|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KeenObserver
Lorien
Aug 16 2014, 2:37am
Post #26 of 57
(1336 views)
Shortcut
|
But . . . in your post below, you state that RA is doing a "great job" as
Thorin and that he does the part "justice".
You also state that MF captures the humour of Bilbo really well.
Although, I suppose that doesn't mean that you like his facial and vocal 'tics'.
”The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer…” - Jose Bergamin
(This post was edited by KeenObserver on Aug 16 2014, 2:38am)
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Aug 16 2014, 3:38am
Post #27 of 57
(1389 views)
Shortcut
|
on other forum, so it doesn't address your questions- but here is my top 9 reasons these films are poor films. But I thought you might find something in it of use for your project.
1. PJ doesn't know what to do with the dwarves.
There are only really two choices when it comes to the dwarves. Do what Tolkien did and emphasis a few and make the rest an indistinguishable blob- the company.
Or you can do what PJ did, give them extensive character backgrounds, personalities and jobs and make them all look very different from one another to give recognisable silhouettes.
Unfortunately what PJ actually did was to make them all visually distinguishable, and not much like dwarves to do so, but then did not have the time for any of the individualism to come out, or even dialogue for most of them, leaving them as much like the books amorphous blob as anything else, but stuck with ridiculous individualistic non-dwarf looks. It gives the visual message that there will be some development of all these dwarves, so the lack of it, instead of being something the film works with as the book does, is only more noticeable by its absence.
But the biggest change to the dwarves is in Thorin. Film Thorin and book Thorin are opposites- book Thorin talks a good game but is actually a hopeless leader, driven more by personal desire, ego and greed and filled with old grudges. As such it allows Bilbo to slowly blossom until he becomes the de facto leader of the group.
Film Thorin is heroic and tragic from the word go. He is young and his cause is noble and he is presented as a capable leader and fighter but troubled by the failings of his fore fathers before him. He is in fact very much the traditional hero of the tale, and this is the start of the problems with how it affects his relationship with Bilbo in the narrative.
2. Bilbo.
The film has no perspective. Whose film is it? Who is the lead? What is the main story? Is Bilbo the lead?- we start with Bilbo and he seem to be the lead right up until the journey begins.
But then the focus starts shifting to other stories- is the rise of Sauron and the WC attempts to stop him the main story, its certainly in the grand scheme at least as important as Bilbo's quest and with the added emphasis on the Ring its seems to overshadow a quest to kill a dragon.
Is Thorin the main character and his tale of revenge and reclaiming his home land from his people the main story? We certainly spend a lot of time on Thorin and his back story and his nemesis Azog.
The films have no focus for the audience, there is no clear individual whose story and perspective we are seeing.
Despite the films title the script has no confidence that Bilbo's story is the most important one to be told, and increasingly his tale becomes only a part of a much bigger story that does not directly involve him.
And it gets worse when other characters are introduced- Beorn needs an arc, so his appearance becomes nothing but exposition and Bilbo again just becomes someone in the room while its going on.
This is taken to its worst in Rivendell and in the Elven King Halls. In Rivendell (EE) what should have been a nice Bilbo focused scene where he speaks with Elrond about Rivendell is instead hijacked to be a scene about Thorin and the dragon sickness. And in the Elven-King Halls an invisible Bilbo is used just solely as an excuse for the audience to hear the seemingly more important matter of Tauriel and Legolas.
By this point Bilbo has ceased to be even a character let alone the main one, and has instead become merely a writing tool to allow the setting of scenes that are not about him.
The split to three films has also had a bad effect on the characterisation of Bilbo, especially with regards Thorin.
The need for there to be a sense of completion to film one, and the wrapping up of some arc or other, forced the films into making Bilbo an action hero and killing much sooner than he does in the book, and not only that but to save Thorin's life and in so doing earn Thorin's admiration.
All of this is way too soon of course. And the changes to Thorin's character mean that there is nowhere left for their relationship to go in the seocnd film. And indeed the entire matter of their relationship is largely ignored throughout the second film as a consequence. Right when Bilbo coming into his own as leader of the group should be the main narrative thrust of Bilbo's development at this point, and his first action against the spiders and saving Thorin and the others a significant moment, they are not. They wrapped that arc up at the end of film one and so killed what was important and significant about Bilbo's actions here stone dead.
So between having nothing development wise for Bilbo do it, having crammed it all into film one, and with multiple character story lines, and seemingly larger more important events overshadowing Bilbo's tale, he quickly becomes lost as the focus of the film.
And the feeling is left that the film has no central focus but is drifting about between story threads without knowing which ones to attach the narrative significance to, and so leaving the audience with no real sense of what the central thread is or whose story they are watching.
3. Plot.
The book has a very straight forward plot- Bilbo goes on a quest with some dwarves to steal treasure from a mountain guarded by a dragon. As a result, he discovers lots about himself, and returns a wiser, better hobbit.
Along the way he meets interesting people, gets in frightening scrapes, discovers his own inner strengths and there is a big fight at the end before he returns home a different hobbit.
Film hobbit is about what exactly? How would you sum up the plot?
They have to go kill a dragon to reclaim the dwarf homeland, but Sauron, disguised as the Necromancer has got a deal with some orcs, who are hunting down Thorin because of an old battle, and the Necromancer wants to use the dragon for something. And the WC have to stop the Necromancer before he can get the dwarves and get to the dragon. And the Elf King doesn't want to help the dwarves but Tauriel does, but she is torn between her feelings for Legolas and for one of the dwarves as well to her duty and her responsibility to wider society.
And they all have to get to the dragon, so Bilbo can steal the Arkenstone, so Thorin can unite all the dwarves to fight the dragon. And the WC need to stop Sauron getting there first. I think.
There are too many plots which have nothing to do with the main character or his experiences.
Most of this stuff Bilbo is not and cannot be present for- all of the WC/Necromancer plot line takes place with no tie to Bilbo save through over emphasizing the Ring, which instead of adding to Bilbo's development merely takes him further away from the character in the book. And made even worse because there can be no pay off to the Ring/Necromancer connection in these films.
All the Azog chasing Thorin story line has nothing to do with Bilbo, and most scenes concerning Azog take place away from Bilbo, talking about Thorin not Bilbo.
The same is true for the Tauriel/Legolas/ Fili thing. Nothing to do with the main character and not present for those scenes.
To much of the films content concerns Bilbo's character and events only indirectly, if at all. As a consequence Bilbo's significance to the plot is greatly reduced as huge chunks of it no longer concern or involve his character.
4. Tone
TH book is aimed at children, its tone is whimsical, comical, faery tale, or just childish depending on your take.
It, like its main character grows up in the telling.
But its still Bilbo's tale to the end and its still talking directly to its young audience.
The films dont know what tone they are. We can go from the physics defying crockery of the Chip the Plates song to shortly afterwards violent battle scenes and decapitated heads being held up for public display.
The clash is most apparent perhaps in the escape from goblin town sequence- there is a shocking number of impalements, decapitations and stabbings in that sequence, and yet to try to keep the tone lighter, and probably to avoid the censors, the violence is cartoon like. The good guys are indestructible, they can fall any height, bounce and survive anything.
