.
"There's two ways of approaching it. One is to be fearful of putting a foot wrong, in which case you are dooming yourself to fail anyway. Fran [Walsh] always says by its very nature, taking a book and putting it on screen, you are changing it.
"Your adaptation is just your version of a piece of literature, a piece of work that you love as much as anyone else. You cannot take on the responsibility of making a definitive version of The Lord of the Rings, because you would fail."
The other way is to look for what drives the storytelling, and find ways of getting it across visually. With The Hobbit, this included creating an entire character that does not appear in the book. Tauriel, the fighting elf played by Canadian actor Evangeline Lilly, was designed to bring a "female energy" that was missing from the story, Boyens says.
"When Tolkien wrote the plot he was writing a children's story, he was not conceiving it as a film. He was writing against a visual landscape of his own creation . . . the way I like to think of it is that he did not write her into The Hobbit because he did not need to tell the story in that way - but we did.
"The female energy is great, and she's become one of the most popular characters in the film so I feel like we made the right choice there. It allowed younger women a way into the story, and it also leavened it because you can feel the blokiness of 13 dwarfs after a while."
While it is impossible to ask Tolkien what he thought, other authors have been blunt when it comes to critiquing film versions of their work. In 2009, writer Elizabeth Knox told the Dominion Post she lay in bed and cried for days after watching director Niki Caro's adaptation of her novel The Vintner's Luck. Knox said she was shocked and upset by how much it departed from her story.
"She took out what the book was actually about, and I was deeply surprised and deeply puzzled by it, because I do not know why she did it."
Reviewers echoed Knox's sentiments, with the Hollywood Reporter calling the film "an overblown work of amazing silliness".
Caro declined to be interviewed for this article.
Author Roald Dahl famously said the film version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was "crummy" and vowed never to allow its sequel.
Stephen King hated The Shining, the 1980 feature film written and directed by Stanley Kubrick, despite it arguably being among the greatest horror movies of all time.
But sometimes a screen adaptation not only lives up to the novel, but breathes new life into it. Sales of Witi Ihimaera's Whale Rider skyrocketed when Caro's adaptation of that book hit the big screen in 2002. Nowadays, it is being used as a textbook in English classes as far away as Kenya. But without Ihimaera's involvement, it is doubtful the film itself could have been made. He was associate producer of the project, and says it was important to him his story, a Maori story, was told in the right way.
"John [Barnett, executive producer] had the sense that Whale Rider could be an international film . . . a lot of hopes were riding on this project, so we had to get it right. And it was not easy; to make a film adaptation in New Zealand we had to take hold of that whale and push it all the way across the South Pacific, it felt like." It also meant smoothing over resistance to Caro, a Pakeha, telling a Maori story.
"There are some writers whose experiences with film have not been very good at all, and there are some books that have been made into movies which I do not think do justice to the books. It's kind of a dilemma, and I try to make it less of a dilemma by getting involved."
Writer Lloyd Jones was a script consultant on the film version of Mister Pip, but that was where his input ended. He says while it was "terrifying" watching Mister Pip for the first time, he loved what director Andrew Adamson had done with the film.
"Strangest of all, I think, was seeing the physical embodiment of characters," he says via email.
"Here they were in flesh and voice and clothed and sometimes not quite how I had imagined them. But that is how it is for any reader who in the course of reading creates for themselves the image of the character. It took me a moment to adjust to the idea of Hugh Laurie as Mr Watts, but only a moment. Now I cannot imagine Mr Watts looking or sounding any other way than Hugh's Mr Watts."
As hard as it might be then, maybe the answer for readers - and viewers - is to treat book and film as separate works of fiction. As Boyens says, if Lord of the Rings had been a flop, JRR Tolkien's works would have remained fantastic novels.
"Books are inviolate, you really cannot destroy them - if it's a great piece of literature it will be a great piece of literature forever."
no respect for the dwarves after that scene. regardless of how undercooked the characters were i was still rooting for them to get their home back but then with this scene it makes them look like a bunch of quitters.
why is bilbo the one with the most hope? you'd think maybe balin would be rallying these idiots to consider waiting.
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
no respect for the dwarves after that scene. regardless of how undercooked the characters were i was still rooting for them to get their home back but then with this scene it makes them look like a bunch of quitters.
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.
Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Indeed. The inclusion of Imrahil and co would have resulted in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields been dealt with in a far better manner. That was once instance where eucatastrophe was wholly unnecessary.Maybe then we would have gotten Glorfindel instead of Arwen.
Someone i also would have wanted to see on screen was Imrahil, and the knights of Dol Amroth. While i did not mind the way they included Arwen in the movies, certainly better than Tauriel, if removing her would have gotten us either of those things i would be happy with it.
Edmond Dantès;113538247 said:On a serious note, Adam Brown (Ori) has seen the trailer for TBOTFA.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrownAds/status/470976121610469377
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
Seems the most likely.So is it at all safe to assume this trailer will be attached to Edge of Tomorrow?
The trailer for DoS was released around that time last year (early June)...
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.
Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Edmond Dantès;113595604 said:
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.
Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
I don't see why it's called a love triangle like Legolas is Sawyer and Kili is Jack. Legolas seems to treat her like a sister, and she seems interested in saving Kili's life, not having a relationship with him.
I only saw the movie once six mon ths ago but that's what I recall. Maybe the EE will make things more obvious.
This isn't a fault in the book, because in the book the dwarves are assholes. It's clear leading up to that moment that they're going to leave Bilbo to face the dragon alone, justifying it in their own heads that this is the job he's being paid quite handsomely to do. They also have no concept of the actual danger involved. It would have been out of character for them to be more concerned, or even leave any parting advice. Bilbo is the burglar after all. Dwarves aren't going to teach him to burgle.However, the book itself isn't 100% immune from the faults of that Durin's Day scene, at least in my opinion. Even though the book has the dwarves more set on reclaiming their treasure as opposed to their homeland, as soon as they finally reach the Lonely Mountain the first thing they do is send Bilbo in while they wait outside. You'd think after such a long journey the first thing they'd want to do is at least, you know, give it a quick look-see. Balin volunteers to go in "a bit of the way" with Bilbo (as he does in the film) but the others - including Thorin - stay behind. Even then, before ditching Bilbo, Balin doesn't offer any sage advice as he does in the film. He pretty much goes "Peace out, good luck." and leaves. I remember reading that and thinking "Really? You guys are just going to wait outside and twiddle your thumbs after all this? Okay...."
This isn't a fault in the book, because in the book the dwarves are assholes. It's clear leading up to that moment that they're going to leave Bilbo to face the dragon alone, justifying it in their own heads that this is the job he's being paid quite handsomely to do. They also have no concept of the actual danger involved. It would have been out of character for them to be more concerned, or even leave any parting advice. Bilbo is the burglar after all. Dwarves aren't going to teach him to burgle.
As I said, it was only my opinion. I agree with the bolded completely, but it doesn't change the fact that the first time through that part of the book bothered me for the reasons I mentioned. It actually used to be a bigger nit-pick than it is now. The fact that the film managed to give me the same eye-rolling feeling I had when I read through that part the book (in a bad way), it sort of brought back the initial dislike I had for it to begin with.
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.
Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Edmond Dantès;113925754 said:Having seen Gladiator live in concert, the more I would like Lisa Gerrard to finish off the trilogy. Her vocals are supreme, and her language almost as pleasant to the ears as Quenya.