The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
I wish the movies hadn't turned the characters into morons for the sake of the plot...



CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 8 2016, 7:34am


Views: 3740
I wish the movies hadn't turned the characters into morons for the sake of the plot...

Little things that Peter Jackson did inadvertently made these characters come across as buffoons. And they drove me crazy. I'm looking to see if anyone agrees with me (though I'm prepared for a debate).

PEEVE #1: Thorin and the company put down their swords when the troll says, "Lay down your arms, or we'll rip his off!"
Yes I KNOW in the book the trolls capture the goblins, setting up the whole "Dawn will take you all..." bit. But I doubt Tolkien's Thorin would have in point of fact laid down his arms if he'd had the tactical advantage that movie Thorin did. Especially when it is revealed in BOFA that these dwarves are more than capable of killing a bunch of trolls. Thorin would not have given up his advantage, especially when he knew trolls weren't trustworthy. Better to avenge one unfortunate hobbit then risk everyone ending up in a stew.

The Sensible Character Thing To Do: Not have Thorin lay down his arms. Instead, Thorin should have said, "Surrender the hobbit, and we will let you live. Refuse and we will kill every last one of you."
You may go, "Hold on, Thorin needed Bilbo to be his burglar." But Thorin wasn't even convinced Bilbo should be along for the ride. He had already said to Gandalf he wouldn't guarantee Bilbo's safety, precisely because of a situation like the trolls. He wasn't going to risk the quest for one burglar of dubious capabilities (more on this later).
The Sensible Thing Peter Jackson Should Have Done: A very subtle tweak could have been to this scene which would have fade far more sense. Book Thorin never would have laid down his arms for Bilbo at that point in the story, but what if the trolls had gotten their hands on Fili or Kili? Thatís different. Those are Thorinís nephews. The children of his beloved sister. His heirs. The future of Erebor. For THEM, it would have made more sense for Thorin to throw down his arms, and for all the other dwarves to be cool with doing the same thing.

PEEVE #2: Everyone runs up a burning tree from Azog and his twenty orcs, even when itís been well established they can easily kill hundreds of them.
In Battle of the Five Armies, there's a groan inducing scene where Thorin sees a bunch of orcs running towards him and he says, "There's no more than a hundred. Dwalin and I can handle this." Way to remove all tension from a scene, Peter Jackson. If each dwarf in the Company can kill 50 orcs each, thatís 650 orcs. Azog had maybe twenty orcs with him when he chased the company down the hill. And they had a wizard who could kill at least a hundred if not more. During this series, we've seen everyone from tiny toddlers and preteens to wimpy Bilbo kill huge hulking orcs. Theyíre just not that tough. If these dwarves according to PJ logic are able to turn the tide of an entire battle simply by running out of a fortress, there is no excuse for them to run from Azog.
What Peter Jackson Should have Done: Not have Thorin say that line in BOTFA which cheapened the actions of the dwarves in earlier movies and made them look like idiots. Not have the dwarves come out of the burning tree to easily kill those orcs, thus establishing that the dwarves were dumb to climb up the tree to begin with. Don't make these dwarves so damn powerful. Even Aragorn limped after a battle scene.

PEEVE # 3: When Balin in Desolation of Smaug yells, "Bilbo!"
Really? The oldest, wisest dwarf in the company is going to act like an idiot and risk giving them all away?
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Have Ori yell that line, and then have Balin or Thorin tell Ori to be quiet. Oriís the youngest dwarf. It would have made more sense. I suspect the only reason Peter Jackson had Balin say it, was because he liked Ken Stott and wished he had more for him to do (me too).
Pet Peeve 4: Legolas was instantly jealous of Tauriel and Kili for no reason.

Way to destroy Legolas character. While part of me likes the idea of the whole Legolas has an arc where he goes from a douche to being a good person, the execution was horrible.

What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Not have that silly subplot. And killed Tauriel at the Battle of Five Armies. Her relationship with Legolas needed no fleshing out. The audience would have immediately assumed she and Legolas was a thing, cause she was the hot female elf. If she had simply conducted herself as a proper soldier, it would have been far better. Then when she died in battle (I wish) there could have been ONE shot of Legolas mourning her, thus giving insight to Legolas character and adding some romance to the Hobbit without being silly and gratuitous.

PEEVE #4: Smaug looks Bilbo right in the eye and says, "You care about them (the Laketown people). Then you can watch them die!"

Really? Smaug spends forty minutes trying to kill Bilbo, and then looks Bilbo right in his very visible face and doesn't kill him? Come on. That's just out of character for both of them. The whole scene as Jackson had it, would have made more sense simply if Smaugh COULDNíT see Bilbo. Hence the whole taking it out on Laketown instead.

What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Stuck to the book. Duh. Bilbo wouldn't have taken off the ring anywhere near Smaug's vicinity, due to his aversion to being fried to a hobbity crisp. And that dwarf chase was bonkers.

PEEVE #5: Everyone trusted Alfrid.
Bard trusted Alfrid with his own family. Bard trusts Alfrid to keep watch. Gandalf trusted Alfrid to look after BIlbo. These are supposed to be the smartest people in the book. And they're idiots. It's a good thing Alfrid wasn't in FOTR. Everyone would be giving him the ring to take to Mount Doom.

PEEVE #6: Movie Bard knew a dragon was coming and didnít get his family out of town.
Really? What would you have done?
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Instead of having Bard getting arrested, one of many possible solutions would have been to have a scene where Bard is taking his kids and leaving town when his kids convince Bard to stay, because heís the only one who can save the town from the dragon. Cause if your kids were saying, ďAre we going to de?,Ē I think you'd most likely say, ďNope. Pack your bags.Ē That family totally would have had a head start if they had left at that point. Smaug was still chasing the dwarves.


PEEVE #7: The dwarves kept casually talking to each other during the climactic battle in Battle of The Five Armies.
Really? There were moments in that big battle where it seemed like the dwarves were out for a leisurely stroll instead of fighting the ultimate battle for their lives and the future of Middle Earth. They were hugging and joking around with each other, which totally destroyed tension, sapped energy out of the scene, and completely damaged the credibility of the threat they were facing.
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Not made three movies. He clearly had too much filler. Instead of one hour long bore fest, he could have had an intense ten minute final battle to wrap things up.


(This post was edited by CaptainObvious on May 8 2016, 7:41am)


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


May 8 2016, 8:07am


Views: 3429
Great read!

I have nothing to add because I made peace with the fact I will never like these films - So I just pretend they don't exist!


Smaug the iron
Gondor


May 8 2016, 8:42am


Views: 3421
No they are not morans


In Reply To
PEEVE #2: Everyone runs up a burning tree from Azog and his twenty orcs, even when itís been well established they can easily kill hundreds of them.
In Battle of the Five Armies, there's a groan inducing scene where Thorin sees a bunch of orcs running towards him and he says, "There's no more than a hundred. Dwalin and I can handle this." Way to remove all tension from a scene, Peter Jackson. If each dwarf in the Company can kill 50 orcs each, thatís 650 orcs. Azog had maybe twenty orcs with him when he chased the company down the hill. And they had a wizard who could kill at least a hundred if not more. During this series, we've seen everyone from tiny toddlers and preteens to wimpy Bilbo kill huge hulking orcs. Theyíre just not that tough. If these dwarves according to PJ logic are able to turn the tide of an entire battle simply by running out of a fortress, there is no excuse for them to run from Azog.
What Peter Jackson Should have Done: Not have Thorin say that line in BOTFA which cheapened the actions of the dwarves in earlier movies and made them look like idiots. Not have the dwarves come out of the burning tree to easily kill those orcs, thus establishing that the dwarves were dumb to climb up the tree to begin with. Don't make these dwarves so damn powerful. Even Aragorn limped after a battle scene.

This was in the book.



In Reply To
PEEVE # 3: When Balin in Desolation of Smaug yells, "Bilbo!"
Really? The oldest, wisest dwarf in the company is going to act like an idiot and risk giving them all away?
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Have Ori yell that line, and then have Balin or Thorin tell Ori to be quiet. Oriís the youngest dwarf. It would have made more sense. I suspect the only reason Peter Jackson had Balin say it, was because he liked Ken Stott and wished he had more for him to do (me too).

I would also be glad to see Bilbo if I was in prison and had No hope.


In Reply To
PEEVE #4: Smaug looks Bilbo right in the eye and says, "You care about them (the Laketown people). Then you can watch them die!"

Really? Smaug spends forty minutes trying to kill Bilbo, and then looks Bilbo right in his very visible face and doesn't kill him? Come on. That's just out of character for both of them. The whole scene as Jackson had it, would have made more sense simply if Smaugh COULDNíT see Bilbo. Hence the whole taking it out on Laketown instead.

What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Stuck to the book. Duh. Bilbo wouldn't have taken off the ring anywhere near Smaug's vicinity, due to his aversion to being fried to a hobbity crisp. And that dwarf chase was bonkers.

It is not out of character, Smaug does not kill Bilbo because he knows that if Bilbo lives to see the attack on Lake-Town, Bilbo would blame himself for the attack, a far worst fate then just death plus I would rather see Smaug with out the ring effect then with.



In Reply To
PEEVE #6: Movie Bard knew a dragon was coming and didnít get his family out of town.
Really? What would you have done?
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Instead of having Bard getting arrested, one of many possible solutions would have been to have a scene where Bard is taking his kids and leaving town when his kids convince Bard to stay, because heís the only one who can save the town from the dragon. Cause if your kids were saying, ďAre we going to de?,Ē I think you'd most likely say, ďNope. Pack your bags.Ē That family totally would have had a head start if they had left at that point. Smaug was still chasing the dwarves.

This is explained in the film, "And go where? There is no where to go" Bard knows that even if they leave Smaug would still kill them so he must stop him.


In Reply To
PEEVE #7: The dwarves kept casually talking to each other during the climactic battle in Battle of The Five Armies.
Really? There were moments in that big battle where it seemed like the dwarves were out for a leisurely stroll instead of fighting the ultimate battle for their lives and the future of Middle Earth. They were hugging and joking around with each other, which totally destroyed tension, sapped energy out of the scene, and completely damaged the credibility of the threat they were facing.
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Not made three movies. He clearly had too much filler. Instead of one hour long bore fest, he could have had an intense ten minute final battle to wrap things up.

So the dwarves are not allowed to have some talking and jokes during the battle but Legolas and Gimli are allowed to make jokes during the battles in LOTR plus they did talk many times during the battles in the LOTR books.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 8 2016, 9:19am


Views: 3410
It's spelled moron...silly...

1. No duh, the tree scene is in the book. I'm saying how Peter Jackson chose to portray the event, the characters came off as unintelligent.

2. Whether in prison or not, if you essentially go, "Yay, you're rescuing me!" When there may be guards nearby who will wonder about the commotion, you're a moron. Balin as the oldest, wisest dwarf shouldn't be portrayed as a moron.

3. It's out of character for Smaug.

4. Gee, where could they go...Rivendell, Gondor, Shire, Mirkwood, Bree, Rohan, namely anywhere else in Middle Earth. Legolas and Bolg both arrived in Laketown after Bard said this, and were long gone gone by the time the dragon showed up. Thus establishing that Bard and his family could have also left.

5. When Legolas and Gimli didn't crack jokes. As humorous as it was when they counted the enemies they killed, the film didn't grind to a halt and the stakes never felt less. And they never stopped fighting to simply stand around talking. The dwarves of Erebor do that a few times.


LSF
Gondor

May 8 2016, 9:33am


Views: 3410
corrections and info

#1- They originally had Bofur get caught and surrendered for, but then they realized that (before the AUJ pickups), nothing character-wise happened to Bilbo, no growth and nothing really to the Thorin relationship. Also, perhaps better to buy some time to figure out a way to escape (not to mention Gandalf is out there and could come help eventually). In the Battle, they succeed in killing trolls and ogres while with the dwarf army and with weaponry they did not have while facing the 3 trolls.

#2- "Goblin Mercenaries... no more than a hundred." And they show that these are indeed the same kind of goblins as from GoblinTown, which were established as being very wimpy against them.
The Company does not kills hundreds of orcs in the battle.The tide changes because the dwarf army gets a huge morale boost and rally because their king has joined them.
They don't see it's Azog (or even know exactly how many guys are chasing them) until they are already up in the not-burning trees, and by that point they literally have wargs nearly biting off their feet. Wargs were also not used in the Battle.

#4- While the Kili/Tuariel romance was always a thing, the love triangle was imposed by WB later on. Legolas and Tauriel were originally written and filmed as good friends or sibling-like.

#5- Smaug is shown to be a playful, spiteful, and cruel. What would be more hurtful to Bilbo, killing him or torching an entire city in his name and letting him live to have that guilt eat at him? Invisible conversation would have been visually boring/weird and unsuspenseful. Taking off the ring shows the ability for Smaug to get into Bilbo's head and the power of the ring itself in influencing Bilbo. Also, only at the very end of the conversation does Smaug actually try to kill Bilbo.


(This post was edited by LSF on May 8 2016, 9:43am)


Smaug the iron
Gondor


May 8 2016, 9:43am


Views: 3411
Well


In Reply To
It's spelled moron...silly...

Alright my bad.

In Reply To
No duh, the tree scene is in the book. I'm saying how Peter Jackson chose to portray the event, the characters came off as unintelligent.

How?


In Reply To
Whether in prison or not, if you essentially go, "Yay, you're rescuing me!" When there may be guards nearby who will wonder about the commotion, you're a moron. Balin as the oldest, wisest dwarf shouldn't be portrayed as a moron.

So only because you are exacting to be free you are a moron? I would have don the same thing does that make me a moron?


In Reply To
It's out of character for Smaug.

No it is not, Smaug is a psychopath and wont to torture Bilbo as mutch as possible.


In Reply To
And they never stopped fighting to simply stand around talking. The dwarves of Erebor do that a few times.

except for Thorin and Dain hugging their are no other places where they are just stopp fighting with enemies around. If they do talk there are no enemies around to fight. Plus during the battle of the pelennor fields in the book many people stop fighting to talk a little bit ( especially at Theodens death.)

In Reply To
4. Gee, where could they go...Rivendell, Gondor, Shire, Mirkwood, Bree, Rohan, namely anywhere else in Middle Earth. Legolas and Bolg both arrived in Laketown after Bard said this, and were long gone gone by the time the dragon showed up. Thus establishing that Bard and his family could have also left.

How far do you think they got before Smaug would have found them? Legolas and Bolg had a horse and a warg but Bard only have a boat and would not have gone far before Smaug would found them.


LSF
Gondor

May 8 2016, 9:51am


Views: 3399
correction on my warg comment

Soyry, they were used in the battle, though it didn't look like they were part of the main army and were only in the chariot part.


StingingFly
Lorien

May 8 2016, 10:54am


Views: 3386
Agreed, for the most part

1 yes, they should have used Kili, that would have made a lot more sense, especially if he did something reckless (as is his nature) to get captured.
2 they went up the trees to get away from the wolves, which was a good move. They should have gotten down to fight when Azog arrived. They reason they didn't in the book was they were surrounded by an army of goblins and wolves. In the movie they were on the edge of a cliff, so they could have reasonably defended their position without being flanked.
3 Balin is old, old people do wierd stuff...he probably thought he was using his 'inside' voice
4a yes, Legolas was petty and annoying
4b a bigger problem was the 'Chase scene' where Smaug turns into a Scooby Do villain
5 Hillarious.
6 Bard may have made a calculation that running would have been pointless and the only hope for survival was to kill Smaug using the Windlance.
7 the battle conversation was ok, Dain head butting orcs to death was dumb.
How about #8 Gandalf going into Dul Guldur alone when he strongly suspected that Sauron and the Nine were there. There's brave and there's foolish. It wasn't like he was sneaking around trying to gather information. He was going room to room shouting at the top of his lungs.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 8 2016, 1:30pm


Views: 3370
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to

Professor Tolkien has the Dwarves of the company acting like morons quite often as well.

- They start the Quest of Erebor poorly armed, seemingly with nothing beyond utilitarian knives and perhaps bows for hunting, and nothing in the way of even the lightest armor.

- They investigate the Troll-camp mostly in ones and twos, wandering in and for the most part getting easily caught. Even Thorin, their leader, can't do better than a burning branch for a weapon.

- None of them think to call out to the reveling Wood-elves in the clearing instead of announcing themselves by walking into it.

- The Dwarves can't figure out even the approximate date of their own New Year's Day even though it should be easy to determine when the last (new?) moon before the onset of Winter should fall. Even if they couldn't be sure that there would be a Durin's Day in any given year, they should at least know that much.

- Thorin, captured by the Wood-elves, doesn't at least attempt to use the same excuse for the presence of the company that they used with the goblins: traveling to visit relatives in the east. Surely the Elvenking knows of Dain in the Iron Hills.

- As in the films, they have no plans for dealing with Smaug beyond burglary.

- No one among the Dwarves try to talk Thorin out of his hardline stance against cutting a deal with the Elves and Men.

This doesn't excuse PJ's plotting, but it does show that there is plenty of precedence for the Dwarves making poor decisions. Oh, and about Bard simply fleeing Lake-town with his family:

In Reply To
Gee, where could they go...Rivendell, Gondor, Shire, Mirkwood, Bree, Rohan, namely anywhere else in Middle Earth. Legolas and Bolg both arrived in Laketown after Bard said this, and were long gone gone by the time the dragon showed up. Thus establishing that Bard and his family could have also left.


Don't underestimate distances in Middle-earth and the difficulties of traveling late in the year. Where could Bard go with little in the way of food and supplies? The Wood-elves where the only large community of folk who were less than several weeks away.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."


- Dream of the Endless


(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 8 2016, 1:39pm)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 8 2016, 2:25pm


Views: 3351
Wow, where do I begin?

Peeve #1 - totally reject your logic here. Exactly what "tactical advantage" did Thorin have? They'd been hammering away at these three trolls for several minutes, and hadn't even made a DENT in any of them, and then one of their own is captured. And you answered your own question when you acknowledged that your "solution" would have changed the book, so why even go there?