The end result however is to disengage the audience. If the main characters seem impervious to peril and the enemies inconsequential and no threat then why should the audience care for their plight?
Instead of keeping a children's book tone it undermines the drama by forcing the adult tone of the violence and the drama of the escape together with the childlike tone of a Warner Brothers cartoon.
5. Lots of stuff that doesn't make sense
The film has large plot holes and inconsistencies.
In the not making sense list we have the Dwarf battle told in flashback by Balin- if they just lost the Lonely Mt and the Arkenstone, how did all the dwarves get united in the crazy mission to retake Moria?- why did the think there were no orcs there?- how were they planning to retake Moria when there is a Balrog in it?- why did none of the thousands of dwarves seem to remember there was a Balrog inside?- why does Thorin think Azog was killed when everyone else clearly doesn't?
Trolls- how did the trolls not get seen or be heard stealing ponies and uprooting trees ten foot from Fili and Kili guarding them and only about 40 foot from the main camp?
Why were they sending Bilbo to investigate when they knew it was trolls- why not just go back and get the others?
How did all the ponies get in the pen when the trolls had not stolen that many? And what happened to the ponies still tethered to the trees, did they just leave them there to die?
Why dont the trolls know what a burglar is?
Why does Thorin surrender?
The bunny sled- how does Radagast get from one side of the Misty Mountains to the other so quickly? How does it get across the mountains at all when we are shown the only path is single file and not big enough for his sled?
How does Gandalf know the dwarves were planning to leave? There was no time for him to discuss it with them?
If Balin knows the mountain paths how come the path is a knee of a stone giant?
How did Gandalf get to the cave when the path to it is completely gone and smashed? Why did he not assume they were all dead somewhere in the rubble below? How did he find them to rescue them when he didn't know where they had gone let alone they had gone into a cave with a hidden trap floor and been captured in the depths of the mountains by goblins?
How does Azog keep just turning up exactly where the dwarves are even when the dwarves end up somewhere they hadn't planned to be?
The list could go on and on and that is just the first half of AUJ.
6. The Lord of the Rings
PJ's previous films sit like a great shadow over TH films. They are full of visual cues and dialogue taken directly from the first set of films.
But rather than being fan pleasing they simply detract from both sets of films at the same time. Cheapening moments of emotion in the original films by reusing the lines in lesser, often contrived situations, and further robbing TH films of their own sense of individuality.
This complaint sits alongside the issue of tone. PJ's attempts to make the stakes seem as large as before instead of being content to tell a smaller tale means a loss of focus on what the original tale was all about and the effective simplicity of its structuring.
7. Visual choices
PJ choose to go for super ultra HD and he choose to go for 3D.
These two choices had a knock on effect as it meant other things were now impossible- the 3D meant that traditional forced perspective tricks like those used to great effect in the LotR's films had to be abandoned, replaced with filming in separate green screen stages.
The cameras were more difficult to manoeuvre and made filming outdoors less appealing than in the controlled environments of a studio- so more of the films took place in stages and less in real locations.
Miniatures had to be abandoned in favour of all CG environment to fit with the requirements of the new tech Pj wanted to utilise.
All these decisions I believe were in error.
The all cg environs do not quite fool the eye, despite the beauty of much of the cg work. There is an unreal, unsatisfactory quality to the films look that makes the viewer question what they are being shown rather than becoming lost in the world presented, as happened with the visual landscapes of LotR's. That sense of a solid real world has been lost.
And no matter the quality of actor you will never get their best work when they have to act alone to a tennis ball on a stick, rather than feeding off the responses of fellow actors.
And confining so much to studio work means that even when the cg shows the characters in a vast expanse of space, they are still confined because they have to move on very narrow preset paths so the effects people can match everything up- and something in the mind picks up on al these little unrealities and combined they undermine the sense of solidity and believability of the world being presented.
8. Poor editing
Probably the most surprising given the professional work of all involved the editing is often shocking in these films.
It ranges from more minor examples- such as the editing in the chase to Beorns house where they leave the same forest twice and where the run either takes all day in an hour, or they run all day somehow outrunning Beorn and a pack of wargs, but however you view it the editing is shockingly poor- to the more serious- such as the terrible choice to cut away from the Bilbo and Smaug conversation to an inconsequential fight in Laketown the film could have well done without.
Much of the editing issues are no doubt caused by the change to three films but it doesn't excuse them.
9. Spectacle
The main thing these offer film goers is spectacle. Sense, plot and even physical laws are abandoned often in the name of sheer spectacle. Whether its the stone giants, the escape from goblin town, the domino trees, the barrel sequence. or fighting Smaug- the spectacle is ramped up to beyond breaking point, and impossible sequence of events become the norm.
And again it comes down to shifts in tone.
In AUJ the audience is meant to go from seeing the dwarves seemingly immortal in goblin town to fearing for Thorin's life in the fight at the end.
But the two types of entertainment are at opposite ends of the spectrum. One is cartoon spectacle the other drama.
Goblin town has all the danger of playing a video game, the dwarves survive a ridiculous amount of orcs and do so by increasingly cartoon means- ladders and huge boulders bowling orcs áside, falling platforms.
Thorins confrontation with Azog on the other hand is supposed to be full of emotion and weight for the character, his near death and rescue by Bilbo significant.
But having the two side by side just undermines each other. By the time the drama is reached all expectation in the audience of actual physical consequences for actions has been removed.
When you take all these points together the end result is a set of films which dont know what tone to set, are uncertain who the main character is or which of the main plots is the central one. Have large lapses in logic and characterisation, no sense of peril for the well being of the main characters and are in places poorly edited with rushed effects work and decision making.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
NamoMandos
The Shire
Aug 16 2014, 4:31am
Post #29 of 57
(1344 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you, pettytyrant, for succinctly expressing the real problems with these films. You absolutely hit the nail on the head with each point and have done a stellar job encapsulating exactly why these films have been such an enormous letdown for so many of us who wanted them to succeed. Thank you for giving words to what I (and others) have felt for a long time.
|
|
|
KeenObserver
Lorien
Aug 16 2014, 4:44am
Post #30 of 57
(1337 views)
Shortcut
|
Uh oh, pettytyrant101 is back and he's laying the smack down //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
”The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer…” - Jose Bergamin
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 16 2014, 1:13pm
Post #31 of 57
(1312 views)
Shortcut
|
Because pettytyrant has made excellent points, most of which I have already addressed in my writing, so it's telling me I am on the right track. Thank you for the input, Magpie and I will be sure to check those links when I have time.
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Aug 16 2014, 8:28pm
Post #32 of 57
(1240 views)
Shortcut
|
glad I could help. I just wish the films were not such an embarrassing mess in the first place.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 17 2014, 11:00am
Post #33 of 57
(1196 views)
Shortcut
|
Just wanted to ask you whether you will also ask people on other boards?
Because the reaction might be very different. There is a huge group out there that thought these movies are not "events" enough and even boring (often referring to the moments many here would have liked to have more of).
