|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 30 2015, 8:34pm
Post #26 of 68
(1182 views)
Shortcut
|
The elves and men come off a lot worse in the book, and I find myself siding with Thorin as well.
I don't know about that. After Smaug is slain, the first assumption of both the Men and Elves is that Thorin & Company are already dead. They don't learn otherwise until the two armies reach the Mountain and find it held against them. Bard puts forth a pretty strong claim, even considering that Thorin only actually promised repayment fpr services already rendered. The Elvenking's claim is weaker, but he does express reluctance to start hostilities over nothing more than treasure. Granted, his own people were probably capable of succoring the Lake-town survivors through the coming winter, although his resourced might have become strained.
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.
That is actually the argument made in the book by Roac.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Apr 30 2015, 8:57pm
Post #27 of 68
(1172 views)
Shortcut
|
And Roac the Raven should have facilitated negotiations.
That's a scene I would have loved to see...
Thorin does actually tell Bard they will repay them for services already rendered, but the mistake Bard made was showing up with a big army of elves. It was EXTREMELY confrontational right off the bat.
"And if you would speak with me again, first dismiss the elvish host to the woods where it belongs, and then return, laying down your arms before you approach the threshold." - The Hobbit
You know what, Thorin? I think that's a fair request. Now, maybe Bard didn't have a choice other than to ally with the elves... but it definitely didn't help his case. His claim may be just, but I don't think any dwarf (gold crazy or not) would respond very well to anyone standing with an army of their enemies.
Would Thorin have been a bit less stubborn if the Bard hadn't allied with Thranduil? (And with Roac facilitating  ) Maybe... Who knows?
Granted, his own people were probably capable of succoring the Lake-town survivors through the coming winter, although his resourced might have become strained.
This is something I wonder about. We don't know too much about the elves' resources, but we do know they've lost a lot of their lands to the Darkening of Mirkwood. It's possible they were strained by succoring the men.
The Hobbit = the best written politics in the fantasy genre ever 
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Apr 30 2015, 8:58pm
Post #28 of 68
(1170 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My dad asked me the same thing.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
On the way home from the theatrer my dad asked me " You who have read the book did so many characters die?"
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 30 2015, 9:41pm
Post #29 of 68
(1159 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd disagree - IMO it's a bit more complicated
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Maybe I just see it as being faithful to the book above all else.
Among other factors - for one thing, Tolkien himself - as far as I have read, shifted, adapted - e.g. what I am getting at is, for any book brought to film, it's as tho the book itself were carved in stone for some/many. That that is the way it was written, and that's it. It's inviolate. Tho at the same time I can appreciate a story that was published, became beloved as known and written - so those folks are going to want to preserve the core elements of the characters and narrative.
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.
A different scenario would be my own, in that I would have "vigorously discussed" Thorin's arc (as well as Fili and Kili's) in the book with Tolkien in a class, if I could have. So if you have serious questions about the book, you are going to have the same questions re the arc of the film, especially when some key changes are already made within an adaptation - and adaptation that has given IMO a somewhat different presentation of key characters. So IMO it's reasonable to ask about why things HAVE to be a certain way within an adaptation.
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.
LOL - well, for one thing, re the Appendices, these characters were characters that PJ, Philippa, and co. WANTED the audience to invest in, and happily a superb cast, and chemistry within the cast, had many of us caring even more . But of course you are definitely entitled to your own feelings on the matter.
|
|
|
DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell
Apr 30 2015, 10:16pm
Post #30 of 68
(1139 views)
Shortcut
|
And Roac the Raven should have facilitated negotiations. That's a scene I would have loved to see...
Bard and Thorin are not great with diplomacy obviously, getting shown up by a raven! Though Dain doesn't get off to a good start either...
And I definitely agree about Bard and the elf army, "oh yeah, I just brought this guy who threw you in jail for no reason, he's my buddy and has a big army. so about that money you owe us..."
