|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Apr 30 2015, 8:19am
Post #1 of 68
(3398 views)
Shortcut
|
WHY did the THREE have to DIE?
|
Can't Post
|
|
OKAY..
1.YES itzz in THE Book
2. Makes the Movie even more SAD than LOTR
in a much more intimite way.
3. Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Galadriel, &...Celeborn Eventually SAIL
INTO the WEST, which is? More or LESS Immortality..
4. NOT the Durin THREE, our Emotions are LEFT
on a Frozen Waterfall..?
5. Tragedy sticks us MORE deeply..?
6. Boromir dies, Denethor dies, Theoden Dies,
but PJ putzz us Right... inside their Family
7. WE love them as close as you kinda can get?
in 3 Movies
8. EVEN Now, we watch these 3 ACTORS
as IF..? we are Close to them.
9. The REST of "THE COMPANY"..as
FANS we will never
FORGET what they
FOUND in our
Heart of HEARTS..?
*sob* *sob** sob*
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 30 2015, 11:54am
Post #2 of 68
(3154 views)
Shortcut
|
Thorin, at least, had to die because actions have to have consequences; and in story-telling those consequences need to serve the narrative. Thorin's story is ultimately a tragedy because Bilbo, as the main character, had to experience a great loss after months of lucky escapes where no one of significance had to suffer.
The loss of Fili and Kili makes Thorin's death even more tragic and it also paves the way for Dain to step-up as King under the Mountain. I'm not sure why Tolkien felt that neither of Thorin's nephews should have succeeded him; maybe because he never took the time to establish their bona fides to rule or that both were simply too young and inexperienced to have that burden placed upon them.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 12:18pm
Post #3 of 68
(3142 views)
Shortcut
|
Sure, they were young, but they would have managed. Thorin was about as young when he had leadership thrust upon him.
I don't know if we'll ever know why Tolkien offed them. But it is very tragic.
It could be that Tolkien was more invested in Dain's narrative. He paints a very heroic picture of this dwarf, so giving him the opportunity to step up as a king of Erebor may have been more about Dain's narrative than Fili and Kili's.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Apr 30 2015, 12:30pm
Post #4 of 68
(3138 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It is a very Anglo-Saxon narrative at that point...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The "sister-sons" dying in war as bodyguards for their king is a plot point in Anglo-Saxon literature and also in the Völuspá.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 12:40pm
Post #5 of 68
(3132 views)
Shortcut
|
But I find it interesting that Tolkien doesn't use this plotpoint for Middle Earth's other sister-sons/children set. Eowyn defends Theoden's (her uncle) body with "shield and body" (sorta) but survives, and Eomer also survives the battle to be Theoden's heir.
A lot of times, I consider Theoden/Eowyn/Eomer the happily-ever-after version of Thorin/Fili/Kili.
|
|
|
lionoferebor
Rohan
Apr 30 2015, 12:46pm
Post #6 of 68
(3127 views)
Shortcut
|
Are you referring to the book or the movie?
In the regards to the movie...it was in the book. I realize considering the number of changes made to the story this probably doesn't hold too much weight. After all if characters were added, back stories created, etc...then why not change the fate of Thorin, Fili, and Kili?
Aside from having the emotional and dramatic end - which for myself is always more memorable than the upbeat conclusion - I think PJ realized their deaths as a very pivotal moment for many fans of the book. As one of those fans despite knowing I would be crushed to see them fall on screen, had they not died I would've been very upset.
As for the book, I've heard it said that Tolkien at some point in the development of the story had decided he wanted Dain to be King under the Mountain. Why? That I'm not sure. Maybe someone else who knows could give a bit of insight. Still, Dain proved to be a great and valiant king.
Another theory - and this is solely my own - is that Fili and Kili represent the young soldiers who have fallen in battle. Tolkien fought in WWI and as with all wars many young men (and today women) left the safety of their homes for the first time - some with a naďve excitement for the adventure ahead others not so much - to fight in a foreign land never to return.
Fili and Kili were born and raised in Ered Luin (per footnotes in the LOTR appendices) and had never traveled far from home until the Quest for Erebor. They were young and vibrant and despite the potential danger that lay ahead it seem nothing got their spirits down. Still their youth and their charm could not shield them from death...much like it could not and can not for the young soldiers in the wars of our world.
|
|
|
ThorinsNemesis
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 12:58pm
Post #7 of 68
(3124 views)
Shortcut
|
I personally wish Thorin stayed alive and remained King under the Mountain. Kili and Fili too shouldn't have died, but Thorin was my favorite Dwarf in the 6 Middle-earth movies 
|
|
|
He is a wizard, you know!