"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.
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 17 2014, 1:23pm
Post #34 of 57
(1175 views)
Shortcut
|
I have reached out to my fellow Mythgardians about some things and I will be posting more threads over the next few months aimed at different groups of people with different questions. For now I am still sifting through these comments analytically and that could take a while :)
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
Rickster
Rohan
Aug 17 2014, 1:44pm
Post #35 of 57
(1186 views)
Shortcut
|
The only thing i did not like is the actor they choose for Frodo
He simply is the worst actor ever.
When ever I watch the movies on DVD i skip all parts with him.
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Aug 21 2014, 11:51pm
Post #36 of 57
(1052 views)
Shortcut
|
you have every right to your own opinion, but the plot is not that bad.
The film has large plot holes and inconsistencies.
In the not making sense list we have the Dwarf battle told in flashback by Balin- if they just lost the Lonely Mt and the Arkenstone, how did all the dwarves get united in the crazy mission to retake Moria?- why did the think there were no orcs there?- how were they planning to retake Moria when there is a Balrog in it?- why did none of the thousands of dwarves seem to remember there was a Balrog inside?- why does Thorin think Azog was killed when everyone else clearly doesn't?
Trolls- how did the trolls not get seen or be heard stealing ponies and uprooting trees ten foot from Fili and Kili guarding them and only about 40 foot from the main camp?
Why were they sending Bilbo to investigate when they knew it was trolls- why not just go back and get the others?
How did all the ponies get in the pen when the trolls had not stolen that many? And what happened to the ponies still tethered to the trees, did they just leave them there to die?
Why dont the trolls know what a burglar is?
Why does Thorin surrender?
The bunny sled- how does Radagast get from one side of the Misty Mountains to the other so quickly? How does it get across the mountains at all when we are shown the only path is single file and not big enough for his sled?
How does Gandalf know the dwarves were planning to leave? There was no time for him to discuss it with them?
If Balin knows the mountain paths how come the path is a knee of a stone giant?
How did Gandalf get to the cave when the path to it is completely gone and smashed? Why did he not assume they were all dead somewhere in the rubble below? How did he find them to rescue them when he didn't know where they had gone let alone they had gone into a cave with a hidden trap floor and been captured in the depths of the mountains by goblins?
How does Azog keep just turning up exactly where the dwarves are even when the dwarves end up somewhere they hadn't planned to be?
The list could go on and on and that is just the first half of AUJ.
1. No one knew it was a Balrog until the Fellowship went through. Durin's Bane happened almost a thousand years before, as well. Instead of having to build a brand new city, going back to an old seems like a reasonable idea. They had no idea that the orcs would be interested in it. As for Azog, he was dragged, wounded, inside. No one could know for sure whether he was dead or alive.
2. The whole point is that Fili and Kili were not paying attention. Who knows where they wandered off to? The trees are tall, and everyone else was far away - if they were as close as 10 feet the light would be clear, but it wasn't. They do go back to get the others - Bilbo turns around and they're gone. Bilbo is just for stalling. The trolls don't know what a "Burgla-Hobbit" is, because Bilbo changed words in the middle of the first one. Thorin surrenders because the trolls have Bilbo and are about to pull his arms and legs off. The ponies all bolt when the wargs arrive. (and yes, the ponies in the pen doubled. That's a valid consistency error)
3. I highly doubt that is the only path over the mountains, just the closest one for the dwarves. Radagast simply came another way.
4. On the way into Rivendell Gandalf and Thorin talking about the fact that the elves will try to stop them. Gandalf didn't have to know about the White Council for him to distract the elves.
5. Thorin says that Balin knows the paths in the wild. Even abstract knowledge about the mountain path wouldn't include the stone giants - who knows how long they had been sleeping/staying still?
6. The stone giants had to resettle at some point. Gandalf followed a similar path, knew about how far ahead the dwarves should be, and found no bodies. Exploring the insides of the cave (and then finding the goblin hole) sounds quite logical. As Thorin says, "caves in mountains are seldom unoccupied.”
7. The Great Goblin says, "Send word to the Pale Orc; tell him I have found his prize.” He directs Azog to the dwarves.
In AUJ the audience is meant to go from seeing the dwarves seemingly immortal in goblin town to fearing for Thorin's life in the fight at the end.
But the two types of entertainment are at opposite ends of the spectrum. One is cartoon spectacle the other drama.
Goblin town has all the danger of playing a video game, the dwarves survive a ridiculous amount of orcs and do so by increasingly cartoon means- ladders and huge boulders bowling orcs áside, falling platforms.
Thorins confrontation with Azog on the other hand is supposed to be full of emotion and weight for the character, his near death and rescue by Bilbo significant.
But having the two side by side just undermines each other. By the time the drama is reached all expectation in the audience of actual physical consequences for actions has been removed.
Aside from Bombur and the platform (which was unnecessary), there were no unbelieveable stunts in Goblin Town - they just climb down ladders, and and use their surroundings to their advantage - using a large wooden pole, pulling and shoving a ladder, Gandalf breaking off a boulder, etc. Dwarves, as a race, tend to only fight or forge. To not be skilled with weapons would be an embarrassment.
As for the slide, they scream, the sides get stuck, and they end up out-of-breath and battered. That's not in the realm of impossible.
Azog is much stronger and smarter than a Goblin, and already has a history of being a talented killer. Not to mention that Thorin is alone in his charge. The situations and the stakes are completely different in the two situations.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Aug 22 2014, 12:45am
Post #37 of 57
(1042 views)
Shortcut
|
first let me start by thanking you for engaging in the points I have raised. I have found that is not always the case here and oft times the response to negative reactions to TH films are simply met with a variation on the theme -'PJ can do no wrong'.
Now to the substance!
1. Gimli knows the balrog is there- in the book he informs everyone else about the backstory, including telling them that 'Thrain only dared pass the doors and he perished'.
As you note yourself they even have their own name for the Balrog- Durins Bane- so I dont agree that the dwarves did not know the Balrog was there until Fellowship of the Ring- they might not have known exactly what it was, but they knew it was there.
Also dwarves seem quite big on their own history and would certainly have retained and passed down the memory that the greatest dwarf house, that of Durin, was wiped out by Durins Bane- and that any who have dared go back have perished trying. This sadly turns out to include Balin and co.
It is also well known that the Misty Mountains are full of orcs, and indeed in the book at this time it is the spread and growth and increasing arrogance of the orcs which spurs the very war we see depicted, a war which in the book goes all the way underground through the Mountains to Moria and stops there because they know Durins Bane is within.
Now I realise TH films and the books only bear a vague passing similarity with one another, but the film offers within itself no alternative explanations or reasoning for why the dwarves would act as they do.
Nor does it explain why if the Arkenstone is required to unite the dwarves into taking on Smaug that without it they could somehow be united into an attempt to retake Moria (specially right after Smaug just fried their asses). Either a dwarf leader needs the Arkenstone to be official recognised or not.
