|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 15 2014, 1:54pm
Post #1 of 31
(1084 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Do we need a dwarf "dead pool?"
|
Can't Post
|
|
Honestly, I don't think any more than a certain three dwarves will die, but on another thread there was a strong belief that up to half of the Company will perish. Yes, it's totally unrealistic that they've all managed to stay alive so far, and even a few (stupid) critics have complained about that fact (guess they never read the book), but that's the story as written. PJ has made lots of changes (the most significant being the split-up in Laketown), but I don't think he'll go THAT far. However, I'm willing to play devil's advocate on this. IF another dwarf dies, I think the most likely candidate is Dwalin. I have been re-assured by other TORn members that he actually outlives them all, but that's the book, this is the movie. Movie Dwalin is so fiercely loyal to Thorin that I can't believe he won't be fighting by Thorin's side to the bitter end. I think the only other candidates are either Nori or Dori, perhaps while defending Ori (we know what happens to Ori & Balin in FoTR). So, what does anyone else think? Do we even need a dwarf "Dead Pool," and if so, who would you put on the list?
(This post was edited by Kilidoescartwheels on Aug 15 2014, 1:55pm)
|
|
|
deskp
Lorien
Aug 15 2014, 2:06pm
Post #2 of 31
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
In the letter to Bilbo from the dwarves for his birthday, they are all mention except the 3 dead ones.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 15 2014, 2:30pm
Post #3 of 31
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A lot of other dwarves will die....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... but they'll all be dwarves from Dain's army. Apart from the casualties in the book, Thorin's company will survive.
That's my prediction!
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Aug 15 2014, 2:38pm
Post #4 of 31
(606 views)
Shortcut
|
Doc, Dopey, Sleepy, Bashful, Grumpy, Sneezy and Happy.
'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
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 15 2014, 2:38pm
Post #5 of 31
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
It's hard to pick one out in plot terms, so it would come down to whether a particular death was emotive or drew out some thematic or aesthetic elements, but we have no way to even guess on these latter points.
Just as an aside, I'm not sure I agree with calling critics stupid for feeling that some deaths to date would have been agreeable to them. They are both entitled, in my view, to criticise choices Tolkien made and the choices Jackson makes in where to follow Tolkien more or less closely. One doesn't have to agree but I don't think it is a matter of stupidity.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 15 2014, 3:21pm
Post #6 of 31
(590 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hmm..... if you see a dark-haired girl with a bow
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...who keeps singing you might find you're in the wrong film! 
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Aug 15 2014, 3:21pm
Post #7 of 31
(559 views)
Shortcut
|
But in all seriousness I think it will just be Thorin and his heirs.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 15 2014, 4:41pm
Post #8 of 31
(545 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you'd read them, you'd understand
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's hard to pick one out in plot terms, so it would come down to whether a particular death was emotive or drew out some thematic or aesthetic elements, but we have no way to even guess on these latter points.
Just as an aside, I'm not sure I agree with calling critics stupid for feeling that some deaths to date would have been agreeable to them. They are both entitled, in my view, to criticise choices Tolkien made and the choices Jackson makes in where to follow Tolkien more or less closely. One doesn't have to agree but I don't think it is a matter of stupidity.
Because the way the reviews were worded, I got the idea that no, they hadn't read the book and were specifically criticizing the movie. As much crap as PJ has taken over the movie NOT following the book close enough, it just made me roll my eyes (you just can't please some people!). One particularly harsh review was posted a few months ago on TORn, and the reviewer suggested they either should have killed off some of the dwarves early OR limited the number to, I'm not making this up, SEVEN! I seriously think THAT guy was just trying to pick a fight. Can you imagine how much some Tolkien fans would have howled if either of those options were filmed? So yes, I feel equally entitled to saying that complaint was stupid.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 15 2014, 5:06pm
Post #9 of 31
(528 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Personally, I wouldn't agree as a general point.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Although I accept that you say you are referring to specific reviews and I can't comment on the specifics without knowing which ones.
On the issue of suggesting fewer dwarves, that seems to me a perfectly reasonable suggestion for an adaptation, though not one with which I agree in this case. If people want to "howl" in response then, personally, I would lay my criticism at the feet of the "howlers", rather than the person making the suggestion.
