1. #1221
    Scarab Lord Frontenac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Québec, Québec
    Posts
    4,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Tolkien sold film rights when he was in some trouble and the treatment they produced for it was absolutely terrible. Tolkien wrote a rather scathing criticism of it but ultimately was respectful to the people creating it and understood that final say had passed out of his hands.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It is an absolute travesty how they treated Merry in the films. In the books he is as a seasoned adventurer in the wilder parts of Hobbit territory (Buckland being almost a land apart from the Shire) and masterminds the party's surreptitious departure to Bree. Without him the Ring would have never have made it far past the borders of the Shire if Frodo could have even made it that far without Merry. He has knowledge, connections and skills and is brave and capable in a fight. Merry in the books is a heroic badass and the films turned him into a slightly dopier Pippin.
    None of the Hobbits are heroic badasses nor seasoned adventurers at the beginning of the books. And he's certainly not a badass in combat. The only difference is that Merry is an adult (36 years old) while Pippin is still in his "tweens" (aged 29). So Merry is more mature, witty and wise than Pippin. And of course, being the future Master of Brandy Hall, he knows his ways in Buckland, which are not much less tame than the Four Farthings. Oh, he knows to drive a boat. I agree that would be considered quite "adventurous" by most Hobbits of the Farthings, but that's still not that impressive. And very quickly in the Old Forest he's not of much more help than Pippin. I agree though that both were treated as clownish characters (of about the same age) in the movies, and they lost their moment to shine because the Scouring of the Shire has been omitted. Which I expected. They also made the travel from Bag End to Bree quite shorter, so there's no "conspiracy" that Merry could have lead to spy on Frodo... But in what they left in the movies, I don't see much differences with how he behaves in the book (apart from the clownish parts).
    "Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"

  2. #1222
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    The Lord Of The Rings TV Show Cost Amazon $465 Million (Or One Jeffrey Bezos Mega-Yacht)

    Whatever you want to say about how the series may end up, that's a lot of money sunk into it thus far.
    Kind of a running theme with these kind of movies. Ghosts busters that one oceans movie everyone forgot about.

    Go woke, go broke is pretty consistent with only a few outliners.

  3. #1223
    Quote Originally Posted by Frontenac View Post
    None of the Hobbits are heroic badasses nor seasoned adventurers at the beginning of the books. And he's certainly not a badass in combat. The only difference is that Merry is an adult (36 years old) while Pippin is still in his "tweens" (aged 29). So Merry is more mature, witty and wise than Pippin. And of course, being the future Master of Brandy Hall, he knows his ways in Buckland, which are not much less tame than the Four Farthings. Oh, he knows to drive a boat. I agree that would be considered quite "adventurous" by most Hobbits of the Farthings, but that's still not that impressive. And very quickly in the Old Forest he's not of much more help than Pippin. I agree though that both were treated as clownish characters (of about the same age) in the movies, and they lost their moment to shine because the Scouring of the Shire has been omitted. Which I expected. They also made the travel from Bag End to Bree quite shorter, so there's no "conspiracy" that Merry could have lead to spy on Frodo... But in what they left in the movies, I don't see much differences with how he behaves in the book (apart from the clownish parts).
    The Jackson movies generally speedrunning through the Shire bits early in the first and late in the third film are definitely among their biggest sins. Understandable ones, but sins regardless. I understand trimming the fat for the theatrical cut, but the extended one should IMO have had the Scouring especially, it's an important capstone to the story of major characters.