Peeve #2 - NOBODY ran up a burning tree, what are you talking about? And again, that was in the book. But, at some point Fili & Kili defended their Uncle "with shield & body," also in the book, so that scene was moved to the first movie (talk to PJ about it). As for the ending, yeah 13 Dwarves wouldn't have made a physical or tactical difference to the final battle, so it was more motivational that the Dwarves were fighting for their King. Yeah, that line about "no more than 100" was pretty dumb, something closer to 20 would have been better, but that also has no bearing on the scene where they run up the trees to escape the Orcs & wargs.

Peeve #3 - To me this isn't even a big enough deal to care about; can't believe it ruined the movie for you.

Peeve #4 - The infamous subplot. I could have done without the romantic triangle myself, but I don't think excluding it would have changed Legolas in any way. The way he threatened Thorin in Mirkwood, "Do not think I won't kill you, Dwarf, it would be my pleasure," was so vastly different from the Legolas in FoTR who merely thought the Dwarves were annoying is what destroyed his character, along with some OTT stunts. And I think if Tauriel died during BOTFA, that would have given Legolas LESS, not more reason to dislike the Dwarves. So no, I don't think killing her off would have been a good move. OTOH, her last line with Thranduil, and his reply, yeah, BLECK! Frown

Peeve #5 - Where did you get the idea that everyone trusted Alfrid? NOBODY did. I don't think even Bard trusted him, but he seemed to be willing to give Alfrid the benefit of the doubt. Foolish, yes, but also part of Bard's character.

Peeve #6 - Your assumptions are all wrong. Fili told Bard to take his children out of town, and Bard replied, "where will we go?" I mean really, have you seen Smaug? No, they didn't have much chance to get away from a dragon the size of two 747 jets. And the kids couldn't have "talked Bard into staying because he was the town's only hope," as you put it, because they didn't know about the black arrow until he showed it to them. But the children's leaving without him was implied in his conversation with Bain - "Why didn't you leave? You were supposed to leave!" A bit contradictory for sure, but yeah, the kids were supposed to leave.

Peeve #7 - Totally wrong, IMO. Everything you said here. Now of course, you and I are probably not going to agree on everything, and that's fine. One man's bore-fest is another man's (or woman's, in my case) exciting and fun visual treat. In fact, I think I'm going to go watch it again. I'm personally very glad that there were three movies. Yep, very glad!Heart

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


wizzardly
Rohan


May 8 2016, 3:33pm


Views: 3311
excellent post


Quote
What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Not made three movies. He clearly had too much filler. Instead of one hour long bore fest, he could have had an intense ten minute final battle to wrap things up.


And that's it right there. He had way too much screentime to fill, and no idea how to do it, as he admitted himself when he said "I didn't know what the hell I was doing."


Avandel
Half-elven


May 8 2016, 3:51pm


Views: 3312
I feel the same....

about some movies! But re:


Quote
I have nothing to add because I made peace with the fact I will never like these films - So I just pretend they don't exist!






Really? I WISH I could find PEACEFrown. My life has been destroyed by a bunch of hairy guys and
a Hobbit!LaughLaughLaugh




I HAD serenityShocked. Oh, I'd read LOTR once in while, watch LOTR once in while, then they were back on the shelf and I was off to scroll Amazon for the latest in FREE BOOKS...and then...








Now I actually know what Khuzdul is! I read pages on Medieval weapons and forging techniques! My computer is full of folders of Middle Earth Art! I've had my brain seared by the *unholy imaginings*Evil of
fan fiction (as well as lots of laughs)! Rude phases comprised of Mahal + round objects are part of my
daily vocabulary (at needEvil)! I didn't even know who Mahal was!

OMG, I actually contemplate reading the Sil! I watch Game of Thrones and see a dragon and think of SmaugHeart! I wistfully hit the 'Net hoping against hope for some *hitherato* unreleased Hobbit images! I dream of the uber-ultra-deluxe-mega-cut of the Hobbit!Tongue



And I won't even comment on the original post,'coz other TORn-ers already did.



Love these movies! Love, love, loveHeartHeartHeartCool









LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 8 2016, 4:06pm


Views: 3308
You are wrong.


In Reply To
And that's it right there. He had way too much screentime to fill, and no idea how to do it, as he admitted himself when he said "I didn't know what the hell I was doing."


That statement of PJ was taken OUT OF CONTEXT. Read this: http://www.theonering.net/...g-storm-in-a-teacup/. PJ doesn't think the Hobbit trilogy is bad by any means. And neither do I, for that matter. Cool


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on May 8 2016, 4:06pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 8 2016, 4:30pm


Views: 3284
still

Edited though it may be...you have to admit the editor sure had a lot of material to work with. And PJ did actually say that he was making things up as he went along and the now infamous "winging it" comment. Sure they "overcame" the obstacles because....the movie was released. But the process was clearly not ideal, and I'm certain if they could go back and do it all again, we would have a completely different adaptation.

The youtube video was edited because most people don't have time to sit through a 45 minute behind the scenes of a mediocre hollywood hack job. Nothing was taken out of context as they claimed after it blew up the internet. They weren't just going to sit back and say "yeah its true, we didn't have enough time to prepare. It's a total disaster." They have dvds and super extended blu rays to sell afterall.


moreorless
Gondor

May 9 2016, 6:51am


Views: 3129
The book characters are actually considerably more "moronic"...

As you point out the book characters make much more in the way of clear tactical errors, most obviously the idea that Bilbo is going to somehow steal the entire treasure hoard at Erebor. Really though I view this as simply a product of the kind of story the Hobbit is, its not an attempt at a serious story with tactical choices akin to LOTR but a children's whimsical fantasy.
The issue really isn't that Jackson makes the characters "dumber" but that he tries to elevate the story from that to something a bit closer to LOTR, some changes are made to cast the characters as more serious and smarter but to really repeat LOTR I think he would have had to dump a great deal of material from the book.
Ultimately I think he goes for a middle ground which I think is clearly reflected in the overall tone being more cartoonish than LOTR, something that's clearly a deliberate choice.


Starling
Half-elven


May 9 2016, 7:13am


Views: 3127
So many morons...

so little time...




Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 9 2016, 12:06pm


Views: 3076
Agreed...

I'm not sure myself that is particularly useful to break Tolkien's The Hobbit down and critique it as though it was a novel written for adults. It is, after all, a children's fairy tale told as a bedtime story and is best viewed that way. Unfortunately for The Hobbit, its sequel turned out to be a different animal, aimed at a larger and more general readership and had a more serious tone and plot. The earlier book just cannot compare to the trilogy at the same level. They are apples and oranges despite the setting and characters that they have in common.

The above is why it was not necessarily a great idea to try to make the Hobbit movies feel more like Jackson's LotR films. It works to some extent, partly because the story does become more serious as it progresses--especially near the end. However, the changes still often feel awkward and sometimes ill-advised. For myself, this is most true where Jackson departs from both the original book and the later trilogy.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."

- Dream of the Endless


Noria
Gondor

May 9 2016, 12:16pm


Views: 3080
Can't agree with the OP

Like many others here, I feel that the book characters are much more moronic than their film counterparts. That works fine in the kid's book but not so much in a these bigger movies. In fact I think that one of the difficulties in making these films, one of the reasons that the plot and characters were tweaked, was to make the Dwarves seem less idiotic.

Even though at that stage he has little more than contempt for Bilbo, Thorin was too honourable to watch him be dismembered by the Trolls if he could prevent it. Itís exactly the same reason he almost got himself killed rescuing Bilbo in the Stone Giant sequence.

I too rolled my eyes a bit at Balin shouting out ďBilboĒ in the Elf Kingís dungeons and Thorinís admittedly nonsensical remark about only a hundred Orcs but these lines and others like them didnít do a whit to destroy my enjoyment of the movies. Neither do most of the OPís peeves but other posters have responded to those more than adequately.

PJís remarks about not knowing what he was doing applied to the actual battle of TBOFA. So he stopped production, thought about it, worked out what he wanted to do and did it. IMO, all thatís not so surprising given that he had to step up to direct this production with inadequate time to prepare.

These movies thrill, move and entertain me greatly and sometimes they exasperate me slightly, but one thing they never do is bore me.


Avandel
Half-elven


May 9 2016, 2:11pm


Views: 3056
Applauds - thank you

That statement of PJ was taken OUT OF CONTEXT. Read this: http://www.theonering.net/...g-storm-in-a-teacup/. PJ doesn't think the Hobbit trilogy is bad by any means. And neither do I, for that matter. Cool

(And I'll just add some of the things described as "moronic" don't seem so to me, and never did. Thorin's remark about the attacking goblins, for instance. For me I instantly saw a pack of chittering little things - GOBLIN MERCENARIES - which instantly translated as "obnoxious flea-like things and probably would save their own skin given the chance." I always enjoy that bit of dwarven badasseryCool - for me it's something to smile over in a relatively grim scene that rapidly gets grimmer.

The script didn't say "no more than a 100 troll-orcs who are quite a bit larger than us, and fanatically loyal to Azog." Indeed, I think the movie really gets rightHeart - and the attention to scale and believeability was amazing - the desperate battles with the orcs on Ravenhill.)


Avandel
Half-elven


May 9 2016, 2:33pm


Views: 3047
Profit isn't everything but....

Just sayin'. Sadly the cheap media who bandied about PJ's honest exhaustion instead of applauding the man and crew who pushed hard through 18 hour days and forged three wonderful filmsMad (including BOFA with Dain and Thorin and Thranduil's elk ride to Dale - e.g. images and scenes I wouldn't want to give up) - the cheap media would have been having a field day if BOFA had bombed.Unimpressed

There would have been the usual slew of snark articles as there were about "Lone Ranger" analyzing the whole thing zzzzzzzz and conveniently forgetting films like "Waterworld" can become cult favorites and/or turn a profit in the DVD/BR market. (Or that fact that a lot of these folks couldn't get a movie together if they had a quarter million dollar budget and an entire studio at hand).Unimpressed


Quote
When it comes to evaluating the financial performance of top movies, it isnít about what a film grosses at the box office. The true tale is told when production budgets, P&A, talent participations and other costs collide with box office grosses, and ancillary revenues from VOD to DVD and TV. To get close to that mysterious end of the equation, Deadline is repeating our Most Valuable Blockbuster tournament, using data culled by seasoned and trusted sources. Weíre counting down from No. 20 and will present the data en masse Monday.

THE BOTTOM LINE:
Our experts report that the final installment lagged slightly behind the domestic box of the previous two Hobbit films, and they estimate the total cost on this one was $300 million. That, plus first-dollar gross for Peter Jackson and possibly Guillermo del Toro, and MGMís position, and cash break deals for the cast led our experts to peg the participations on this film to be $85M. This leaves Warner Bros with an estimated net profit of $103.38M, with Cash on Cash return of 1.15.

But hey, people get paid when they star in six pictures. And the entire six-picture series is one of the great success stories of this era in Hollywood. Starting from 1995, when Harvey Weinstein was told he couldnít make the series by Disneyís Michael Eisner. Down to his last shot at a turnaround deal, Jackson pitched two movies to New Line chief Bob Shaye, who bet his whole company on three. The Hobbit had its own set of gyrations that included setting del Toro to direct and co-write with Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, only to see the whole thing come to a screeching halt when MGM became frozen in bankruptcy. GdT moved on to Pacific Rim and Jackson restored himself as director. Add a perforated ulcer for Jackson, and a decision to split two intended movies into three films.

Despite the tsuris, the collective accomplishment here is unprecedented. The six films grossed nearly $6 billion; won 17 Oscars, including Best Picture for Return Of The King, on a total of 36 Oscar nominations; New Zealand firmly established as a production and post-production hub for event films, all built on Middle Earth revenues. Two of the six films grossed north of $1 billion: Return Of The King at $1.1B and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at $1B. What a ride!



http://deadline.com/2015/03/hobbit-battle-of-the-five-armies-profit-box-office-2014-1201390467/

It's nice this article actually mentions disk profits, tho I don't think it goes far enough if commenting on the affordability of home theaters; increased piracy; the easy availability of disks and streaming so you don't even need to leave your house - all of which came into being after LOTR and does affect BO (I haven't even dragged myself out to see the Jungle Book yet - will I? won't I? don't know yetUnsure If I don't, it doesn't matter, because I'll see it at home soon....)


Lindele
Gondor

May 9 2016, 4:01pm


Views: 3027
that's convenient

so they had time to sift through the doc to find the negative comments but no time to find the comments in the same doc that provided solutions or resolutions. talk about an apologist!

no matter what you want to tell yourself, the youtube video painted the production in a completely different light than the original doc did and therefore was false.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 9 2016, 4:20pm


Views: 3031
Do you?

I don't think they turned anyone into a moron.

As for wondering if anyone agrees with you, where have you been? I'd have thought it was - forgive me - obvious - that some folks here will be very happy to agree with you because, like you, they don't like the films, don't like Peter Jackson, and like having the chance to sound off about it once in a while. (As do we all...)

And some of us don't agree with you. I don't for one - but I can see that our reaction to the films is so different that we're barely even speaking the same language.

Just one observation (of many possible): They didn't climb burning trees - they climbed trees to escape orcs and - selective memory here, no? - wargs (nasty big hairy ones, with fangs). the burning came later. And this was what Tolkien said they did...

Just one question. When in the films do we see a tiny toddler kill an orc?

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


wizzardly
Rohan


May 9 2016, 10:55pm


Views: 2939
oh ok

So what you're saying is that in the clips on youtube where PJ is talking about "winging it", not knowing what he was doing, and making it up as he went along, he wasn't actually talking about the making of the Hobbit? If thats the case I agree, the editor of that video was not very nice to do that and should be forced to make a public apology.


(This post was edited by entmaiden on May 10 2016, 1:18pm)


Avandel
Half-elven


May 10 2016, 12:26am


Views: 2919
Stahp (;


Quote
So what you're saying is that in the clips on youtube where PJ is talking about "winging it", not knowing what the hell he was doing, and making it up as he went along, he wasn't actually talking about the making of the Hobbit? If thats the case I agree, the editor of that video was not very nice to do that and should be forced to make a public apology.


Lame media types, politicians, folks with an axe to grind and so on just love to leap on a phrase and use it like a tag line on a banner - usually smugly and repetitively. Conveniently forgetting that humans communicate in multiple ways, with multiple sublteties. And often conveniently forgetting the expertise and experience of whoever made the statement.

If a favorite car mechanic is rummaging around an engine and says "he's trying this and that" do folks get all freaked out? 'Course not. They're happy they are at their favorite, honest, experienced mechanic's shop and an expert is rummaging around in their car trying this and that, and will work until the job is done.

PJ saying he doesn't know what he's doing just made me smile a little (and feel bad because he was so tired and had been in a hospital before). Because he's PJ. Just like I smiled a little seeing the footage of PJ talking about how complex LOTR was and how the next thing he does was going to be simple and so on. Just like the crew listening just seemed to know that PJ needed to vent a little and at the end of the day, there's gonna be some awesome films.Tongue

I totally agree w. WETA's comments about some of the press and PJ's remarksMad - some of the press/bloggers were just doing cheap shots. Over films w. praised performances, battle choreography, kudos for trying new technology even if folks didn't always like it, visuals, and so on. Films that raked in millions. IMO it will be long time before Middle Earth is in better hands, with a director with that kind of vision, crew, cast, writers.HeartHeartHeart



ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 10 2016, 2:54am


Views: 2897
We all make mistakes.

 

I always follow my job through.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

May 10 2016, 3:09am


Views: 910
I like the movies, but...


In Reply To
Even though at that stage he has little more than contempt for Bilbo, Thorin was too honourable to watch him be dismembered by the Trolls if he could prevent it.


But he wasn't really preventing it. By disarming themselves to save Bilbo, the Company just allowed themselves (and Bilbo) to be killed, and it is pretty silly of them not to realize that was what the trolls were going to do. The Company had no way of knowing that Gandalf would show up just in time to save them, so really, they were sacrificing themselves to save someone in a way that makes it likely that he and everyone else would die.

It would be like Sauron saying, "Give me the Ring or I'll kill Pippin" and Frodo just handing it over. It's a dumb decision on the characters' part, since they ought to know what's coming.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

May 10 2016, 3:13am


Views: 913
It can be two things


In Reply To
As for wondering if anyone agrees with you, where have you been? I'd have thought it was - forgive me - obvious - that some folks here will be very happy to agree with you because, like you, they don't like the films, don't like Peter Jackson, and like having the chance to sound off about it once in a while. (As do we all...)


Some of us like the films, but still think there were things that didn't make much sense or should have been improved upon. I like the films overall (AUJ is my favorite of all six), but I agree with a lot of the OP's points.

I also think that since PJ is aiming for a more serious, epic feel to his version, it's fair to hold him to higher scrutiny about such things than the book. If he'd made the movies as a whimsical fairy tale, I doubt many people would be complaining about the characters' decision-making.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 7:24am


Views: 900
Yup.

Exactly my point. The way that situation was presented it made ZERO sense and made Thorin look stupid. Thorin's not supposed to be stupid. He's the leader.

And here's another pet peeve that I forgot to list, but is pretty HUGE.

PEEVE #8 - After Thorin comes to his senses and decides to act like a proper king and help his own people, Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet.

Really? Oh look, I'm good again! But you couldn't tell, because I was wearing armor designed to protect me! No matter that there is a specific Tolkien passage about the awesome armor we dwarves are supposed to be wearing. Armor Thorin = evil. Thorin sans armor = good. That's just nonsense.

What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Have epic, angelic Howard Shore music playing as Thorin and dwarves appear at the darkest hour, in the best armor ever seen in these movies to save the day. Like in the book. Or play the Misty Mountains Theme one more time. Cause that was the real Hobbit theme, unlike that tired Sons of Durin chant (which I enjoyed in Desolation of Smaug but found to be overused by the third movie).


(This post was edited by CaptainObvious on May 10 2016, 7:27am)


dormouse
Half-elven


May 10 2016, 7:33am


Views: 897
No, probably they wouldn't....

... but I daresay they'd find something.

Seems to me a tad unreasonable to be blaming Peter Jackson for the times when he sticks to Tolkien's story as well as the times he changes it.....

