Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Would you be opposed to having more than 3 dwarves dying?

Beorn's Bees
Lorien


Aug 21 2014, 4:52pm

Post #1 of 24 (1405 views)
Shortcut
Would you be opposed to having more than 3 dwarves dying? Can't Post

Would you be opposed to having more than Thorin, Fili and Kili die at the BOFA? Another question - what if PJ and crew had decided to make some dwarves die along the way? Would you be against this? Why or why not? I certainly would be. Thoughts?


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Aug 21 2014, 5:46pm

Post #2 of 24 (942 views)
Shortcut
pointless [In reply to] Can't Post

Three of them already die in the same battle. Killing anymore than that (even just along the way) would be pointless. I don't think many of the dwarves have been developed enough to warrant having their own emotional death scenes anyway. It would be killing them off just for the sake of killing them off.


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 21 2014, 5:55pm

Post #3 of 24 (928 views)
Shortcut
Opposed to is a bit strong, I think.... [In reply to] Can't Post

With all of these things it depends why it's done and more importantly, how it's done.

They haven't killed any off so far and I'm happy with that. And as it has been said or implied in interviews that they felt they couldn't kill any of the thirteen on the way because Tolkien didn't, then it seems a pretty safe bet to me that in the battle we'll see the three deaths from the book and no more - from Thorin's company. I'm absolutely certain more than three dwarves will die, but the others will be dwarves from the Iron Hills. If they haven't been tempted to kill any dwarves Tolkien didn't kill so far, then I can't see that changing - and in any case, extra 'hero' deaths at this stage would weaken the impact of the three.

But here's a question for you. A lot of people thought they might cut down the number of the dwarf company. That's normal - it happens in a lot of film adaptations of books and would probably have happened in this one too, if the book had been in other hands. Would it have been better or worse, do you think, to write some of the dwarves out of the script altogether, or to kill them off on the way?


Arannir
Valinor


Aug 21 2014, 6:32pm

Post #4 of 24 (898 views)
Shortcut
Before killing them during the quest... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I would have found it much more logical to limit the numbers of Dwarves right from the start (not saying I wished they had done it... I am glad they didn't).

The quest needed to be without casualities for the Bot5A and its aftermath to have the impact it will no doubt have.

I am sure they won't kill more dwarves... they will need enough time to focus on Fili and Kili (Thorin as well, but he doesn't die during the battle).

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien

We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.



Hanzkaz
Rohan

Aug 21 2014, 6:41pm

Post #5 of 24 (895 views)
Shortcut
Between FOTR and the Hobbit - [In reply to] Can't Post

- I think there's a high enough death toll already.


I'd like them to keep a few Dwarves around, just in case .


Plenty more opportunities for heroic deaths later (see below)...



From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Aug 21 2014, 6:41pm)


TheHutt
Gondor


Aug 21 2014, 6:44pm

Post #6 of 24 (857 views)
Shortcut
I think... [In reply to] Can't Post

...some nameless dwarves from Dain's army are likely to die as well.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Booklet Project



Hanzkaz
Rohan

Aug 21 2014, 6:58pm

Post #7 of 24 (856 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't have been happy - [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Would it have been better or worse, do you think, to write some of the dwarves out of the script altogether, or to kill them off on the way?


- if they'd cut down the number of Dwarves. Some people might be okay with it, but personally it would have annoyed me. All that stuff about being chosen for 'luck' would have gone right out of the window.

And the Unexpected Party just wouldn't have been the same.......

(Imagine if Disney had made Snow White and the Two Dwarves.)



From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 21 2014, 7:13pm

Post #8 of 24 (832 views)
Shortcut
I'm glad too.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Was just curious to know if people felt one way of limiting the size of the cast was better than the other - it's quite common for adaptations to cut characters out. It pleased me that they kept everyone in - but I do remember when they announced the cast in twos and threes people were wondering if we would have all thirteen.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Aug 21 2014, 7:23pm

Post #9 of 24 (832 views)
Shortcut
Once upon a Time... [In reply to] Can't Post

Phillipa said

"Film 3 will be as
CANON as possible.."

Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


painjoiker
Grey Havens


Aug 21 2014, 7:36pm

Post #10 of 24 (842 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't be opposed to it if for example Dori died in DOS, [In reply to] Can't Post

but since that chance have passed... I think three is enough for the last film...

Vocalist in the melodic metal band Betomast
and the progressive doom rock band Mater Thallium


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 21 2014, 7:40pm

Post #11 of 24 (818 views)
Shortcut
Not if they got better. [In reply to] Can't Post

Then I wouldn't mind that much.

******************************************
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man pierced with many black-feathered arrows, must be in want of a funeral."


bungobaggins
Lorien

Aug 21 2014, 7:41pm

Post #12 of 24 (819 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely. [In reply to] Can't Post

It doesn't happen in the book, it shouldn't happen in the movie.

But that ship sailed years ago.

http://media0.giphy.com/...r8D5mKSX7O/giphy.gif


bungobaggins
Lorien

Aug 21 2014, 7:52pm

Post #13 of 24 (814 views)
Shortcut
"As canon as possible." [In reply to] Can't Post

With chariot races and battle rams.

http://i.imgur.com/5eHZDbs.gif


TheHutt
Gondor


Aug 21 2014, 8:03pm

Post #14 of 24 (796 views)
Shortcut
Actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

Dan Reeve's prop, a letter from Gloin to Bilbo's 111th, suggests that everyone survives except for the canonical deaths in BOFA and in Moria.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Booklet Project



Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Aug 21 2014, 8:25pm

Post #15 of 24 (785 views)
Shortcut
It's harder to see the purpose of it now. [In reply to] Can't Post

Unless the additional death drew out some thematic or aesthetic element (which is very unpredictable) it would seem that 3 deaths would give lots of oppotunity for drama and pathos.