    Then again it's counterbalanced by the films axing Tom Bombadil and the Wild Men. Purists beware of my opinion here, but they're absolutely boring parts in the books that bring nothing to the plot at all, Bombadil especially is padding for the sake of Tolkien's nostalgia for his childhood doll. Any sane adaptation would go "yeah, no".
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  4. #1224
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    13,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post

    Then again it's counterbalanced by the films axing Tom Bombadil and the Wild Men. Purists beware of my opinion here, but they're absolutely boring parts in the books that bring nothing to the plot at all, Bombadil especially is padding for the sake of Tolkien's nostalgia for his childhood doll. Any sane adaptation would go "yeah, no".
    Its also needless. the Tom Bombadil part of the books would have added nothing really to the movies. Its actually a part that was totally fine to cut. Its a nice moment in the books though, but in the grand scheme of the plot, it is a big nothing :P

    Funny because I do remember a few people upset that it was cut back in the early forum and message board days of the internet when the movie came out :P
    I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW

    Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance

  5. #1225
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    Its also needless. the Tom Bombadil part of the books would have added nothing really to the movies. Its actually a part that was totally fine to cut. Its a nice moment in the books though, but in the grand scheme of the plot, it is a big nothing :P

    Funny because I do remember a few people upset that it was cut back in the early forum and message board days of the internet when the movie came out :P
    Even in the book it's way too long. Bombadil should have taken up half a chapter at most, not almost two of them to then be completely irrelevant to the plot and world at large. They even handwave him away during the Council just so the reader knows that this character was totally pointless and they can stop thinking about him now.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  6. #1226
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    20,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    Then again it's counterbalanced by the films axing Tom Bombadil and the Wild Men. Purists beware of my opinion here, but they're absolutely boring parts in the books that bring nothing to the plot at all, Bombadil especially is padding for the sake of Tolkien's nostalgia for his childhood doll. Any sane adaptation would go "yeah, no".
    I think it was right to cut Tom Bombadil as well, especially knowing(at least i dont remember, correct me if im wrong) he doesn't come back later, neither do anything relevant after that, so its just some piece of lore there, something rly powerful, a god on earth, but, he just fade away, kinda anticlimatic.

    It work on a book but for a movie, that people expect foreshadowing and some resolutions, i don't think it would work.

  7. #1227
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    I'm sure these guys are just paid PR reviewers, or the wrong kind of Tolkien/LotR fans or something, though.
    I mean...it's not out of the realm of possibility. Thing that comes to mind first (because I saw a YMS review of it recently) are the ridiculous over-the-top reactions to the trailer for the Lion King remake. /shrug

  8. #1228
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    13,050
    Two Tolkien channels I am a fan of have had a 20 minute preview of the show. So far seems pretty positive which is enough to give me some hope, I have been watching these channels for along time and they are usually very level headed. Also they do good videos

    Its still a 20 minute preview it was easy to pick some good scenes, but I have heard it does feel very Tolkien.




    I was lured in by Wheel of Time this way, by similar channels and when I watched that show it was a horrible disappointment, so fool me once shame on me and all that
    Last edited by Orby; 2022-05-14 at 05:46 PM.
    I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW

    Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance

  9. #1229
    I'm not sure who to trust anymore. If they hand-picked people and invited them for a screening, what are the odds that they vetted them in ways that made it likely they'd have a favorable opinion? And isn't it a conflict of interest if those people want to be invited to future screenings, and wouldn't be if they voiced a negative opinion now? And that's not even going into territory where they might have signed contracts precluding them from being negative in the first place.

    It's really hard to get objective information these days, what with "influencers" having their livelihood depend on those with the most vested interest in skewing their honest opinions.

    I guess we'd have to wait until everyone has access, and collate from a bunch of sources to arrive at some sort of approximation of objectivity. This is really annoying.
    Last edited by Biomega; 2022-05-14 at 06:01 PM.

  10. #1230
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    If they hand-picked people and invited them for a screening, what are the odds that they vetted them in ways that made it likely they'd have a favorable opinion? And isn't it a conflict of interest if those people want to be invited to future screenings, and wouldn't be if they voiced a negative opinion now? And that's not even going into territory where they might have signed contracts precluding them from being negative in the first place.

    It's really hard to get objective information these days, what with "influencers" having their livelihood depend on those with the most vested interest in skewing their honest opinions.

