|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scorchster
Ossiriand
Dec 19 2013, 5:05pm
Post #1 of 32
(2312 views)
Shortcut
|
Not sure if this interview has been posted yet, just saw it on Den of Geek. Boyens basically talks about some of the choices made in writing for DOS, and she confirms that they did film Bilbo stealing the cup! This had better make it to the EE..
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-desolation-of-smaug/28639/philippa-boyens-on-adapting-the-hobbit-deleted-scenes-and-more
|
|
|
Elskidor
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 5:20pm
Post #3 of 32
(1369 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was surprised that he didn't in the theatrical
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but figured it would make it to the EE, so that is good to hear. They have pretty much stuck just about everything from the book into the films so far, and even stuff not in the book, lol. DoS EE should cover a lot of little stuff that we may think was overlooked and forgotten.
|
|
|
Scorchster
Ossiriand
Dec 19 2013, 5:31pm
Post #4 of 32
(1342 views)
Shortcut
|
I must have missed the shot of Bilbo picking up the cup then!
In any case Smaug's reaction to Bilbo stealing the cup isn't shown, but going by Boyen's comments here it seems like Smaug will kick up a big fuss over it and it might be shown in the EE!
Here's the quote by Boyens:
"There’s some extraordinary stuff, which I hope will be in the extended cut, which is something as simple as Bilbo taking one small cup. And how even that drove Smaug completely insane. You know, “I will not part with a single coin. Not one piece of it.” "
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Dor-Lomin
Dec 19 2013, 5:33pm
Post #5 of 32
(1320 views)
Shortcut
|
He does pick it up. Right there close to the start. he picks it up and tosses it onto the pile and it causes a huge amount of noise.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
Scorchster
Ossiriand
Dec 19 2013, 5:35pm
Post #6 of 32
(1269 views)
Shortcut
|
Almost every scene is in the book in some way or other! I love how in LOTR people (me included) were fuming over what was cut from the book, and now it's the other way round, people getting annoyed at things being added.
Glad to see more of this stuff will likely be in the EE, but it's a long wait to actually see it...
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Menegroth
Dec 19 2013, 5:46pm
Post #7 of 32
(1365 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I used to be such a big fan of hers
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...but not anymore.
Now I'm just trying not to fume at some of her comments 
keep smiling 
|
|
|
Lindele
Mithlond
Dec 19 2013, 6:23pm
Post #8 of 32
(1231 views)
Shortcut
|
at all…
I thought here comments were quite good, and very consistent with her character from the LOTR days.
can't please everyone!
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 6:40pm
Post #9 of 32
(1193 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't agree with everything Phillipa says, but I don't see anything particularly inflammatory in the article. She's an intelligent and articulate writer. I always love to hear what she has to say on the writing process of these films.
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
(This post was edited by entmaiden on Dec 19 2013, 6:46pm)
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Menegroth
Dec 19 2013, 7:13pm
Post #10 of 32
(1155 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's not what I'm referring to
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is the quote that bothers me:
"Then we suddenly realised...that she has to be her own person, not somebody’s wife. And she needs to be her own character."
If you are not married or not a woman you may very well not care, but I am both and I found this to be very insulting. I've mentioned this elsewhere on the forums (sorry to anyone seeing this for a second time). Previously, it was just my memory of her saying something similar in Berlin, but here it is now in black and white. The implication is that a wife is not her own person, does not have her own story and is essentially not interesting or "good" enough to have been a character in the film. I couldn't disagree more and it's very frustrating to read. Such notions are hurtful and she's made these comments multiple times, so yes, I'm feeling a bit upset about it. She's always been well-spoken, but this was in very poor taste, imo.
(This post was edited by dernwyn on Dec 20 2013, 5:00am)
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 7:18pm
Post #11 of 32
(1108 views)
Shortcut
|
Taken within that context I see where you are coming from, and it's unfortunate that within the world of fiction people have to be defined as being one or the other. People should be able to be both or whatever they want to be ultimately.
However, I think Phillipa is making a positive choice, within the context of Tolkien's world and within the greater context of fiction and filmmaking. It is better that Tauriel be defined as a person and not as someone's wife.
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
Kassandros
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 7:28pm
Post #12 of 32
(1081 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A character can be their own person and be someone's wife, though.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think wonderinglinguist makes a good point.
I just find it sad that you can't have a female character without her having a love interest. Well, there's Galadriel. She's the only one, really. There are many, many male characters without love interests, though. But the movies must reinforce the idea that women are defined by the men in their lives rather than being their own persons. Well, except for Galadriel.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Dec 19 2013, 7:33pm
Post #13 of 32
(1072 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure she wasn't intending to hurt anyone's feelings...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... and wasn't expressing an opinion about women in general. Why would she want to denigrate married women - she's a woman herself, with a family.
I think her comment was very specific, relating to where and how they would fit a female character into a story that doesn't have one. She was thinking about the screenplay of the Hobbit and that alone, and a remark made in interview with a particular focus like that can often have unintended meanings when taken out of context.
For what it's worth, I'm a woman - admittedly not a married one - but I've often been described as my brother's sister and always in the past as a daughter, and I don't find what she said offensive or in poor taste. I'm sorry you do, but am absolutely sure that she didn't mean her comments in the sense that you're taking them.