As a side note I have seen very little comment from professional critics on Jackson "not following the book close enough" (that is almost exclusively a concern of amateur critics, if seems to me). Instead I think the vast majority of critics have had more issues with insufficient change, as in the example here.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 15 2014, 8:54pm
Post #10 of 31
(465 views)
Shortcut
|
On the issue of suggesting fewer dwarves, that seems to me a perfectly reasonable suggestion for an adaptation, though not one with which I agree in this case. If people want to "howl" in response then, personally, I would lay my criticism at the feet of the "howlers", rather than the person making the suggestion.
I don't find it reasonable at all, since it would go against the point I believe Tolkien was trying to make. And why would I lay the criticism at the "howlers," since I would likely be one of them? To reduce the number of dwarves to seven is such a lame proposal I can't take it seriously, but even if it were 8 I'd feel like I was watching a low-budget production. And killing off some of the dwarves early on would make it feel like an "Expendables" production. This is a kids book, after all. I'm seriously glad that Peter Jackson was intelligent enough not to go there.
Anyway, I guess you don't like my use of the word "stupid," and perhaps it is a strong word, but it's the one that I feel fits the situation best. Like I said originally, there are TORn posters that believe a large number of the company are going to be killed in BOTFA, and I was wondering how many thought that would happen - seems very few indeed. Still hoping that Dwalin doesn't end up a casualty, that would be almost as sad as, well, you know....
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 15 2014, 9:36pm
Post #11 of 31
(450 views)
Shortcut
|
Of importance is linked to there being 13 dwarves as opposed to 8, or 9, or 11? As to 7 being unable to be taken seriously but 8 simply being low budget, it's equally not obvious what the association of particular numbers is, to me.
It seems an obvious suggestion for an adaptation to reduce the number of characters. As an extraordinarily obvious example you can see this technique at the heart of adaptations such as Game of Thrones. Now actually, I don't think this would be all that helpful in the case of the dwarves so it's not my position, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to think about and discuss.
And that, I hope explains my reference to criticism for "howling". It is in stark contrast to thought or discussion and so, in my book, to be thoroughly ignored.
I don't fundamentally understand the argument that a kids book can only feature deaths after chapter X or page Y. It doesn't seem to me to be a very clear one.
Equally, in practice, I don't think it is likely that additional members of the company have death on the cards. I think that would have happened already, if it were going to.
|
|
|
Kelly of Water's Edge
Rohan
Aug 15 2014, 11:06pm
Post #12 of 31
(439 views)
Shortcut
|
The certain three to which you refer will not make it through, of course. Aside from that, it's a matter of whether or not what happened to another three members of the Company will be addressed. If you include the later Moria disaster, the Company really did take heavy losses.
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Aug 15 2014, 11:40pm
Post #13 of 31
(440 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, I wouldn't actually mind if one died other than Thorin, Fili and Kili
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it should have happened in DoS (as it fits the dark tone of that film instead of AUJ).
I'm having a hard time figuring who it should be, but I was thinking Dori (as Oin dies in Moria with Ori and Balin). Dwalin and Bofur are to important to die in the second film. Dori is a character we've learned to know enough to make it emotional, but not enough that it ruins the story that early.
This didn't happen though, and therefor I believe it is enough letting the chosen three to die...
Vocalist in the melodic metal band Betomast
and the progressive doom rock band Mater Thallium
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Aug 15 2014, 11:43pm
Post #14 of 31
(431 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What if Dori died in the DoS EE :P
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And then he appeared in TBotFA TE fully alive, but then dead again in TBotFA EE
That would blow someones mind 
"Did Dori die canonically?" #PJconspiracy
Vocalist in the melodic metal band Betomast
and the progressive doom rock band Mater Thallium
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Rohan
Aug 16 2014, 12:59am
Post #15 of 31
(421 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it's a particularly reasonable critique regarding the necessity of the number of the company of dwarves in the Hobbit films. Sure, it would be a big change regarding Tolkien's original book, but since the inception of these films we've been given little to no reason to care about some of the lesser dwarves other than Thorin's speech in AUJ.