As for the OP's points, I don't even recognise most of the things he references as having happened in the way he says they happen.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 7:58am


Views: 894
Re: Wow, where do I begin?

PEEVE 1 - The dwarves knocked down the trolls, knocked the teeth out of one of them, and were basically winning until the trolls grabbed Bilbo and threatened to rip his arms off. And even IF the trolls hadn't made any dent, that's no excuse for the dwarves to lay down their arms, knowing that that would only end with them being cooked and eaten. My logic is sound. The solution that I offered, would have been congruent to Peter Jackson's desire to make the dwarves look tough while not veering too far away from the text. Which is why I "went there". Thorin just wouldn't have sacrificed everybody when the best chance Bilbo had of NOT being eaten (forgetting about Gandalf) was for Thorin to keep fighting.

2. My point is if Thorin and Dwalin didn't care about being faced with a hundred orcs in the last movie, because they knew they could kill them, it would have made more sense for them to stand their ground against Azog and his twenty orcs, when there were fourteen of them of them. They had just killed a hundred goblins getting out of the Misty Mountais, they knew they were tough. The only one of that warg pack that was a real threat was Azog. Even Bilbo was able to kill one of the huge orcs without any fight experience. My point is reinforced by the fact that when the dwarves left the tree to help Thorin, they took down a number of warg scouts very easily before the eagles showed up.

3. Where did I say it ruined the movie for me? Nowhere. Moving on.

4. Since neither of us care about the romance subplot, there's not much pointing harping on it. I think the whole jealousy arc did Legolas a disservice. It was just clumsy.

5. Letting someone you know you don't trust with your children's lives, watch over them anyway is even worse. It's one thing to let Alfrid be given small tasks to redeem himself. But whether Bard trusted Alfrid or not, his choice to hand over to Alfrid such a responsibility, less than twenty four hours after hearing Alfrid threaten to kill somebody over a blanket was foolish. Period.

6. If Bard knew that those dwarves were going to waken the dragon, he should have taken his children out of town IMMEDIATELY. While the dwarves were heading to Misty Mountains, Bard could have been paddling away in the boat. I judge Tolkien's Bard different from the movie Bard, because Tolkien's Bard was the captain of the guard and thus it was his duty to stay and defend the town. Daddy Bard should have gotten his kids away as soon as he knew that the dwarves were going to be allowed to go to Erebor, even if he himself decided to remain to shoot arrows.

7. The Hobbit could have been a twenty hour movie and I would have watched and enjoyed the whole thing provided that it was always true to the spirit of the book. I don't mind taking liberty with text. Many of Peter Jackson's liberties with Lord of the Rings, I enjoyed tremendously. I liked the first two Hobbit movies a lot. The last one, so completely delved into fan fiction as start becoming unrecognizable (to me) as the Hobbit. The best moments were always, when PJ stuck to the source. I feel if Peter Jackson had been given a smaller budget, and more constraints (such as two films) he would have actually done a better job with the story, rather than trying to solve most of his cinematic problems by throwing money at them, or with gratuitous cgi.

(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 10 2016, 7:03pm)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 10 2016, 9:36am


Views: 889
I wish many critics and audience members wouldn't have turned into morons whilst watching "The Hobbit"

Instead of honestly engaging with the films, their aims and actual execution. Not being mean, not pointing fingers, just... okay, well a tiny bit.

Sick of it is all. Jab after jab after jab after jab at this trilogy for going on four years now and I have heard/read about two or three legitimate complaints with the films as presented. For the rest of these lazy barbs, I'm reminded of something posted in another forum over a different topic: "You don't know enough about the things you watch to have such a high opinion of your opinion."

If I've left any doubt, no, these characters were not rendered morons. They remain remarkably consistent within the context and ground rules as established by the writers and filmmaker.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


Noria
Gondor

May 10 2016, 11:57am


Views: 847
Dumb decisions

By surrendering to prevent Bilboís imminent murder, Thorin bought time. The Dwarves probably did realize that surrendering might not have a good outcome but where there is life, there's still hope. Anything can happen if there is time, and it did.

If anything I would wonder why, once Bilbo was tossed at them, the Dwarves didn't try to pick up their weapons and resume the fight. I know why though: it was time for the story to move on. I'm fine with it.

This is another example of PJ having to make his badass Dwarves fit into the space occupied by the incompetent Dwarves of the book. Whether it works or not depends on the viewer.


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 12:04pm


Views: 839
that armor

"Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet."
_____________________

That armor was absolutely glorious, but if you watched the appendices you may have noticed the part where the actors mentioned barely being able to move in it. One of them couldn't even raise his arms above his shoulders. One comment made during the press interviews that I remember was, "It was like wearing a Volkswagen", so I think that not wearing the armor in battle is something we just have to chalk up to the realities of movie-making. A complete redesign of the armor would have been the only solution.

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.



Elarie
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 12:22pm


Views: 829
Agreed!

The line about "goblin merceneries" always makes me smile - I pictured them as the slightly scrawny goblins from the Misty Mountains and not anything like Azog's orcs. No problem. Smile

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.



Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 10 2016, 12:59pm


Views: 825
Armor? No Armor? Less Armor.


In Reply To
PEEVE #8 - After Thorin comes to his senses and decides to act like a proper king and help his own people, Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet.

Really? Oh look, I'm good again! But you couldn't tell, because I was wearing armor designed to protect me! No matter that there is a specific Tolkien passage about the awesome armor we dwarves are supposed to be wearing. Armor Thorin = evil. Thorin sans armor = good. That's just nonsense.


This complaint has bothered me for a while because it is based on a false premise. Yes, Thorin and his companions charge out of Erebor without the 'regal armor' they were wearing earlier. However, they are not unarmored. They have symbolically dressed down to illustrate that they are no longer being driven by Thorin's madness and overweening pride; however, THEY ARE STILL WEARING ARMOR.

The helmetless thing is stupid, but that is a Hollywood convention going back for many decades; done so that the faces of our actors won't be obscured.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."

- Dream of the Endless


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 10 2016, 1:22pm


Views: 820
Run away!


In Reply To
If Bard knew that those dwarves were going to waken the dragon, he should have taken his children out of town IMMEDIATELY. While the dwarves were heading to Misty Mountains, Bard could have been paddling away in the boat.


Well, if Thorin and Company had been heading toward the Misty Mountains then there would have been nothing for Bard to worry about because THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!

But seriously, he could still hope that the Dwarves would meet their end at the Mountain and Smaug would leave Esgaroth undisturbed. Even if Bard did grab his children and flee right away, there is still the question of where to go, especially with winter not far off. Thranduil was not especially welcoming to strangers, even if Bard couldn't know that the Elvenking had closed the borders of his realm (also cutting off access to the Anduin vales). The Dwarves of the Iron Hills were Thorin's kin and also stood a good chance of being on Smaug's list for reprisals. The only Men nearby were scattered homesteads of Woodmen, maybe including a few small villages. The nearest large communities of Men--Dorwinion, Rohan and Gondor--were hundreds of miles away across open country, the only 'road' being the Running River to Dorwinion, a route that also required taking a portage path around the falls at the south end of Long Lake--so much for Bard's boat.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."

- Dream of the Endless


(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 10 2016, 7:06pm)


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 1:25pm


Views: 812
reading the Sil

Be brave, it's doable Smile The first time I read the Sil I read it front to back like a novel and to say it was confusing and that there was too much to remember is an understatement. Years later when I picked it up again I read the creation story at the beginning and then skipped straight to Luthien and Beren and that was SO much more enjoyable. After that I read some other individual parts, but I don't think I've read the entire thing a second time. For me, approaching the Sil as a collection of short stories made it much more enjoyable and less stressful than trying to remember all the characters, the geography, the wars, etc. as though I was studying for a history test, and there are some great stories in there. My favorites are Luthien and Beren, the history or the two trees, and Galadriel's people leaving Valinor and coming to Middle-earth. I think there are about 20 movies in the Silmarillion if the day ever comes when someone does that. Smile

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 10 2016, 1:34pm


Views: 816
Well,

"PEEVE 1 - The dwarves knocked down the trolls, knocked the teeth out of one of them, and were basically winning...." I've seen the movie probably over 150 times, and NO, I can't say the Dwarves were "winning" at any point. It was a stalemate at best. Further, at that point in time Thorin wouldn't have sacrificed ANY of his men, and Bilbo was one of his men whether he liked him or not. He felt a responsibility towards him, the look on his face when he put down his sword reluctantly said as much. It's easy to do that for the person you are MOST fond of, much harder when it's someone you consider a liability, but a leader treats all his men equally. Would it have worked better with Kili? Probably for some, but that's a matter of opinion.


On your second point, again that was at the END of the movie, which by then Thorin & Dwalin were pretty confident in what they could do. At the beginning, when they had all the others to think about, they naturally had to be more cautious. And yes, in PJ's world apparently Orcs are bigger and badder than Goblins anyway. But yes, the "no more than 100" was a little far-fetched.


Skipping numbers 3 & 4, I'd say the only reason he agreed to "let Alfrid watch over his children" was because he was in the middle of a battle and didn't have much to choose from. Btw, as untrustworthy as Alfrid was, the kids still made it to the Great Hall. Bard's only mistake here was thinking that Alfrid might actually come back to fight.


On number 6, I already explained this, you don't agree, that's fine. But I am a Mom & Grandmother, so I can see both sides. Bard made a calculated decision - better to fight the dragon & kill it with the Black Arrow, because they really can't run fast/far enough to get away. And it was implied that the kids were supposed to leave without him, as I said. Bain and Sigrid were teens, they certainly would have known how to row a boat by then, but the best they could do was hide out in Mirkwood, and Smaug wouldn't have had any trouble torching that, either.



Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association

(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 10 2016, 7:08pm)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 10 2016, 1:49pm


Views: 812
Peeve #8

"PEEVE #8 - After Thorin comes to his senses and decides to act like a proper king and help his own people, Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet.

Really? Oh look, I'm good again! But you couldn't tell, because I was wearing armor designed to protect me! No matter that there is a specific Tolkien passage about the awesome armor we dwarves are supposed to be wearing. Armor Thorin = evil. Thorin sans armor = good. That's just nonsense."



You're right, that is nonsense - and totally NOT what happened, either. It wasn't the armor that made Thorin "bad," it was the dragon sickness. Yeah, he threw off the crown and Kingly robe as a symbolic way to rid himself of the sickness, but that's not why they dropped the heavy plate armor. The run was basically a suicide run, where speed was the most important thing. Yeah, the plate armor would probably have saved Thorin from being punctured in the lung, BUT I doubt he could have gotten up Ravenhill in that suit. In the original take there was a line from Thorin telling them they may not return, keeping that line would have solved that little booboo.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 10 2016, 2:19pm


Views: 797
Totally agreed!

I too am sick of hearing this incessant, infinite, endless, constant, interminable, relentless and EVERLASTING complaining about this film trilogy. There is not a SINGLE DAY that goes by without some dozen posts whining and moaning about a perceived ''flaw'' in those movies. It's got a long time ago by the point that I am considering just LEAVING this board, because simply no amount of ''argumentation'' will EVER convince the naysayers that ANYTHING in these movies is even a little good.

The funniest and most ironic part of all this is that, THE SAME GODDAMN THING happened back when the LOTR trilogy first came out. The ''purists'' would not give up in complaining about every little thing changed from the book, whilst claiming that the movies themselves were bad ''as movies'', not just ''adaptations''. Yeah, right... Angelic

So I guess it's a ''coming full circle'' king of thing and, NO MATTER WHAT PJ OR THE FILMMAKERS WOULD HAVE DONE, this insuferable, obnoxious nitpicking would still exist ANYWAY.

I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, I am just expressing my own feelings, I am afraid. But I admit it's a little hard, and takes some effort, to be polite sometimes, especially when the same thing repeats itself over and over and over and over until (apparently) the end of times...

Sorry for the long rant, but I had as well to get this off my chest... once and for all, hopefully.


Ostadan
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 6:25pm


Views: 735
Badass Warrior Dwarves

Part of the problem was the result of turning Thorin & Co. into badass warriors. The book dwarves couldn't threaten the trolls, because they had no weapons save small knives. It made Thorin's carrying of Orcrist more important: in the movie, Orcrist is just another sword among many, does not particularly daunt the goblins, and doesn't glow. Similarly, seeking refuge in five fir trees makes much more sense if you are not heroic warriors armed to the teeth.

I understand _why_ Jackson did this, but when you change stuff that way, you cannot ignore the effects on the rest of the story. And Jackson did not stop with, say, just arming a few of the dwarves with axes; he had to make them orc-killing-machine superheroes+. Because more is better when you are making a blockbuster. Right?


Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 7:06pm


Views: 717
They where fairly bad-ass Dwarves in the book as well

In a number of occasions, the Goblin tunnels, the spiders or even at the end at the Battle of the five armies the Dwarves in the book took on many more enemies than they where and prevailed.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 10 2016, 7:13pm


Views: 724
Some posts have been edited and others removed for breaking the Terms of Service.

A reminder that we don't allow name-calling or personal attacks on TORN, nor posts made for the purpose of criticising another board member - no matter how badly you might want to. Please stick to the Terms of Service when discussing the topic or you'll find your post removed.

For those who need a refresher, here's a link to the TOS - I recommend that everyone reacquaint themselves with point number 3.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauronís master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 8:45pm


Views: 670
It certainly did look heavy.

They really should have made actor light enough for the dwarf actors to run around in. Other actors ran around in armor. Or if push came to shove, they could have had the actors wearing motion capture suits and CGI in the glorious armor later. That's a scenario that actually would call for CGI. Michael Shannon had CGI armor when he played Zod in Man of Steel (I can't believe I'm mentioning an example from that film as a solution). Henry Cavill had a CGI cape. It just would have made more sense for the dwarves to be depicted as properly armed, or explain why they weren't.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 8:53pm


Views: 671
Exactly.

I agree with your post. I would have been much more at peace with the dwarves going up into the trees if they were not so well armed. In the book, Gandalf had Glamdring, and he brought along Orcrist for Thorin, but nobody else had weapons. That's why they went up in the trees.

I agree also with the poster earlier who said it made no sense that the dwarves tried punching the goblins after falling into the caves, when they had their swords with them. In the book, the dwarves were completely disarmed, hence the peril of their situation made more sense.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 10 2016, 11:40pm


Views: 645
Yes to everything you've said

And, as much as I'd hate to branch off a long rant with a rant of my own (okay, not really), I'm going to get specific and dig into the heart of why these incessant criticisms and nitpicks irk me so. Because. Free will and all (although accusing someone of whining merits a demotion of one's free will in some forums, apparently).

By far the most widespread perceived flaw this trilogy has acquired is in its very existence. I will quote the overall sentiment, followed by the two facts this sentiment blatantly ignores:

"Churning out three movies from one small novel is nothing more than a cash grab. It should have been two films, tops."

1. Every film funded by a major motion picture studio is green-lit to turn a profit. Not a single piece of cinema baring a studio logo is produced for the expressed purpose of anything other (by those doing the producing) than monetary gain. When a trilogy's greatest flaw is that it is a trilogy to begin with, it is rather a flaw of film criticism and appreciation and blindly dismisses any ambitions and virtues presented in the movies themselves. They are not in and of themselves at fault for existing.

2. 20 years ago, before the last Hunger Games was split into two films, before the last Harry Potter was split into two films, and before New Line Cinema actually granted P.J. and co. the means to adapt three Lord of the Rings movies from the three written installments of the same, no one would be arguing for a two-part Hobbit. Not mere speculation; I was there and people were not clamoring for this. Fans of the novel would have been more than satisfied with a single, well-done adaptation (arguable what this is, but that's another post) of their beloved novel. What has taken place in cinematic adaptation since then is unprecedented and now everyone is a self-made expert on how many movies an adapted work 'should be.' Two is now acceptable but three is not because... why, again?

Here is the correct answer: as long as the films produced have VALUE and are of HIGH QUALITY, it doesn't matter how many there are. Three good films is more good films than one, regardless of how many installments were printed of the source.

Another popular sentiment, again married to two facts conveniently overlooked when purported:

"P.J. went overboard with the special effects. There's just too much CGI everywhere."

1. It is true The Hobbit has more special effects shots than The Lord of the Rings (technology has advanced and been sped up, allowing much that was painstaking and impractical in the past to be done easier and with a greater margin for the artist's creativity in post-production; also, it is worth mentioning that the former is, in essence, a nimble fairy tale, full of adventure and wonder, as opposed to the comparatively more grounded doom-and-gloom apocalyptic vision of the latter), but many have forgotten that there ARE an absolute ton of special effects in LotR. A boatload. Like, way more than most films at that time. In the original trilogy's first five minutes, we are granted a front-row seat to a CGI-heavy battle between elves, men and orcs at the base of a roaring volcano that appears remarkably similar to the presentation of The Battle of the Five Armies on-screen when compared with one another. This must have something to do with locations that do not exist in life, the number of soldiers on the ground and the nature of the action. Hmm. The first five minutes. Not even touching upon Moria. Or the elven cities. Or all of the action at Isengard. Or the climax at Helm's Deep. Or Minas Tirith. Or Pelennor Fields. Or... any sequence that requires this kind of technical workmanship. Worth a notation, surely.

2. CGI is a storytelling tool. It is not cool nor thoughtful to write a movie off because of heavy usage of computer generated effects. The questions to ask are: how do they look (in context - i.e. do they fit within the spirit of the tale)? Are they in service of the plot or to its derision? Are they grounded in relatable human motivation and emotions? You know, like Gandalf and Bilbo discussing tactics amidst the battle. Or Bilbo and Thorin bidding each other farewell on a cold bed of ice. Or Bard and his son atop the bell tower. My question is simple: when an absolutely necessary character has been rendered full CGI (Gollum) in both trilogies with such resounding success, why does this not halt the knee-jerk reaction of Oh, that's just more CGI. It sucks. Kills the movie for me? It should.

These nitpicks with the characters are of no different variety. They disregard context in several cases and demand adherence to a previous textual representation because it's all different now, wah wah wah in most of the rest. Cop outs. Largely unsubstantiated. LAZY.