2. I think not paying attention would have to be an underestimate of quite a severe degree not to hear a troll uprooting trees and smashing through the undergrowth stealing their ponies. And to make it worse the troll we see carrying the ponies comes from the opposite direction from the camp fire meaning it must have stolen the ponies and gone for a big circular walk with them before returing to the troll camp in order to have to go by them a second time, and it would have to have gone close by the dwarf camp to be coming from that direction. The idea no one heard anything seems more than a little ludicrous to me. Its not that they were just not paying attention, they would have to be comatose.
3. Its the only path in the books because the only other option, The Low Pass is prone to orc attacks at this time and the Low Pass would not have taken Gandalf anywhere near where the dwarves were- the High Pass is the only other crossing in the north of the mountains. Had Radaghast had to go further out of his way to find another route over on his sled (I believe the Redhorn Pass is the next option) it makes the ridiculously short amount of time he gets from edge of Mirkwood to Trollshaws even more untenable than it already is.
4. No he did not have to know, but he did have to plan it- and we see no indictation that happened. Gandlf did not even know he would be delayed and presumably originally planed to leave with the dwarves, as nothing indicates otherwise in the film.
5. I would need to double check to be absolutely sure but I think Thorin says he knows the path over the mountains, not just paths in general. It seems unlikely that storm giants, who presumably get up and about every time there is a good storm in the mountains, would therefore form part of a route so long established it has a name. An din the book the High Pass was built in the First Age and has by this time been in use and maintained for three ages of the world.
6. Its not a matter of them resettling, the path is smashed up and the giant falls over, the path itself has collapsed at more than one point. Unless Gandalf can fly in the films I see no way he could have used what remained of the path to get to the cave. Nor is there a 'similar path' to follow, that is the path over the mountains at that height, and its gone. We can see in the wide shots there are no other paths going the same way.
Nor does it seem natural to me that even if Gandalf could find a way to where the cave is he would have thought "I bet this cave has a false floor"- he only knows about the false wall in the cave in the book because he is there when it opens.
He might be a wizard, but he never shows signs of being psychic.
7. The Great Goblin tells the scribe Goblin to inform Azog that he has the dwarves, so all Azog would know is that they are in the goblin caves as prisoners, not everywhere they will be- for example after they are rescued by eagles and flown to the Carrock there's is Azog right behind them again- how? How does he even know where the eagles took them?
8. 'There are no unbelievable stunts in goblin town'- i find that hard to accept- they all look pretty unfeasable to me- compare the goblin town sequence to the first skirmish in Moria in FotR and tell me goblin town isnt ludicrous in comparison for reality. There is no sense of peril to the dwarves, even if you take the assumption they got exceptionally lucky, over and over again and say survived the fall in the platform the idea that the crushing weight of the Great Goblin falling, from considerable height and squashing the entire platform frame doesnt do any damage to anyone seems like stretching believability way beyond breaking point to me.
Its not that you cant explain away individual moments- people have done that- the problem is you have to explain away a long series of highly unlikely moments and exceptionally lucky breaks happening to get the outcome the film presents. It would be like rolling a hundred sixes in a row on a die, its not technically impossible but you'd need a lot of convincing that someone actually did it. and I dont find what we see represented in the films very convincing in that respect.
Regards the confrontation with Azog, my point is not that its not a different set of circumstances, but that is precisely the problem. Goblin Town has no sense of physical peril- no one gets hurt despite all the ridiculous things that happen and the sheer number of opposition. Whole swathes of goblins can apparently be swept aside with a pole.
Its the drastic difference in tone within the same film that creates the problem. It goes from the cartoon to the serious. And they undermine each other. It is as if PJ cannot decide what tone the film should be told in.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Aug 22 2014, 12:54am)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 26 2014, 6:57am
Post #38 of 57
(981 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Coming late to this discussion...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...as I have been away for nearly a month without internet access!
The exhaustive summary by pettytyrant101 pretty much encapsulates my issues with the films so far. However, I want to respond to part of MirielCelebel's questions with my views on the reasons for some of Jackson's decisions.
The way the industry is heading nowadays, there is extreme pressure in the "blockbuster" category to display more and more extreme sfx and action sequences. 3D is expected, and the most "advanced" technology gets all the press. Had Jackson not responded to this challenge, his studio backers would have been extremely disappointed (not that he didn't thoroughly enjoy it, as was clear from the videologs).
These films are, for better or worse, firmly lodged in the blockbuster market. To compete in this market, it is necessary not only to produce eyepopping effects, but more and more extreme action sequences. Why did DOS get better press than AUJ? More action sequences! For this market extreme action sequences are rewarded more than logical consistency, character development, fidelity to source material, and other criteria some of us value. So, we have sequences that would have worked well in Roadrunner cartoons.
Finally, as far as referencing LotR material excessively, you have only to spend time reading the posts in this forum from 2010 to now (continuing). Many, many posters here have spent time longing to see "young Aragorn"; hints of Saruman's corruption; palantiri; Frodo's parents; etc. Such requests typically come from fans of the original movies, rather than book-firsters, but they are many. It's no surprise that most prequels and sequels are basically the original popular movie recycled rather than new ideas and plot elements: there are many fans who want just that.
With all these pressures, making a movie that is primarily centered on Bilbo's character development and consistent with the original book material was never an option.
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Aug 26 2014, 10:57pm
Post #39 of 57
(972 views)
Shortcut
|
Sorry for the late reply, I've been super busy. I think that everyone gets the most out of civil conversations, than out of fighting. Shutting someone down never makes anyone feel good.
1. Gloin mentions in CoE "the nameless fear". I agree with you book-wise. However, in movie!FotR Gimli seems sure that Balin is still Lord of Moria - "Gandalf, we could pass through the Mines of Moria. My cousin Balin would give us a royal welcome." and "Soon Mr Elf, you will enjoy the fabelled hospitality of the dwarves. Roaring fires! Malt beer! Red meat off the bone! This my friend is the home of my cousin Balin and they call it a mine!"
What they needed to for TH plot was condense the war of dwarves and orcs. Personally, I find the film alternative (so far) much more believeable than the book.
In the book Thror disappears with only Nar. Nar waits outside and sees Thror's body thrown outside. Azog does his little speech. Nar returns and the war starts.
Fine, so far. Killing the king is going to start a war. (the issue that important plot points have to be shown and not told can probably be argued aside here, even though it still annoys me).
So we have a six year long trench war, essentially. Then comes this huge final battle - at the same location it all started - and it is not our main character that kills the villian and gets revenge, but a barely-past-majority cousin. A cousin, who's said majority makes it even more unbelievable. But we shouldn't worry about Thorin, because he becomes a legend by using a branch against an unnamed and unimportant orc soldier.
Can you see why this frustrates me? Condensing it into one battle and having Thorin face off Azog not only compresses it into an acceptable time (we don't have long to explain backstory in film) but also clarifies and strengthens the plot.
But back to the film. Balin says, "After the dragon took the Lonely Mountain, King Thror tried to reclaim the ancient dwarf kingdom of Moria." It sounds like they went straight to Moria from Erebor. There is no mention of the other dwarf families. After Moria, Thror is dead and Thrain has gone missing with insanity. Thorin is now being judged as the head/king/leader. No one's going to listen to an untried dwarf prince, even if said prince wounded Azog. Also, there are no other already-made empty dwarf cities. Their stuck in the wilderness.