I can absolutely see the logic of killing one off in an earlier film, but you would need to have an appropriate narrative around it. The reasons, if not obvious, are the same reasons as for Boromir's death in FOTR.*

Without knowing what the story of the death could have been it's hard to judge whether or not it would been effective, though I would say that I think some of the things Jackson did best in LOTR were the death scenes.

* The fact that this occurred later, outside of the faithfulness argument, is immaterial. These are entirely fictional characters so, beyond plot implications, killing one is no more consequential than shortening their beard.


(This post was edited by Spriggan on Aug 21 2014, 8:34pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 21 2014, 8:54pm

Post #16 of 24 (765 views)
Shortcut
It depends... [In reply to] Can't Post

Killing any extra members of the company just for the sake of 'realism' would be gratuitous and I would be strongly opposed. If such a death served a valid dramatic purpose and it was done with thought and care, I might be able to accept it. At this point, all of the company should at least survive until Thorin's charge in the Battle of Five Armies; that is their moment of glory.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Brandybuckled
Lorien


Aug 21 2014, 9:27pm

Post #17 of 24 (769 views)
Shortcut
Kill them all (except Balin) ... [In reply to] Can't Post

Their cascading CGI blood will make an excellent visual effect as it courses down that pretty stairway (Chekov's Gun?) that led to the secret door.

What? You know there's some part of PJ (given his early movies) that's just screaming "MORE BLOOD! MY FILM MUST HAVE MORE BLOOD!"

Canon's no longer relevant, let this blood flood echo the gold flood of movie 2.

Since story is as much or more Pete's than JRR's at this point, after the battle you only need Balin to die at Moria to stay internally consistent.
Gimli's already born so the rest are of no relevance.
HeartHeartHeartHeart
HeartHeartHeartHeart
HeartHeartHeartHeartRIP

NAArP: Not An Ardent purist since Arda was dented



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor

Aug 21 2014, 9:41pm

Post #18 of 24 (737 views)
Shortcut
There was a similar thread last week [In reply to] Can't Post

About this very subject. As I said then, killing off dwarves earlier (like the Goblin tunnels in AUJ) would feel like "The Expendables," and starting with fewer dwarves would feel like a cheap production to me (we put all our money into CGI, so we had to cut back on the actors). And I really don't see the point of making a fantasy story more "realistic," it IS a "fantasy" after all! As for additional deaths of major characters that may detract from the dramatic impact of the Heirs of Durin, see Tauriel.


delius82
Rivendell

Aug 21 2014, 9:43pm

Post #19 of 24 (741 views)
Shortcut
I'd prefer... [In reply to] Can't Post

...None to die, thank you very much!


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 21 2014, 10:24pm

Post #20 of 24 (716 views)
Shortcut
I'd prefer ... [In reply to] Can't Post

If they stuck to book canon deaths (with the addition of Tauriel and Radagast).

Mainly because if they went down the spin-off route, one of the best options would be a Battle of Dale (a long with the rebuilding of Erebor & Dale, Dain advising Balin against retaking Moria, both their deaths, Grimbeorn etc.) movie. The actors would have aged an appropriate amount to match their characters, the sets and costumes would still exist, and it would provide a nice continuity if many of the Dwarves re-appeared in that movie.



Elarie
Grey Havens

Aug 21 2014, 11:35pm

Post #21 of 24 (701 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I'd be opposed [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be too much of a fundamental change to the story and based on the five movies we have so far, I see no reason to expect it. I'm sure all sorts of spectacular things that aren't in the book are going to happen during the battle, but I'm equally confident that at the end of it all everyone will be where the book says they should be, just like in the LOTR movies.

__________________

If this is to end in barrels, then we will all shampoo together.


dubulous
Rohan

Aug 22 2014, 1:02pm

Post #22 of 24 (587 views)
Shortcut
I'm sure more than three dwarves will die, but they should not be of Thorin's company // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


MirielCelebel
Rivendell


Aug 22 2014, 10:40pm

Post #23 of 24 (549 views)
Shortcut
I don't hide my opinions of these films [In reply to] Can't Post

nor do I hide that these are adaptations, and with such adaptations there will be differences from the book, and there should be.


Quote
With all of these things it depends why it's done and more importantly, how it's done.


I agree with this statement immensely. PJ cannot kill Balin because it is a known fact that he dies in Moria. There is also the fact that Ori is supposedly the decaying scribe holding the book from which Gandalf reads to the Fellowship. Gloin is present at the Council of Elrond in the book and of course he's Gimli's father, so it would be a bad idea to kill him off. I can see PJ killing, if anyone, Dwalin, perhaps in defense of Thorin, but anyone else just would not make sense, and certainly not outside the actual battle. Even if PJ did kill Dwalin, or any of the dwarves, I would be highly upset, no matter what the manner or reason of death. Let's hope PJ just "sticks to the script" and we only have to see three die. As it stands, I'm not sure one box of tissues will be enough for me.

"The Road goes ever on..."

Writing Bliss


Rickster
Rohan

Aug 25 2014, 6:52pm

Post #24 of 24 (476 views)
Shortcut
no.. i would not [In reply to] Can't Post

 

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.