Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalwendė
I don't think it divides down like that. There are people who hate the films, some who won't even go and see them and yet still think they have anything to say about it. And there are people who enjoyed them, ranging from frothing joy all the way to picking holes in everything yet still saying it was fun. I'm in the latter - and I certainly don't think Jackson's other films are great (that thing with the lawnmower was stupid, King Kong was dull and Heavenly Creatures is over rated).
|
I probably didn't explain that clearly, because I was trying to avoid the Purist and Revisionist labels, since I agree with you that there is a wide spectrum. So, let me put it this way...
The more pro-movie crowd, I think, tend to view criticisms of the movies as "Oh this person is a purist and wants an exact, literal translation of the book." And this I will agree with
WCH on, no so-labelled Purist, said this...ever. It often goes as follows:
"I don't like the invention of Azog chasing the dwarves. Azog should be dead."
"You can't have a movie that is 100% accurate to the books."
"Uhh...I said no such thing."
This is really harmful in discussion, because no one wants to spend their time debating the strawman "you can't make the movie a literal translation of the books."
Now on the flip side, I think the more critical movie crowd sees any positive comment towards Jackson as coming from some immature fanboy, who thinks everything Jackson touches is gold. "Did you even read the books?" "Do you not see the senseless butchering and alterations Jackson did?" This is also a rather poor argument though.
The fact there are changes can not be disputed. Azog is dead at Azanulbizar in the books, he's not in the movie. This can't be disputed. Tolkien had his reasons for killing Azog's character when he did, but Jackson has his reasons for having Azog not dead. And my point here is those reasons don't have to be beat into some antagonistic evil plot that Jackson is trying to defecate on Tolkien's legacy and force anyone who are book fans to eat his crap for 6-meals a day. Or that somehow Jackson skims the books before making movie decisions and makes a checklist of "I can do this better than Tolkien. Azog shouldn't be dead, I know more than Tolkien, I can improve it here if Azog is not dead in the movies." That stance is really no different than the "Purists want 100% accurate translation" argument.
In the context of the movie, I think we're still kind of guessing since the entire story is not told yet, but for the time being, it seems Azog wants revenge for Thorin chopping off his hand. Eh...ok, not the best, but I suppose better than random raiding orcs after treasure, and Bolg chases Thorin and co. after the dwarves are out of the Misty Mountains anyway...Bolg and the wargs being driven by revenge. So, perhaps Jackson should have just made Bolg be the one after Thorin from the start, but the name of the orc leader is a niggling point (in my opinion...it might be more important to others).
The meta-reasons are a little clearer, to create a sense of urgency in the Dwarves journey, similar to Frodo's urgency in leaving the Shire and the Ringwraiths "hunt for the Ring." And to possibly put it in the larger context of the dwarves main antagonist are orcs, which then culminates in the Battle of 5 Armies. The Necromancer is the White Council's main antagonist, he's rather unimportant to the dwarves journey in reclaiming Erebor. You can't really make Smaug the main antagonist, because he's sleeping under a mountain, and in the end Smaug's death is not the climax of The Hobbit.
Azog is just one example, because it's the clearest and easiest one to give. What anyone thinks about this change is just down to subjective preferences. But we seriously have to get away from the circular "you just want a movie exactly like the books!" and the "Jackson just wants to urinate all over the books because he thinks he knows better."
It may get me cast out of here as a leper here...but Tolkien is not infallible. Brilliant man. An unrivalled imagination. But a writer? Parts of extreme wonder and beauty that pull you into his imagination. Other parts of very slow pace and a little too much of the "Let's send a hobbit blindly into Mordor and count on a Fool's Hope, trust in the greatest luck anyone can ever have and hope for the best?" for me. (It's why I've always sympathized with Boromir. "Really you want to send this hobbit into THAT place, when the only entrance you know is...the large flippin front gate? What do you expect him to do when walking to the front door?")
Don't get me wrong, still the best fiction/fantasy story I've read, but a pace that always doesn't work for film. Films are driven by action to action, something interesting always has to happen. Extensive dialogue about history, family lineage, and background just doesn't work. There's a reason Tolkien wrote an epic novel and not direct a movie. He made the decisions as a story-teller, for me those decisions worked on the page. Jackson, also as a story-teller made the decisions he did, and for me, they worked on screen. If I didn't want to see my favorite book adapted into a blockbuster action flick, I wouldn't have watched the movies.