|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 4:36pm
Post #1 of 46
(2775 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why a hammer instead of an axe?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd like some opinions on why Dain's axe has been replaced with a hammer. Did Tolkien not describe Dain as having an axe? I'm trying to understand what constitutes something being arbitrary, and when it is most appropriate to change things that have been burned into readers' minds (for the better or worse). Please resist the temptation to answer with the following sentiments.
-Because it looks awesome
-Jackson can do whatever he wants
Looking forward to your thoughts.
(This post was edited by Bishop on Nov 25 2014, 4:40pm)
|
|
|
Arthael
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 4:39pm
Post #2 of 46
(2355 views)
Shortcut
|
It'll hurt more!!!!
Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Alan Rickman's response to "why a spoon, cousin? Why not an axe?"
"There are no safe paths in this part of the world. Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild, and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go."
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 4:42pm
Post #3 of 46
(2297 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't want Dain to hit me with either one
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Arthael
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 4:45pm
Post #4 of 46
(2334 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the two reasons you said not to reply with sum it up pretty well. However, I think it mostly has to do with Jackson wanting to do something a little more visually dramatic, something we haven't seen much of in middle earth. We've seen quite a few axes already (although I wish the company had more, but the reason for that is the same as the reason for Dain's change) and I think as a filmmaker he wants to always be pulling in new visual ideas to wow his audience with. A Hero with a Hammer! I don't think your average Hobbit enthusiast knows the name of Dain's axe, I certainly don't think your average audience member even knows who Dain is yet, so Jackson would probably keep those two assumptions in mind, chalk up Dain's axe as incidental, and decide to create something new.
"There are no safe paths in this part of the world. Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild, and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go."
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 4:53pm
Post #5 of 46
(2247 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, while those two things may sum it up, I find them deeply unsatisfying. Perhaps not in this particular circumstance, but in general I think it is very important for filmmakers to weigh the importance of iconic imagery against their own desires. While some changes work to dramatic effect, others may seem extremely arbitrary. For example do you really think that Dain wielding a giant red axe would look stupid or any less dramatic than his hammer?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Nov 25 2014, 4:59pm
Post #6 of 46
(2267 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps I am poorly placed to answer
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I don't think I would describe Dain's axe as either "iconic" or "burned into my mind", but my question would be, "What change?"
I may be mistaken but I don't recall any mention of what weapon Dain used in TH. Have I missed something?
|
|
|
Faleel
Rohan
Nov 25 2014, 5:11pm
Post #7 of 46
(2229 views)
Shortcut
|
From the Durin's Folk bit from the Appendices.
|
|
|
Farficom
Rivendell
Nov 25 2014, 5:12pm
Post #8 of 46
(2191 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe they just thought there were already too many axes in the movie, and a heavy duty warhammer can be a pretty devastating weapon in the right hands.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Nov 25 2014, 5:21pm
Post #9 of 46
(2204 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's discussing a different occasion 150 years earlier
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Isn't it? I know about him using an axe at Moria but I was struggling to think of any mention of what weapon he used during the events of the Hobbit (i.e at the BOFA).
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 5:34pm
Post #10 of 46
(2201 views)
Shortcut
|
there probably is a reason here, but I doubt its related to anything other than the censors.
You can get away with showing Dain whacking people about left and right with a big hammer a lot easier than you get him swinging a sharp double headed axe through people which would look a lot messier on screen and would probably run into censor issues in some countries.
I could be wrong of course and it could just be another in the long list of seemingly senseless changes that fall under the heading 'PJ thinks it looks cool.'
"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
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 5:41pm
Post #11 of 46
(2161 views)
Shortcut
|
Just looking at the sheer number of beheadings would make me doubt it's a censorship issue.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 5:51pm
Post #12 of 46
(2142 views)
Shortcut
|
I once did a count for another forum of every onscreen beheading, impalement, stabbing and limb severing in AUJ and in all three LotR's films.
It turned out there were more just in the goblin town escape sequence alone than in the entirety of the LotR's films.
This struck me as both ludicrous and hugely inappropriate given TH is based on a children's book and LotR' s on a book largely concerned with a very big war.
Talk about misjudging the tone. 
