|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legolas_Shoehorn
Bree
Jul 21 2015, 9:10pm
Post #1 of 19
(1445 views)
Shortcut
|
|
DOS: Thrain running around in Dol Goldur
|
Can't Post
|
|
Why did Sauron let Thrain running around in Dol Goldur ... completely free? Did he hope that this old & mad dwarf could assassinate an Istari?
There was a dark spell on Thrains mind but when was this spell spoken? Before or after the orcs saw Gandalf coming?
My English is not that good, my Elvish is better ;-)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Jul 21 2015, 9:41pm
Post #2 of 19
(1370 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it was supposed to make sense
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's just a classic horror/suspense film trick.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jul 21 2015, 10:22pm
Post #4 of 19
(1340 views)
Shortcut
|
Sauron had Thrain under a spell AND convinced that those vines would stop him from leaving. It was just an illusion, but I think it explains it well.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 21 2015, 10:23pm
Post #5 of 19
(1339 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Thrain wasn't in a cell or in chains....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..because he didn't need to be. His prison was in his mind. He didn't try to escape because he believed the vines would stop him - and no one said when the spell was put on him but I imagine it was whenever he was taken to Dol Guldur.
I don't think Gandalf's arrival had anything to do with it - they weren't expecting him.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 21 2015, 11:12pm
Post #6 of 19
(1308 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That was my understanding, also.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He wasn't loose at all, but a prisoner of his own mind.
|
|
|
OldestDaughter
Rohan
Jul 21 2015, 11:26pm
Post #7 of 19
(1299 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Even Azog seemed to ignore him.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At least when he threw Gandalf down and Thrain's just standing there as Azog laughs. It looks like Azog wouldn't pay Thrain any heed at all, as if he was used to him being there all the time.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jul 21 2015, 11:39pm
Post #8 of 19
(1295 views)
Shortcut
|
The entire Dol Guldur sequence didn't make much sense to me, though most of it looked OK visually. As I said in another post, it just seemed a bit alien to Tolkien's world – somehow off.
It's all very well people speculating as to why certain things happened the way they did, and what was actually going on, but such queries should have been forestalled by the answers being given in the actual films. It's like the business with Thrandruil's gems, which has given rise to much speculation, but was never explained in the films. There are quite a few things like that in the films – generally relevant to the non-Tolkien aspects.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 22 2015, 7:52am
Post #9 of 19
(1171 views)
Shortcut
|
On the necklace I would agree with you. If they thought it was important to the plot that Thranduil wanted the necklace because of its association with his wife then we should have been told that in the film. And I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with other examples of things that were given a backstory Tolkien didn't write that wasn't included in the script.
On Thrain, though, I think the explanation IS given in the film. He couldn't leave because he didn't believe he could leave. His prison was in his own head. I take that from the film itself.
But I do wonder how far the complaint that this or that wasn't explained properly arises from those of us who know the book reacting to things we weren't expecting because they're not in the book. The book story we know, so it required no effort of understanding. If we could find someone who went to the films completely fresh, knowing nothing at all about the story, would they pick up on the same things as lacking in explanation? Or would they have had to make a consistent effort to understand the story as it unfolded - as everyone does when a story, book or film, is new to them? And, not knowing what was in the book and what wasn't, would they have formed their own interpretation of the whole thing?
I often wonder that about screen adaptations of things I know: what would someone who has never read the book make of it?
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jul 22 2015, 9:43am
Post #10 of 19
(1129 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it's to do with that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I work in book publishing, and I've always been taught that readers should not be left questioning facts that are in a book. I think the same applies to films (for me, anyway). Unless something is left unexplained on purpose (to create a sense of mystery, for example), I believe things should always be explained. It's extremely frustrating to be left hanging and unsatisfied, with queries about what appear to be quite major aspects of a film, but do not have an adequate explanation. Given that in this case three films were made after what was a relatively simple book, there's really no excuse for not providing such explanations and leaving plot holes. It's sloppy and irritating.
I do wonder how far the complaint that this or that wasn't explained properly arises from those of us who know the book reacting to things we weren't expecting because they're not in the book.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Jul 22 2015, 9:44am)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jul 22 2015, 12:29pm
Post #11 of 19
(1083 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It depends on the question, I think.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If a story raises a question, then it usually ought to be answered. But a story cannot answer any question the audience might ask of it.
So if DOS had ended with Gandalf in a cage and the next we saw of him, he was free and riding into Dale, then the story has raised a question (of how he escaped) and we should expect an explanation.
By contrast, though we might ask it of the story, the question of how and where Radagast briefed the rest of the WC and how they deliberated what to do is not raised by the story itself (or how Gandalf met Eomer, or where he gets his hats etc.)
I think the Thrain question is specifically answered by the films. The gems one is more interesting to me, as it seems to be a question which is only raised by supporting materials, which did not actually make the cut in the films. I can't imagine anyone simply watching the films feeling there was any unanswered question in relation to them.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Jul 22 2015, 1:18pm
Post #12 of 19
(1045 views)
Shortcut
|
As Jean-Paul Sartre would say, they are slices of nothingness out of which any kind of freedom can burst. 