    I guess we'd have to wait until everyone has access, and collate from a bunch of sources to arrive at some sort of approximation of objectivity. This is really annoying.
    100%. @Biomega you are describing a junket. This has been industry practice for decades. Even the Peter Jackson film trilogy had junkets. I would recommend reading The Frodo Franchise by Kristin Thompson. It went into detail about the business side of the LotR film trilogy and the marketing, and how junkets worked. Youtubers and other virtual influencers have simply joined journalists as mouthpieces of Hollywood.

    For a journalist working in the world of infotainment, the EPK is a godsend. You know only what the publicists want you to know, but you know enough to appear well-informed. You can cover the film as if it were news, illustrating your piece with images and footage, all the while hitting the notes that the marketers want hit. Like brand partnerships and making-of documentaries, the EPK demonstrates the full range of control that a modern film enterprise can exercise over the image of its product. And like other publicity artifacts, the EPK itself has value. Wait a few years, and sell your Towers kit to an avid collector prowling eBay.
    A junket brings the reporter to a central site—the studio, a location, a rented hotel meeting room in a city where a premiere is occurring—for intense but orchestrated exposure to the film and its stars. The company provides transportation, lodging, and a per diem (in the $150 to $200 range). Junketers receive goodie bags, known cynically as swag bags, full of licensed products, some promotional items for the film, and perhaps a costly gift or two. The reporters get brief access to the stars and key behind-the-camera talent, and in some cases they visit the set. Such junkets have been widely criticized as pressuring reporters and reviewers to create favorable stories so that they will be invited on future junkets.

    ...

    Above all, the junket situation allows the studio’s publicists to guide the interview process. Reporters may agree in advance to avoid certain topics. Hints that an actor may be gay or references to arrests or marital discord can get an interviewer ejected and banned from future junkets. In June 2005, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie appeared at two thirty-minute press conferences for Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Rumors of a romance between the two that had damaged Pitt’s marriage led lawyers to warn the roughly one hundred international journalists present that if they asked any personal questions, the event would terminate immediately. When publicists demanded that the published stories “not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning and derogatory,”
    24 reporters complained. Still, information about new films and their stars is the coin of infotainment, and news media have a vested interest in remaining in the favor of movie companies.

    The mechanics of most junket interviews are standardized. A star or a small number of stars will sit in a hotel room, a film location, or a set throughout one day, perhaps joined by the director or other key crew members. Batches of print and radio journalists come in and spend perhaps fifteen minutes asking questions in the manner of a news conference. As soon as one group leaves, another takes its place. A second day is devoted to TV reporters, who receive one-on-one face time. This privilege is balanced by the brief exposure—around five minutes, ordinarily—that the reporter has. The cameras filming these interviews are run by the studio, which may request retakes or edit the results. Tapes or discs are then given to the reporter.

    Anyone who followed media coverage of the Rings saw the same photos and clips over and over and heard familiar answers to familiar questions. We might think that a studio publicity department would want more variety, to keep spectators interested while following such coverage. The studio’s goal, however, is to link each main character, each major plot line, and other important components of the film to one or two simple concepts that will “brand” the film and help it float above the clutter of competing publicity. Diversity of coverage matters less than keeping journalists on topic.

  11. #1231
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    44,683
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    I mean...it's not out of the realm of possibility. Thing that comes to mind first (because I saw a YMS review of it recently) are the ridiculous over-the-top reactions to the trailer for the Lion King remake. /shrug
    Maybe, I'd wait and see until the movie

    P.S I'm one of those weirdos that always wanted the Lion King remake(Live action).
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

  12. #1232
    Junkets are always suspect. But money and opportunity will never be fully removed from the critic's who need access to critique, so you just gotta...yanno, see for yourself.

    I've never watched a show and then consulted others to see if I liked it.

  13. #1233
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    you are so entitled it hurts. wheel of time was fine. This will probably be fine too.
    Rafe of time was absolute trash tier and an embarrassment to the name wheel of time.

