Hobbit Trailer looks crap

[jallanite]

Changes when an older work is adapted into dramatic form are old hat.

We see this first in adaptations of older works in Greek drama. That we don’t find more complaints about it may be because the poetic sources themselves disagreed very much, and by the time we have commentaries the new dramatic adaptations have themselves become ancient classics.

Shakespeare’s King Lear and Hamlet were likewise adaptations of older tales which took great liberties with them. King Lear in the earlier versions ended with Lear happily restored to the throne and his daughter Cordelia named as his heir. Hamlet in the earlier stories was the tale of a man who took revenge on his uncle by pretending to be a fool, and then had many other adventures before his death in a dual with Wiglek, ancestor of the early kings of Mercia.

Perhaps some contemporaries of Shakespeare likewise blamed Shakespeare for ruining the stories. And I suppose Shakespeare might have responded that the changes were necessary to bring in the modern audiences. The same could be presumed for Wagner who likewise could be said to have ruined Norse/Germanic mythology in his opera cycle Nibelungenlied and Arthurian material in his Parsifal and his Tristan und Isolde.

The difficulty is that films, like the older dramas, are made by creative people who can’t help being creative, being more interested in what they can make of a story than in the story they were given. Give all films to uncreative people to direct? That doesn’t sound like a viable solution?

And there are honest differences of taste among audiences. Rilstone also reviewed the original Jackson Lord of the Rings films and found the first one to be mostly excellent and the second bad and the third worse. But Rilstone also very much likes new Doctor Who for the most part, which is why he is writing a book on it.

Zigûr doesn’t like new Doctor Who much at all.

So who is right? Neither, I suppose, because there is no provable right in matters of taste. I once searched for a bad film to use as an example, but not one that was so bad it was considered good for that reason by some people, and one that was also well known enough to be likely to be recognized by the people I was addressing. I looked up loads of film titles on the web, but could not find a single one that was so bad that some people could not be found who really liked it for some reason. So I rewrote the reference to mention only an unnamed “notoriously bad film”.

The Harry Potter films were rather a shock to reviewers when they first started to appear, because author J. K. Rowling had full power over the directors to insist that no changes be made in the films over what was in the books, without her permission. The films accordingly followed the books very closely, leaving many reviewers to point out that this should not work, although it did.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by jallanite

So who is right? Neither, I suppose, because there is no provable right in matters of taste. I once searched for a bad film to use as an example, but not one that was so bad it was considered good for that reason by some people, and one that was also well known enough to be likely to be recognized by the people I was addressing. I looked up loads of film titles on the web, but could not find a single one that was so bad that some people could not be found who really liked it for some reason.

I find it a relief that even in the days of internet-enabled mass consumer orthodoxy and opinion groupthink there are, however, still diversities of perspective to be found. To touch upon Doctor Who for a moment, there are places not unlike this forum where those who do not adhere to the majority consensus can discuss without fear of getting the flaming pitchforks treatment that, say, critics of the films get on certain major sites for enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work.

Concerning the matter of adaptation and changes, I believe there is an element of delusion in this belief that we, as Tolkien enthusiasts, ought to be 'grateful' that the films were made, regardless of alterations. Yet considering the enormous gulf of time alone between the culture of the period in which the books were published and that in which the films were produced surely it's far from unreasonable to find the films to not necessarily be to one's taste. If I like a heroic romance from the 1950s, why should I be expected to inevitably enjoy a Hollywood film from the 2000s, even if the latter is adapted from the former? The sensibilities and cultures in which they exist are still entirely different.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The Harry Potter films were rather a shock to reviewers when they first started to appear, because author J. K. Rowling had full power over the directors to insist that no changes be made in the films over what was in the books, without her permission. The films accordingly followed the books very closely, leaving many reviewers to point out that this should not work, although it did.

On that point, in my opinion the first two HP movies are the best, and those are the most faithful to the books. Funny how that works.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

To touch upon Doctor Who for a moment, there are places not unlike this forum where those who do not adhere to the majority consensus can discuss without fear of getting the flaming pitchforks treatment that, say, critics of the films get on certain major sites for enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work.

I left the Doctor Who forums some time ago when the one I visited mostly was overrun with Doctor Who haters and a search elsewhere revealed that other forums had undergone the same fate. There was too much mindless hatred from both sides and it had ceased to be fun.

Concerning the matter of adaptation and changes, I believe there is an element of delusion in this belief that we, as Tolkien enthusiasts, ought to be 'grateful' that the films were made, regardless of alterations.

Indeed. I recall reading an old commentary on Tennyson’s The Idylls of the King which greatly blamed Tennyson for his poems which differed from Malory and praised those which followed Malory or the Mabinogion closely. The writer seemed to be entirely ignorant that there were also versions of some tales which were earlier than Malory and disagreed with them. Yet the influence of Tennyson can be seen in the most unexpected places, for example in Mists of Avalon and in the recently-released The Fall of Arthur by J. R. R. Tolkien.

Yet considering the enormous gulf of time alone between the culture of the period in which the books were published and that in which the films were produced surely it's far from unreasonable to find the films to not necessarily be to one's taste. If I like a heroic romance from the 1950s, why should I be expected to inevitably enjoy a Hollywood film from the 2000s, even if the latter is adapted from the former? The sensibilities and cultures in which they exist are still entirely different.

Well, lots of people still enjoy Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Snow-White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, the original Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein, The Seven Samurai, All Quiet on the Western Front, Sergeant York, High Noon, Shane, Django, the original King Kong, The Westerner, Gunfight at the O.K. Coral, Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Duck Soup, Some Like It Hot, Psycho, Dracula (1931), The Birds, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Carnival of Souls, Peeping Tom, Dead of Night, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dr. Strangelove, and many others. Most large cities have art-houses where older films are often shown.

You should not inevitably be expected to like any film, whether it is an older film or a modern one, or to like any book regardless. Taste is really quite inexplicable, at least to the outsider.

[LordPhillock]

I think you all would appreciate my tampering with newly-discovered sound-mix stems from the latest "Hobbit" trailer as I added appropriate music that better works with the film.

http://youtu.be/4ndXKnZuvbI

[Jabbawocky Took]

Hi, this is my first post here. Nice to meet you all.

That remix from LordPhilock was the weirdest thing I've seen for a long while.

But here is an even newer trailer for DOS that came out on 4 nov. What do you all make of it - an improvement on the last one?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn...%3Dlfflhfn1W-o

[Nerwen]

Oh, it’s an improvement, all right. It doesn’t look like a bad videogame anymore. In fact, it’s starting to look like a fairly decent one. Heck, I’d play it.

Morth will no doubt be gratified that this time they’ve taken the drastic step of *almost* including some lines from the book. Did you know the “King beneath the Mountains” song was really an Ancient Prophecy of Doom? No? Must be in the Appendices.

//end sarcasm

Well, enough of that. Welcome to the Downs, Jabberwocky Took! Enjoy your death!

[Kitanna]

It looks better than the first trailer. Maybe it if weren't for all the bow-twanging elves being beautiful, but ancient and terrible beings I'd like it even more. I do hope this is better than the first Hobbit movie.

I looked up the soundtrack today, but iTunes had a sample of one song up for preview. I See Fire by Ed Sheeran. Now, I liked all the credit songs, Enya's May it Be, Emiliana Torrini's Gollum's Song, Annie Lennox's Into the West, and even Neil Finn's Song of the Lonely Mountain (though this one took me some getting used to). I felt the songs for the trilogy always fit the mood of the movies. Song of the Lonely Mountain was ok, though it felt too folksy and somewhat of an odd choice, but I liked it. I See Fire song just seems entirely out of place. The song itself isn't terrible, but sounds more like it belongs on the Hunger Games soundtrack with Taylor Swift and The Civil Wars. Anyone else listened to the sample?

Also welcome to the Down Jabberwocky!