|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
May 3 2016, 6:52pm
Post #51 of 106
(1141 views)
Shortcut
|
Far from battling trolls to save a companion, didn't the dwarves in the book just wander up to the campfire one at a time and get stuffed in a sack? I thought it was only in the film that they put up a fight.
Bifur, Bofur, and Thorin fought the trolls in the book. But just because we rarely see the Company fight in the book doesn't mean they were incapable of doing so; in most instances they weren't really presented with opportunities to fight (the spiders ambushing them, Smaug bursting out of the mountain).
Gimli is in more proper battles in LOTR, so it makes sense that he'd be in combat more often.
|
|
|
Nuradar
Rohan
May 4 2016, 1:53pm
Post #52 of 106
(1108 views)
Shortcut
|
|
respectfully disagree, especially with Kili
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Although we weren't show what kind of a fight Fili put up with Azog, I think that Kili put up a heroic fight, especially seeing as he as trying to save Tauriel.
They fought for several minutes before Bold managed to grab a hold of him. By then, he was spent, exhausted, and weak. After all, Bolg is twice the size of Kili, so in that regard as well, his fight was heroic.
And seeing as they were brothers and, no doubt, trained in a similar fashion with similar fighting philosophies, I think it's safe to assume that Fili put up a fight as well.
Fili and Kili fought, and died, honourably.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 4 2016, 5:04pm
Post #53 of 106
(1101 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And I liked them BETTER for that!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien said in TH: “Dwarves are not heroes, but a calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.”
Also, the Dwarves of Thorin’s Company in the book were helpless bumblers and rather cowardly. They weren’t even armed and were easy prey. It was not until close to the BOTFA that they suddenly began to show their mettle. That Dwarvish character work fine in the context of the book, in which even a pretty helpless and bumbling Hobbit could step up and become a hero in comparison.
Some of what Tolkien wrote may well be true of Gimli in the LotR book but he was valiant, loyal and a heroic warrior as well. So was movie Gimli, despite being a bit of a buffoon. In TH movies, the Dwarves are unhesitatingly courageous, heroic, capable warriors as well as fractious, stiff necked and just plain silly at times. In my opinion, they are closer to Gimli than the Dwarves of the book and need to be so for the sake of continuity in the six movies.
Yeah, yeah, the Hobbit was a children's book, so I guess bumbling characters would work in that context, but even if PJ was NOT tying the Hobbit to LoTR, I don't think it would have worked out so well if he'd gone that route in the movie. There've been more than a few discussions on TORn regarding how unprepared the book Dwarves were for their adventure - and I wouldn't have cared much for a bunch of cowardly Dwarves quaking in fear outside the mountain. I don't think there's any way you can put a good spin on that.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
May 5 2016, 7:47am
Post #54 of 106
(1077 views)
Shortcut
|
Kili and Fili's death scenes were very disappointing. And the Kili/Tauriel romance. Even a year and a half on, I still don't get the point of.
I never killed a man who didn't need killing
- Clay Allison
|
|
|
No One in Particular
Lorien
May 5 2016, 6:49pm
Post #56 of 106
(1037 views)
Shortcut
|
Kili and Fili's death scenes were very disappointing. And the Kili/Tauriel romance. Even a year and a half on, I still don't get the point of.
Hollywood formula. You must have a romantic subplot in order for the move to be considered successful and relevant.
To be fair to PJ though-there is an even more distinct lack of female characters in The Hobbit than in LoTR. If he didn't add a female character of some kind, he would have faced staunch criticism for that. So it was almost inevitable that some kind of strong female would be added, and once added, it's the next "logical" step for her to be the focus of a romance.
For the record, I could care less about the whole romance. It doesn't bother me, but it certainly doesn't add anything to the story. But there was probably no way the movie was going to be made without some variation of it being added into the mix.
While you live, shine
Have no grief at all
Life exists only for a short while
And time demands an end.
Seikilos Epitaph
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 5 2016, 11:24pm
Post #57 of 106
(1021 views)
Shortcut
|
The invention of Tauriel was to bring Tolkien's story up to our modern day PC standards. She served absolutely no meaningful purpose and took attention away from the actual events of the story.
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
May 6 2016, 4:56am
Post #58 of 106
(1011 views)
Shortcut
|
I understand why Tauriel was in the movies and have nothing against Tauriel being in the movies. What I don't understand, is why just because there is a woman in the movies, she automatically has to be somebody's love interest. Believe it or not, it is possible for a woman to be in a movie without being part of a romantic subplot.
I never killed a man who didn't need killing
- Clay Allison
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
May 6 2016, 5:20am
Post #59 of 106
(1009 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbits quake in fear in LOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They hide in fear from the Nazgul repeatedly, and Frodo is constantly falling down and/or dropping his sword. If it can work there, why not in the Hobbit? Especially since the Dwarves, unlike Frodo, aren't the main characters of their respective story, but kind of serve as a foil to Bilbo.