Even in the casting of the film, PJ and Co have remarked that they didn't cast by character, other than Thorin and Balin of course, because the dwarves aren't given dynamic characterization in the book (which is fine because the book is trying to attempt something else, different from the film). Their goal was to get us to care about this company and I think they were successful with the likes of Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and Bofur (mostly), but it has seemed strange that they've really only paid lip service to the company as a whole preferring texture over substance.
Why are Dori, Nori and Ori on this quest? Oin? Gloin? I had presumed we were going to get into some element of backstories of the company, but instead we got none of that. PJ and co are much more interested in Laketown and the Elves, which is fine, but that's not what they originally were trying to sell us on when they started making the films.
Now maybe they are going to delve into the backstories of the other dwarves as I read an interview somewhere that each one gets their moment to shine in BO5A. Maybe when this trilogy closes out and we get the extended editions, my critique will be muted, but I think PJ and co could have had an easier and more fruitful time in adapting The Hobbit if they made the "sacrilegious" change of cutting a few dwarves out. Instead they split the difference. 
"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
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 2:50am
Post #16 of 31
(394 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I suppose it's a matter of opinion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of importance is linked to there being 13 dwarves as opposed to 8, or 9, or 11? As to 7 being unable to be taken seriously but 8 simply being low budget, it's equally not obvious what the association of particular numbers is, to me.
It seems an obvious suggestion for an adaptation to reduce the number of characters. As an extraordinarily obvious example you can see this technique at the heart of adaptations such as Game of Thrones. Now actually, I don't think this would be all that helpful in the case of the dwarves so it's not my position, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to think about and discuss.
And that, I hope explains my reference to criticism for "howling". It is in stark contrast to thought or discussion and so, in my book, to be thoroughly ignored.
I don't fundamentally understand the argument that a kids book can only feature deaths after chapter X or page Y. It doesn't seem to me to be a very clear one.
Equally, in practice, I don't think it is likely that additional members of the company have death on the cards. I think that would have happened already, if it were going to.
Because there were 13 dwarves in the book, which is not an exceptionally large number. Cutting that would be like saying "nine is too many for the Fellowship, so let's lose one human and two hobbits." I think we're both just talking semantics at this point, since we both essentially agree that the number did not need to be cut. Kid's books generally feature few deaths, if any, and they generally occur toward the end of the story. Btw, I've never read or watched "Game of Thrones," so I'll have to take your word for that. It's not that any particular number is significant, it's that I don't want ANY of the dwarves cut - pretty simple, really.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 3:20am
Post #17 of 31
(403 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that some (hot) dwarves got more attention & development than others, but that to me is a poor reason to cut the numbers. Gloin is important as being the father of Gimli, Oin is there because his brother is, and they are of course cousins to Balin & Dwalin. In my imagination, Nori was recruited by Thorin because of Gandalf's saying they needed a burglar. In interviews Jed Brophy describes Nori as something of a criminal. I imagine that, because the bonds between family are so strong in the dwarf community that Ori and Dori would feel obligated to go with him. Also, Bifur was apparently an injured warrior, looking to return the axe to the orc that gave it to him. I imagine he may even have been one of the survivors in that first battle with Azog. Bifur's immediate family is Bofur & Bombur, who are there to cook & provide comic relief. Yeah, I'm clearly filling in some of the blanks fanfic style, but let's look at what we know from the other Tolkien books. We know Ori and Oin follow Balin to Moria. We know Gloin was father of Gimli AND went on the original quest. We know that Bilbo became very close with Bombur, and (in the book at least) it was Bombur that was guarding Erebor when Bilbo slipped off. So, you can't really cut Oin, Gloin, Balin, Dwalin, Ori, Bombur, Fili, Kili, or Thorin (last 3 for obvious reasons), which is 9 of the 13. So theoretically you could cut Nori, Dori, Bifur & Bofur, but I would turn around and argue where's the benefit? Other than fewer Dwarves to keep track of I see none, but a good reason to keep them all is the fact that they are traveling to Erebor to reclaim their homeland/steal some treasure, and let's face it, the more bodies you have the better your chances, right? So I think the benefit to keeping them all (even if 4-6 are more like extras) clearly outweighs whatever benefit you'd get from cutting the numbers.