There is something of that ilk inside the crazy runnings of Thrain through the corridors of Dol Guldur.
Sometimes he runs out of absolutely nowhere.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Jul 22 2015, 1:22pm)
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jul 22 2015, 2:22pm
Post #13 of 19
(1015 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is what's wrong with publishing.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
People are taught the rules. Rules that the greatest books often ignore. Tolkien is famous for ignoring the rules of literature. Dan Brown is famous for conforming to them. I think that says it all. Fortunately Allen and Unwin didn't conform to the rules, or we'd never have heard of Tolkien.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jul 22 2015, 5:11pm
Post #14 of 19
(962 views)
Shortcut
|
What are the 'rules of literature'? Are you talking about grammar? If so, then many 'rules' are broken in books in this respect – and always have been. I believe 'standard rules' of grammar didn't even come into effect (in the UK) until the 19th century.
That's quite different from plot holes such as the clangers in The Hobbit films – they are nothing to do with any 'rules', but with sloppiness.
People are taught the rules. Rules that the greatest books often ignore. Tolkien is famous for ignoring the rules of literature. Dan Brown is famous for conforming to them. I think that says it all. Fortunately Allen and Unwin didn't conform to the rules, or we'd never have heard of Tolkien.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Jul 22 2015, 5:12pm)
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Jul 23 2015, 2:43pm
Post #15 of 19
(792 views)
Shortcut
|
This really was never fully explained, even in the Extended Edition. The entire Thrain subplot was poorly handled.
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jul 24 2015, 10:11pm
Post #16 of 19
(674 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"readers should not be left questioning facts that are in a book"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When stated as such, that is a statement of someone's opinion of a publishing rule - one of a set of explicit regulations or principles. And blanket statements like that are part of what's wrong with modern publishing. Tolkien's books broke the conventions of literature. Allen and Unwin published them anyway, as they recognised their unique merit - or at least were willing to take a chance.
There are many classic books that leave readers questioning facts contained within them.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jul 24 2015, 10:45pm
Post #17 of 19
(668 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There seems to be a bit of a mix-up here
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can assure you that what you are referring to as a 'rule' in book publishing is actually nothing of the sort. It is simply common sense to not leave readers guessing and frustrated. It's the job of editors to point out to authors where there are gaps in logic, or explanations missing that result in a story (or part of a story) not making much sense. Deliberate omissions to leave readers guessing are fine.
However, the types of stupid accidental omission that occur in The Hobbit FILMS, which have led to all sorts of speculation as to what certain things actually mean, are not OK. This is sloppy work and displays a lack of ability to construct a good story. In The Hobbit it happens particularly and very noticeably in places that contain material made up by the film-makers. The ability to construct a good story is a skill that is somewhat missing in parts of The Hobbit.
I was NOT criticising Tolkien's books and don't know why there is a need here to justify Tolkien's works – I've never thought there was anything omitted from them that needed to be explained (to me, anyway).
When stated as such, that is a statement of someone's opinion of a publishing rule - one of a set of explicit regulations or principles. And blanket statements like that are part of what's wrong with modern publishing. Tolkien's books broke the conventions of literature. Allen and Unwin published them anyway, as they recognised their unique merit - or at least were willing to take a chance.
There are many classic books that leave readers questioning facts contained within them.
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jul 30 2015, 12:10pm
Post #18 of 19
(544 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My point was that readers are left questioning facts in classic books.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So I wouldn't say they 'should' not. It depends upon whether it works for that particular story. I agree that the Hobbit films contain some inconsistencies that just do not work, but inconsistency, per se, is not the problem.
A classic kids book - The Wind in the Willows (although I'd say it's also a classic book for adults) - is full of facts that don't really make any sense, even within the unreal world created by Grahame - how come Toad's big enough to drive a car? If he is, how come the washerwoman can pick him up so easily and fling him off her boat? Are all the animals in that world human-sized? Why didn't the authorities follow Toad back to his home after he escaped, and re-arrest him? - he would have been easy to find, living in the best house on the river. Do the animals use money and take part in normal society like humans? - Toad seems to, but Mole and the field mice seem to inhabit a parallel world, with their own shops and economy, and Rat and Mole sneak a look into the humans' home, as if they are peering into an entirely alien world. Sometimes they are depicted as animals, sometimes more like humans etc. etc. Grahame's world doesn't really have any consistency or sense about it - but it doesn't matter - it's not that kind of story.
I'd agree that the The Hobbit isn't that kind of story, and is less tolerant of inconsistency and plot holes - but I would hate to think that publishers are missing out on writers like Grahame (not to mention Camus or Ionesco) because of a general notion of what should or shouldn't happen in a book.
Apologies for the late reply - I just saw your post.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jul 30 2015, 12:17pm
Post #19 of 19
(542 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't have time to reply to your post in detail, but broadly speaking I agree with you.
Certainly, there are things left unanswered in many books, but in the best ones (such as Tolkien's), I am not left questioning why something or other has happened. This is not the case with The Hobbit films, in which (I feel) there are numerous plot holes that could so easily have been dealt with without that much effort. With these films, one is left with a sense of frustration at the end (or at least I am)…
|
|
|
|
|