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 7:34pm
Post #14 of 32
(1043 views)
Shortcut
|
I think fiction should represent the multitude that is each person, BUT I don't think Phillipa is saying that someone can't be both, but given the historical and literary context within which she is working in, they wanted to make that choice.
However! I will say it's a little disappointing that despite Phillipa's comments, part of Tauriel's journey in the film involves a "romantic" story in it!
Talk about having your cake and eating it too. 
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Menegroth
Dec 19 2013, 7:36pm
Post #15 of 32
(1057 views)
Shortcut
|
you're saying the same thing. That "someone's wife" is not their own person...like they don't count on their own.
I think any type of character (with good writing and development, of course) could be awesome --Including a wife or even a single female with no romantic entanglements. Either one would be refreshing, as female characters only ever seem to be "love interests".
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 7:48pm
Post #16 of 32
(1021 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hopefully my comment above helps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I agree with everything you are saying. I'm just hoping that there is more thought behind Phillipa's comment than how it is quoted in the article.
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien
"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
(This post was edited by There&ThereAgain on Dec 19 2013, 7:48pm)
|
|
|
dubulous
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 7:57pm
Post #17 of 32
(1006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's what I like about Galadriel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
She is a wife too, but that doesn't define her in any way.
I would like to have seen Bard's wife much rather than Tauriel, but I do kind of understand Philippa's point that as the wife of a well known person like Bard she probably would have been thought of as Bard's wife first and foremost rather than an independent character, just like Bard's children are Bard's children. If they really wanted a female character to stand out, which clearly they did, she couldn't be married to one of the main characters. I think she could have been a married woman, but the husband would have to have been someone we didn't already know.
|
|
|
dave_lf
Mithlond
Dec 19 2013, 7:58pm
Post #18 of 32
(1020 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It was undiplomatically worded
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I think all she meant is that she wanted their new character to be primary, and not someone who is only present in the story as a result of her relationship with some already-existing, presumably more important character.
|
|
|
dubulous
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 7:59pm
Post #19 of 32
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's how I interpreted it too. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Menegroth
Dec 19 2013, 8:12pm
Post #20 of 32
(995 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand what you're saying
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...and I'm sure she didn't set out to insult wives, but the negative implications are still there.
Like dubulous said up above, instead of being married to a main character (which I still don't think is necessarily a problem), they could have had her married to someone else. Like if Tauriel was married to "3rd elf from the left" or something like that...for me, her being married would be 100 times better because it's so rarely used and would add a very interesting dynamic to her character.
|
|
|
LoremIpsum
Menegroth
Dec 19 2013, 8:18pm
Post #21 of 32
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tauriel is not in love with Kili though
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if anyone it's Kili who is reduced to playing a romantic hot dwarf without any other purposes in the plot than having a crush on her. Tauriel's goals and agenda are not connected to romance - she wants to go beyond the forest, learn from and appreciate other cultures, be a part of the world.
edit- Gimli has a crush on Galadriel, so it's really the same
(This post was edited by LoremIpsum on Dec 19 2013, 8:22pm)
|
|
|
dave_lf
Mithlond
Dec 19 2013, 8:38pm
Post #22 of 32
(944 views)
Shortcut
|
but they seem to have had... other reasons for keeping her single.
(This post was edited by dave_lf on Dec 19 2013, 8:46pm)
|
|
|
dubulous
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 8:46pm
Post #23 of 32
(944 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Comparing Kili and Tauriel to Gimli and Galadriel kind of makes my stomach turn
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tauriel and Kili are like the young-adult, Twilight era version of Galadriel and Gimli. I'd rather not have the latter cheapened by any comparison to the former.
Gimli doesn't have a school-boy crush on Galadriel. He may admire her beauty, but more than anything I think he loves her, in a platonic way, because she showed her kindness where he didn't expect it. Kili seemed to be "turned on" from the moment Tauriel killed the spider that was threatening him. Could anyone actually imagine Gimli asking Galadriel to search his trousers, or the two of them having an intimate conversation while Celeborn looks on suspiciously?
|
|
|
Kassandros
Nargothrond
Dec 19 2013, 9:01pm
Post #24 of 32
(899 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If anything, it's Celeborn who is mostly known as Galadriel's husband
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I imagine Galadriel has her roots in some of the powerful Queens of England. Not idea if Tolkien ever talked about this.
I've thought about whether Bard should have been perhaps married to an Easterling or whatever we should all the people from the East seen in the movie. Would be an opportunity to give a role to someone other than a European and get a peek into another culture. I loved the portrayal of Laketown as a diverse city and thought it was appropriate and made it stand out compared to other cities we've seen in Middle Earth.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
Fili
Menegroth
Dec 20 2013, 2:10am
Post #25 of 32
(685 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I Bet It Was Actually Celeborn She Was Thinking About
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...when Boyens made that comment. Talk about a character who's merely a rude, blustering window dressing for his spouse. 
You do kind of need to wonder whatever happened to Thranduil's wife...
See, that's a rumor we are starting, that Tauriel IS actually Thranduil's lover, but never had the heart to tell Legolas. Now Legolas is older, starting to notice girls, and Tauriel, his mother...oh, it's really awkward. THAT'S why Thranduil had that little talk with Tauriel about not giving him hope!
“So comes snow after fire, and even dragons have their endings.”
|
|
|
|
|
1