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 30 2015, 10:23pm
Post #31 of 68
(1135 views)
Shortcut
|
...I'm sure that Thranduil was able to give what seemed just cause to Bard for detaining the company in Mirkwood; although Thorin would have doubtless disputed the point. And the folk of Esgaroth had just received help from the Wood-elves to the extent that a large part of the Elvenking's force was left at the lake-shore with the women, children, aged and injured.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 30 2015, 10:37pm)
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Apr 30 2015, 10:24pm
Post #32 of 68
(1135 views)
Shortcut
|
I found it hard to care about those three. I only felt emotional because Bilbo was crying,
but other than that, Boromir's death was much sadder and better executed than the deaths of Kili, Fili and Thorin combined,
mainly because his character was paid far more attention to than those 3 dwarves. There was simply too much stuff going on in The Hobbit.
By the end of Fellowship, Boromir seemed to be more developed as a character than those dwarves in three entire films, which is saddening on its own.
I might have to go back to re-check that, but I'm fairly sure my memory isn't just playing tricks on me here.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 30 2015, 10:38pm
Post #34 of 68
(1122 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for the link!
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 1 2015, 12:03am
Post #36 of 68
(1098 views)
Shortcut
|
THORIN & company were NOT on Thanndy's DANCE CARD
DURIN the FEAST oH..OF?
*sparkle*..*sparkle* STARLIGHT *sparkle*...&sprakle*..etc...etc..
NOT enough BLING..?
"GET OFF your High MOOSE..?
GET down .....to Dwarsish LEVEL...
WE are jus' a BARREL of.. Monkeys
on this BUS...
EXCUSE me? if Bomby
goes off
the DEEP END...
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
May 1 2015, 12:13am
Post #37 of 68
(1090 views)
Shortcut
|
Hysterical. I like the 'Evil Twin' option. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
DisDwarfWoman
Rivendell
May 1 2015, 12:42am
Post #38 of 68
(1083 views)
Shortcut
|
was the "Please: do not try to get even"
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 1 2015, 3:09am
Post #39 of 68
(1066 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
I don't think he spent nearly enough time developing Dain, the guy shows up in the next to the last chapter and just gets everything - so annoying! And Kili & Fili's deaths were mentioned like an afterthought - "oh, yeah, they died too." Really hate that ending.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 1 2015, 3:20am
Post #40 of 68
(1064 views)
Shortcut
|
Well I for one really didn't like the book because he killed off both nephews - I honestly think that one of them SHOULD have survived, I think the story would have been better. That's my opinion. Now, I freely admit to having a ridiculous crush on Thorin/Richard Armitage, you can write that off to his good looks, superb talent, or some combo if you want. In his case there's an Army of fans that was around long before he brought Thorin to life. PJ and PB were wise to hire him - OTOH, look what they have wrought! My life will NEVER be the same 
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
MEM
The Shire
May 1 2015, 5:44am
Post #41 of 68
(1044 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: arguments that went unargued
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
I understood it that Bard was blaming Thorin for the destruction of the town because he upset the dragon, and felt he was owed recompense for that. I'm surprised Bard didn't argue that since he actually killed Smaug, Thorin should pay him some reward.
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.
If the siege had lasted longer, I can see Bilbo, instead of sneaking out to trade the Arkenstone, sneaking into Dale every night to eat a really big dinner (or two or three). I'm kinda disappointed they didn't really mention food much in the movies (well, except for the opening dinner party scenes). I don't think they even show them eating after Beorn's house. I wonder if Bilbo was considering gnawing on that acorn.
I'm a Middle-Earth Munchkin.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 1 2015, 7:21am
Post #42 of 68
(1029 views)
Shortcut
|
|
HOW could Bilbo TURN down a Feast?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well, Bomby doesn't think Bilbo
COULD get Hungry..
DEATH isn't very Appetizing...
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 1 2015, 2:12pm
Post #43 of 68
(995 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One of those literature tropes
[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?