There's also a big difference - Thror thought Moria was empty. It's possible that some other dwarf families (unmentioned) joined in. Everyone knows that there is a dragon in Erebor. No one's going to send their people to a battle they have no chance of winning. Hence, need for the Arkenstone.
Gandalf says: "You are the heir to the throne of Durin. Unite the armies of the dwarves. Together you have the might and power to retake Erebor. Summon a meeting of the seven dwarf families. Demand they stand by their oaths.”
and Thorin replies, "The seven armies swore that oath to the one who wields the King's Jewel, the Arkenstone! It is the only thing that will unite them, and in case you have forgotten, that jewel was stolen by Smaug.”
This tells us that no stone, no enforced oaths. If Thorin had the jewel, he could make them go. He doesn't, so he can't.
With the treatment of Moria in FotR, it's reasonable film wise to have the dwarves think it empty. Balin's narration tells us that they were surprised to find the orcs there. The explanation holds to a film audience. After all, a film adaption has to be understandable to an audience that has never read a word of Tolkien.
2. Bilbo walks a while, passes by some ponies in the grass, then walks some maore and then finds Fili and Kili in front of what looks like a stable ruin with the other half of the ponies. If they were with the first half before, they wouldn't have been close enough to see and hear the others.
Personally, I think the problem comes back to the rules of filmmaking. Bilbo can't just stroll along until he smacks into the trolls, they have to be connected to the plot somehow. Having the trolls steal ponies creats a necessary plot conflict to bring us to the trolls. There's definitely some issues here (number of ponies; and you're right, it doesn't make sense to have the troll pass by Bilbo, Kili, and Fili).
3. Do we know how much time passed? After all, the scene change comes when talking about the other wizards, so it doesn't necessarily mean it's happening that moment.
4. But if we had a scene planning it, it would've ruined the tension. Gandalf's conversation with Galadriel clearly shows that he already knew the dwarves would be sneaking out.
5.&6. The exact line is, “Be on your guard; we’re about to step over the edge of the Wild. Balin, you know these paths; lead on.”
Again, it's a plot issue. The stone-giants have to be involved somehow if they're going to be in the film. Personally, I would have been fine with cutting them out entirely. Witth Gandalf, we have to believe the dwarves are in danger, his appearance has to be a surprise. After all, why not just fight the Goblin there then and escape?
7. Oh, you mean at the start of DoS? I figure a week has passed. Azog knows the general direction they went in, so they've been searching for the trail. Bilbo says they're close, but haven't found it yet.
8. I see your point, but there is a huge difference between small and stupid goblins and a huge and very skilled orc. Dwarves are supposed to be amazing fighters, unlike hobbits. In FotR, we have Legolas pulling stunts with the chain and the falling staircase. They are also in a much more inclosed space.
They're clearly bruised and battered after the Great Goblin falls on them. You're right, there is a tone change, but the variables show too many differences for me to be bothered by it. It's a lot better than the magical glowing swords scaring the goblins away. In the book, it's played for laughs multiple times that the dwarves are completely inept - which is completely against the nature of dwarves being extremely skilled fighters. I'll take a typical film action scene any day.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Aug 27 2014, 3:29pm
Post #40 of 57
(966 views)
Shortcut
|
1. You make a good point about the story as seen exclusively from in movieverse.
But I have had a problem with that too I'm afarid since FotR came out- as it doesn't seem to make any sense there either.
As you point out Gimli in that film seems to expect Moria to be occupied with happy dwarves ready to offer a 'right Royal welcome' to the Company.
It seems at this point PJ as rewritten Moria's history and Balin is the Lord of Moria and everyone knows it.
Yet when we get to Moria it is, visually, book Moria- clearly long abandoned, closed and hidden doors and layers of dust on everything.
Given the dry interior it should take corpses a long time to degrade, those around Balins tomb in film clearly indicate whatever happened there did not just happen in recent weeks.
So why would Gimli be expecting dwarves to be there working away? The greatest dwarf city ever and no one apparently notices everyone there has been slaughtered recently? What about everyone who would have traded with it? What about other dwarves coming and going from the city? Its just not feasible.
The visual representation of Moria is book, the explanation Gimli gives is made up and makes not the slightest bit of sense at all.
So I would argue PJ has made a pigs ear of explaining Moria from the get go.
When it comes to the condensed battle in the film instead of the long underground war of the dwarves and the orcs I see why they did it (but not why they felt TH needed this in it in the first place, or Azog for that matter- its not Thorins tale, its supposed to be Bilbo's) I prefer the book story, if only because Azog has some personality in it and is capable of stringing whole sentences together.
How you take a character that says things like - "If beggars will not wait at the door, but sneak in to try thieving, that is what we will do to them. If any of your people poke their foul beards in here again, they will fare the same. Go and tell them so! But if his family wish to know who is king here, the name is written on his face. I wrote it! I killed him! I am the master!"
and reduce the character to someone who says things like- "The dwarf-scum will show themselves soon eneough" and why is beyond me. Film Azog is a terrible bad guy cliche, he just spouts short blunt threats, growls a lot and kills his own subordinates without reason. He belongs in a Bond film.
"It sounds like they went straight to Moria from Erebor. There is no mention of the other dwarf families. "
There is no mention of them but the sheer numbers of dwarves we see would indicate more than the survivors of Erebor.
"Also, there are no other already-made empty dwarf cities."
Except in the Blue Mountains which is where the folk of Erebor end up.
"Thror thought Moria was empty. "
This doesn't explain then the use of the term 'Durin's Bane' in FotR. And in fact contradicts it.
"they wouldn't have been close enough to see and hear the others. "
I know that if I am the woods round my bit of the world at night and if so much as deer decides to go for a run crashing through some undergrowth you can here it half a mile away- the idea trolls could go stomping about, literally earth shaking, knocking over entire trees and no one close by hearing anything at all just seems ludicrous.
'Bilbo can't just stroll along until he smacks into the trolls, they have to be connected to the plot somehow.'
No he cant- but Gandalf could have left them much earlier, Radagst could have eben left out, and instead the company could have had to go through a big storm, cross a river, get in difficulties, and lose their supplies, and need their burglar to go ahead and investigate the camp fire in the woods for them- you know like the book plot, with a bit of tension, and a more desperate situation, and with motivation for his actions. Why does film Blbo even need to go anywhere near the fire? They establish its trolls before he even starts off. Why ddn tthey just go back and warn the others? Sending Bilbo in for no reason, well there is no reason for it.
"Do we know how much time passed? After all, the scene change comes when talking about the other wizards, so it doesn't necessarily mean it's happening that moment."
I think thats a viewers excuse- the film offers no such indication of passage of time and very much doubt the average viewer, when they see Radagast arrive thinks, 'oh that earlier scene with him must have been meant to be weeks ago then.'