The Shire
Apr 30 2015, 1:31pm
Post #8 of 68
(3104 views)
Shortcut
|
In the book and in the film, the only way for Thorin's character to be resolved and his arc to be completed was for him to die. There's no other way around it.
"You're a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I'm very fond of you, but you're only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all."
|
|
|
ThorinsNemesis
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 1:45pm
Post #9 of 68
(3092 views)
Shortcut
|
It would have been great for him to stay alive, or at least any of his nephews. I think many other people might agree with me 
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 2:02pm
Post #10 of 68
(3081 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Did he need to die for a character arc?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I know, I know- Tolkien had this thing of needing the greed-laden characters to die in resolution to their arcs. Gollum needed to die. Boromir needed to die... but could Thorin have lived and still resolved his mistakes without needing to die?
If Thorin would have lived, would he have returned as King and resolved the conflict as Dain did? Or did he need to face his own death before he realized the error of his ways?
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 2:20pm
Post #11 of 68
(3058 views)
Shortcut
|
It's an Anglo-Saxon motiv, and Norse legends are full of untimely deaths as well.
Let's not forget that Tolkien had not decided yet who was older: Kili is older than Fili in the Hobbit, he corrected that later when he wrote the appendices of LOTR.
By killing them both, he wiped out the problem of succession, and hinted at the tragedy of the young soldiers who had died in WW1.
All things considered the Hobbit ending is more sombre and painful than the Lotr ending.
|
|
|
DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell
Apr 30 2015, 2:24pm
Post #12 of 68
(3056 views)
Shortcut
|
Thorin does tell Bilbo "Since I leave now all gold and silver and go where it is of little worth, I wish to part in friendship from you..."
I always took that to mean "well, I'm dying, so I should probably apologize..." meaning if he had lived, maybe he would have felt differently about the situation. Also, I think at that point (in the book) he must have known that Fili and Kili were dead, so that could have influenced what he said as well.
Just my interpretation of the book though. 
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 30 2015, 2:34pm
Post #13 of 68
(3050 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think they had to die in the movie....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but re:
The "sister-sons" dying in war as bodyguards for their king is a plot point in Anglo-Saxon literature and also in the Völuspá.
and other threads that have described Tolkien's influences (thank you Shirehorse! ) AND that Tolkien was no stranger to real-life tragedy AND after reading about the Children of Hurin I think what happens in the Hobbit book is almost gentle compared to some of Tolkien's other writings.
At least re the book (and what I thought would be in the film) that knowledge (for me) made the deaths and character arcs comprehensible - and both noble and worthy. I personally never saw either book or movie Thorin as "deserving retribution" for reasons I put in other threads. But thanks to TORn at this point I feel Tolkien did not make his decisions lightly (as opposed to reading the Hobbit as a child and just getting mad at the UNFAIRNESS of Thorin's treatment, as I saw it. )
But, after feeling bad and dreading what I would see on screen pre-BOFA, *shrug*. At seeing BOFA, no, I don't think the Durins HAD to die in the film. When the Durins were not together at the end, for ME the expected narrative was so derailed by that *unexpected jog* that having multiple deaths seemed rather pointless. Never mind that THIS Thorin was so noble and had suffered so much already.
By that time, for me, I would have found it more moving if TAURIEL had died. RA and MF do a magnificent job and I can't watch that end scene without crying and feeling terrible. But the connection? "feeling" with the original story broke for me - hard to explain that! - and I am back to feeling irritated about the Durin's fate - at least in the film.
(And I still can't feel that the Balin in the Hobbit is in a tomb in LOTR, tho there was a really good thread on that a while back).
|
|
|
ThorinsNemesis
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 2:56pm
Post #14 of 68
(3030 views)
Shortcut
|
I too think Thorin should have died in the Hobbit movies, surely he would have come to his sences and overcome dragon sickness And he would have made a better King than Dain IMO And if you search on the net you will find a lot of sites where fans wanted Thorin to live...
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 30 2015, 3:06pm
Post #15 of 68
(3022 views)
Shortcut
|
I think I understand what Tolkien was trying to do, and we have had various statements from PJ & co. about working to stay true to the literature, and the tie-ins to LOTR.
Many with knowledge of the book evidently would have been outraged if PJ had had the Durins live, but having chosen to engage the audience with a sensitive treatment of Thorin and having his appealing nephews - IMO as a film, from what I saw of theater audiences, people cried at the end, and were completely quiet - but there wasn't a general sense of SATISFACTION at the end. Besides, the films make the point that Thorin is dragon-sick and even THEN he's appealing "what choice did we have to barter our birthright for blankets and food....."
And in the film, Thorin had already "come back to himself" and RA and MF are good enough actors that IMO their eyes are saying a lot when Bilbo comes to warn the dwarves at Ravenhill, but there's no time to have a nice chat....