It's so common that someone who does something terrible gets a brief chance to redeem themselves before dying. I think that's been around for literal centuries - Tolkien didn't invent it, but I find it annoying, and not just in this case either. It's kind of saying, "well, it's nice that you've changed and done something noble, but you've still got to die anyway" - WHY? What's the point of redemption if you're still going to die because of your sins? It would be one thing if Thorin, like Denethor, DIDN'T change, and the greed/stubbornness led to his death. And it's also not like Theoden, who didn't do anything wrong but died anyway.
Just for comparison, there's a character on "Agents of Shield" who turned out to be a double agent all along. He betrayed his team, killed quite a few fellow agents and even tried to kill two of the leads (nearly succeeded). But they didn't kill him off, he escaped and has even helped the team on more than a few occasions. Last episode was kind of nice, no they aren't going to forgive him but they did let him leave. He realized at the end of that episode that, no matter what he did they never would welcome him back, and he's got to live with it. I'm not that surprised, comic books are pretty good at "rehabbing" bad guys. So to answer your question, no, it's not "necessary" for someone like Thorin to die, and could be more interesting if they don't. Just IMO.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
May 1 2015, 2:24pm
Post #44 of 68
(991 views)
Shortcut
|
That's a good point about the trope.
But bad guys getting to live and redeem themselves is a total comic book trope AND Joss Whedon trope. Seriously, how many of his characters start out evil, or go evil, and then get to pick up the pieces after being redeemed---so, so, so many from his various shows and films, Willow from Buffy being perhaps the best example of this. I'm not at all surprised this is happening again on Agents of Shield (not sure of the level of Whedon's involvement on the show).
Maybe the "redemption then death" trope got a bit worn out, which is why we're seeing something different in more contemporary stories, and why Thorin's arc can feel a bit frustrating.
I think tropes evolve with the times, and there's probably a bit of wisdom in there that I haven't eked out yet.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 1 2015, 2:40pm
Post #45 of 68
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
Just how invested could Prof. Tolkien have been in Dain's narrative at that time? Dain barely existed as a character and he would not be given any background until years later. Of course we could argue that Fili and Kili were equally undeveloped, especially since we are not told until nearly the end of the story that they are even Thorin's nephews. This is at least one thing that is better established by Peter Jackson in the films--even as he robs Dain of much of his literary glory.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
He is a wizard, you know!
The Shire
May 1 2015, 5:39pm
Post #46 of 68
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think he spent nearly enough time developing Dain, the guy shows up in the next to the last chapter and just gets everything - so annoying! And Kili & Fili's deaths were mentioned like an afterthought - "oh, yeah, they died too." Really hate that ending.
....when did you read the book? Were you that upset that Fili and Kili died before you saw how they were portrayed in the movies? Just curious.
"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."
|
|
|
geordie
Tol Eressea
May 1 2015, 10:52pm
Post #47 of 68
(904 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sailing into the West doesn't confer immortality
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- Gandalf was an immortal; Galadriel and Elrond, being Elven, had a lifetime which Tolkien described as 'extrememly longeval; as long as the inhabitability of the Earth.' Celeborn didn't go on that trip; he stayed in M-e for a time; no-one knows how long.
Bilbo and Frodo did not have immortality conferred on them. They shared with their larger relatives the Gift of the One to Men, that is, death. Tolkien said in a letter that they went to the Undying Lands to find healing, _before they died_.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 1 2015, 11:35pm
Post #48 of 68
(898 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Dragon sickness or not, that's a strong point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In Reply To
Thorin does actually tell Bard they will repay them for services already rendered, but the mistake Bard made was showing up with a big army of elves. It was EXTREMELY confrontational right off the bat.
Quote
"And if you would speak with me again, first dismiss the elvish host to the woods where it belongs, and then return, laying down your arms before you approach the threshold." - The Hobbit
Discussions between Thorin, Bard and Thranduil were in my opinion one of the most unexpected and thrilling features of The Hobbit as a 'children' book.