'But if we had a scene planning it, it would've ruined the tension. Gandalf's conversation with Galadriel clearly shows that he already knew the dwarves would be sneaking out. '
I am not saying there should be a scene, I am saying there is no time for such a scene to have happened, even though we are led to believe it must have done.
Gandalf does not know about the WC until he is introduced to them, at which point they have a meeting- the same meeting Gandalf is still i the next morning when the dwarves leave. In the mountain cave Bofur says they were to wait in the mountains for Gandalf, indicating they had indeed arranged this- but when? Between Gandalf finding out he would be staying longer and them leaving he is in a meeting the whole time.
"The stone-giants have to be involved somehow if they're going to be in the film."
I would rather they had remained an interesting thing in the distance. Part of the wildness of the mountain storm. Not an excuse for yet another ridiculous spectacle of faux melodrama.
"I figure a week has passed. Azog knows the general direction they went in"
How? The eagles could have gone round in a big loop for all Azog knows.
And at the end of AUJ we see the Lonely Mt from the Carrock, and between them and it there is nothing but Wilderness and forest.
Yet at the start of DOS they are back in the foothills of the mountains again- if there are no mountains between the Carrock and the mountain in a straight line, why have they spent this 'week ' going the wrong way back to the mountains again just to be caught by Azog? They should have been a week in the other direction if a week has passed. Yet again nothing makes any sense.
'Dwarves are supposed to be amazing fighters'
Apparently only when up against goblins. In his fight with Azog he manages zero successful attacks and gets beaten about like a small child. Its embarrassing- we have been told about how great Throin is and the first time we see him a scrap in the film outside a cutscene he is absolutely hopeless and needs rescued by a hobbit.
Thanks for the points you raised and made me consider though, I am enjoying the debate.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Aug 27 2014, 3:31pm)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Aug 28 2014, 8:47pm
Post #41 of 57
(954 views)
Shortcut
|
|
while in complete agreement with most of what you've said
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I disagree about Fili and Kili not hearing the trees- have you ever felled a tree? I have- went out logging with my old pastor and my then fiance to get firewood one year.
They are NOT quiet when they fall, especially not in a fairly quiet wood. It causes a massive crash, the sound echoes (and given those cliff faces just beyond the camp, it would have most DEFINITELY echoed off of there), and it crushes the underbrush it falls on, emitting crashing and snapped twig noises. Plus, if it brushes against other trees, those trees will rustle for a couple minutes after it falls.
My guess is that Fili and Kili were off doing who knows what, and not paying as close attention as they should have (as was insinuated with Thorin's order "make sure you stay with them"- it's implied, to me, that it's not the first time they've wandered off when they were supposed to be doing a task).
But I can reconcile the tree falling sound as being the thing that alerts them that something's not right, then they go and immediately count the ponies first thing (I disagree with how calm the ponies are- surely a falling tree would spook them). Bilbo happens upon them as they're doing so, then once they've all reached a consensus that two are missing, they go investigate the fallen trees- the source of the disturbance- to find out why they suddenly "fell out of nowhere". And we're back on the storyline.
So my only complaint with this part (aside from the changing number of ponies in the corral) is that the ponies were not fazed at all by two falling trees right near to them, but they got spooked and ran off when a fight with the trolls were happening- that to me seems inconsistent.
But there's no way that Fili and Kili (or, IMO, the rest of the company) would have missed the sound of two trees falling over, especially if they're about two feet wide or so. It's simply too loud (so Oin might have missed it, but the rest of them aren't deaf ).
(This post was edited by Cirashala on Aug 28 2014, 8:49pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 29 2014, 1:55pm
Post #42 of 57
(930 views)
Shortcut
|
Personally, I think the problem comes back to the rules of filmmaking. Bilbo can't just stroll along until he smacks into the trolls, they have to be connected to the plot somehow. Having the trolls steal ponies creats a necessary plot conflict to bring us to the trolls. There's definitely some issues here (number of ponies; and you're right, it doesn't make sense to have the troll pass by Bilbo, Kili, and Fili).
Is there really a rule that, in film, person A cannot unexpectedly come up person (or thing) B?
My guess is no. And in my opinion, if depicted as in the book we could have had some Tolkien-based humor plus some filmic suspense, since the fire remains somewhat of a mystery 'for a time' anyway, until the not-able-to-hoot-like-an-owl burglar realizes just what he has stumbled upon in the wild. Trolls!
Also, there are no rules 
'The screewriter William Goldman's first Law of Filmmaking is "Nobody knows Anything" Nobody knows what will be popular; nobody knows what will succeed or fail, or why it succeeded or failed; nobody knows [..] if your idea of what is dramatically necessary really is."
Bratman, Summa Jacksonica, Tolkien On Film, the Mythopoeic Press [edited here for brevity]
Well I'm sure others will argue otherwise about that, given its admitted sweep, or at least argue for: mostly agreed upon, mostly tried and true enough conventions or guidelines that seems to work 'today' if not yesterday, or if not necessarily next month. But that subjective argument can get very general...
... so I'll stick to this specific example: in the book Bilbo does not simply walk smack into the Trolls, but even if he did, to my mind that seems enough in line with even 'blockbustery' expectations, as well as filmmaking conventions of today. I could see this in an 'art film' too.
In short I just don't see a rule for film in general where even a surprise smacking into needs to be avoided, that all people being smacked into 'must' rather create a reason for being involved in the hero's adventure -- especially in a film with a quest into the wild!
Also, huzzah again to Lord Pettance101.
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Sep 1 2014, 9:15pm
Post #43 of 57
(901 views)
Shortcut
|
You make some great points! I've never felled a tree, so I bow to your superior knowledge. I had forgotten about Thorin's line. This is probably what happened.
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Sep 1 2014, 10:46pm
Post #44 of 57
(897 views)
Shortcut
|
1. I double-checked and I couldn't find any place in the films where "Durin's Bane" is mentioned. In film!FotR, Gandalf doesn't want to go - he clearly doesn't agree with Gimli.
In the book Gimli is the first one to support Gandalf on Moria, and the other dwarves have no idea if Balin is alive or dead. It doesn't sound like they ever started trading, or having others arrive - it was just Balin's group.
Gimli has the tendency to be rash and assume things in the book. He is still on the young side.
Here, he's assuming that the dwarves couldn't possibly be beaten by anything. He never even gives us an explanation, just boasts about a Dwarven home to Legolas. Gandalf expects him to be wrong, and he is. From the first time he brings it up, the film frames Gimli to be mistaken. We could go into why, but that would mean getting into the details of Gimli's characterization.
With Azog, a long monologue doesn't really fit, and it's the same emotion in book and film. 'Moria is mine! I am the King! I will kill any who defy me!' It's ego and aggression. In that long sentence Azog doesn't really say anything else.
Thorin and his dwarves end up in the Blue Mountains, yes. But a) there are already dwarves living there and b) they don't live in Belegost or Nogrod. I double-checked the Tolkien Gateway to make sure.
Because Kili and Fili are young. Biblo was sent in to stall while they went back and got help. Someone had to stall because the ponies were about to be eaten (and to distract the trolls from the dwarves sneaking up on them).
