Movie: The Hobbit

[Hitenma]

Filling the gaps?
Those anime don't have enough material to adapt so they make fillers while waiting.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

This Tauriel character is also created and added to fill the “much needed” “female presence” in a story which originally already fine as it is without her. So IMO this Tauriel is a filler character.

Just so you know, fillers can be positive or negative. But doesn't change the fact that it's a filler.

[Hitenma]

No it is not fine. The story in the book is too simple so the movie can't be a 100% copy of it. Adding characters is necessary to characterize the elves, otherwise they are nothing but plot device (another example is Bard, his role needs expanding in order for him to be a character).

So if this Tauriel is male you won't complain?

[Vexx]

At this point, the word "filler" doesn't mean much to me other than "something that doesn't move the plot forward". It might provide intrinsically useful character development, be seriously entertaining, flesh out sketchy moments -- but not move the plot forward.

Basically, I see it used so often to mean anything outside the skeletal milestone points in the plot I'm never really sure what the user actually means anymore and there's no consistency on whether it is meant as a pejorative or just anything outside of the bones.

For those reasons, I've basically stopped using the term.

I'm not sure Obelisk is "complaining" because "filler" isn't automatically a "complaint".

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Hitenma

No it is not fine. The story in the book is too simple so the movie can't be a 100% copy of it. Adding characters is necessary to characterize the elves, otherwise they are nothing but plot device (another example is Bard, his role needs expanding in order for him to be a character).

Oh, you think the book’s not fine? Well, I think the book’s already fine as it is as a children book. They’re called opinions.

Originally Posted by Hitenma

So if this Tauriel is male you won't complain?

You don’t get my point. This Tauriel character is still a filler character whether she is male, female, or transvestite. You assume with me saying “Tauriel is a filler character” I’m saying that it’s bad. No, I merely saying “she’s a filler character” because she’s not originally in the book/original story (no matter how positive or negative her contribution will be).

PS: Like Vexx said, I'm not complaining. Just saying the fact as it is.

[AmeNoJaku]

Stretching the source material into 3 movies was an obvious mistake artistically, but probably not financially.

[Endless Soul]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

No, I merely saying “she’s a filler character” because she’s not originally in the book/original story (no matter how positive or negative her contribution will be).

I agree with this. However, as the article says, there are hardly any women in the book at all. I think the addition of Tauriel will most likely be a positive move.

Endless "Thinking positive" Soul

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AmeNoJaku

Stretching the source material into 3 movies was an obvious mistake artistically, but probably not financially.

That I'll agree with as possible. I do know I've heard Peter just couldn't restrain himself by wanting to stick in as much of the stuff from the LOTR Appendices and the offscreen events as he could - which inflated the script just passed the "two movie extended' mark, hence three movies.

My take on the first movie was "mostly good - needs the stupid cartoon parts edited down" like the hyperbolic Wiley Coyote goblin mine escape.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by AmeNoJaku

Stretching the source material into 3 movies was an obvious mistake artistically, but probably not financially.

Yah think? Even with a supposed budget of 300 million, "Unexpected Journey" still made over a billion dollars worldwide. As so long as the next two film make at least 800 million each, then the Tolkien franchise will go down in history as one of the biggest franchises of all time with a combined box office of somewhere over 5.5 billion dollars (the franchise is currently resting at somewhere around 3.9 billion). Obviously, adjusting for inflation and what not will change these numbers some what, but suffice to say it was an amazingly good idea to split the Hobbit into three films even if the end result might have created lesser films.

Originally Posted by Vexx

My take on the first movie was "mostly good - needs the stupid cartoon parts edited down" like the hyperbolic Wiley Coyote goblin mine escape.

Besides the unnecessary humorous end (which still worked because the film is a pseudo-family feature), that was actually one of the few scenes I really liked. It was a glorious piece of animation with some great technical details and sound effects and editing. It was a little overlong, but a nice set-piece and an obvious comparison to the similar scene in "Fellowship of the Ring".

The weird chase scene earlier on right before they enter Elf-city was a far more annoying sequence (imo).

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by james0246

Besides the unnecessary humorous end (which still worked because the film is a pseudo-family feature), that was actually one of the few scenes I really liked. It was a glorious piece of animation with some great technical details and sound effects and editing. It was a little overlong, but a nice set-piece and an obvious comparison to the similar scene in "Fellowship of the Ring".

The weird chase scene earlier on right before they enter Elf-city was a far more annoying sequence (imo).

Heh, yes that's why I said edited down rather than edited out. The scenes had fun merit even if a bit weird - it was the sheer repetition of moment after physics-defying moment that broke immersion and reminded me I was watching a movie rather than being in the moment.

I suspect Jackson's *intent* was to carry the child-like flavor the Hobbit sometimes has in its lurching way. I'm betting the river barrel sequence is just as absurd

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

My main issue of the Goblin Mines was that it wasn't as graphically realistic as I like it to be. But I already mentioned that at initial release. As I said then, WETA's CGI department does an A class job, but not A+ as compared to the rest of the studio.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

My main issue of the Goblin Mines was that it wasn't as graphically realistic as I like it to be. But I already mentioned that at initial release. As I said then, WETA's CGI department does an A class job, but not A+ as compared to the rest of the studio.

yeah, there were quite a few seconds where I felt like I was watching an "N" gauge railroad recreation

[Solace]

Originally Posted by AmeNoJaku

Stretching the source material into 3 movies was an obvious mistake artistically, but probably not financially.

Hollywood loves trilogies. If it's possible to franchise it, the option to turn it into a trilogy is already on the table before the scripts are even finished. And if the trilogy is successful, you get more trilogies, even if it means rebooting the franchise.

It's been this way for almost twenty years now, and won't be changing any time soon.

[Ithekro]

The only franchise I can see being in a position to challenge Tolkien based films is the still coming third Star Wars trilogy. And while the audiance will be more skeptical after the last trilogy, the curiousity factor with Disney in and Lucas not writting and directing will make up for all that. Because it is Star Wars.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The only franchise I can see being in a position to challenge Tolkien based films is the still coming third Star Wars trilogy. And while the audience will be more skeptical after the last trilogy, the curiosity factor with Disney in and Lucas not writing and directing will make up for all that. Because it is Star Wars.

To be fair, there are many series larger and more popular than the Tolkien franchise. Harry Potter (currently the #1 ranked franchise in the world), The Avengers, James Bond and yes Star Wars (I forget the exact numbers, but the Twilight franchise might still be more popular (in terms of box office)).

That being said, future Star Wars will undoubtedly be gigantic.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Heh, yes that's why I said edited down rather than edited out. The scenes had fun merit even if a bit weird - it was the sheer repetition of moment after physics-defying moment that broke immersion and reminded me I was watching a movie rather than being in the moment.

There was definite bloating throughout the film. Seconds here, minutes there, that when trimmed would undoubtedly make for a tighter and (hopefully) more entertaining film.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I suspect Jackson's *intent* was to carry the child-like flavor the Hobbit sometimes has in its lurching way. I'm betting the river barrel sequence is just as absurd

I'm actually really excited by the idea of just what they could do with the barrel scene. They could make it really over-the-top but still lots of fun. (The entire Mirkwood segment was really exciting in the book, and I can only imagine how crazy it could become in the next film.)

[synaesthetic]

The future Star Wars makes me cringe.

The prequels broke enough of the EU. New movies after Return of the Jedi are just going to destroy it completely and utterly. SW canon will mean virtually nothing, and I will officially give the franchise up forever.

Unless Abrams is smart enough to movie-ify The Thrawn Trilogy...

... ogod that would be amazing.

[AmeNoJaku]

Look, I understand that these kind of films are made just for profit, instead of some inherent artistic pursuit or vision, but doesn't that fact bother anyone here? I really have a hard time even understanding why would a parent take his children to watch the sequels, leaving aside the fans of the book, that cherished it during their childhood.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The future Star Wars makes me cringe.

The prequels broke enough of the EU. New movies after Return of the Jedi are just going to destroy it completely and utterly. SW canon will mean virtually nothing, and I will officially give the franchise up forever.

Unless Abrams is smart enough to movie-ify The Thrawn Trilogy...

... ogod that would be amazing.

personally, regarding SW, i prefer if the movies Focus on the Beginning of the Old Republic, Founding of the Jedi order and creation of the Sith.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by AmeNoJaku

Look, I understand that these kind of films are made just for profit, instead of some inherent artistic pursuit or vision, but doesn't that fact bother anyone here? I really have a hard time even understanding why would a parent take his children to watch the sequels, leaving aside the fans of the book, that cherished it during their childhood.

It's not like they're pulling a Dragon Ball Evolution here. Let's keep things in perspective, okay?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AmeNoJaku

Look, I understand that these kind of films are made just for profit, instead of some inherent artistic pursuit or vision, but doesn't that fact bother anyone here? I really have a hard time even understanding why would a parent take his children to watch the sequels, leaving aside the fans of the book, that cherished it during their childhood.

It's interesting. My kids (back when they were kids) actually hated the Hobbit for a bedtime story. Lord of the Rings, OTOH, I read cover-to-cover with my first son when he was about five. Five years later, I was reading it to son #2 and son #1 crept back into bed with us to hear it again. And since then, they've read the books at least several times. The Hobbit they've never warmed up to other than as an early writing attempt by Tolkien.

The recent Hobbit movie was a bit of a redemption of the story for them -- as in, "Oh, that's what Tolkien was trying to convey!" (minus the Peter Jackson comedic inserts).