My only hope is that future generations watch movies better.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


wizzardly
Rohan


May 10 2016, 11:59pm


Views: 631
Ian Mckellen almost quit over the overuse of cgi

 http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/20/the-hobbit-gandalf-ian-mckellen-almost-quit-acting


(This post was edited by wizzardly on May 11 2016, 12:00am)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:08am


Views: 627
He is a classically trained actor who's been working in the entertainment business for over 50 years

His problem was not with the CGI (I'm sure you know that part comes later), but with having no actors to bounce off of on set in those - limited - scenes. Of course that would be less than ideal for him. And yet, the proof that the technique worked is right up there on the screen. A towering Gandalf mingling with 13 dwarves and a hobbit in a hobbit hole.

I'm not entirely sure how one actor's displeasure with the working condition of a handful of scenes in a 16-month shoot is worth mentioning. He is not the filmmaker and his momentary grief is not representative of the finished project. The finished project is (duh).

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


wizzardly
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:11am


Views: 618
No need to bite my head off

I just thought it was an interesting article. Smile


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:13am


Views: 619
I saw the dispute in the EE's behind the scenes footage

And it was indeed interesting. My response wasn't intended to go all Ozzy on you; I read yours as an conscious opposition to the CGI used in the movies.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation

(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on May 11 2016, 12:14am)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:24am


Views: 856
I don't really care about the cgi

It looked alright. I've seen worse. It looked better than the last Indiana Jones movie at least


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:34am


Views: 856
I think the work done was phenomenal

Like the older trilogy, there's a shot here or there that's not quite up to par, but no matter our discrepancies over the CGI quality, we definitely agree on that last Indy picture. Not the worst I've ever seen, but... sheesh. Especially in that ugly jungle chase sequence.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


wizzardly
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:46am


Views: 846
yeah

The last indy sucked, but PJ's Hobbit was the greatest cinematic disappointment of my lifetime.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 11 2016, 1:17am


Views: 840
I dunno about "greatest cinematic disappointment of my life time"

No question it was a big disappointment in many ways. But when I walked out of Indy 4, I knew I'd seen a bad movie. That's definitely another movie bogged down by CGI in a franchise known for stunts and practical effects. I'd re-watch the Hobbit movies (though parts of BOTFA are unwatchable) sooner than Indy 4.

When I look at the Hobbit, I see a good movie trapped inside three decent to mediocre ones.

By the way, just because characters do things that don't make sense, doesn't mean I hate a movie that character is in. I love Jurassic Park even though most everyone in that movie acted like an idiot. I like a lot of the Hobbit, I just wish some of the characters had behaved a little bit more intelligently.

(This post was edited by CaptainObvious on May 11 2016, 1:27am)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 11 2016, 2:36am


Views: 826
for me it is

The Hobbit is one of my favorite books of all time, and PJ's movie ended up only barely resembling it. On its own and not holding it up to the book it is supposed to be based upon, I would say its a pretty good fantasy movie, however, as an adaptation of Tolkien's story, it is an absolute disaster.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 11 2016, 2:45am


Views: 822
I get you.

I would say its a pretty good fantasy movie, however, as an adaptation of Tolkien's story, it is an absolute disaster.

Can't argue with you there.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 8:52am


Views: 801
Peter Jackson didn't set out to make a straight adaptation of the book....

Nor, for that matter, did Guillermo del Toro before him.

From the outset it was made explicit that these films of The Hobbit would be a retelling of the story of The Hobbit as the precusor to Lord of the Rings, directly related to the previous film trilogy and making use of the extra background material Tolkien provided - Gandalf's motives for setting the quest in motion; his meeting with Thorin at Bree; the true significance of the Ring. That's what they set out to do, that's what they did - and it really does help if you judge them on what they intended to do rather than on what you or anyone else thinks they ought to have done.

'Tisn't often I agree with you, wizzardly, but this touches a chord with me:

"On its own and not holding it up to the book it is supposed to be based upon, I would say its a pretty good fantasy movie."

So would I - in fact, I'd say better than pretty good, but let's not split hairs. On the second point, though, and as another reader who has loved the book The Hobbit since childhood, I'd say that the films offer an intriguing and engaging retelling of Tolkien's story by a master storyteller, with a visual beauty that takes my breath. And as, when all's said and done, the heart of these films is still the story Tolkien told about little Bilbo and his encounter with the big, wide, world, I'm happy to applaud them as a job well done.


For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 11 2016, 10:25am


Views: 803
dormouse


In Reply To
d it really does help if you judge them on what they intended to do rather than on what you or anyone else thinks they ought to have done. .


This is getting a bit off topic. I mean this as nicely as possible. You don't dictate how I judge or enjoy a movie. It's interesting that on this thread several people have posted expressing genuine outrage that I dare to dislike certain things about this movie. They're simply going to have to get over it, mature, or not post on my threads. I enjoy discussion. If everyone agreed on everything, there'd be no need for discussion. If Peter Jackson had made this movie first instead of Lord of the Rings, there's no question I would have liked it more. But the Hobbit adaptions grossly fall short of the standard Jackson himself set with LOTR. And that's disappointing to me. That doesn't mean the Hobbit movies don't have a lot going for it. They do. I know exactly what Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro were going for. I followed everything going on with the movie for years before it was made. I was in complete favor of Jackson using the appendices. I just didn't get the Hobbit movie I hoped I would.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 11:32am


Views: 791
Hello???

First - my post was addressed to a point made by wizzardly, not to you.

Second - I wasn't dictating anything to him (or to you). Simply suggesting that it helps to judge a film (or book or whatever) with reference to what the creator of said film intended it to be. Seems a reasonable (and mature) point to me but voiced as a suggestion only, which wizzardly is free to disregard.

Third - there's nothing 'off topic' about it; it was a direct answer to something posted within the thread. And it isn't your thread. You started it, but discussions in these threads do wander from the original post all the time and the OP doesn't get to dicatate who posts and who doesn't.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 1:04pm


Views: 749
"The young dwarf prince took work where he could find it, laboring in the pants of men."


In Reply To
This is getting a bit off topic...


Pants time!!

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 2:14pm


Views: 730
"Will you have trousers or pants?" "I will have pants!" //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

May 11 2016, 2:34pm


Views: 728
You have a point

It does seem that people get very worked up about these movies, and sometimes I see people jump in to defend any and every criticism of the films like they're Scripture.

On the flip side, there are people who refuse to see any good qualities in PJ's films, and think those who enjoy them are mindless sheep. I wish we could find more moderation in dealing with others' views of the films.


lionoferebor
Rohan


May 11 2016, 3:26pm


Views: 724
True...


In Reply To
Simply suggesting that it helps to judge a film (or book or whatever) with reference to what the creator of said film intended it to be. Seems a reasonable (and mature) point to me but voiced as a suggestion only...

Trying to see a piece of work as the creator intended does help to build an understanding, respect, and acceptance for the piece. However there is saying that goes, "I accept your decision, but I do not agree with it." (I have also heard this same statement used with "respect" or "understand" in place of "accept"). One can understand a creators point of view, respect his or her creative decision, accept it and still not agree with little or all of it. Is this possible? Yes, very much so. I see it every day with my job.


lionoferebor
Rohan


May 11 2016, 3:35pm


Views: 707
Well said...


In Reply To
It does seem that people get very worked up about these movies, and sometimes I see people jump in to defend any and every criticism of the films like they're Scripture.

On the flip side, there are people who refuse to see any good qualities in PJ's films, and think those who enjoy them are mindless sheep. I wish we could find more moderation in dealing with others' views of the films.


May I suggest Angelic, that we all - including myself - refer back to this, what is in IMO a wonderful and insightful, post by Silverlode.
http://newboards.theonering.net/...;;page=unread#unread.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 4:06pm


Views: 710
Yes, of course....

There's no requirement to agree with - or like - the creative decisions someone else has taken in producing a particular work.

Still, there is a place for judging the work in the light of those decisions - and very little, that I can see, in judging it according to the creative decisions I might have made if I'd been the one creating it.

Years ago there was much discussion in the UK about a forthcoming adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. They were rumoured to be introducing nudity (what???), scenes of Mr Darcy swimming (ghost of Jane Austen turns in her grave) and all manner of horrors that weren't in the book, and though at that stage no one outside the production had the foggiest idea where all these rumoured changes were leading they were heavily criticised on principle. It turned out to be the most loved and universally praised adaptation of all. There was a reason for what they did, and it worked.

I had to smile at myself today because I felt exactly the same involuntary shudder when reading about a new TV adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream to be shown in a few weeks' time. Mention of one of the characters dying and I don't know what else - this is Shakespeare, for goodness sake, you can't mess with it.... But I will try to watch without prejudice (or pride!) and give it a chance because who knows, however much I love the original the new version might be really good too. There's no obligation to like but sometimes engaging with someone else's ideas with the willingness to like, even when they're not an instant fit, can turn out to be creative and enjoyable - and it can take you to places you might not otherwise have gone.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 4:11pm


Views: 693
"I warned your grandfather what his pants would summon. He would not listen." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 4:25pm


Views: 691
"Saruman believes that it is only great pants that can hold evil in check....

But that is not what I've found. I've found it is the small pants, everyday pants of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay..... Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps it is because I am afraid, and he gives me pants."

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 4:54pm


Views: 684
"If more people valued pants above gold this world would be a merrier place..." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


Starling
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 5:59pm


Views: 664
If this is pants, why does it hurt so much? //

 




Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 6:27pm


Views: 646
"And if Baggins loses, then we eats its pants." "Fair enough." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 6:30pm


Views: 644
"The pants like torches blazed with light..." //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 11 2016, 6:36pm


Views: 655
Wow

1. If you make a post, don't be surprised if people respond to it. Especially the OP.

2. I'm not dictating who posts. I see too many threads veer off topic, and I'd like for that not to happen to this one. That's not an unreasonable request.


Smaug the iron
Gondor


May 11 2016, 6:52pm


Views: 633
I think you missed the point


In Reply To
1. If you make a post, don't be surprised if people respond to it. Especially the OP.

The way you where talking to Dormouse In your post was like that you took it to personal when Dormouse was not even talking to you, that is why Dormouse said that it was to wizzardly.


In Reply To
2. I'm not dictating who posts. I see too many threads veer off topic, and I'd like for that not to happen to this one. That's not an unreasonable request.

Not unreasonable but nearly impossible to follow.


Fereth
Rivendell


May 11 2016, 7:13pm


Views: 612
"Will they not spread to other pants?" / "Other pants are not my concern!"

 


VoronwŽ_the_Faithful
Valinor

May 11 2016, 7:28pm


Views: 600
"Aren't you going to search me? I could have anything down my pants."

Tongue

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 11 2016, 8:01pm


Views: 771
"Or nothing."

 

I always follow my job through.


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 8:23pm


Views: 743
"You have no right, no right to enter those pants!" "I have the only right." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


Meneldor
Valinor


May 11 2016, 8:27pm


Views: 739
I wish the movies hadn't turned the characters into morons for the sake of their pants. //

 


They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 8:38pm


Views: 730
"Those who have lived through dragon pants should rejoice. They have much to be grateful for." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


Fereth
Rivendell


May 11 2016, 8:46pm


Views: 722
"He was my pants!"

 


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 8:57pm


Views: 721
"I often think of Bag End. I miss my books. And my armchair. And my pants." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


lionoferebor
Rohan


May 11 2016, 9:06pm


Views: 731
Perception


In Reply To
There's no requirement to agree with - or like - the creative decisions someone else has taken in producing a particular work.


Funny you should say this, because some of the posts on this thread have led me to feel otherwise. Unsure


In Reply To
Still, there is a place for judging the work in the light of those decisions - and very little, that I can see, in judging it according to the creative decisions I might have made if I'd been the one creating it.


I am glad you are able to see a piece from the creators stance and see little to nothing you would change. It's admirable. However, that is not everyone and likewise that is admirable too.


In Reply To
...sometimes engaging with someone else's ideas with the willingness to like, even when they're not an instant fit, can turn out to be creative and enjoyable - and it can take you to places you might not otherwise have gone.


And engaging in someone else's idea, IMO, should not be limited to the creators vision but should include also how others perceive that vision. Just as trying to see a piece from the creators intent can take you to exciting places, trying to understand someone else's perception of that same vision can open new doors too.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 10:00pm


Views: 715
Sigh.....

I will try once more.....

Quote

I am glad you are able to see a piece from the creators stance and see little to nothing you would change. It's admirable. However, that is not everyone and likewise that is admirable too.


You're putting words in my mouth. The bolded phrase isn't what I said. I'm talking about understanding someone else's creative decisions irrespective of the decisions I would have made. It's not about what I would change or not change - if the work is someone else's it's not up to me to change anything; like it or dislike it, I'm the audience - I engage with it as it is.




For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


dormouse
Half-elven


May 11 2016, 10:07pm


Views: 693
"Come now, don't be shy.... step into the pants." //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Darkstone
Immortal


May 11 2016, 10:49pm


Views: 684
"It is his excessive consumption of mushrooms! They have addled his brain and yellowed his pants!" //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


wizzardly
Rohan


May 11 2016, 11:04pm


Views: 685
oh I know

I understand why PJ would think this was the way to go with this adaptation, and it would have been better executed if he only had made use of the extra background material provided by Tolkien and not thrown in a bunch of his own made up malarky. I do judge them on what they intended to do, and the verdict is still FAIL.

But like I said, on its own, and not considering the book its based on, as a movie it holds up to other recent big budget cgi action movies. Many here admit to not being that keen on the book, but love the movie, and that makes a lot of sense.



CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 11 2016, 11:54pm


Views: 674
I could tell there were points in filming when PJ was running out of steam.


In Reply To
I Many here admit to not being that keen on the book, but love the movie, and that makes a lot of sense.


Yeah, a lot of people don't like to read. Ironically, it would probably take less time to read the Hobbit than watch all three of Jackson's movies.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 12 2016, 3:18am


Views: 642
Clarification.


In Reply To
So I guess it's a ''coming full circle'' king of thing.


I obviously meant KIND of thing, not KING. Just to avoid any confusion.Smile


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on May 12 2016, 3:21am)


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 12 2016, 3:35am


Views: 632
Still getting the hang of posting here.

I have no idea why the font was so large in the last post I did.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 12 2016, 7:22am


Views: 617
The unabridged audio book takes 10 hours //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


dormouse
Half-elven


May 12 2016, 7:24am


Views: 611
Your mother loved you Legolas. More than anything. More than pants. //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 12 2016, 12:44pm


Views: 588
Reading 'The Hobbit'


In Reply To
The unabridged audio book takes 10 hours


One should be able to read to oneself much more quickly than to read aloud. On the other hand, how long to read The Hobbit and also cross-reference all relevant passages from The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices?

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


Darkstone
Immortal


May 12 2016, 1:02pm


Views: 574
"The Arkenstone lies half a world away, buried beneath the pants of a fire breathing dragon." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


Smaug the iron
Gondor


May 12 2016, 1:25pm


Views: 567
"Pants-sickness, I've seen it before. That look. The terrible need. It is a fierce and jealous love, Bilbo. It sent his grandfather mad.

 


Darkstone
Immortal


May 12 2016, 1:35pm


Views: 562
"Nowís our chance! Go now! Head to the open pants!" //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 12 2016, 1:42pm


Views: 567
Hm?


In Reply To

In Reply To
The unabridged audio book takes 10 hours


One should be able to read to oneself much more quickly than to read aloud. On the other hand, how long to read The Hobbit and also cross-reference all relevant passages from The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices?


Why should anyone read any parts of The Lord of the Rings itself to read all the material Jackson used for his adaptation of The Hobbit? Jackson only claims to have used The Hobbit itself and The Return of the King appendices. He never did, to my knowledge, make any reference to using any parts of LOTR (that is, except for the Appendices, which are not part of the main book).


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on May 12 2016, 1:52pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


May 12 2016, 2:02pm


Views: 549
"I have never used pants in my life." "And I hope you never have to..." //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 12 2016, 2:03pm


Views: 548
"I freed his wretched head from his miserable pants."

 

I always follow my job through.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 12 2016, 2:08pm


Views: 544
"Do not come between the Nazgul and his pants."

 

I always follow my job through.


Darkstone
Immortal


May 12 2016, 2:12pm


Views: 544
"You've been busy of late, my pants." /

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 12 2016, 2:25pm


Views: 866
"My teeth are swords. My claws are spears."

"My pants are a hurricane!"

I always follow my job through.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 12 2016, 2:27pm


Views: 861
"She walks in pants in another world." //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Darkstone
Immortal


May 12 2016, 2:30pm


Views: 859
"So it ever was, so will it always be. In time all foul pants come forth." //

 

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 12 2016, 2:32pm


Views: 862
Reasons.


In Reply To
Why should anyone read any parts of The Lord of the Rings itself to read all the material Jackson used for his adaptation of The Hobbit? Jackson only claims to have used The Hobbit itself and The Return of the King appendices. He never did, to my knowledge, make any reference to using any parts of LOTR (that is, except for the Appendices, which are not part of the main book).


There is relevant material in the main text of LotR, especially at the Council of Elrond where the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur and Saruman's part in it is discussed. Granted the role of Saruman in that action is downplayed in TH:BotFA. Also, I believe that the first reference to the Five Wizards comes when Saruman is confronted in Isengard following the Battle of the Hornburg.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 12 2016, 9:27pm


Views: 829
Some of us love to read (I, for one)

Some of us have also read the discussed Middle-earth works (myself again) and still prefer the films (guess who?)

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


Darkstone
Immortal


May 12 2016, 9:39pm


Views: 820
So far 100% of us do.

http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=904622#904622

******************************************
Elves and Men and Dwarves gonna cower,
When I finish building my tower,
When I finish building my tower with the Eye on top!
Watch that Eye and see how it glowers,
Ain't no contest between the Two Towers,
Nosey folks'll peek thru' palantirs and their eyes will pop!
The battlement's black and immeasurably strong, an adamant mountain of iron,
A buttress of steel, impossibly tall, held aloft by the power of Sauron!
See that Eye a winkin' and blinkin',
Ain't no finer tower I'm thinkin',
You can keep Orthanc if you're thinkin' that I'd care to swap,
For my black and shiny tower with the Eye on the top!