  14. #1234
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Junkets are always suspect. But money and opportunity will never be fully removed from the critic's who need access to critique, so you just gotta...yanno, see for yourself.

    I've never watched a show and then consulted others to see if I liked it.
    I think the role of critics has been a bit muddled with things like Rotten Tomatoes and other aggregate scoring sites. What people SHOULD do (if they want to rely reviews to narrow down media that they might enjoy) is find a small number (1-3) of critics/reviewers whose opinions consistently match your own and ignore any other ones.

    If you have the time and/or desire to just watch anything and everything that looks interesting to you then that's great as well.

  15. #1235
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    What people SHOULD do (if they want to rely reviews to narrow down media that they might enjoy) is find a small number (1-3) of critics/reviewers whose opinions consistently match your own and ignore any other ones.
    Easier said than done. There's basically no one I agree on a large variety of things with when it comes to popular media (mostly films/series and games). Some of their takes I'm totally on board with; while for others I think they seriously missed the boat.

    "Just" searching for my doppelganger critic is a tall order.

  16. #1236
    The Unstoppable Force RobertoCarlos's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Xenu
    Posts
    20,841
    Could always you know...watch it. And decide for yourself.

    Its not like you're deciding weather or not to splash out 100+ cash on a family night out to the movies. You either have amazon or you dont.
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  17. #1237
    Brewmaster
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    B'ham, AL
    Posts
    1,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I'm not sure who to trust anymore. If they hand-picked people and invited them for a screening, what are the odds that they vetted them in ways that made it likely they'd have a favorable opinion? And isn't it a conflict of interest if those people want to be invited to future screenings, and wouldn't be if they voiced a negative opinion now? And that's not even going into territory where they might have signed contracts precluding them from being negative in the first place.

    It's really hard to get objective information these days, what with "influencers" having their livelihood depend on those with the most vested interest in skewing their honest opinions.

    I guess we'd have to wait until everyone has access, and collate from a bunch of sources to arrive at some sort of approximation of objectivity. This is really annoying.
    Well, what do you mean by "objective information" you're trying to get?

    Because no - no one's opinion is *ever* objective. Its not a factual statement - its an opinion.

    You don't need to worry about who to trust? Just decide for yourself if you're going to watch two or three episodes of ANY show and figure it out from there? Why make this more complicated than it has to be?

    Why do you need an aggregate opinion to decide for yourself? Or perhaps - need an aggregate opinion to decide if you're going to decide for yourself?

    I don't get it?
    Koriani - Guardians of Forever - BM Huntard on TB; Kharmic - Worgen Druid - TB
    Koriani - none - Dragon of Secret World
    Karmic - Moirae - SWTOR
    inactive: Frith-Rae - Horizons/Istaria; Koriani in multiple old MMOs. I been around a long time.

  18. #1238
    Quote Originally Posted by Koriani View Post
    You don't need to worry about who to trust? Just decide for yourself if you're going to watch two or three episodes of ANY show and figure it out from there? Why make this more complicated than it has to be?
    Well being a poor humanities professor I just don't have the disposable cash to subscribe to every streaming service out there to watch a series I MIGHT like only to find out it sucks 2 episodes in.

    You seem to have that kind of money and that's cool, I myself do not.

  19. #1239
    Pretty sure The Wheel of Time got similarly said reviews and we know how fuck awful that turned out.
    Just don't reply to me. Please. If you can help it.

  20. #1240
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    13,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausr View Post
    Pretty sure The Wheel of Time got similarly said reviews and we know how fuck awful that turned out.
    It did, they were shown the first two episodes though which is like a hell of alot more, and even though I did not like those two episodes they were the best episodes of the show. But that's the point of these viewings of course you are going to show your best work.

    I am still sceptical, I am going to wait for another trailer and I'll watch the first episode and see for myself.
    I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW

    Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •