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

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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
What if The Master of Laketown had taken Alfrid's role in BOFA?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Goldeneye
Lorien


May 29 2015, 7:54pm

Post #1 of 63 (1873 views)
Shortcut
What if The Master of Laketown had taken Alfrid's role in BOFA? Can't Post

This was mentioned in a recent thread regarding Alfrid and his role in The Hobbit films. Most people seem to agree that Alfrid was not the most welcome addition to the films, especially BOFA. So what if Alfrid still existed in DOS, but just happened to be killed by Smaug INSTEAD of the Master? In the book, he survives Smaug's attack anyways so it would have been closer to the source material.

Imagine how much more interesting it would have been to see the Master survive Smaug's attack, and slowly watch his rule slip away as the people begin looking to Bard for leadership? Bard is reluctant to be a leader but the Master becomes even more envious and greedy, to the point where he betrays the safety of his people for gold and power. And in the end, he dies from his cowardice...running away from the battle and being killed by an orc or troll. A similar arc to Alfrid except...better. Plus PJ went through the trouble of adding all those scenes with Alfrid at the expense of other characters...and he STILL didn't conclude his character arc!

Keeping the Master alive would have made for a very interesting dynamic with Bard. And if they really wanted some comedic elements, they could still have done so. I imagine the Master trying to chime in during the conversations between Thranduil and Gandalf, and coming off like a total halfwit. Eventually like the townspeople, Thranduil and Gandalf simply ignore him and decide to council with Bard instead. SO much more interesting than what we got with Alfrid!



Glorfindela
Valinor


May 29 2015, 8:05pm

Post #2 of 63 (1736 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't find either of them very interesting, to be honest. Both are of the same 'grotesque/revolting' ilk. One's as bad as the other, and there were far more potentially interesting things I wanted to see than either of them.Mad


Gandalf the Green
Rivendell

May 29 2015, 8:39pm

Post #3 of 63 (1722 views)
Shortcut
Alfrid is probably worse than Jar Jar Binks [In reply to] Can't Post

Probably would've been better, but not much better. Smaug should've crushed them both. But Alfrid is easily the worst character of PJ's Middle-Earth films. Don't know what he was thinking when he added the character... in the very beginning, he was OK and served a purpose to the master I guess, but should've been disposed of as soon as the master died. He was one of the factors that defiled BOTFA.


DanielLB
Immortal


May 29 2015, 9:55pm

Post #4 of 63 (1695 views)
Shortcut
Well, it can't be much worse than the version we are given. [In reply to] Can't Post

I've seen more convincing character formation, development, and characterisation in episodes of the Teletubbies. I'm sure this is what happened in the room when they were editing BO5A:

'This scene is good, but it's missing something. Alfrid! Come here!'

I don't see why we need to concentrate on Alfrid or The Master of Lake-town at all. There are more important scenes and themes that should have been developed ...


Milieuterrien
Rohan

May 29 2015, 10:11pm

Post #5 of 63 (1691 views)
Shortcut
Two things. And some more. [In reply to] Can't Post

- First, Laketown was so picturesque a set that it pulled the team into inserting some 'politics' there (where Tolkien restrained himself doing so)
- Second, the Master of Laketown hasn't been scrutinized nor characterized by Tolkien after Smaug attack. Basically he's a lambda leader, not especially bad, but we're left to wonder at the end of the story why he disappears.

All this has to be confronted to the fact that PJ didn't get the script as a scratch from the beginning, but had to deal with G Del Toro's insights.
I think that's why we end with bits looking as loose ends. How could it be otherwise with a team of directors jumping on a running train ?

In my view the split from 2 to 3 films was an attempt, not to earn more money, but to get more time. More time, because post-production increased dramatically with the 3D, with the high-rate, with the very high definition. A single image requires maybe 5 times more attention than in LOTR era.

Obviously the storytelling suffered and couldn't be fixed easily because the book material itself was so tiny thus so open.

About the Master of Laketown and Alfrid how did it came out ?

- The Master went out as a corrupt leader, contrasting with the heroic figure of Bard. Does it hurt ? Somewhat yes, because that kind of characterisation is filled with clichés, why not admit it ? But did Tolkien help ? Speak about unconsistency, man : that book was not written by William Shakespeare ! No experience of the scene, no sense of the rhetoric, no feel of power rule at work ! Bard ? In the book he comes from nowhere, really. Don't forget that Bilbo, in Tolkien's first draws, was the one who was to find the weakness of the dragon and kill him. As it obviously couldn't work given the size of the Hobbit, we got that ridiculous mediation of the thrush (what would have audiences yell if such stuff had came out of P Jackson's mind !), and Bard coming-at-last-minute was the end of the Master, let beyond while he would surely have guided himself his people to Dale and Erebor to get the riches.

But Bard was at Erebor and not the Master. So who to blame ? P Jackson ? I don't think so. In my view he managed quite well to handle, one side, faithfulness to the Book, and other side, a bit of exploration of what might have happen if the Master of Laketown came to Erebor.

Alfrid ? In the end I find him an interesting because totally atypic character, stuck in a series of power schemes that get totally inoperant given the situation. Bard himself, honest captain, is distraught by the attitude of the Dwarves and the impossibility to avoid the war. Then the battle comes as a sudden chaos and we have characters reacting chaotic : Alfrid is the one, thinking about himself in the most grotesque way. Why not ? It suits what he was before, so we can have Alfrid trying to flee with some gold after being rejected by the population, and ending the way The Master of Laketown ended in the book.

What I liked in the book was its feel of chaotic unpredicability, because it resembles life so open. And I do think the movie succeeds in catching more than its share of this chaos. Loose ends ? Arcs unachieved ? Yes, yes and yes. But that's how things happen in real life, and Peter Jackson is just a man opened to that : he doesn't drive like a careful strategist would.

And that's why he comes out with a movie, as beautiful, given the talents around, as it might be flawed.

Before I heard about the movies, I remember having read that The Hobbit didn't walk into schemes of recommended storytelling. So does the movie ? Let it be.


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


May 30 2015, 1:10am

Post #6 of 63 (1627 views)
Shortcut
Both characters... [In reply to] Can't Post

...were ridiculous!

Was Peter Jackson trying to create characters to rival Jar Jar Binks as the worst character put on film??


Loresilme
Valinor


May 30 2015, 1:29am

Post #7 of 63 (1628 views)
Shortcut
In order to provide more insight into Bard's character [In reply to] Can't Post

Alfrid was a better counterpoint to Bard, precisely because they both were not in positions of power and the contrast between them was so marked. I think it worked better to eliminate the Master from the story because the power vacuum allowed Bard to be shown in a light where it was clear he did not seek to gain power. There were no power struggles or intrigue as there would have been had the Master remained in the mix. Even with Alfrid seeking to take advantage of popular opinion and elevate Bard into leadership, Bard makes it clear that he has integrity, that he is still the same man he always was even though everything around him has changed.


squiggle
Rivendell

May 30 2015, 3:15am

Post #8 of 63 (1607 views)
Shortcut
I enjoy Alfrid [In reply to] Can't Post

I like his general sub-plot component that runs through the films, & think he was a fun mix of gleeful, resentful, devious and inept, hehe.

I would laugh watching him being put through the wringer more in BoTF armies, and be in a place of starting to learn a lesson at films end, rather than just 'ofted'

like being catapulted into a giant trolls mouth, who then even for a troll collapses feeling sick and spits him, covering him in bile, leading him to being mistaken for an orc and marched into the front line of the battle - last place he wants to be & the indignity of being mistaken for an Orc. & i wouldn't stop there....Tongue

HaHa.......(at least to me Evil )


Goldeneye
Lorien


May 30 2015, 3:34am

Post #9 of 63 (1594 views)
Shortcut
huh? [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that you, Phillipa?


Bishop
Gondor


May 30 2015, 4:13am

Post #10 of 63 (1581 views)
Shortcut
I can't tell if you love Alfrid or hate him [In reply to] Can't Post

Wink


Turnip Head
Bree


May 30 2015, 4:58am

Post #11 of 63 (1581 views)
Shortcut
I seem to be in the minority [In reply to] Can't Post

I did not mind Alfrid. I did not love him, but neither did I hate him. He is certainly not as bad as Jar Jar.


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 30 2015, 5:06am

Post #12 of 63 (1578 views)
Shortcut
WE have been OVER this Before..In Fact another [In reply to] Can't Post

Thread covering the SAME SUBJECT is on
only page two.

Maybe the OP could read Other Threads before
STARTING the SAME THING all over again.

In FACT
this has been discussed since DECEMBER many times

.CrazyCrazyCrazyCrazy

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


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 30 2015, 5:09am

Post #13 of 63 (1573 views)
Shortcut
MOST EXCELLENT post [In reply to] Can't Post

Intelligent, Well composed, Thoughtful, ENLIGHTENED!Heart

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


dormouse
Half-elven


May 30 2015, 7:38am

Post #14 of 63 (1544 views)
Shortcut
He couldn't have taken Alfrid's role [In reply to] Can't Post

If the Master had emerged from the Lake he would still have been the Master. There would have been no power vacuum - no reason for people to look to Bard, who showed no sign of wanting to lead them. Bard would probably have set off alone with his children or possibly with a few like-minded people. And in the circumstances in which they find themselves on the Lake shore, who would have had anything for the Master to envy? Anything to stir his greed? Would he have had the nous or the will to organise a return to Dale? I don't think he would. Nor do I think there was really time to develop a slow power struggle.

Of course they could have tried to tell the story this way if they wanted. It's not so far from what happens in the book. I don't think it would have worked so well in the film because in the film we know more about Bard. It would hardly be credible for him to stick around with the Master in charge after all that had happened. They had gone as far as they could with the character of the Master and it was far more effective, I think, to set up the dynamic they did between Alfrid, who wants power for his own advantage, and Bard, who doesn't want it at all but will assume it if his has to for the sake of his family and the other survivors. I'd say that Alfrid's later role is more questionable but at the Lake shore they pitched it about right.

As for this:

Quote
I imagine the Master trying to chime in during the conversations between Thranduil and Gandalf, and coming off like a total halfwit. Eventually like the townspeople, Thranduil and Gandalf simply ignore him and decide to council with Bard instead. SO much more interesting than what we got with Alfrid!


I cringe. The scenes between Gandalf, Thranduil and Bard, both in the King's tent and among the ruins of Dale are excellent both in terms of the script and in their design. Quietly serious, anticipating the crisis to come, and interesting in the dynamic between three very different leaders. Would you really want to break that up with a bit of greasy-fingered flatulence? Much as I like Stephen Fry, I think this would have been infinitely worse than anything they did with Alfrid!


Milieuterrien
Rohan

May 30 2015, 8:24am

Post #15 of 63 (1526 views)
Shortcut
Getting the Master out of the way meant having Bard in charge [In reply to] Can't Post

... And this was as close at it could to Tolkien storyline, who clearly put Bard on the front during the negociations with the Dwarves, and simply forgot about the Master, who somewhat is supposed to handle people who stay on the Lakeshore... and then, flee the city 'by boat' as if there was still a city to flee by boat after Smaug's visit.

Re-thinking about this, I'm not far to think that P Jackson and Co understood that Tolkien had thought about the Master fleeing out of Laketown while it burnt, but had a problem with him because Bard gets in the story as a total outsider, and so couldn't lead immediately the survivors. It's not difficult to think that, having to cast the Master, they had to think to what he had to do all along, and discovered that he had to flee sooner, abandoning city 'lost', as he stated, which meant lost for him.

The question is : did they have to re-shape the Master as a corrupt(*) leader before or after they decided to have him disappear during Smaug's attack, or did they cast Stephen Fry first, and then see with him what happen ? I guess they took the decision of his disappearance very soon, maybe as soon as when G Del Toro was still handling the storyline (it might surely have been discussed that early)

The 'rise' of Alfrid came as a consequence of the disappearance of the Master. Alfrid is the first representative of the authorities Bard meets in DOS, and from the very beginning we learn that they're at odds instinctively. What is interesting is how Bard handle 'the guy' : Bard knows that Alfrid is highly umpopular and that each time Allfrid acts ignoring the people's need, Alfrid puts himself in danger, because people can always take revenge on him.

One we forget is Braga, the captain of the guards, and the way Bard handles him... by corruption because Braga's wife is coquette (everybody knows it) and Braga is not well-paid enough to resist any offer to complete her dressing-room. Of course Braga hates this dependence, but this prevents him to destroy Bard, unless he receives specific orders to put him in jail. Incidently, that shows how many multi-facets of his own personality Bard has to show in a short lapse of time. Because it's exactly the same Bard which we'll see juggling with the Arkenstone in front of Thorin before puting it in his pocket : a leader in the making (and Alfrid, by contrast, the so bad Lieutenant.)

(*) Thinking about it, it's not so that the Master of Laketown is corrupted in a way he would be an evil-in-the-core leader, but he's obviously over-estimating his own skills as a man and a ruler. What he doesn't want is anybody overshadowing him, a trait which seems very common in power behaviours.


(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on May 30 2015, 8:34am)


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 30 2015, 2:24pm

Post #16 of 63 (1460 views)
Shortcut
These last posts by dmouse & Milie couldn't [In reply to] Can't Post

have said it Better.

"Out with the Old,
In with the New"

Poeple often forget that Pj knows many ways to advance any
Plot or Sub-Plot...& this was likely the most efficient way to do it.

Mister Fry & PJ are quite good Friends,
{Haven't they been writing Dam Busters together?}

& Bom thinks he could ONLY be in the film for
about a week, before flying Back to England
to continue his other major commitments.

Stephen is like an "Entire Industry in England"
with many, many people relying on him.

Getting him in this? was a real Treat for everyone.
FEW could have pulled off a Role like this.
Crazy

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


Hobbity Hobbit
Lorien


May 30 2015, 2:30pm

Post #17 of 63 (1450 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

While Laketown Politics aren't my most favorite scenes they were definitely needed. I mean why would the people in Laketown follow a random guy called Bard? Even if he was the descendant of Girion, he was only the person who rallied the town militia in the book. While he showed leadership in battle, he wasn't proven to be able to lead a town at all. What you are seeing is why Bard became the leader. If the Master was still there Bard's rule would be illegitimate, even though the people didn't like him that much, he was familiar and they knew he could rule so they would most likely flock back to him.

I think what is so funny, is that Peter Jackson and Co did so well with this! You were suppose to hate Alfrid, he was too show the better parts of Bard and why Bard was able to take the rule. In the movies Bard is a grim man, Alfrid shows the better parts of him, to show he isn't just a weird grim man.

"As the snowflakes cover my fallen brothers,
I will say this last goodbye."


Milieuterrien
Rohan

May 30 2015, 3:03pm

Post #18 of 63 (1434 views)
Shortcut
Yes, PJ kept Bard's 'coming from nowhere' [In reply to] Can't Post

.. but only from the point of view of the Master of Laketown !

Of course Bard must have a personal story. A family ? Why not.
And his best way to come from nowhere is to be an independant worker. Somebody who carries barrels for instance.
In the book there are some barrel carriers : they just mixed them with Bard, so that it's encounter with the dwarves is somewhat a random

Also, the best way for his character to be equipped with a black arrow is to have inherited it. Thus he may have prepared himself to confront the dragon.

Clever solving of a book plot hole there.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 30 2015, 3:19pm

Post #19 of 63 (1434 views)
Shortcut
Bomby, you know the rules. [In reply to] Can't Post

There is nothing preventing someone from starting a topic if there isn't a similar topic on the page. Since the previous post had moved to the second page, it is perfectly all right to post about it again.

If you think the rules have been violated, contact an admin. You are under no obligation to respond to a topic if you think it has been fully discussed. Just ignore it.


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 30 2015, 3:39pm

Post #20 of 63 (1417 views)
Shortcut
Sorry. [In reply to] Can't Post

 

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


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


May 30 2015, 3:47pm

Post #21 of 63 (1411 views)
Shortcut
Well said Daniel [In reply to] Can't Post

If any one is puzzled over how a two film script couldn't be delivered within three films it is well worth studying the Master/Bard sub plot in its own right to see what can be done well and effectively and what gets out of hand.

The Master is clever political and utterly disinterested in the welfare of his people but is a brilliant politician. He takes his chances and thinks on his feet. Brilliant when confronted by a confident group of Dwarves in the key scene. His set up with Alfrid is swift to the point and quickly established. If he had survived the dragon he would have demonstrated his political expediency kept a low profile amongst al the chaos where everyone is thinking instinctively as opposed to politically, it is not about power vacuums its about instinctive reaction to natural leadership, let Bard take the glory and all the hard work and then act swiftly at the appropriate moment and then fall. Bard could have dealt with a reaction to him by the angry Lake Towners but The Master would have shown so much more tact than Alfrid did anyway and kept out of the way with his reduced sphere of influence. His end whether book, as filmed or surviving for a while would have hit the same philosophical mark and was perfect EE material.

The problems are all with Bard/Alfrid. The horrible caricatured over acting from Alfrids survival onwards is a stain on what otherwise are wonderfully location shootlng moments after the catastrophic attack of the dragon. How does this come about because Bard was filmed backwards and Alfrid is parachuted into his arc to give it "depth".

There are uncomfortable insertions in Lake Town for Bard but having filmed the dragon the stand-off with Thorin "the Heir of Girion", his work with his children and the big scene with Thorin some one decided the heir of girion, the concerned father, the slayer of the dragon, the saviour of his people, the one that interacts on own his terms with a prince, two kings and a wizard needed to be more nuanced and make more of journey by travelling with his people in to the centre of a conflict zone when he had been warned by Legolas that war is coming to Erebor (so we get the reluctant, nobel, forgiving, worthy lacking self interest against the greed and expediency of Alfrid as well as the Dale battle sequences which is essentially a lot of confusing running, chasing and charges with no end result they simply mirror what is happening elsewhere failure/success/grieving).

Ah but Bard needs someone to talk to say the Alfriddo's. Percy/Hilda a remodelled and surviving honourable Braga could have all done that in a highly economical way without them also getting out of hand.

Illogical, unnecessary over complication masquerading as depth. I watched the film last night and the scene where he hands his children over to Alfrid is probably less realistic as a proposition than Orlandos stunts.

So i am good with the Master surviving staying by the Lake and acting in an opportunistic way and failing. I am great with Alfrids great work in Lake Town and dieing in the attack. Alfrid the grate becomes Alfrid the Great!

My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on May 30 2015, 3:52pm)


Milieuterrien
Rohan

May 30 2015, 4:31pm

Post #22 of 63 (1392 views)
Shortcut
All that would have been great [In reply to] Can't Post

If the movie had been designed for adult audiences.

But the fact is the Hobbit is a fairy tale written for children, and most of expectations come and will come that way for generations to come. The same with the barrel ride.
If politics are more important than fairy-telling, the best IMO is to check what human history has to display and stuck with it.
Any kind of speculations, wheter sublime of vain, about the movie being better if made otherwise, have to face that particular stake.

LOTR were made for grown-up children, but the Hobbit couldn't forget children. That's why slapstick comedy has a place there. If not, what would have been left for children ?

The Hobbit movie grades in tone closer than LOTR than the original book did. For the visuals it did at an epic scale. There were scenes shot in almost every set imaginable, in Laketown as well as in Erebor as in Dale and Ravenhill, not forgetting all the precedent locations.
That's what Jackson's Middle-Earth is about. Would over-sophisticated political arcs have added to that ? Alfrid was there for children to find something to laugh at, forgetting a little bit of the carnage around. Of course some authenticity may be lost in the process, but why should we obligatory forget that this is a movie, and not the real world ?

Clearly PJ wanted the audiences not to forget that they are watching a movie, and IMO that part belongs to the authenticity of the movie... as a fairy-tale movie.


DanielLB
Immortal


May 30 2015, 5:43pm

Post #23 of 63 (1377 views)
Shortcut
Then it's a shame... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

Clearly PJ wanted the audiences not to forget that they are watching a movie, and IMO that part belongs to the authenticity of the movie... as a fairy-tale movie.


That the team removed nearly all of Tolkien's own whimsy, charm and fairy-tale elements to The Hobbit, an replaced it with their (very inferior) own!!


Milieuterrien
Rohan

May 30 2015, 6:35pm

Post #24 of 63 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Nothing new here [In reply to] Can't Post

Another time here, we see a comment calling to share a global shame and/or deception about those movies.

Hasn't life better to propose to entertain people than posting to call for shame and deception about a fairy-tale movie ?
Would'nt consistency with such kind of comments drive their authors out of forums where people come to talk about about those movies because they globally enjoy their qualities and prefer to talk about what they like ?

Seing there posts so constantly dismissive drives me to think that some people find some pleasure or expect some retribution by calling for shame or deception about those movies.

Because I'm not fond of masochism, when I see one of those posts responding to one of my posts, I may answer politely not to cut abruptly the conversation, but if it comes again and again I may also ignore.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 30 2015, 7:21pm

Post #25 of 63 (1327 views)
Shortcut
You know... [In reply to] Can't Post

If you are not up for critical discussion and debate then maybe this isn't the place for you. The forum members have many diverse opinions and are seldom shy about shariing them. The book may have been written along fair-tale lines, but the films have taken a different diirection and have incuded more grown-up elements.

By the way, I just want to point out that fairy tales started out as folk tales that were often NOT intended primarily or exclusively for children.

"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 May 30 2015, 7:30pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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

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

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

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