-Rodgers and Hammerstein, The Lord of the Rings


lionoferebor
Rohan


May 12 2016, 10:33pm


Views: 811
Double sigh...


In Reply To
You're putting words in my mouth.


I misunderstood...happens from time to time.


In Reply To
I'm talking about understanding someone else's creative decisions irrespective of the decisions I would have made. It's not about what I would change or not change - if the work is someone else's it's not up to me to change anything; like it or dislike it, I'm the audience - I engage with it as it is.


Have you ever seen the film Mona Lisa Smile?


dormouse
Half-elven


May 12 2016, 10:49pm


Views: 805
No, sorry...

I haven't seen it or even heard of it.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 12 2016, 11:54pm


Views: 789
I agree with just about everything you've wrote...

ESPECIALLY THIS:


In Reply To
Here is the correct answer: as long as the films produced have VALUE and are of HIGH QUALITY, it doesn't matter how many there are. Three good films is more good films than one, regardless of how many installments were printed of the source.



But also don't forget the stupid comments like, ''OMG this trilogy is so bloated'' and the tired, overused, totally worn out and now therefore meaningless analogy of ''too little butter spread over too much bread'' (or something like that)!

I mean, who cares if the movies were stretched from one to two, or three? As you say, as long as the movies are good, this is a non-issue.

I myself like to phrase this as ''The movies should fail or stand on their own''. Regardless of the source material. FORGET THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Books are books, movies are movies. The two mediums are quite different. As obvious as this may sound, it's one of the greatest truths out there.


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on May 12 2016, 11:57pm)


Avandel
Half-elven


May 13 2016, 2:02am


Views: 768
Hear, hear


Quote
I mean, who cares if the movies were stretched from one to two, or three? As you say, as long as the movies are good, this is a non-issue.


This is a repost of 2012 Comic Con panel, but here PJ pretty well sums up his approach to the Hobbit, and why:

https://www.youtube.com/...?v=CzSCXuTRZEI#t=667

Tho a lot on this board already know of PJ's approach, from other interviews, books, articles.

I suppose one of the implications of the "two to three" movie switch is the implication of lack of a tight? film, that is running away with itself. That if (and I vaguely remember a post like this, or several) that if there had been only two films, it would have forced the narrative to be "more true to the book". Or something like that. One argument I think having been made is that a 90-minute cartoon??? could "more accurately" portray the Hobbit than PJ's films did.

While I personally wouldn't say to forget the book source material (taken truly literally, that would be a problem I think) but agree with what I think an experienced filmmaker already knew about taking a book to film (and says as much in the film Appendices and in companion books). I find it wild that it seems that many just don't believe PJ and Phillipa, it seems! Shocked

(As when they talk about the original multi-hued cloaks of the dwarves and how silly that would look on screen. Yet the filmmakers took the time to make nods to the source material with the colors of cloth chosen - when they could, because the Hobbit is definitely sparse on the detailsCool - and even Tolkien leaves open doors on dwarf culture, unfortunatelyFrown. Never mind the linguists and researchers on set.)

Completely agree that the number of films is completely irrelevant, once you begin telling a story on film. A single short film can feel like an eternityShocked, and a single long film can feel as though it's done too soon. I remember the groans in theater at the end of DOSCool - where it was obvious that the multiple audiences I saw DOS with would have been more than happy to sit through another half-hour, and watch Smaug torch Laketown.

If anything IMO the theater BOFA was too tightly editedUnimpressed. And IMO the Hobbit book, in thinking about it, could never be properly brought to film with two movies even without Appendices material. For me, in thinking about it, there would be many minutes of things we haven't even seen so far - talking purses and elven feasts and Thorin getting captured and a scenes of everyone else getting captured - how does everything in the Hobbit, without the "buffering" of being in a book, get put on screen in two films?

Would Thorin be the only dwarf that ever says anything at all? What about Beorn's role? How long would it take Bilbo to go back and forth at Erebor? What about the scene where the dwarves are singing to Thorin? Does a wall just get thrown down and the audience never gets to see any build-up to that? Or do these imaginary two films just roll along at lightning speed, where EVERYTHING from the book is there, but it just gets cursory treatment? Does Gandalf really, in these imaginary two films, really just wander off in the middle?

How do you do all that, in a visual medium where there needs to be a flow of sorts from one scene to the next, in two films? I don't see it.

If folks don't like PJ's adaptation of the Hobbit, that's one thing. Maybe they wanted more whimsy, maybe they wanted more darknessUnsure, but IMO that's not a statement about the actual number of films it takes for a director to tell a full story.






wizzardly
Rohan


May 13 2016, 2:34am


Views: 762
"as long as the movies are good"

I believe this is debatable.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 13 2016, 2:57am


Views: 753
I guess you don't like movies much.

 

I always follow my job through.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 13 2016, 3:07am


Views: 751
The quality of the films are debatable

I'm not so sure the ideal of more good films > less good films is, though.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


Starling
Half-elven


May 13 2016, 5:33am


Views: 737
It helps if you have actually seen the movies

if you would like to debate them.




lionoferebor
Rohan


May 13 2016, 2:48pm


Views: 677
This is good...


In Reply To
I myself like to phrase this as ''The movies should fail or stand on their own''. Regardless of the source material. FORGET THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Books are books, movies are movies. The two mediums are quite different. As obvious as this may sound, it's one of the greatest truths out there.


I see new thread coming on. WinkCool


wizzardly
Rohan


May 13 2016, 3:55pm


Views: 671
I have seen the movies

I watched part 1 and 2, and the major "highlights" of 3, and based upon what I saw, concluded that PJ produced an adaptation of one of my favorite books that failed to capture the spirit and charm of the story. I somehow doubt that watching the 3rd film in its entirety will change my opinion towards the better. My guess is that it will only further solidify my profound disappointment.


Avandel
Half-elven


May 13 2016, 4:48pm


Views: 651
But then all interested parties should be very happy IMO


Quote
I watched part 1 and 2, and the major "highlights" of 3, and based upon what I saw, concluded that PJ produced an adaptation of one of my favorite books that failed to capture the spirit and charm of the story. I somehow doubt that watching the 3rd film in its entirety will change my opinion towards the better. My guess is that it will only further solidify my profound disappointment.


If one can generalize - seemingly there are folks like myself who think the films improved given aspects of the book, certain portrayals, see stunning beauty in the Hobbit landscapes, and I have thought "it will never be this good againHeart. Not with a cast like this, the artisans, the weaving of all that charm to a more grim tale - it's like stepping into this wondrous worldHeart. Gandalf, the dwarves, Bilbo, Thranduil, Beorn, Smaug, will never be this good again. Not for me....it was like watching something from my folklore books come to life. Thranduil's elk, Orcrist's design, spiders, Bag End...." I'm just glad I was there (and own the collector sets. In duplicate.Cool)

The there are those who express disappointmentFrown, who should also be happy IMO, in that they will once again be able to experience the ANTICIP.........ATION! That delicious, nerve-wracking TENSION of casting, of what will or won't be included, the WONDER of it as scenes unfold. Because Hollywood will re-do the Hobbit, possibly sooner than later. Hollywood seems to LIKE re-doing stuff.

And I can spoil myself silly without having to self-embargo to avoid spoilers, which is very trying and feels weird.Crazy
So IMO there is no "down side" here.








Starling
Half-elven


May 13 2016, 8:00pm


Views: 614
Righto

Have, haven't. Same thing.




wizzardly
Rohan


May 13 2016, 8:55pm


Views: 590
well

That last comment was in regards to your last comment:
"It helps if you have actually seen the movies if you would like to debate them."

I have seen the first 2 and what I consider enough of the third to say I have seen it for the sake of debating the quality of the trilogy overall.



dormouse
Half-elven


May 13 2016, 9:42pm


Views: 572
"This is my favourite film of all time - or it will be once I've seen it!"

Wizzardly, I don't blame in the least for not seeing the third film when you disliked the other two so much, but it baffles me that you think you're qualified to debate it when you haven't seen, much less pass such sweeping judgements on it.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


wizzardly
Rohan


May 13 2016, 9:59pm


Views: 566
yes

I do feel I am qualified to judge the trilogy as a whole. I wouldn't be qualified perhaps to judge the last film on it's own, but as it is but a part of a larger whole, a viewing of several key scenes is more than enough to pass my final judgement upon the adaptation.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 13 2016, 10:10pm


Views: 560
look at it this way

Imagine you've ordered a meal at a restaurant, and 2/3rds of the way into it, you begin to feel violently ill and run off to vomit. Do you then return to the table to finish it, or do you feel qualified to pass a final judgement on the quality of the meal?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 13 2016, 10:32pm


Views: 542
The Dessert might be quite nice.


In Reply To
Imagine you've ordered a meal at a restaurant, and 2/3rds of the way into it, you begin to feel violently ill and run off to vomit. Do you then return to the table to finish it, or do you feel qualified to pass a final judgement on the quality of the meal?


But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


wizzardly
Rohan


May 13 2016, 10:41pm


Views: 535
lol

Laugh


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 13 2016, 11:01pm


Views: 526
Third movie.

Wizzardly, you should see the third film at least once. You can get it for free on the internet. And preferably see the extended version -- some people claim it's LOADS better than the theatrical version.

Just a suggestion, of course. Wink


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on May 13 2016, 11:09pm)


Meneldor
Valinor


May 13 2016, 11:14pm


Views: 922
I have this personal rule:

I don't criticize TV shows I don't watch, books I haven't read, or movies I haven't seen.

But, hey, that's just me.


They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 14 2016, 12:07am


Views: 907
Wizzardly can still comment on his opinion...


In Reply To
I don't criticize TV shows I don't watch, books I haven't read, or movies I haven't seen.

But, hey, that's just me.


Depending on how many highlights (the movie can be watched in it's in clips on youtube) wizzardly saw, he'd be able to comment accurately.

I dislike many things about the film, but there are a few things that were well done. My review of BOTFA is here: http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=804519;#804519


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 14 2016, 12:28am


Views: 892
Thorin still should have worn armor.


In Reply To
"Yeah, he threw off the crown and Kingly robe as a symbolic way to rid himself of the sickness, but that's not why they dropped the heavy plate armor. The run was basically a suicide run, where speed was the most important thing. Yeah, the plate armor would probably have saved Thorin from being punctured in the lung, BUT I doubt he could have gotten up Ravenhill in that suit.


The fight was literally right outside where they lived. Hence, the suicide run wasn't long, thus they should have still worn armor. And Thorin got up Ravehill on a goat. So the argument that he wouldn't have been able to go up a hill if he'd been properly protected is faulty.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 14 2016, 1:19am


Views: 888
Thorin's suicide run armor


In Reply To
Thorin still should have worn armor.


How does this asinine myth keep getting perpetuated that Thorin and his companions were not wearing armor when they charged out of the Gate? It is completely false. Thorin was wearing armor in his final scenes, it just wasn't the regal armor he wore in the Mountain.



Thorin charged into battle in a chain hauberk, thick leather overcoat, leather gloves, heavy boots, sword and octagonal shield. The other Dwarves all had light battle-armor as well.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 14 2016, 1:25am)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 14 2016, 2:37am


Views: 868
It definitely is the better version, by several large steps

If only for finishing the plot strands the TE left dangling in the air.

You should give it a whirl on some boring, rainy day indoors. It is, at the very least, entertaining.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


Omnigeek
Lorien


May 14 2016, 2:49am


Views: 864
Why?


In Reply To
Wizzardly, you should see the third film at least once. You can get it for free on the internet. And preferably see the extended version -- some people claim it's LOADS better than the theatrical version.

Just a suggestion, of course. Wink


Why? Why should he subject himself to watching the film that does the most of what he dislikes about this film adaptation?

I did watch the third film, both TE and EE, in the theaters and while I think his OP was bit over-the-top, I agree that this trilogy is a fine fantasy movie by itself but it fails as an adaptation of "The Hobbit". You and some others disagree with that point but none of you have offered any coherent defense to the specific complaints he's raised. Instead, I see debate against strawman arguments he hasn't raised and a lot of whining that anyone dare raise complaints about this trilogy.

The most common complaints I've seen on the boards are:
  1. The Kili-Tauriel-Legolas love triangle has no basis in any of the written literature and actually changes the nature of some of the written literature (e.g., Gimli's and Legolas' friendship).
  2. The unnecessary Azog side story.
  3. Many of the "dwarves" don't have proper beards and don't look like Tolkien-ish dwarves.
  4. There was too much material added from the writers' imaginations (as opposed to added from the LOTR Appendix)
  5. Alfrid was too much, too over-the-top.
I am not against changes or editing of the story as needed to adapt it to a new medium and I don't think wizzardly is either. I was onboard with PJ's stated intent to expand the story by bringing in additional elements from the LOTR Appendix. I fully understood his rationale to recut it to 3 films when he realized how much material he had. What some of us didn't like was the end product because of the points above.

I fully appreciate PJ's efforts with the LOTR trilogy and still rewatch those movies periodically, both in TE and EE. I appreciate his efforts in producing an action packed fantasy trilogy but I dislike it as an adaptation of The Hobbit. At first, my dislike was only mild but the more I've thought about the films themselves (mostly as part of the debates on these boards), the more I dislike them -- to the point I fully understand why wizzardly won't bother with watching BOFA and I personally will not be buying any version of them for my film library.

I thought the EEs for AUJ and DOS were improvements (not sure I'd say LOADS better) than the TEs but I actually felt the EE for BOFA was worse than the TE. More footage of trolls (who shouldn't even have been out in daylight) stomping on heads didn't make the film any better. The dwarven war wagon gave more screen time to some of the dwarves but did nothing to fix the underlying problems in the film -- in fact, it exacerbated them by continuing to dilute Bilbo's central role in the story.

wizzardly can do what he wants but I would say there are far more productive and enjoyable ways for a Tolkien fan to use 2+ hours than watching BOFA. I think I'd even watch Bakshi's lame attempt [shudder] over BOFA ...


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 14 2016, 4:32am


Views: 839
Plot strands

Regarding those loose ''plot strands'', do they show to whom all the gold is distributed to, and that Bard becomes the new Master of Esgaroth? Also, do they show what happens to Tauriel? I did not watch the extended version yet. But I heard some of these ''plot strands'' are still unresolved even in the extended version, which I would find somewhat disappointing. Frown Though it would not completely ruin the experience for me, I think.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 14 2016, 4:33am


Views: 842
NO it's not!

[
The fight was literally right outside where they lived. Hence, the suicide run wasn't long, thus they should have still worn armor. And Thorin got up Ravehill on a goat. So the argument that he wouldn't have been able to go up a hill if he'd been properly protected is faulty.


Except if he'd worn the armor it would have changed the ending - not that I personally would have minded it, but that's beside the point. It doesn't matter that the fight was right outside their door, the Dwarves still needed to run FAST, and it has already been established that armor was HEAVY and hard to move in. So heavy that I doubt Thorin could have hopped up on that goat to begin with, so no my argument is not faulty!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 14 2016, 4:35am


Views: 836
About Bard & Tauriel

It's implied that Bard is now the leader, but there's no official coronation for him. Dain's coronation is brief. No, they don't really talk about the gold, and we don't really know what happens to Tauriel either. And we're still stuck with that exchange - "why does it hurt so much?" "Because it was real" - UGH!!!Frown

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 14 2016, 5:18am


Views: 825
They don't depict the distribution of wealth, but it is implied

They (briefly) show the coronation of Dain on the heels of the funeral for Fili, Kili and Thorin and the scene is linked to the one in the theatrical of the horns blowing in Dale with all of the people of Laketown looking out towards the mountain. This implies the two cultures are at peace with one another which in and of itself implies the new citizens of Dale were compensated for their loss. It's hard to imagine - with the new scene and the editing together of this scene with the preexisting one - Bard going, "Well, that was a moving ceremony. I suppose we ought to starve and die off now."

We do not see Tauriel again after her words with Thranduil, but I don't believe we need to. Her arc ends with her coming to the realization that because her feelings towards Kili were legitimate, the pain she feels over his mortality isn't going to dissipate any time soon (the oft-maligned "Because it was real" dialogue that I personally found so fitting and appropriate).

However, we never hear again of Thranduil's gems and, though an argument can be made that he rightfully reprioritizes said gems on the battlefield, I think this is something that should have been dealt with (and could have been, quite quickly). As I've posted elsewhere on the boards, this is the one thing that's just left hanging by the time the credits roll. Whether or not this hurts the viewing experience depends on the importance you place on this plot thread, I suppose.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 14 2016, 8:54am


Views: 813
Not a myth. They were poorly prepared, when they had more than enough opportunity to prepare properly.


In Reply To

In Reply To
Thorin still should have worn armor.


How does this asinine myth keep getting perpetuated that Thorin and his companions were not wearing armor when they charged out of the Gate? It is completely false. Thorin was wearing armor in his final scenes, it just wasn't the regal armor he wore in the Mountain.



Thorin charged into battle in a chain hauberk, thick leather overcoat, leather gloves, heavy boots, sword and octagonal shield. The other Dwarves all had light battle-armor as well.


No helmets for these guys. Helmets are for lowly dwarves. At least Dain's excuse was his helmet fell off. Kili looks like he could have used a shield. His arm sure looks nekkid without it.

[oversized pic deleted]. Please see picture posting guidelines here.

(This post was edited by Altaira on May 14 2016, 7:38pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 8:56am


Views: 812
Clearly I'd be in no condition to return and finish it....

But before I passed judgement on the part of the meal that I'd eaten (and only the part I'd eaten - I wouldn't be qualified to comment on the rest) I'd consult a doctor to find out why I'd been taken ill. After all, if the problem was an attack of gastroenteritis or a previously undiscovered allergy it would hardly be the restaurant's fault, would it?

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 14 2016, 9:16am


Views: 809
Yes, it is...


In Reply To
[
The fight was literally right outside where they lived. Hence, the suicide run wasn't long, thus they should have still worn armor. And Thorin got up Ravehill on a goat. So the argument that he wouldn't have been able to go up a hill if he'd been properly protected is faulty.