"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
|
|
|
Ostadan
Rivendell
Nov 25 2014, 5:53pm
Post #13 of 46
(2139 views)
Shortcut
|
The dwarves of the Iron Hills are described as carrying mattocks in The Hobbit, and I think that is what Dain is actually carrying. It is almost surprising to see Jackson following a detail from the text nowadays.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 6:02pm
Post #14 of 46
(2115 views)
Shortcut
|
More beheadings = more whimsical :)
To be fair while TH is different tonally than LOTR, it certainly has its own level of darkness. The description of the Goblins as creatures who build torture machines with great ingenuity always freaked me out. What intrigues me is how Tolkien wrestled with the idea of retroactively changing the Hobbit. In a sense Jackson has tried to do what Tolkien himself considered but ultimately abandoned, and it's up to the individual to decide if Jackson handled it correctly. Would a Hobbit film that had a very different tone have worked? Who knows.
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 6:02pm
Post #15 of 46
(2115 views)
Shortcut
|
...RotK is the winner of the "Most on-screen Deaths" award! And TTT is very close behind it!
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 6:07pm
Post #16 of 46
(2109 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think mattocks are definined by one side being a cutter or pick
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Like this. And so far I haven't been able to tell what any of the other Dwarves are wielding.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 6:13pm
Post #17 of 46
(2088 views)
Shortcut
|
but I am not talking about wide shots where any number of specs are dying. I counted only violent onscreen deaths (beheading, dismemberment, impalement ect) you can clearly see. So if someone has a limb chopped off or a head it only counts if it can be clearly seen and is the feature of the shot.
And AUJ tops all three LotR's films combined for that.
Feel free to go count them all up yourself. You will be surprised by the result.
"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 Nov 25 2014, 6:18pm)
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 6:21pm
Post #18 of 46
(2067 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nah, this was only for on screen deaths with faces showing...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And RotK had ~800.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Nov 25 2014, 6:27pm
Post #19 of 46
(2057 views)
Shortcut
|
deaths which are clearly featured within the main shot. Ones you can clearly see and are highlighted as what you are meant to be seeing.
For example there are only two beheadings in all of FotR if I recall rightly one in Moria and one when Aragorn fights the Uruk Hai. (And I have a sneaky feeling the Moria beheading was EE only)
"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 Nov 25 2014, 6:27pm)
|
|
|
Drakblod
Rivendell
Nov 25 2014, 6:27pm
Post #20 of 46
(2066 views)
Shortcut
|
Because PG-13. Why have dwarves chop of limbs and heads when they can have some nice, clean deaths by smashing the orcs with their hammers instead?
like butter scraped over too much bread.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Nov 25 2014, 6:31pm
Post #21 of 46
(2071 views)
Shortcut
|
"‘I grieved at the fall of Thorin,’ said Gandalf; ‘and now we hear that Dáin has fallen, fighting in Dale again, even while we fought here. I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say that he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the Gate of Erebor until the darkness fell."
It is reasonable to assume that if Dain wielded his "iconic" red axe at Azanulbizar, and again mightily wielded his axe during the War of the Ring, he probably did during the BOFA as well.
That having been said, I really like the design they are using and understand and approve of the war hammer. I don't think his axe is iconic in the way that weapons like Sting and Anduril and Glamdring and Orcrist are, and have no problem with the change.
'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
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 6:35pm
Post #22 of 46
(2045 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm curious though. When you say you "understand and approve" the change, what exactly do you mean? What is to be understood about the change from the axe to the hammer? If it is not arbitrary, can you elaborate?
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 6:37pm
Post #23 of 46
(2035 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Nov 25 2014, 6:40pm
Post #24 of 46
(2032 views)
Shortcut
|
When I say I understand the change, I mean that I think I understand the reasons why they made the change, which others have discussed: the desire to give Dain a distinguishing trait since we have seen plenty of axes. While obviously this is somewhat subjective, as I said before to me I don't consider his weapon an iconic detail that absolutely should not be changed (unlike the named weapons that I mentioned in my previous post), and therefore I don't mind the change, since I happen to like the way it looks. Obviously, you have a different take on it, and I completely respect that.
'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
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Nov 25 2014, 7:05pm
Post #25 of 46
(2002 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that it is not iconic in the way the other weapons are. To a reader that may vary.
We definitely disagree though on why the change. IMO we haven't seen too many axes at all! Jackson went overboard to give the Dwarves a veritable melange of assorted weaponry, and I just can't imagine someone thinking to themselves "Jeez. A giant red axe? Lame. I wish Jackson would just give a Dwarf a hammer instead of an axe for once".
Just to be honest I don't care if it's a hammer or an axe. I have no emotional investment either way. But my gut instinct is that it's just arbitrary, and there's nothing wrong with that. I will not however take the suggestion seriously that a giant two sided red axe (jackson style) would have been the wrong decision.
(This post was edited by Bishop on Nov 25 2014, 7:06pm)
|
|
|
|
|
1