E.g., the books say one thing, but IMO the reality of the film kind of flattened things in theaters as far as I could tell - for instance it's hard to feel that sense of completeness of Bilbo getting home or even care when Bilbo picks up the Ring at the end, when there's a kind of pall left by some previous scenes. (Tho some of that might be the result of no funeral scene and the fast-paced editing.)
I wouldn't have done it, if I were the director, all things considered, re this cast and treatment. I might have sent the Durins home to the Blue Mountains, e.g. passing the kingdom to Dain, as Thorin and Heirs would always be in danger of dragon sickness. But outside of the evident "joy" I guess some are getting (based on pins on Pinterest and FB posts and artwork) of kind of "wallowing" in tragedy, not sure the "message" that Tolkien was trying to convey in the literature actually came across.
|
|
|
Brandybuckled
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 3:20pm
Post #16 of 68
(3016 views)
Shortcut
|
Bomby: WHY did the THREE have to DIE?
Movie: Because it was real.
NAArP: Not An Ardent purist since Arda was dented
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 3:50pm
Post #17 of 68
(2988 views)
Shortcut
|
I always took that to mean "well, I'm dying, so I should probably apologize..." meaning if he had lived, maybe he would have felt differently about the situation. Also, I think at that point (in the book) he must have known that Fili and Kili were dead, so that could have influenced what he said as well.
It occurred to me when I read this that in the film, Thorin dies not knowing of Kili's fate. While he has witnessed one heir die, he may still have hope that the other is still alive. So at least in the film, his apology may be a bit divorced from the "my heirs are all dead" hopelessness.
The film makes it pretty clear that if Bilbo had remained in the mountain, he would have apologized to him at about "one last time". He was already redeemed, long before he was dying.
Do you think film Thorin was more noble than book Thorin? (ROTK appendices materials included!)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Apr 30 2015, 4:12pm
Post #18 of 68
(2972 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This whole business of "Passing into Legend"?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Balin absolutely NAILED it there.
How many ?
Celebrities or even really
Close Friends in real life..
Crash & BURN...then of,
COURSE..their stories even... @ their Funerals
Carry much more weight.
Since we know how they?.. ENDed
Maybe that is the Big Question we all as people, Face...
"WHEN I go, Did I do well in the eyes of others?"
Recently, Bom eulogized a Great Man,in front
of a hundred or so people..
DID I talk about his Faults? no..everyone who spoke in his behalf,
Spoke well of this person..
Jus' THINK of the Grief the Cast & Crew are going though Now
with the Death of Andrew.
... ... .. ... ...
ANDREW.. has Passed into Legend this week...TOTALLY
UNEXPECTED...
"It's sore day under a red sunrise in New Zealand, & Australia
but a New Day will come & the Sun will shine even brighter"
because of Andrew.
Sorry SOoo sorry
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell
Apr 30 2015, 4:18pm
Post #19 of 68
(2966 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the big difference is the circumstances around Thorin for book vs. movie.
In the book he doesn't promise the people of Laketown a share of the treasure, and in fact says he will pay them for the goods etc. they provided if the elves leave (which they don't). And no one is going to attack the mountain in the book, so I'm completely on Thorin's side for the Arkenstone situation. Bilbo even tells Bard/Thranduil that Dain is coming, so I can totally see Thorin feeling betrayed. The dragon sickness doesn't even really become an issue, Thorin thinks about going back on his word to exchange the Arkenstone for Bilbo's share of the treasure, but doesn't actually do it because of the battle. So to me, circumstances turn against Thorin, who doesn't really change much throughout the book. So his apology is sort of like "I forgive you for betraying me, but no one else sees it that way, so I'm just going to apologize for trying to kill you, that was probably a bit of an over-reaction".
However, in the movie Thorin is clearly losing it, and does go back on his word, which is very out of character for him. And the elves are going to attack Erebor if he doesn't change his mind, so Bilbo does take the Arkenstone for good reason, to save the rest of the dwarves from Thorin's madness. So then Thorin does have something to apologize for, even though it was the dragon sickness driving his actions. So I think you're right that he would have apologized to Bilbo earlier if he'd had the chance, and imo his speech at the end reflected that, it was just an apology, not a "well I'm dying so yeah" apology.
So long story short, I think he's equally noble in both, but the circumstances are different. I will say that the changes to the Thorin/Bilbo/Arkenstone plot was my favorite part of the third movie, as I actually got to like Bilbo while still liking Thorin, yay!
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Apr 30 2015, 4:25pm
Post #20 of 68
(2967 views)
Shortcut
|
BWAHAHaHa ...Bom will SING all DAY!
Short
Sweet
Sincere..
.................................
Bom "LIKES" THAT!