Earlier I said that fewer numbers would feel like a cheap production, my example for this was a SyFy movie called "Minotaur," which was based on the Greek legend except that there were only 8 people chosen from the city instead of 12. Yeah, it was a cheap production. As for killing off some dwarves early on feeling like the Expendables, well, have you SEEN any of the Expendables movies? Like I said, more people = more successful mission AND this is a kid's book, where the only real deaths happen in the final chapters and are limited to 3. Maybe not very realistic, but like I said, kid's book.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2014, 10:10am
Post #18 of 31
(357 views)
Shortcut
|
But I do think that it's important to distinguish the reasons which lead to that opinion.
As you (mostly) say you want 13 dwarves and 3 deaths at the end because that's what is in the book, which is fine in and of itself (though I would argue a bit tricky when you also want things done differently - but that's a separate argument).
However, what then happens is that this simple reasoning is dressed up with additional justifications which want to suggest that there are actually story driven or audience driven reasons that there must be precisely 13 dwarves and 3 deaths. No more, no less. E.g. Tolkien was making an important point by having 13 dwarves, 7 dwarves is just lame, 8 dwarves is low budget, it's a children's book so 4 deaths would be too many and 2 deaths would be too few, everyone knows it must be 3.
For me, such points are entirely retrofitted and clearly unfounded. If you want something because it happens that way in the book, fine but to say it is independently good requires an argument.
The tests are simple ones:
1. Would it make sense to someone who is not attached to the text?
2. If Tolkien had happened to write it differently, would you be arguing he was less well off?
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Aug 16 2014, 10:18am)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 16 2014, 11:21pm
Post #19 of 31
(305 views)
Shortcut
|
This is almost exhausting, but I'll give it a try.
"However, what then happens is that this simple reasoning is dressed up with additional justifications which want to suggest that there are actually story driven or audience driven reasons that there must be precisely 13 dwarves and 3 deaths. No more, no less. E.g. Tolkien was making an important point by having 13 dwarves, 7 dwarves is just lame, 8 dwarves is low budget, it's a children's book so 4 deaths would be too many and 2 deaths would be too few, everyone knows it must be 3."
Having 7 dwarves is just lame, there's already a movie out there about 7 dwarves - sorry, but I just can't take that seriously. Most of the story-driven reasons are presented in the book, namely that with so many dwarves with similar names/appearances Bilbo was constantly confused - it was a comic device. A few of the dwarves do come out of the crowd and get some development, but in order to distinguish them from the others, you have to have others, yes? Further, the majority of the dwarves are referenced in future stories. Three die, three are described as still living in Erebor, three go to Moria, and one fathers an important character for the future stories - that equals 10. Now, one could possibly argue that the other 3 could be cut, but there's also the story fact that the company was raiding a mountain to reclaim/steal treasure, and the more people you can bring the better. There's also the dwarves extreme loyalty to family, which is better demonstrated when you have family units, like brothers. So, I have presented reasons to NOT cut any of them. In another post I tried to explain the "cheap production" & "Expendables" remark, along with the 3 deaths occurring toward the end of the story being standard children's book formats.
"For me, such points are entirely retrofitted and clearly unfounded. If you want something because it happens that way in the book, fine but to say it is independently good requires an argument.
The tests are simple ones:
1. Would it make sense to someone who is not attached to the text?
2. If Tolkien had happened to write it differently, would you be arguing he was less well off?"
I'm not sure I can answer these. I know that a fair amount of people who haven't read the book have seen the movie, but I don't have any poll numbers saying how they felt about all those dwarves. I'm pretty sure the reviewer who suggested cutting the number to 7 hadn't read the book, but I'm also pretty sure he was just throwing stuff out there for the reaction. I have read a few more serious reviews suggesting that either cutting the number or killing off a few earlier would have been better, but again that sounded more like complaining - they didn't bother explaining WHY it would be better. And since those reviews are VERY few, then I submit that yes, 13 dwarves does make sense to most people whether they've read the book or not - or at the very least doesn't matter that much.