When Radagast arrives and starts talking to Gandalf we get a flashback to him at Dol Guldur, which clearly happens after his first scene. Therefore, both have to be flashbacks.
I think we're using two different versions. In the EE the dwarves are clearly at Rivendell for at least a few days. If they planned for Gandalf to distract the elves while they snuck out, he would of course meet them later. The White Council didn't have to be a part of their plan for it to happen.
There's no point for the stone giants then. They don't effect the plot or characters at all. It's completely pointless. Personally, like I said, I wouldn't mind if they were cut out entirely. But I can see why they were done the way they were.
But why would they? Thorin has been making his way towards Erebor. The eagles take the dwarves towards their (the eagles') home. It's pretty clear which direction the trail will be in - and when DoS opens they haven't found the dwarves' trail again.
As for the dwarves, they seem to be on some sort of plain. Some time has obviously passed because they are not on top (or climbing down from) the Carrock. I don't see how the terrain has been changed from the book.
Azog is clearly not your usual enemy, and Thorin was already at a disadvantage with the location and situation. His charge was done out of anger and revenge, and not logic or self-preservation. Him getting seriously hurt seems like the logical conclusion.
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Sep 1 2014, 11:18pm
Post #45 of 57
(897 views)
Shortcut
|
… there are no official/automatic fail rules. But there are common unofficial ones accepted by the majority of people.
The way they did it is by no means the only way it could be done, and I didn't mean to imply Bilbo just smacked into them in the book. But how it was done in the book wouldn't work for other reasons in the film.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Sep 2 2014, 12:59am
Post #46 of 57
(896 views)
Shortcut
|
... there are no official/automatic fail rules. But there are common unofficial ones accepted by the majority of people.
Well, that's a very general claim. The point I responded to concerned the rule you suggested. Can I assume that you agree this is not in fact a 'rule' accepted by the majority? What is problematic from a filmmaker's perspective with even unexpected smackings into... especially if the film is about a quest into the wild!
Where unexpected things like running into goblins and giants might easily occur!
And why exactly would: how it was done in the book not work for other reasons in the film?
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Sep 2 2014, 12:12pm
Post #47 of 57
(896 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A film versus the film [that Jackson made]
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And why exactly would: how it was done in the book not work for other reasons in the film?
Just an explanation of sorts: when I say Jackson could have filmed a given scene as found in the book, or more like the book, I always (unless otherwise noted) mean in a film not the film Jackson chose to make. In other words, if your answer to this is due to other changes Jackson made in his film, then we are not exactly on the same page about that, so to speak.
Also, if you plan on linking to websites, or whatever, about filmmaking accepted conventions [or 'rules'] I can save you some time, as I'm probably not going to agree with so many of the opinions there in any case, nor necessarily find it compelling that someone on the web or in a book thinks X or Y just won't work in film.
I mean obviously you can post whatever you want, and try to support your opinion with anything you like, for the thread, but for myself...
... take Jackson and team as example: surely there are folks who will claim, or have claimed, that so many of his changes were due to the 'needs' of film. I've disagreed with so many of these claims already, and feel that so many of them are not really needs but opinions...
... and since I disagree with Jackson so strongly with what he [apparently] thinks is good filmmaking [not just with respect to his Tolkien based adaptions either], I'm certainly not going to necessarily agree with some website or other commentator that films can't do X because they are films.
I'm trying to save you time and energy... well me really 
And I apologize for asking you if I can assume you now agree that the rule under question is not in fact a rule according to some majority. I don't mean to put words in your mouth in this way, but on the other hand, you didn't exactly respond about the rule under question, even if responding more generally about unofficial ones accepted by the majority of people.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 2 2014, 12:23pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Sep 2 2014, 3:09pm
Post #48 of 57
(876 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd also like to join this interesting discussion.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Isn't there the hope in the book as well that Balin and others might be in Moria?
Anyway, I always thought the movie did a fine job there hinting at a backstory for those knowing about it while making sense of it for those without said knowledge. It is indicated in the movie that Gandalf doubted Balin was still alive. The reason why Balin was there and that the actual kingdom of Moria was abondoned before his mission is not explained but I do not think this results in Moria not making sense from.the get go.
Is it that impossible in the movieverse to think that Moria fell into ruin without the people we meet knowing about it (at least entirely)? The lands and realms of Middle-earth are imho portrayed as both vast and often isolated from each other with several people rather keeping to themselves.
I don't know whether it is just the audience making stuff up to make sense of what in your opinion doesn't make sense at all or whether it is (for many) rather coherent storytelling that allows them to indulge in the suspension of disbelief and follow the filmmaker. Storytelling with holes, maybe, but not the kind of holes that make it illogical or senseless but that open it up for a larger background the movie just hints at. Air to breath.
I also feel like you build up book Azog to more than he his. I cannot say the passage you quote offers more of a characterization than what is given in the movie with his text and visuals there. In a longer flashback it would have been a great addition, sure. But to be honest I feel his lines in the movies did just as good a job to create what he needed to be for the story.
I agree though that I have trouble seeing the need for both Azog and Bolg there unless they really manage to play on that dynamic in the third part and especially the battle.
I won't comment on the later smaller points... Many of them are things I did not think about too deeply as they simply worked for me on screen. Again, one person's "making no sense" may be another person's "suspension of disbelief"... So I wouldn't argue about that :)
This has become a really interesting thread despite the controversial theme and differing opinions!
Really enjoyed the posts before this one from almost all participating people.
"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.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Sep 2 2014, 3:14pm)
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Sep 2 2014, 6:52pm
Post #49 of 57
(872 views)
Shortcut
|
making two sepearte posts I am going to respond to the points made by Laineth and Arannir in this one.
Laineth first.
1. Oh dear dont make me go watch the originals cuts again to check! I could have sworn someone mentions Durins Bane somewhere, either when it appears in Moria, or when Saruman is pre-emptively spoiling all the mystery and tension of the unknown by showing us pictures of it in his Big Book of ME Monsters - by Alan Lee, available at all good Gondorian stockists- before they've even got to the front gates. 
2. Gimli does indeed support Gandalf, both to see Moria with his own eyes and in the faint hope of finding Balin, but its never presented as more than a faint hope by Gimli in the book. In the film Gandalf contradicts Gimli, but no reason is given as to why, and even oddier to member of the fellowship seems to wonder why Gimli thinks its a dwarven haven and why Gandalf thinks its a terrible place to go. I'd be curious about that.
Its almost a silly as giving the decision of whether to go to Moria at all to Frodo, someone who knows absolutely nothing about the place in a party that consists of the most travelled man in the known world, a wizard whose lived centuries and been in there before, and a dwarf whose people built the place.
Regards trade I meant in movievere, actually that ties into something Arannir said-
'Is it that impossible in the movieverse to think that Moria fell into ruin without the people we meet knowing about it (at least entirely)?'
Moria is first and foremost a mine and city- its main existence is based upon trade from its mine and the quality of their craftsmanship making stuff to sell. I dont see how it could be taken over and all the dwarves killed without anyone noticing.