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 5:16pm
Post #21 of 68
(2927 views)
Shortcut
|
on the book he doesn't promise the people of Laketown a share of the treasure, and in fact says he will pay them for the goods etc. they provided if the elves leave (which they don't). And no one is going to attack the mountain in the book, so I'm completely on Thorin's side for the Arkenstone situation.
Great assessment!
BUT, I will add that his promise to the people of Lake-town was a bit ambiguous in the movie. "All will share in the wealth of the mountain!". That doesn't mean he was just going to give them gold. He directly references the "golden age" of Rhovanion when Erebor and Esgaroth were both at their height. He would see those days restored. But Erebor wasn't just giving men gold freely back in the day- it brought them wealth by being an economic powerhouse ready and willing for trade. BIG difference.
The elves and men come off a lot worse in the book, and I find myself siding with Thorin as well.
I quite liked the subtle change of Bilbo's motivation with the Arkenstone too. I think both versions have their merits and are poignant.
|
|
|
DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell
Apr 30 2015, 5:51pm
Post #22 of 68
(2904 views)
Shortcut
|
But Erebor wasn't just giving men gold freely back in the day- it brought them wealth by being an economic powerhouse ready and willing for trade. BIG difference.
I guess I assumed (as did everyone in Laketown apparently) that Thorin's "you will have enough gold to rebuild Esgaroth 10x over!" as offering a share of the treasure, but you're right that he doesn't say that explicitly. So he could mean "eventually this will happen", and therefore doesn't think he's broken his word, while the Laketowners think "right away", so they think he has.
What makes it more confusing to me is Thorin's response to Bard "Why should I honor such terms?" Which seems to imply that Thorin feels he did give his word (even if it was only under duress). Thoughts?
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 7:04pm
Post #23 of 68
(2874 views)
Shortcut
|
What makes it more confusing to me is Thorin's response to Bard "Why should I honor such terms?" Which seems to imply that Thorin feels he did give his word (even if it was only under duress). Thoughts?
It was weird. Of all the arguments Thorin could use against Bard, "you're actually putting words in my mouth" or "hey, that's not what I said, and btw, there's no contract" wasn't one of them?
They do play it as though Thorin promised them direct payment of gold upon reclaiming the mountain. And he simply did not. It's one of the biggest "huh?"s of the movies for me.
But yes, Thorin was under duress (being taken prisoner... granted after trespassing in town and stealing weapons) when he (did or did not) promise them payment. Dragon-crazy or not, he does have a very good point in the "awkwardslide" scene.
Also, very surprised Bard didn't use THIS argument: "If you don't give us money to rebuild our lives, you guys are all gonna die in the future because Erebor, being underground, is terrible at food production and you sort of rely on local kingdoms of men to grow food and raise livestock." Helping the men of Lake-town/Dale was a BIG investment in the future of Erebor- I so wished Bard had made this argument.
(This post was edited by marary on Apr 30 2015, 7:06pm)
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Apr 30 2015, 8:23pm
Post #24 of 68
(2828 views)
Shortcut
|
We know Tolkien was very affected by the wars he'd been in right? Where he lost many friends that were young. I imagine he wanted that to show perhaps in the hobbit. That even the young die in wars. It's incredibly tragic, but it's set in a children's book so it's downplayed a lot. I would have loved to read a version of the Hobbit for grown ups too (by Tolkien of course), but of course that'll never happen 
In a way I like that there are three major characters that dies. On the other hand I hate it because I love these characters But you know, especially in the movie people that hadn't read the book would for the most part not expect all three of them actually dying. My friend's reaction after that movie was "...." "... They all died!!"  A girl next to me on the second viewing was pretty much gasping herself into shock to every death so I'd take it she didn't see any of that coming
So it's quite a brutal move to kill of three characters we've come to love and one of them being the main character (I assume Thorin's a main character along with Bilbo?)
|
|
|
He is a wizard, you know!
The Shire
Apr 30 2015, 8:25pm
Post #25 of 68
(2829 views)
Shortcut
|
It would have been great for him to stay alive, or at least any of his nephews. I think many other people might agree with me
Maybe I just see it as being faithful to the book above all else. The only reason, in my opinion, that people were so upset about the Durins dying was their own doing. They became too obsessed with Thorin, Fili, and Kili and refused to accept the fact that they were bound to die in the third film. And now that they've seen it, they are creating scenarios where them living is justifiable.
I'm sorry, but I need to say this again. I just don't understand this infatuation with Thorin, Fili, and Kili. And constantly seeing threads and posts (and ENDLESS pins on Pinterest) that deal with these obsessions just get on my nerves a little bit.
Sorry for ranting. I certainly don't mean any offense to anyone in particular.
"You're a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I'm very fond of you, but you're only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all."
|
|
|
|
|
Thang you Beery Buch
[
1