Except if he'd worn the armor it would have changed the ending - not that I personally would have minded it, but that's beside the point. It doesn't matter that the fight was right outside their door, the Dwarves still needed to run FAST, and it has already been established that armor was HEAVY and hard to move in. So heavy that I doubt Thorin could have hopped up on that goat to begin with, so no my argument is not faulty!


A host of dwarves just as heavily armed as Thorin, hopped up on their goats with no problem, and later followed Thorin in the charge against the orcs. Thorin's company looks even dumber when you consider that they had AN ENTIRE ARMORY from which to choose something suitable.

This wouldn't have changed the ending. Tolkien's ending specifically states that the dwarves all had armor on, but Thorin and his nephews died anyway. My problem is the way Jackson set it up, made it look like the dwarves didn't have much sense.

If only it were possible to wear helmets, swords and shields and run at the same time. Oh wait...!

(This post was edited by Altaira on May 15 2016, 4:47am)


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 14 2016, 9:20am


Views: 810
Even though you're talking to Wizzardly...


In Reply To
But before I passed judgement on the part of the meal that I'd eaten (and only the part I'd eaten - I wouldn't be qualified to comment on the rest) I'd consult a doctor to find out why I'd been taken ill. After all, if the problem was an attack of gastroenteritis or a previously undiscovered allergy it would hardly be the restaurant's fault, would it?


If other people also get sick from eating the same dish, that means it's not just you.


Smaug the iron
Gondor


May 14 2016, 9:33am


Views: 805
Trolls


In Reply To
More footage of trolls (who shouldn't even have been out in daylight)

Why should the trolls not be in daylight? They are not the same trolls as Tom, Bert and William, they are the same trolls who attacked Aragorn at the Black gate and can be out in the daylight.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 10:05am


Views: 804
Though it could possibly be...

...the result of an epidemic of gastroenteritis or some kind of vomiting virus, in which case the restaurant would still not be at fault.

Though wizzardly's example didn't include illness on the part of other diners. I could also point out to him - and you, if you want to play - that if'd gone two-thirds of the way through the meal that tells me that it tasted good up to that point and I was enjoying it. Anything else, and I wouldn't have eaten more than the first couple of mouthfuls (at which point, please note that I wouldn't pronounce judgement on the whole meal. As Otaku pointed out, the dessert might have been nice. I'd just have said that I wasn't going to eat any more because I didn't like the bit I'd already had.)

Something else to consider if you really want to pursue this wonderfully dotty analogy of the unfinished meal and the mysteriously incapacitated diner....

The meal itself may have been perfectly OK. It may even have been top quality five-star restaurant fare, prepared by a top chef using only the finest ingredients. But if it was something I personally didn't like, or it contained something I was allergic to, it would still not be suitable for me. And that wouldn't diminish its quality in any way - or give me the right to complain that this restaurant was serving rubbish - would it?

Over to you, chaps! Wink

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 14 2016, 11:13am


Views: 792
Re: Restaurant


In Reply To
...the result of an epidemic of gastroenteritis or some kind of vomiting virus, in which case the restaurant would still not be at fault.

Though wizzardly's example didn't include illness on the part of other diners. I could also point out to him - and you, if you want to play - that if'd gone two-thirds of the way through the meal that tells me that it tasted good up to that point and I was enjoying it. Anything else, and I wouldn't have eaten more than the first couple of mouthfuls (at which point, please note that I wouldn't pronounce judgement on the whole meal. As Otaku pointed out, the dessert might have been nice. I'd just have said that I wasn't going to eat any more because I didn't like the bit I'd already had.)

Something else to consider if you really want to pursue this wonderfully dotty analogy of the unfinished meal and the mysteriously incapacitated diner....

The meal itself may have been perfectly OK. It may even have been top quality five-star restaurant fare, prepared by a top chef using only the finest ingredients. But if it was something I personally didn't like, or it contained something I was allergic to, it would still not be suitable for me. And that wouldn't diminish its quality in any way - or give me the right to complain that this restaurant was serving rubbish - would it?

Over to you, chaps! Wink


Yeah, but you might have eaten more of the meal than you would have normally, because the cook has never let you down before. So while at another restaurant you would have realized that something is wrong with the meal after a couple bites, you only realize it at THIS restaurant after you're already sick. And it's a shame. You were looking forward to the meal. You could smell it cooking from the kitchen. The chef had never let you down before. The first couple bites weren't quite what you expected, but you wanted to give the cook some slack based off his track record.

Sure, the part of the meat that was cooked properly tasted great. But once you eat the part that wasn't properly done and your stomach gets sick, you're going to vomit the whole thing up, good or bad...After which you find out that the cook knew he didn't have time to cook the meal properly, as the recipe called an hour for the meat to cook, and he only had thirty five minutes.

"But I trusted you!" You say to the chef. "You added a whole bunch of ingredients that radically changed the recipe, and that still didn't change the fact that the meat was undercooked! And now I'm sick!"

"So am I!" Another customer yells.

"Me too!"

Now there's a whole bunch of you.

"How dare you attack this poor cook?" yells one particular customer who has a crush on the cook. "So what if the meal made you sick? The silverware is beautiful! And you didn't eat the last part of the meat. Just because everything you ate made you sick, doesn't mean you shouldn't eat everything on your plate."

"I'm too busy throwing up to eat anything else here," you say. "Such a shame. I thought he was the best cook ever, but now I'm going to have to bash him on Yelp."

Then you put on a helmet and make a suicide run out of the restaurant.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 14 2016, 1:12pm


Views: 770
To arm, or not to arm...


In Reply To
No helmets for these guys. Helmets are for lowly dwarves. At least Dain's excuse was his helmet fell off. Kili looks like he could have used a shield. His arm sure looks nekkid without it.


Nonetheless, the Dwarves were still wearing armor. It is immaterial whether you think that they were sufficiently armored. They were not unprotected.

It's a very simple question: Were Thorin and his companions wearing armor when they charged out of Erebor? Yes/No.

Answer: Yes. Myth busted.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 14 2016, 1:21pm)


Noria
Gondor

May 14 2016, 1:26pm


Views: 768
Helmets


In Reply To
No helmets for these guys. Helmets are for lowly dwarves. At least Dain's excuse was his helmet fell off. Kili looks like he could have used a shield. His arm sure looks nekkid without it.


The main characters in such movies as these rarely if ever wear helmets. It's just a cinematic convention.

I prefer it that way because I like to able to identify the characters I'm trying to follow.


Avandel
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 2:31pm


Views: 757
And "real" warriors often dumped their armor

not that I am going to go dig the links up, but Amazon has some nice free, albeit dated, books on armor.

I was surprised to read thanks the the weight, movement and visibility issues that soldiers often shed their plate armor during campaigns. A piece here, a piece there. According to one book I read, it's a reason it's difficult for museums to get an entire intact set of plate armor.


Quote
Mail armour provided an effective defence against slashing blows by edged weapons and penetration by thrusting and piercing weapons; in fact, a study conducted at the Royal Armouries at Leeds concluded that "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon."[37][38]....

Some evidence indicates that during armoured combat, the intention was to actually get around the armour rather than through itóaccording to a study of skeletons found in Visby, Sweden, a majority of the skeletons showed wounds on less well protected legs.[39]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_%28armour%29

This article DOES go on to comment that helms were, in fact, often combined with chain mailCool, but re the films IMO Thorin's perspective on tactics by then I would think is far different than Dain'sShocked - e.g. Dain shows up and as far as he knew, it was going to be a more or less equal fight w. some elves and men; Thorn would have known the importance of the dwarf king as a rallying point in their culture and that by then the battle was something else entirely, and hardly "equal" ("Dain is surrounded...they're being slaughtered")

So a tactic where the "royal dwarves" appear in a combination of brigandine and chain mail, where they are both visible to the other dwarves ("to the king!") and able to move fast and take out a lot of orcs, at that point, may have been "suicidal" but it was "suicide" with a good chance behind it ("I'm going to take out their leader"). And I think we see this in the film, where Thorin & co. spearhead a wedge and break up the line of orcs and trolls that had backed Dain and his soldiers against the walls.

Culturally as well, the dwarves being badasses I think by then needed to SEE Thorin. In theory some of them may have never seen the "royals" they were dying to defend. I suppose the dwarves would have seen Thorin, kind of, if he had charged out in gold armor, but "everyone" knows that gold is a soft metal and wouldn't be my first choice for "real" armor. Makes impressive ceremonial armor, but what kind of impression is that, standing on your walls in your gold plate armor + helmet, while everyone else is doing the fightingLaugh - the movie I think makes that point as well.

Doesn't make much of an impression either if you charge out in your nice shiny helm and a troll clunks you over the head because your periperal vision is blocked - that would be kind of demoralizing I should think.Angelic


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 2:44pm


Views: 753
Hobbit Fricassee

Yes, Chef PJ's concoction has caused many to fall ill, as can be evidenced by multitudes of comments on websites such as youtube that offer samplings of his heinous dish. I think for me the fact that I made it through the second movie was partially due to complete and total disbelief....I was in shock. I didn't really enjoy the first course, however, a glimmer of hope still remained... the second course was where it really hit me. His LotR was far from perfect, but was overall satisfying, and I would find myself returning from time to time. So I was in complete shock that his Hobbit turned out so poorly, being that it is a much simpler dish. It seemed such an easy task for such an accomplished chef as Che PJ.


Avandel
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 3:02pm


Views: 750
And then

the manager apologetically brought the dessert cart to the large party (dressed in some sort of Renaissance costumes) happily finishing their meals. Some were wistfully staring at their cleaned plates and the few crumbs left in the scone baskets, debating on whether they should order take-out so they could enjoy the same again at home. WITH extras.

"Did he seriously claim food poisoning?" exclaimed one of the party, wondering if would look too *greedy* to snatch up both the chocolate cake AND the white chocolate cheesecake. With raspberry sauce. Tongue

"Well, you put something out, and you hope folks like it..."

"Oh, we do, we do!" exclaimed another in the party dressed in a grey wizard hat who was eying the black bottom pie. "Some of these changes to your recipes have been amazing!"

"Anyway, not everybody is going to like everything," said a third diner. "Even IF you have one of the most successful restaurants around. BTW, could I order some take-out? I love having your food - it's great to settle down with a sumptuous meal after watching this week's Game of Thrones..."Angelic


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


May 14 2016, 5:03pm


Views: 735
Seems everyone's missed (avoided?) the obvious one here...

"Because it was pants." Tongue




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Į Victoria Monfort


dormouse
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 5:14pm


Views: 731
Three cheers, Avandel....

...for bringing the game to a satisfying conclusion. I'll eat in this restaurant again often! Smile

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 5:24pm


Views: 726
to each their own

Personally, I prefer to sup at only the finest of establishments, so from here on its Master Chef J.R.R. Tolkien for me! I suppose it was rather silly to suppose that anyone else could come anywhere near the level of expertise that he has delivered for all of these years.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 5:24pm


Views: 562
Previous experience of the chef's handiwork....

...would encourage me to visit the restaurant again. But as I've already established, nothing would make me eat something that tasted bad - and in my experience food poisoning doesn't usually take effect until some time after eating.

Please remind me not to visit any restaurant you frequent - it sounds very messy! Wink

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


dormouse
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 5:28pm


Views: 559
Not sure how good he would have been as a film maker ....

...though as a writer, I'd agree that his understanding of language, his imagination and his ability to weave a myth were second to none.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 5:38pm


Views: 553
The full ravages of Chef PJ's handiwork

didn't take full effect until a bit of time had passed to allow the digestion process to begin. It was afterall an enormous quantity to consume. However, about halfway through the 2nd course was when the true horror of it all boldly made itself known. It was a total mind and body assault like no other. After recovering enough to safely drive home, I vowed to never again return to Che PJ's.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 14 2016, 7:44pm


Views: 526
Trolls and orcs.


In Reply To

In Reply To
More footage of trolls (who shouldn't even have been out in daylight)

Why should the trolls not be in daylight? They are not the same trolls as Tom, Bert and William, they are the same trolls who attacked Aragorn at the Black gate and can be out in the daylight.


Not to mention that there were trolls at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and most of that battle in the movie takes place in daylight. But maybe he meant orcs? But there were literally THOUSANDS of orcs in daylight there as well, so the argument doesn't hold up either way. Tongue


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 7:47pm


Views: 526
Perhaps modified trolls that can resist the sunlight.

Saruman was able to make Uruk-hai more resistant to sunlight, why couldn't Sauron do the same with trolls? Unless we're being trolled by Peter Jackson.

I always follow my job through.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 14 2016, 7:51pm


Views: 523
Youtube.


In Reply To
Yes, Chef PJ's concoction has caused many to fall ill, as can be evidenced by multitudes of comments on websites such as youtube that offer samplings of his heinous dish. I think for me the fact that I made it through the second movie was partially due to complete and total disbelief....I was in shock. I didn't really enjoy the first course, however, a glimmer of hope still remained... the second course was where it really hit me. His LotR was far from perfect, but was overall satisfying, and I would find myself returning from time to time. So I was in complete shock that his Hobbit turned out so poorly, being that it is a much simpler dish. It seemed such an easy task for such an accomplished chef as Che PJ.


So what? I bet you can find hundreds of comments on youtube criticising any given apects of the LOTR trilogy, so this means nothing. People give idiotic opinions all the time.

Heck, even CHRISTOPHER TOLKIEN himself said, basically, that the LOTR trilogy was a piece of crap.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 14 2016, 7:53pm


Views: 522
Yes,


In Reply To
Saruman was able to make Uruk-hai more resistant to sunlight, why couldn't Sauron do the same with trolls? Unless we're being trolled by Peter Jackson.


Sauron did exactly that, breeding the Olog-hai. Jackson just introduced several variations on the Black Trolls.

And, in Tolkien's canon, it was also Sauron who bred the Uruk-hai. Saruman recruited many of them for his own army, but what he developed were the Half-orcs--some of which could pass for Men.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 7:53pm


Views: 517
Like the pun?

 

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 8:03pm


Views: 513
???

Are you suggesting that Christopher Tolkien's opinion is idiotic?


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 8:09pm


Views: 508
Perhaps not idiotic,

But pretty arrogant.

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 8:19pm


Views: 502
I disagree

Christopher probably has a fairly good idea of what a proper adaptation of his father's work should look like. The fact that he judged PJ's LotR so harshly should make any Tolkien fan take another look at the trilogy. PJ's LotR was 10 times better than his Hobbit, but I still agree with Christopher's criticisms of it.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 8:25pm


Views: 493
If he has such a good idea of how it should look,

Why doesn't he try and make one himself? He's even refused the role of a creative consultant, where he would have final approval on any changes made by the filmmakers but still retain the rights. J.K. Rowling used that tactic with Harry Potter.

I guess Christopher Tolkien has a low opinion of the Harry Potter films as well.

On the other hand, do you like "Aruman" and unscary Balrogs?

I always follow my job through.

(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on May 14 2016, 8:27pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 14 2016, 8:35pm


Views: 483
Consultant


In Reply To
Why doesn't he try and make one himself? He's even refused the role of a creative consultant, where he would have final approval on any changes made by the filmmakers but still retain the rights. J.K. Rowling used that tactic with Harry Potter.


Rowling was in a better position to dictate terms. Christopher Tolkien would have never been granted final say if only because the filmmakers had no obligation to give it to him.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 8:36pm


Views: 482
If that would have even given him "final approval"

And, Bakshi's film handled some things better than PJ's movies. He at least had the good sense of not ruining the Flight to the Ford scene by shoehorning Arwen into it.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 8:44pm


Views: 476
Tell me how it was ruined.

Evidently, there are some conflicting ideas about good female characters.

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 8:49pm


Views: 475
sure

That is an important scene that illustrates Frodo's strength and courage. Having Arwen swoop in and save the day, ruins that moment. Frodo's bravery in defying the Nazgul, as well as his powerful line, "You shall have neither the Ring nor me!" was replaced with Arwen's cringeworthy line, "If you want him, come and claim him." blech


(This post was edited by wizzardly on May 14 2016, 8:56pm)


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 8:58pm


Views: 468
I didn't think it was that cringeworthy.

Both pretty much got the point across. Anyway, Frodo's surviving so long with his body slowly succumbing to the Morgol blade already showed his strength, so it probably was redundant. Anyways, Arwen had to have some introduction. It would be a bit awkward to first meet Arwen in Rivendell and then learn that she's Aragorn's love. Seems a bit forced there.

I always follow my job through.

(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on May 14 2016, 9:03pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:08pm


Views: 460
No

That is a defining moment of Frodo's character tossed by the wayside. And why would it be awkward to introduce Arwen in Rivendell?


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 9:14pm


Views: 448
They probably wanted at least one action sequence with Arwen, establishing her as a willful and strong female.

And introduce Aragorn's attitude toward her, with their debate over who should bring Frodo ahead of the rest of the hobbits to Rivendell. Most of the filmmakers' ideas over expanding Arwen's role were tossed by the wayside, like Arwen showing up at Helm's Deep. Even Peter Jackson thought that was too much.

I guess there is a disagreement over what a strong female character is.

I always follow my job through.

(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on May 14 2016, 9:16pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:19pm


Views: 451
Expanding Awen's role was completely unnecessary

The story already has a strong willful female character.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 9:21pm


Views: 446
To some people,

It has to be the hero's love interest who is a strong female character. And Eowyn doesn't appear in The Fellowship of the Ring. Perhaps she should have shown up a film early.

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:23pm


Views: 443
yes

And its changing the story to please those sorts of people that ruined the Hobbit movies.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 9:26pm


Views: 441
Tell me,

What do you define as a strong female character? What traits are required?

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:30pm


Views: 435
well

Eowyn is a good example. But really what does it matter? The Hobbit doesn't have any female characters. Why is that a problem?


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 9:32pm


Views: 433
Because

The characters seem a little lopsided, don't they?

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:34pm


Views: 680
No

I've always enjoyed the story as Tolkien wrote it.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 9:37pm


Views: 678
You probably don't think much of the female demographic, do you?