And if Tolkien HAD written it differently I'd be arguing for/against THAT version, not this one, so a comparison would not really be possible. And all of this is SO far away from my original post regarding a dwarf "dead pool" anyway. The question was WILL more than 3 members of the company perish in BOTFA, and if so who? I submitted Dwalin for reasons stated above, now what say you to THAT?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2014, 11:31pm
Post #20 of 31
(312 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not trying to be exhausting but honestly
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are you seriously suggesting that those notions only work with 13 dwarves - not 12 or 14?
And only works with 3 deaths not 2 or 4?
I can't see that myself for a second. Equally, I am certain that no significant majority of non-readers would pluck those numbers from the air as the magically correct ones. Similarly, I find it very unlikely that if Tolkien had happened to have 11 dwarves and 2 deaths, you would summon such arguments to suggest that the story would be better with 13 and 3.
As I mentioned above, I doubt any additional dwarves will die, as the point to do that would far more obviously have been in one if the films already released.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 17 2014, 2:56pm
Post #21 of 31
(271 views)
Shortcut
|
Are you seriously suggesting that those notions only work with 13 dwarves - not 12 or 14?
And only works with 3 deaths not 2 or 4?
The number of Dwarves in the company could have conceivably been reduced (although I do think that 13 Dwarves are managable). Assuming that Dain is still going to end up as King under the Mountain, Fili and Kili both have to die along with Thorin to give him a clear claim to the throne. Thorin does need something at least close to his full complement of companions at the Mountain in order to prepare his defenses for the siege.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 17 2014, 3:01pm
Post #22 of 31
(264 views)
Shortcut
|
Are you seriously suggesting that those notions only work with 13 dwarves - not 12 or 14?
And only works with 3 deaths not 2 or 4?
I can't see that myself for a second. Equally, I am certain that no significant majority of non-readers would pluck those numbers from the air as the magically correct ones. Similarly, I find it very unlikely that if Tolkien had happened to have 11 dwarves and 2 deaths, you would summon such arguments to suggest that the story would be better with 13 and 3.
As I mentioned above, I doubt any additional dwarves will die, as the point to do that would far more obviously have been in one if the films already released.
Obviously I'm not expressing myself very well. I don't care about the NUMBER, I care about the STORY, which was written with 13 characters. Now, whether a movie adaptation would be better with a different number is something that can be argued either for or against ad nauseum, but I have written several comments as to why changing the numbers or killing them off early is a bad idea. I don't know why you have such a problem with my observation, I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it well, but there it is. I don't think there's anything magical about 13 dwarves and 3 deaths beyond that was in the story, but more importantly no one has put forth a persuasive (to me at least) argument as to why the movie would be better with fewer dwarves and/or more deaths - not even you. If you want to call me illogical, fine, but that's it.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 17 2014, 3:25pm
Post #23 of 31
(260 views)
Shortcut
|
Said this several posts ago. Wanting 13 and 3 because that's what happens to be in the text is fine, and seems to be what you are saying here.
It's the other arguments, which try to suggest these numbers are important for other reasons which don't stack up for me, which is all I have been pointing out.
As I say it's not my position but I would have thought the arguments for change were fairly obvious. It would be reasonable to suggest that fewer dwarves would make them less difficult for the ordinary viewer to distinguish (a complaint which you will see in many reviews) and give them proportionally more screentime to achieve more strongly developed characters (an issue about which there have been lots of posts on here). Equally, it would seem reasonable to suggest that a death in the first or second films would have mitigated the criticisms of a lack of substantive plot events and a concern that the company is rather indestructible ( again there are lots of threads on these issues).
These aren't my arguments but I certainly don't think they are "stupid".
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 17 2014, 9:48pm
Post #24 of 31
(237 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We should agree to disagree then
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think those "Other reasons" I gave are good, or at least no less "stupid" than the ones for cutting the numbers.
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Aug 17 2014, 9:53pm
Post #25 of 31
(238 views)
Shortcut
|
I think this is just going around in circles now, and has veered too close to insults in places. If you both want to continue, please take it to PM. 
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
|
|
|
|
|
Haha good one
[
1