In FotR all we are actually told about Balin is what is written on his tomb, that he was Lord of Moria.
There is no reason a non book audience would assume watching that anything other than until recently Balin was indeed Lord of a functioning Moria- but all the visuals are book based and so contradict this.
What's annoying about is that its not hard to explain on film, the Bakshi version does so in a single line of dialogue from Gimli- 'my cousin Balin led a company of dwarves there many years ago, nothing has been heard of them in all that time."
Not strictly accurate but tells the viewer all they need to know about Moria- its long abandoned, some dwarves went back, something bad probably happened to them- tension created.
I have no idea why PJ decided Gimli would expect it full of happy dwarves. It just confuses the issue unnecessarily and doesn't generate the tension about Moria and what might be in it.
And it throws a question mark over the Balrog- when did it appear in movieverse? Did Balin, Lord of Moria stir it up very recently? But the bodies look too decayed for it to be recent.
But if it was when it was in the book why would the dwarves shown in TH not know it was in there? And why would they being trying to retake Moria if they did know? Less suicidal to try to beat Smaug than a Balrog.
'With Azog, a long monologue doesn't really fit, and it's the same emotion in book and film.'- Laineth
PJ has downplayed orc intelligence and nastiness since the start. If you look at the film dialogue for Ugluk and the orc in the book who is Grishnak it is more formed and more extensive than their film versions.
They have done the same with Azog. Dumbed him down.
But villains are scarier when they show signs of intelligence and cunning.
Book orcs are also much more brutal, if you compare the scene in the orc tower where the two orcs at the top fight over the shirt with its book equivalent, the book version is brutal and horrific in comparison.
Its the mix of evil cunning intelligence and sheer brutality and lack of empathy that make orcs frightening foes in the first place.
Reducing their dialogue to only short blunt sentiments or threats and reducing their outbursts of violence to be less visceral and more action blockbuster reduces that in my view.
'Biblo was sent in to stall while they went back and got help. Someone had to stall because the ponies were about to be eaten'
Given we saw exactly how far Bilbo walked from camp to ponies it should have taken Fili and Kili about 5 seconds to get back at a sprint and tell the others, the ponies were hardly going to be eaten in that time.
And as their plan consisted of all running in screaming it would not have made a jot of difference had they done that right at the start without Bilbo going anywhere.
'When Radagast arrives and starts talking to Gandalf we get a flashback to him at Dol Guldur, which clearly happens after his first scene. Therefore, both have to be flashbacks. '
No, all that indicates is that he went to Dol Guldur after we last saw him, which was the cut to him the day before when they arrive at the ruined cottage to set up camp.
There is clear indication when Radagast tells of Dol Gulur that we are seeing a flashback to when he was there.
There is no such indication when we first cut to Radagast when Gandalf talks of other wizards that it is meant to be a flashback and not just cutting to him at that time.
'In the EE the dwarves are clearly at Rivendell for at least a few days.'
Thats not the problem- the problem is Gandalf could not have made the arrangements because he did not know he was going to be delayed having a meeting with the WC until it happened. And once he does know the meeting is continuous and the dwarves sneak out at dawn, but Gandalf could have made no such plans with them as he has been in the meeting the whole time, its the very reason he is being delayed and stays behind.
Also regards the WC, why is the matter of the Necomancer and the blade seem to be relegated to the committe equivelent of 'any other business' given it seems to be the last thing they discuss and dont get round to it until dawn- what were they discussing the rest of the night that was of more import?
'There's no point for the stone giants then.'
They are a glimpse of faery, not in need of further explanation, they add to a wider vista, unexplained, something Tolkien's writing excels at. You dont have to explain everything or make it a feature, sometimes a hint of something is better and more effective.
'when DoS opens they haven't found the dwarves' trail again.'
No but they are almost right on them already.
'Some time has obviously passed because they are not on top (or climbing down from) the Carrock. I don't see how the terrain has been changed from the book.'
It hasn't change from the book, its changed from the end of the previous film.
At the end of AUJ we see the Lonely Mt from the top of the Carrock, and the land between the Carrock and it- there are no mountains or craggy big hills there, its more or less flat with a lot of trees. Any remaining outcrops are either side miles away, the straight line is clear.
When DOS starts they appear to be in the foothills of the mountains, before running down the last slopes of them through a wood. Where the chase to Beorns begins.
But that would mean they had gone back the way in the intervening time- as there are no mountain bits ahead in the shot from AUJ of the land ahead.
'Him getting seriously hurt seems like the logical conclusion.'
I know it made some of the people I saw it with laugh out loud. Granted that's just anecdotal evidence. But actually the worst thing about it is Bilbo saving him and so killing their charcater arcs with each other stone dead for the entirety of DOS as well as undermining the entire point of Bilbo rescuing the Dwarves from the spiders, making his first kill, and saving them from the elves prison. Bilbo's relationship with Thorin should be that Bilbo is replacing him in the eyes of the others as leader.
Which in film terms could have been nicely played as growing resentment on Thorins part to being usurped and played into his final action with threatening Bilbo.
I would have rather a character motivation to some overplayed little explained dragon sickness excuse.
'I cannot say the passage you quote offers more of a characterization than what is given in the movie with his text and visuals there.'- Arannir
The quote has to be taken in context with his actions in the book. The branding of his name on the head, the arrogance of sending it back as a message, the confidence it betrays in himself and his numbers. It tells you a lot more about who Azog is in that one scene than the films do so far, where all it feels you need to know is that he is the bad guy, shout 'boooo' at the screen now.
'This has become a really interesting thread despite the controversial theme and differing opinions!'- Arranir
I think this is the most enjoyable debate I have had on ToRN, with all praise going to the tone of those who have taken part.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Sep 2 2014, 7:13pm
Post #50 of 57
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
... are raised by the whole Moria history are indeed questions one could ask oneself after watching the movie. However, I believe a vast majority of the LotR audiences did not get confused by it... Those who wanted to know more could (and in many cases surely did) delve into the books to see how "it really happened". Most others seem to have gotten a version that worked for them. My example given was just one of the possible suspension of disbelief explanations people must have come up with... Most probably did not even ask themselves those questions. I simply do not believe that such things either undermine the source material and it's effect nor the movies in their filmmaking effort.
Not answering all these questions has imho nothing to do with bad storytelling or bad adapting. Imho they are part of what made these movies great. As I said before, the room to breath without creating plotholes and things that "do not make sense at all".
As for Azog - I still fail to see a major difference in the characterization of Orcs in books and movies. I do believe both their lines, their actions and design reach a very similar outcome in the end - with movie Azog indeed giving much more hints at the internal Orc hierarchy and intelligence than most LotR movie Orcs. For example in his unhappiness regarding Sauron's orders.
I didn't really follow the whole Bilbo/Thorin relationship debate and discussion... So I will just comment that I believe you are overstating how overstated the dragon sickness is in the movie. I am sure the treasure and in particular the Arkenstone will enhance all this... But I think his character traits (and faults) are portrayed well.
"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.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Sep 2 2014, 7:20pm)
|
|
|
|
|