Most love interests don't get a good reception if they're a damsel in distress nowadays.

I always follow my job through.

(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on May 14 2016, 9:39pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:41pm


Views: 668
why? Because I disagree that a female character needed to be shoehorned into the Hobbit for the simple fact that there wasn't one?

 


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 9:43pm


Views: 670
I actually thought Tauriel worked pretty well.

Probably no need for a love triangle, but a strong-willed female who doesn't need saving all the time? I'll take that.

I always follow my job through.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 14 2016, 9:49pm


Views: 657
There should be an emoji

That emits an audible loud SIGH when users scroll past the post. I would place it right here.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 14 2016, 10:02pm


Views: 645
Can't you still?

And allow the movies the artistic right to divorce themselves from being the slavish mistresses of the novels?


Finding fault with the very presence of a female character (not even touching on how well-presented and performed she was) speaks a lot more to the kind of viewer you are and not at all to the quality of the trilogy.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation

(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on May 14 2016, 10:03pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 10:16pm


Views: 631
I wasn't impressed with the presentation or performance of the character. Fairly uninspired imo

 


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 10:17pm


Views: 628
Then what female characters are you impressed with or think are inspired?

 

I always follow my job through.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 10:19pm


Views: 628
The Golden Girls

 


Avandel
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 10:19pm


Views: 630
(:

W. dessert....Cool



and more cake...



and 13 dwarves and a halfling....



My reward for actually doing some chores:



(Well, OK, wine vs. beer for meCoolTongue)


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 10:20pm


Views: 625
Who?

 

I always follow my job through.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 14 2016, 10:22pm


Views: 625
Arguing for the sake of argument

Sorry, I don't accept anything you say. If Thorin and his nephews were meant to die, it hardly matters whether they were wearing heavy, light, or no armor. Btw, NONE of the people in your GIF are wearing armor - do THEY look dumb??? Thorin and his Company did not look dumb, I don't think anyone here will agree with you in that regard. We could go "no he doesn't/yes he does" all day long, and it won't change a thing. You're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 10:25pm


Views: 618
Inspired female characters




ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 14 2016, 10:28pm


Views: 614
Never heard of them.

 

I always follow my job through.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 14 2016, 11:09pm


Views: 586
Nice - hope you're enjoying your reward! //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


StingingFly
Lorien

May 14 2016, 11:21pm


Views: 575
Galadriel in LOTR...

...was a good example of a strong female character. She was wise, respected, and serene. She displayed her strength in her interactions with the Fellowship, connecting with them mentally and emotionally. She leaves the mighty warrior Boromir shaken and stammering after reading his soul. This is power. She rejected the Ring of power, even though facing immense temptation.This was inspired.
Unfortunately, in The Hobbit, we have the "girl power" nonsense that a strong woman literally has to be a strong woman, a 'kick-butt chick', who can do everything a man can do...and better! This to me is not inspired. It made for boring characters that felt shoe-horned into the story.


(This post was edited by StingingFly on May 14 2016, 11:26pm)


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 14 2016, 11:26pm


Views: 571
Never mind arguing...

Some people just don't understand what the word ''adaptation'' means. They think a multi-billion dollar movie franchise is done just to please a handful of die-hard, fanatical purists of the original work.

Sad as it may sound, I think the same dumb arguments will still be stated in 2020 and even beyond that.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 14 2016, 11:49pm


Views: 561
Um...actually...


In Reply To
Btw, NONE of the people in your GIF are wearing armor - do THEY look dumb???


The warriors in that GIF are wearing light armor. For some reason, folks seem to think that anything less than full-plate doesn't count. I don't think that anyone in Middle-earth was supposed to have access to full-plate armor (outside of Peter Jackson's films). The Dwarves of the Iron Hills didn't seem to have any:


Quote
Dain had come... Each one of his folk was clad in a hauberk of steel mail that hung down to his knees, and his legs were covered with hose of a fine and flexible metal mesh, the secret of whose making was possessed by Dain's people.. In battle they wielded heavy two-handed mattocks; but each of them had also a short broad sword at his side and a roundshield slung at his back. Their beards were forked and plaited and thrust into their belts. Their caps were of iron and they were shod with iron, and their faces were grim.


"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 14 2016, 11:57pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


May 14 2016, 11:49pm


Views: 557
dumb arguments?

I don't think the question was ever, "what is the definition of an adaptation?" The question is and has been, "is PJ's Hobbit a good one?" It's a matter of opinion, and mine happens to be a firm "No". Others will disagree, and that's ok. I just feel that PJ "adapted" the story so vigorously that he has basically removed most of the Tolkien out of it.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 1:04am


Views: 527
You are short-changing Tauriel

She had a strong moral compass (it is directly due to her actions all of the following occurs: Legolas begins to comprehend the deep worth of other cultures and gets involved in the dwarves' plight, the same with Thranduil, though a far slower burn, Bard's children are saved from the wrath of Smaug and Kili is even granted a fighting chance, doomed as it was) who happens to also be a 'kick butt chick.' Which shouldn't be a real issue because, well, you know, the only other one in the movies is Eowyn and she's not present in this tale. Compounding how large of a non-issue this is is the fact she does NOT do everything better than a man can do.

Bolg kills Kili and defeats Tauriel. Legolas kills Bolg and is never not a badass. He's a dude.

Dismantled. As are most of CaptainObvious and wizzardly's arguments given a few moment's thought. My contention has never been against those who dislike the films. It is against those who dislike them and provide the opposite of legitimate reasons for their view or are incapable of articulating why. I've met level-headed cinephiles and filmgoers who aren't fans and can reasonably explain why.

There's just simply not many on this board and less in this discussion.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation

(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on May 15 2016, 1:09am)


Starling
Half-elven


May 15 2016, 1:13am


Views: 521
From left to right they are:

Tauriel, Rosie Cotton, Arwen, Galadriel. Eowyn isn't in the picture because she was out doing the shopping.
It's a hilarious situational comedy about what happened next to the women of LOTR and The Hobbit, once they got rid of all those shoehorned and unnecessary men. You should check it out.




TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 1:15am


Views: 512
Should also go without saying

That it being not totally like the book or not totally like Tolkien or not totally *what you were hoping for* is not a legitimate flaw in the trilogy. It just is not.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


ange1e4e5
Gondor

May 15 2016, 1:20am


Views: 507
Rrrriiiiiight.

 

I always follow my job through.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 1:26am


Views: 505
That's hilarious

 

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


StingingFly
Lorien

May 15 2016, 1:57am


Views: 484
In your rush to 'dismantle' my argument, you missed the point.

The point is that a powerful woman doesn't have to 'kick butt'. In fact, in Tolkien's world, physical power/fighting prowess isn't necessarily a noble quality, as Frodo is much more powerful than Boromir (strength of character). Bilbo's mercy toward Gollum is a great show of true power.
Anyways, I found the Galadriel of the LOTR to be hauntingly powerful, in a subtle and mysterious way. Galadriel of the Hobbit was a one woman wrecking crew. The same is true with Tauriel in DOS. They are smarter, wiser, and more powerful than their male counterparts. They are too perfect, which makes them boring.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 15 2016, 2:31am


Views: 805
You're the one arguing for the sake of argument.


In Reply To
Sorry, I don't accept anything you say. If Thorin and his nephews were meant to die, it hardly matters whether they were wearing heavy, light, or no armor. Btw, NONE of the people in your GIF are wearing armor - do THEY look dumb??? Thorin and his Company did not look dumb, I don't think anyone here will agree with you in that regard. We could go "no he doesn't/yes he does" all day long, and it won't change a thing. You're just arguing for the sake of argument.


I don't need to go tit for tat with you indefinitely (I'm certainly not going to). I know I'm right.

Except for Gandalf, they're all wearing armor. Look at the GIF again.

This is from the charge at the Black Gate. And here's another shot of the soldiers up close. Looks like armor to me. Moving on.

[way oversized pic removed from post] Please refer to picture posting guidelines here.



(This post was edited by Altaira on May 15 2016, 4:50am)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 2:32am


Views: 789
Too perfect?

Galadriel may have been a 'one woman wrecking crew' (in one scene only - thoughts on her portrayal in "AUJ?"), but her immediate power was all but drained in the action. I've already elaborated on the fact that Tauriel was not presented as perfect, but if we need more proof than failing to defeat Bolg and losing her love at his hands, what about absolutely failing to effectively equal Thranduil's might in confronting him when it's apparent she has no intention of letting him leave the battlefield? Those points, combined with the truly little screen time her character is allotted compared to many other characters in the story is surely enough to discredit her as a model of perfection and *definitely* one of some kind of hyper-perfection. Galadriel may indeed be smarter and wiser than most, if not all, of her male counterparts in "Hobbit" but... why is this a problem? There is no pretense that she is perfect and if another example is required of her likewise, the White Council failed to realize Sauron's spirit had endured beyond his physical demise and she is a vital part of the White Council.

You think I've missed some point but I fear you've overlooked mine. Neither Galadriel nor Tauriel are strong characters because they can kick ass. They are strong, yet non-perfect (recall examples) female characters because of wisdom/intelligence (Galadriel) and empathy/love (Tauriel). There are only two prominent females in the whole of this story, so I suppose my question for you is: how messed up as individuals must they be for them to enhance the films? Why are they not allowed to be strong internally as well as externally, when neither are perfect?

The only character in all of these movies that would qualify as some kind of 'perfect being' is Legolas. Seriously. He has a slight issue with dwarves (resolved for good in "LotR") and had a nose bleed once.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 15 2016, 2:59am


Views: 781
The problem with Tauriel...

I have no problem with Peter Jackson showcasing a female character. I did have some major issues with the way Galadriel beat Sauron. Cinemasins covered a number of my issues nicely. If Galadriel knew she could kick Sauron's butt, she could have done more for the Fellowship than go, "Here's some trinkets, fare thee well." Tolkien wrote about how valuable Saruman's spells had been in defeating the Necromancer. It would have made sense for Saruman to have played a bigger part in the Necromancer's defeat, so as to create shock later when it was revealed that Saruman was in point of fact evil.

As for Tauriel... Tauriel had too many scenes. Her interactions with Kili would have been a lot more charming if it hadn't started with that rauncy line about Tauriel checking Kili's trousers. The only scene I enjoyed with them was when they talked about the elven feast (which I wanted to see onscreen). If they had followed that up with Fili saving Tauriel from Bolg, and we saw how she was moved by his death, that would have been more compelling to me. Instead it turned it a tedious subplot whose purpose was to pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 4:05am


Views: 767
Though the author of the Cinema Sins videos admits he is not fond of "The Hobbit" trilogy

He is also a self-proclaimed (blank) who unnecessarily nicks movies in every way he can to justify being able to fill the videos with content on films of all levels of quality, from the truly horrid all the way on up to those of masterpiece status. Not that this matters at all (they exist for comedy, first and foremost), but he is also very often wrong on a logical level, as though he takes the time to think a moment from a movie through to the point where it appears it is invalid, but does not follow the train of thought to the correct conclusion he would reach if recalling earlier (or later) moments in the same film that puts the 'sin' into context. This isn't even worth mentioning and I wasn't going to but... when I get started...

As for Galadriel, I know you know that the elves were leaving Middle-earth during the events of LotR and - as Gandalf, on the page and on celluloid, sometimes decides - just because a thing could have been done by her does not mean the thing will be done, in part because her place in the world is expiring and in part because she - like Gandalf - is a motivator for others to act and realize a potential they never knew they had. To look at it differently, if The Hobbit had never been filmed, your purported issue in LotR would still remain: Galadriel has been shown to be an immensely powerful being who would undoubtedly put a huge dent in Sauron's plans, still chooses not to, grants the fellowship some trinkets and departs from the shores of M-e.

Sir Christopher Lee's performance during Sauron's banishment was not one of pure terror, but of awe and intense curiosity. No matter that we lost the shock of Saruman revealed as evil - the performance is more in tune with his character. He's not going to actively attempt to defeat the Necromancer because, after he witnesses the latter's display of power, he wants in. Plain and simple.

The trouser line is admittedly not one of the better lines in the trilogy, but it's not graphic nor disturbing enough to be truly cringe-worthy. But man... that last sentence you wrote. You just couldn't help it, huh? Lol. It's not enough to say This is a subplot I did not enjoy. It must be tied with a knot to the presumption that its entire reason for being made manifest was to 'pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.' She's in about 7 scenes in BotFA and a few of these scenes are completed in well under two minutes. So much padding.

Let's talk about padding a post, as your second-to-last, random-as-all-hell, where-did-this-idea-come-from? sentence seems to be doing. May I ask how Tauriel being moved out of nowhere by the death of a character she has no special connection with would be more powerful than showing her and the one she loves tragically wrestling together with a monstrous foe, struggling in vain to keep the other alive for just a few seconds more until one of them is struck dead? Because I wouldn't buy that with a coupon making it free.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation

(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 15 2016, 6:20am)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 4:27am


Views: 760
We are in agreement on one thing, though (first time for everything!)

It would have been lovely to see some of the Feast of Starlight.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


cats16
Valinor


May 15 2016, 5:54am


Views: 747
Hehe. //

 

Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!




CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 15 2016, 5:57am


Views: 747
Sigh...


In Reply To
He is also a self-proclaimed (blank) who unnecessarily nicks movies in every way he can to justify being able to fill the videos with content on films of all levels of quality, from the truly horrid all the way on up to those of masterpiece status. Not that this matters at all (they exist for comedy, first and foremost), but he is also very often wrong on a logical level, as though he takes the time to think a moment from a movie through to the point where it appears it is invalid, but does not follow the train of thought to the correct conclusion he would reach if recalling earlier (or later) moments in the same film that puts the 'sin' into context. This isn't even worth mentioning and I wasn't going to but... when I get started...


I don't agree with all of his videos. But on the point of Galadriel, I'm in complete agreement with him.


In Reply To
As for Galadriel, I know you know that the elves were leaving Middle-earth during the events of LotR and - as Gandalf, on the page and on celluloid, sometimes decides - just because a thing could have been done by her does not mean the thing will be done, in part because her place in the world is expiring and in part because she - like Gandalf - is a motivator for others to act and realize a potential they never knew they had. To look at it differently, if The Hobbit had never been filmed, your purported issue in LotR would still remain: Galadriel has been shown to be an immensely powerful being who would undoubtedly put a huge dent in Sauron's plans, still chooses not to, grants the fellowship some trinkets and departs from the shores of M-e.


Then why even attack the Necromancer in the first place, if the White Council's place is only to get everybody else to do their dirty work? If the Hobbit had never been filmed, my issue would not have been as great. My reasoning was that the evil of Sauron could not simply be undone by physical force, but by an act of selflessness and love. Besides, I believed Sauron in LOTR seemed more powerful than the combined strength of the elves. But then PJ had Galadriel kick Sauron's butt just so audiences could "see a girl kick ass".


In Reply To
Sir Christopher Lee's performance during Sauron's banishment was not one of pure terror, but of awe and intense curiosity. No matter that we lost the shock of Saruman revealed as evil - the performance is more in tune with his character. He's not going to actively attempt to defeat the Necromancer because, after he witnesses the latter's display of power, he wants in. Plain and simple.


I never said Saruman was terrified. I believed Saruman already under Sauron's sway at that point, which is why he didn't want Gandalf and the dwarves to go to Erebor. To clarify, I wanted Saruman to play a bigger part so to create the ILLUSION that he had heroically helped to defeat Sauron. Which is what Tolkien hinted at. So as to reveal that Sauron withdrew from Mirkwood, not so much because he had been repelled by the might of the White Council, but because he had no further use for Mirkwood and wished to lull the Council into a false sense of security by having them think him vanquished.


In Reply To
The trouser line is admittedly not one of the better lines in the trilogy, but it's not graphic nor disturbing enough to be truly cringe-worthy. But man... that last sentence you wrote. You just couldn't help it, huh? Lol. It's not enough to say This is a subplot I did not enjoy. It must be tied with a knot to the presumption that its entire reason for being made manifest was to 'pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.' She's in about 7 scenes in BotFA and a few of these scenes are completed in well under two minutes. So much padding.


Not cringe worthy? Speak for yourself. A lot of people found that cringe worthy. I get it. You like Tauriel. She's not the only thing wrong with BOTFA. But I'd have rather seen Thranduil getting his gems back and calling BIlbo "elf friend", than watch a half baked romance that wasn't even in the books.


In Reply To
Let's talk about padding a post, as your second-to-last, random-as-all-hell, where-did-this-idea-come-from? sentence seems to be doing. May I ask how Tauriel being moved out of nowhere by the death of a character she has no special connection with would be more powerful than showing her and the one she loves tragically wrestling together with a monstrous foe, struggling in vain to keep the other alive for just a few seconds more until one of them is struck dead? Because I wouldn't buy that with a coupon making it free.



Gee...you're taking this pretty hard. Anyway, Tauriel and Kili never had that much of a special connection anyway. And the scenes they shared only served to show that there was real any basis to call their interactions "real" love. By snipping their interaction down to the two scenes I mentioned (and maybe the scene with Tauriel at the barrel chase), we lose most of the garbage.

(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 15 2016, 6:19am)


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 15 2016, 6:18am


Views: 751
This subthread ends here.

This yes-no argument is going nowhere. If anyone must continue the debate, take it to private messages - any more posts in this subthread will be deleted.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauronís master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 15 2016, 6:21am)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 6:48am


Views: 734
Yeah, that Sigh emoji would be perfect right about now. "Now... where to begin?... Ah! Yes... "

For some reason, I cannot figure out how to post multiple quotations for the life of me. Little help, anyone?


"Then why even attack the Necromancer in the first place, if the White Council's place is only to get everybody else to do their dirty work?"


That's a strange way of reading what I said back to me in a trashier version. Would we consider Gandalf someone who gets everyone else to do his dirty work? He and Galadriel are instigators for the greater good and there are some issues they will personally attend to and others they will not. Gandalf would be a great help in the labyrinth of Mirkwood, but he must confirm if his suspicions regarding the Necromancer are true and that takes top priority. Galadriel would be a great help in an assault against Sauron, but the course of action (secret trek to destroy the ring) had been decided, the fellowship of the ring formed and she along with her people are in the process of vacating Middle-earth forever. At Dol Goldur, the White Council were dealing with mounting suspicions, but only upon arrival understood just how grave the situation was Gandalf found himself in. She was already there - no need to be shy, right?