So mature they were ! And so close to factual diplomacies of the era (pre-WWII, never forget it)
I think in the book they felt a little bit more natural than in the movie, where they jumped on a mystical good vs evil wagon which feels much more american-type than british-style
On the other hand, the faithfulness of the movie to the book reaches levels of decency far above what we're used to.
The dragon slide display has an effect on young audiences, it warns them to notice what was wrong in Thorin's attitude.
Tolkien didn't warn, but he chose to explain Bilbo's point of view about all that. And it felt natural too.
What P Jackson couldn't do on a movie is to overuse Bilbo at this point : Bilbo just couldn't become the Jiminy Cricket of the movie, sending comments from the smallgood side at every corner of the frame. It works fine when written, on a screen it would have been ridiculous.
Instead they chose to involve this 'dragon sickness' stuff, and also Balin's perceptions. It helps to dilute Bilbo's ownership on his point of view and finds another way to explain his choice with the Arkenstone than introspection over-abundance.
Things put together, the feeling all along is somewhat different, but in the end the result is about the same. No treason of the book there.
That said, did Thorin 'have to' die after that, or did he not ? This question doesn't mean exactly the same in the book and in the movie.
In the book, Thorin's death could as well have never happened, as Kili's or Fili's. That's how I felt it.
Kili and Fili felt mostly because they were the youngest dwarves trying to help Thorin which had been personally assaulted by the Orcs, and because Tolkien knew that the youngest have more chances to die in a ferocious battle.
Each battle takes its toll, and for this battle, the toll was 3 dwarves, period. Tolkien just had to chose which dwarves had to die.
Thorin's death has been handled somewhat differently, because Tolkien needed to have the leader dwarf speaking with Bilbo and telling lessons of life.
In the movie, Thorin's death closes an arc that built it : Azog was there as a doom from the very beginning (Dragon sickness didn't kill Thorin)
Fili dies out of almost no arc at all, just because finding himself suddenly at the wrong place at a wrong moment - quite like in the book
and Kili's death has been enhanced by his relationship with his brother Fili and with Tauriel, both enhancements I think were needed in a movie, otherwise his death could have felt a meaningless doubloon after Fili's one.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on May 1 2015, 11:39pm)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 2 2015, 1:32am
Post #49 of 68
(887 views)
Shortcut
|
The first time? Wow, so long ago, can't really remember. I've said before that I KNOW I read the LoTR books in Jr. High, but by the time I saw the movie I couldn't remember half the characters. More recently I read the book after watching AUJ. Truthfully I didn't like the way it was written. Like I said, it seemed like an afterthought. It also didn't really add to the story. You can argue that Thorin's death was necessary to the story, but not their's. Btw, I admit to having a serious crush on Thorin, BUT his nephews are a little too young for me. I don't believe it's the actors; I think I just really didn't like the ending. It would have been a better story for me if one of the nephews had survived, but that's just a matter of opinion, really.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 2 2015, 3:29am
Post #50 of 68
(876 views)
Shortcut
|
|
JRRT could have had several reasons....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. Emotional impact...the death of the leader/King and the young princelings brings a real cost for the reader.
2. Entire line wiped out - possibly, to prevent Dragon Sickness from befalling Fili or Kili - as it seems to have been a family weakness.
3. Dain was the fresh start the dwarves needed.
4. Tragedy is at the heart of heroic literature.
"Aeschylus tended to resolve tragic tensions into higher truth, to look beyond, or above, tragedy;...." Thorin's last words convey this.
Encyclopedia Britannica - Tragedy
Common characteristics of a tragic hero
"According to Aristotle:
# Usually of noble birth
# Hamartia - a.k.a. the tragic flaw that eventually leads to his downfall.
# Peripeteia - a reversal of fortune brought about by the hero's tragic flaw
# His actions result in an increase of self- awareness and self-knowledge
# The audience must feel pity and fear for this character."
JRRT must have known his Aristotle.....
http://english.learnhub.com/...c-hero-in-literature
|
|
|
|
|