"My reasoning was that the evil of Sauron could not simply be undone by physical force, but by an act of selflessness and love."


Sauron was undone by a combination of unfortunate (for him) distraction and happy accident. It was not selflessness and love that had Frodo and Gollum fighting over the ring at the edge of Mount Doom.



"I believed Saruman already under Sauron's sway at that point, which is why he didn't want Gandalf and the dwarves to go to Erebor. To clarify, I wanted Saruman to play a bigger part so to create the ILLUSION that he had heroically helped to defeat Sauron. Which is what Tolkien hinted at. So as to reveal that Sauron withdrew from Mirkwood, not so much because he had been repelled by the might of the White Council, but because he had no further use for Mirkwood and wished to lull the Council into a false sense of security by having them think him vanquished."


This... is a good point. I am happy with how effective these scenes played out on film, but it would indeed have been interesting to see it executed the way you've worded it.


"
Not cringe worthy? Speak for yourself. A lot of people found that cringe worthy."


Ya'll cringe pretty easily.


"
I get it. You like Tauriel."


Absolutely, she's a well-written and well-performed character. Why wouldn't I like her?


"
She's not the only thing wrong with BOTFA."


Well, alright then. Why was she something wrong with BotFA, though?


"But I'd have rather seen Thranduil getting his gems back and calling BIlbo 'elf friend', than watch a half baked romance that wasn't even in the books."


I would have liked to see Thranduil reclaim his gems, as well. Why was the romance half-baked, though? Because it was short-lived? Because greater things were at stake and the film spent more time on them? Because people can't fall in love that quickly (SPOILER ALERT: They can)? Why does it matter that it wasn't in the books? Why does it matter to so many of you that things were present not in the books???

The only way a 100% faithful adaptation of The Hobbit - or any novel - could be shown on-screen is if the film was just one static shot of the novel itself as the pages are slowly turned over several hours. This is not opinion, by the way, but completely the truth. No movie can 100% accurately represent a written work it is based upon (any evolution of any thing will breed about additions and subtractions at the most microscopic of levels) and if that's the case, why knock the movie for not getting it 99.98% accurate? Why is J.R.R. Tolkien given this free pass for everything he's written, no matter what he's done with the mythological works and legends he based his work upon, but Peter Jackson is not given a freakin' inch of breathing room as an artist, just as legitimate and valid in his own right and in his own medium? I genuinely do wish I could understand why so many feel this way because it's bonkers to ask for, hope for and especially to expect. The kind of common sense that one only realizes stepping out into the world is actually scarce sense.



"Gee...you're taking this pretty hard."


I write hard. I'm in a good mood tonight.


"
Anyway, Tauriel and Kili never had that much of a special connection anyway."


And this is where everything falls apart. Clearly they did, even if you didn't get anything out of it as a viewer. The dialogue, the music, the shared emotion and experience between them, the horror Kili feels as Bolg attacks Tauriel, the heartbreak she experiences over losing Kili, everything. Everything that is actually in the films of DoS and BotFA flies in the face of this accusation. Let me rephrase something you said earlier here: I get it. You don't like Tauriel and Kili together. They're not the only decent thing in BotFA.


"And the scenes they shared only served to show that there was real any basis to call their interactions 'real' love."


Let me rephrase that rephrasing one more time: I get it. You're a modern cynic with a specific set of requirements for love. There's not only a romance in BotFA.


"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 6:50am


Views: 739
Oh, now I had NO idea you had just written this!

Laugh

I'm done, I promise! Lol.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


dormouse
Half-elven


May 15 2016, 7:42am


Views: 718
*Priceless! Loud giggles from the teapot..... //

 

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 15 2016, 12:00pm


Views: 698
Encasing Quotes


In Reply To
For some reason, I cannot figure out how to post multiple quotations for the life of me. Little help, anyone?


Use the 'reply' or 'quote' buttons for this. Just don't forget to follow the passage with the end-reply (/reply) or end-quote (/quote). Or you can just add the appropriate widget by hand: bracket - reply - close-bracket and bracket - /reply - close-bracket (same with quotes).

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 15 2016, 12:17pm


Views: 693
My take differs a bit


In Reply To
As for Galadriel, I know you know that the elves were leaving Middle-earth during the events of LotR and - as Gandalf, on the page and on celluloid, sometimes decides - just because a thing could have been done by her does not mean the thing will be done, in part because her place in the world is expiring and in part because she - like Gandalf - is a motivator for others to act and realize a potential they never knew they had. To look at it differently, if The Hobbit had never been filmed, your purported issue in LotR would still remain: Galadriel has been shown to be an immensely powerful being who would undoubtedly put a huge dent in Sauron's plans, still chooses not to, grants the fellowship some trinkets and departs from the shores of M-e.


Mostly agree, but there is a specific reason why Galadriel seems more passive in LotR: She remains with Celeborn in Lothlůrien because of the possibility of a direct attack from the armies of the Enemy. Indeed, such attacks had already begun at least in Tolkien's canon, starting with the one on the Woodland Realm that allowed Gollum to escape.


In Reply To
Sir Christopher Lee's performance during Sauron's banishment was not one of pure terror, but of awe and intense curiosity. No matter that we lost the shock of Saruman revealed as evil - the performance is more in tune with his character. He's not going to actively attempt to defeat the Necromancer because, after he witnesses the latter's display of power, he wants in. Plain and simple.


I disagree that Saruman has already fallen; although his investigation of and experiments in Ring-lore (which we don't actually see) have started him down that path. This is much more obvious, though, in Tolkien's legendarium where we learn that the White Wizard is secretly attempting to find the One Ring and has been avoiding interfering with the Necromancer for that reason. Saruman's fall starts in earnest with the last meeting of the White Council in 2953 after Sauron openly declares himself.


In Reply To
The trouser line is admittedly not one of the better lines in the trilogy, but it's not graphic nor disturbing enough to be truly cringe-worthy. But man... that last sentence you wrote. You just couldn't help it, huh? Lol. It's not enough to say This is a subplot I did not enjoy. It must be tied with a knot to the presumption that its entire reason for being made manifest was to 'pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.' She's in about 7 scenes in BotFA and a few of these scenes are completed in well under two minutes. So much padding.


Agreed about the running time issue. The character of Tauriel had some sort of romantic interest connected to her from the start, when her name was still Itaril. Just the nature of the love story was changed. Instead of an Elf-lord (from Rivendell? Perhaps connected to the White Council subplot?), it became the young Dwarf Kili.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


Noria
Gondor

May 15 2016, 1:06pm


Views: 688
Surprisingly,

I actually agree with Wizzardly (who presumably actually saw LotR) that Frodo lost a great moment at the Fords, though I understand why they did it and it works for Arwen. Her introduction scene with Aragorn doesn't sit well with me either. But overall I like what they did with Arwen in those films, except for the dying thing. Her suddenly appearing as a trophy wife at the end of RotK, as she does in the book, would not have flown in todayís world.

Those of us who love the books mostly donít seem to mind the lack of female characters, partly I suspect because we are used to it. However, the LotR and Hobbit movies were meant for a wider, more varied audience in an era where womenís roles and capabilities are very different. What works in the books for lovers of the books wouldn't necessarily work on the screen.


Noria
Gondor

May 15 2016, 1:31pm


Views: 681
Galadriel in FotR

I seem to remember PJ or PB saying (maybe on the BOTFA commentary?) that Galadriel permanently expended much of her power while battling Sauron at Dol Guldur. That's why in the movieverse she could do no more than she did for the Fellowship.

Presumably they had to come up with some explanation as to why Galadriel seems much more passive in FotR when in BotFA she was kick-ass and Nenya was an offensive weapon. I think that's lame but there it is.

The filmmakers felt they needed another female character besides Galadriel and picked an Elf, possibly because they thought that the Woodland Realm needed more characters. I would guess that they wanted a younger, less wise and more impulsive and physically active character as a contrast to Galadriel. IMO opinion Tauriel has an interesting journey and the fact that her relationship with Kili starts with the sort of stupid thing that young men say to young women is minor.

IMO Tauriel is a great character, especially in DOS where she is more about rejecting Thranduil's callous isolationism and doing what she thinks is right. Her dawning relationship with Kili, the openness and ability to get past prejudice that both Tauriel and Kili display is a strong contrast to the bigotry and hatefulness of Thranduil and Thorin. But in BotFA her story is more about Kili, which is unfortunate in my view.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 15 2016, 1:43pm


Views: 681
One of the first stills I saw of FotR, long before it was released...

...was of Arwen carrying Frodo to Rivendell. I really hated the idea because Glorfindel's part in the story was one of my early favourites and it made me worry from the outset about what else they might have changed and - not to put to fine a point on it - whether this meant they were going to ruin everything! But once it came to the film it was OK, I didn't mind it as I thought I would. It worked. I'd have to agree that it was a lost moment for Frodo (though I minded Glorfindel's lost moment more) but I also understand why they did it and both still have their moments in the book.

On the male/female question I never noticed the lack of female characters in either story but with me I don't think it's because I'm used to it. It never occurred to me, I think, because in reading I've always become caught up with the characters I liked irrespective of whether they were male or female - after all, it wasn't really any more far-fetched to imagine myself as a boy or a man than to imagine being an elf or a mole, or Lucy going through the wardrobe, or Alice - or even a dormouse! But when the story is filmed you can't get away with that. For film so many things that writers can safely leave to the imagination have to be defined

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Omnigeek
Lorien


May 15 2016, 3:13pm


Views: 666
Hmmm ... another point that chaps my posterior ...


In Reply To
I have no problem with Peter Jackson showcasing a female character. I did have some major issues with the way Galadriel beat Sauron. Cinemasins covered a number of my issues nicely. If Galadriel knew she could kick Sauron's butt, she could have done more for the Fellowship than go, "Here's some trinkets, fare thee well." Tolkien wrote about how valuable Saruman's spells had been in defeating the Necromancer. It would have made sense for Saruman to have played a bigger part in the Necromancer's defeat, so as to create shock later when it was revealed that Saruman was in point of fact evil.


My perception of magic in Tolkien's world has always been that it's a subtler magic. The Elves and wizards use magic to enhance and bring out natural properties. Galadriel's magic (like Melian's Girdle before) enhances the naturally protective properties of the surrounding area to hide their retreat and keep enemies out of its borders. Gandalf uses black powder for his fireworks but he enhances them so his are more spectacular. Those with the appropriate gifts can talk to animals and it's not ridiculous.

Middle-earth isn't Harry Potter or other fantasy worlds where someone says a few words and then farts lightning. They have magic but they are not conjurors. Even in his fight with the Balrog, Gandalf relied mostly on staff and sword.

Galadriel was one of the most powerful beings in Middle-earth, holding her own with Gandalf and Saruman and Sauron, but such power comes with its own limitations. She saw and regretted the Kin-slaying. I just found the fireworks show in the movie to be uncharacteristic.

As for Saruman, I felt Saruman was slowly seduced and corrupted by the power Sauron showed him in the Palantir. It wasn't so much (IMO) that he saw the power and wanted in, as he saw power that seemed to be irresistable. The difference between Saruman and Denethor in the end was that Saruman concluded Sauron could be resisted and supplanted if he had the Ring.

This is one point that I liked in The Hobbit movies over the LOTR movies. Saruman's fall from grace and Gandalf's sorrow over it was something I didn't think came through as well in the LOTR movies as the books. In the movies (until TH), Saruman was malevolent from the start in LOTR ... in TH, you see that he is still fighting against Sauron but you see the beginnings of his corruption.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 15 2016, 5:44pm


Views: 646
Thank you!

That was way too needlessly confusing for me.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation

(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on May 15 2016, 5:54pm)


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 16 2016, 9:33am


Views: 609
And another Peeve!

I was watching Desolation of Smaug, while looking over scenes for my Fan-edit and...

Thorin and his company can't find those giant steps leading up into the mountain, but Bilbo basically just points and Thorin says, "You have keen eyes, Master Baggins..."

Come on. It doesn't take keen eyes to see those gigantic steps in the mountain. That was kind of silly.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 16 2016, 12:40pm


Views: 601
The Steps to the Secret Door

I find that to be a fairly minor quibble as it seems that the steps were supposed to be taken initially to be a simple, decorative element and not a route up the Mountain. I was more irritated about the moon being in the wrong phase on Durin's Day (and magically turning into a full moon at the start of TH:BotFA--in the wrong part of the sky). To be fair, you might see that as a minor issue.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"


dormouse
Half-elven


May 16 2016, 12:51pm


Views: 596
No it wasn't...

The key is the word 'hidden' as in 'Hidden Door'. To those in the know (presumably only the King and his heir) the door provides an escape route out of the Mountain with the way up/down hidden in the statue. Outsiders see only a statue: those privy to the secret - and Mr Baggins, with his keen eyes - recognised the hidden staircase built into the design.

Seems curious to me that a viewer as discontented as yourself would even bother with a 'fan edit'. What will you leave in?

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 16 2016, 1:18pm


Views: 587
Just everything Tolkien wrote

And none of the things he didn't write and nothing Tolkien would disapprove of and everything Tolkien would approve of and everything Christopher Tolkien would appreciate and nothing Christopher Tolkien wouldn't appreciate and everything that should have happened in one or two slim movies and nothing that shouldn't of happened in more and all that's pre-approved and expected by the book's fans and nothing that hasn't been cleared by those good folks and absolutely no kind of creativity that's not at least 75 years old, so help him, Lord!

:)

"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 17 2016, 1:10am


Views: 540
...


In Reply To

Seems curious to me that a viewer as discontented as yourself would even bother with a 'fan edit'. What will you leave in?


Fans don't create fan edits to films they're satisfied with...We had a whole discussion about my fan editing a while back.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 18 2016, 10:15am


Views: 445
About the Fan Edit...


In Reply To
What will you leave in?



To respond in more detail, I'm leaving in most everything appertaining to the book. Some of the events are greatly truncated.

Just SOME of the changes are:

-shorter Dwarf dinner scene (no Dwarf song)
- no Balin/Thorin talk after Bilbo turns down's Gandalf's invitation to join the fellowship
-No flashback to Azog at Moria (ironically that's the only Azog scene in UJ that I liked)
- The scene with Elrond in armor meeting Gandalf is gone.
- The escape from the goblin mines is much shorter with the cartoon bits cut out.
- I switch the track from the burning tree so instead of the Nazgul theme playing, "An Ancient Enemy" track is playing instead. Then the track blends into "Out Of The Frying Pan"
-The White Council scene is shown as a flashback
- Mirkwood is much shorter
-Tauriel and Kili's interactions are removed
-Smaug's scene plays without interruption. The dwarf chase is gone.
-Bard doesn't end up in prison.
- No orcs at the river for the barrel
- Radagast isn't seen until Gandalf checks out the Witch King's tomb, thus the fight scene with the bunny sled being chased by wargs is gone.

I have other film jobs to do that take precedence, so I just work on the edit in my spare time. It's pretty much just for friends. When it's done, I'll probably invite some California friends to a private viewing. I don't want to hurt New Line. I just want a version of the Hobbit that I can put on my shelf, and watch in three hours. That way I can have a marathon of the Hobbit and LOTR extended editions back to back.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 18 2016, 11:12am


Views: 437
OK, thanks...

It's good to see that there are some scenes you like

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 19 2016, 2:13am


Views: 524
well...


In Reply To
It's good to see that there are some scenes you like


I've said several times that the Hobbit is a good film trapped within three mediocre ones (or rather two mediocre and one BAD one).


wizzardly
Rohan


May 19 2016, 2:47am


Views: 518
i liked a couple scenes

The good morning scene and Riddles in the Dark. That's it though.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 19 2016, 7:39pm


Views: 493
Those scenes were well done.

I also liked the Smaug scene...at first. When Bilbo was creeping through the mountains of gold, and hiding from Smaug at first I was thinking, "Yes! Jackson's doing it!"

Ever since that scene in FOTR where Gandalf casually mentions that "affair with the dragon" I had wondered what the dragon had looked like. But then Jackson added that silly dwarf chase.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 22 2016, 9:40am


Views: 461
Another Peeve!

Why were the dwarves beards so short? Come on PJ...


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 29 2016, 7:06am


Views: 391
Question.

TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense, I get that you very much like the movies, but do you prefer all six of them over the books? Even LOTR?

I agree with your general sentiment that all of PJ's Middle-earth films are masterpieces, but I prefer the books over them (especially LOTR).

Just curious about that statement you made. Smile


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 29 2016, 9:43pm


Views: 370
There were a few other scenes I liked

What did you think of Smaug? Forgetting the terrible dwarf chase. How did you like how he was voiced and animated? I wish he'd been animated with four arms but besides that I was pretty pleased.


wizzardly
Rohan


May 29 2016, 11:03pm


Views: 361
The Smaug and Bilbo scene could have been good

Would have been better if they decided to keep the jeweled armor though. Then of course the dwarves go running inside and things get real stupid, and the entire scene is totally destroyed.

But otherwise he looked pretty much how I expected he would. And the voice and animation were well done.


(This post was edited by wizzardly on May 29 2016, 11:07pm)


Omnigeek
Lorien


May 30 2016, 5:50pm


Views: 327
Overall, I liked Smaug

They made him too big and I didn't like the plot change with his belly armor but Benedict Cumberbatch did a superb job in voice-acting and I liked the animation. The running battle/chase inside Erebor was silly but that wasn't Smaug's fault.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Jun 24 2016, 3:14pm


Views: 274
I know it's been a while since this thread ''died''...

but I would just like to clarify that I never intended to say wizzardly (or anybody else, for that matter) was OBLIGED to see BOFA. I just recommended that he'd see it, based on the fact that I liked it, of course. I said he ''should'' watch it but right after I said ''just a suggestion, of course'', which neutralized the earlier ''should''.

Therefore it was obvious that the ''should'' was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Thus rendering your question to me essentially meaningless (no offense, though). Wink