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
May 6 2016, 6:15am
Post #60 of 106
(997 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could you (or someone) please explain this phrase to me? (off topic)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Quote:
'For the record, I could care less about the whole romance.' (My bold)
Here in NZ we say, "I couldn't care less," as in, I don't care at all.
Is "I could care less" an American thing? What does it mean?
Sorry, very confused. 
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
May 6 2016, 6:44am
Post #61 of 106
(992 views)
Shortcut
|
Since it means, "I don't care at all, and thus care as little as possible" saying "I couldn't care less" is the proper term. Saying "I could care less" technically means you care somewhat, if you could care less than that.
I think it's just one of those things where people have misheard it and that version gains popularity, like people saying "irregardless" or "could of."
|
|
|
No One in Particular
Lorien
May 6 2016, 1:49pm
Post #62 of 106
(975 views)
Shortcut
|
Apologies. Again, it's a regional thing I guess. In the part of Illinois I grew up in people use the two phrases interchangeably, and in everyday practical terms they are identical.
You are correct however, in that I should have said "couldn't care less".
:)
While you live, shine
Have no grief at all
Life exists only for a short while
And time demands an end.
Seikilos Epitaph
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 6 2016, 2:40pm
Post #63 of 106
(964 views)
Shortcut
|
Having her in the movies in the first place was to appeal to women who get highly offended when they are not represented in every single aspect of our culture. Tolkien didn't write a female character into the Hobbit probably because there really isn't any place for one in this particular story. So PJ, feeling the pressure to make everyone happy and insure more ticket sales, adds a female character that has about as much place in the story as boogers and transformers, and has to give her something to do. But what? Well women like romance in movies...that's it. Sexy beardless dwarf falls in love with sexy female warrior princess. Done and done.
|
|
|
lionoferebor
Rohan
May 6 2016, 5:32pm
Post #64 of 106
(944 views)
Shortcut
|
So PJ, feeling the pressure to make everyone happy and insure more ticket sales, adds a female character that has about as much place in the story as boogers and transformers, and has to give her something to do. But what? Well women like romance in movies...that's it. Sexy beardless dwarf falls in love with sexy female warrior princess. Done and done.
...depending on the woman. I am an adult female and according to my friends and family probably one the most girlie girls you'll ever meet. And while I do enjoy a well written romance - which, IMO, Kili and Tauriel is not - I do not appreciate the inclusion of a romantic subplot (or plot) just for the sake of it. In fact, on a personal level, I find in insulting that Hollywood feels a romance - or something of the sort - must be included in a film to attract a female audience.
On that same note, I find it equally disappointing Hollywood feels a female character must be include in a film in order to attract a female audience. To be clear, I am not opposed to the inclusion of a female character - or a character of any gender, race, religion, etc. - what I am opposed to is the inclusion of such characters for the sake of being 'politically correct' and/or to increase ticket sales.
All this said, I assure you not all women feel the need or want for a female character and/or romance in a story. There are those of us females who actually do enjoy and appreciate stories in which such elements are not always included.
On a side note: It would interest me to know (1) what percentage of ticket sales for these films were purchased by women, and (2) what percentage of those women primary reason - or one of their primary reasons - for seeing these films was because of the inclusion of a female character and/or romance.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
May 6 2016, 6:00pm
Post #65 of 106
(941 views)
Shortcut
|
Is that they were always going to have 3 Mirkwood elves to play big parts. Thranduil, Legolas, and one that would be completely made up for the film. So why not make it a woman? The story already has like 20 male characters, so the inclusion of one woman, for a character they were already going to create themselves anyway, makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 6 2016, 6:02pm
Post #66 of 106
(938 views)
Shortcut
|
The misapplication of the phrase isn't that regional--unless you count all of the U.S. as a region. But it is irritating to those who try to be more precise in their language.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 6 2016, 6:30pm
Post #67 of 106
(929 views)
Shortcut
|
The problem with political correctness in movies in particular, is that it always comes off as forced and unnatural. The obvious pandering should be perceived as insulting.
But yeah, there are no women in The Hobbit. Big deal. Tauriel was a useless character that added nothing of value to the narrative and only solidified the obvious, that these movies were nothing more than a cheap money grab, hoping to attract as large an audience as possible, with no thought whatsoever to the fact that this story is a well respected piece of literature, loved the world over.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 6 2016, 6:32pm
Post #68 of 106
(927 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Depends on who you're insulting.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 6 2016, 6:36pm
Post #69 of 106
(922 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Disingenuous pandering should be an insult to anybody.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 6 2016, 6:37pm
Post #70 of 106
(920 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So what would you call ingenuous pandering?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Or is that ingenious?
Theoretically, if there's disingenuous pandering there must be ingenuous pandering.
Or is disingenuous one of those negative words where there is no opposite, like gormless or ruthless?
I always follow my job through.
(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on May 6 2016, 6:46pm)
|
|
|
lionoferebor
Rohan
May 6 2016, 6:46pm
Post #71 of 106
(914 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Disingenuous pandering should be an insult to anybody.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
ROFLOL!!! 
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 6 2016, 6:49pm
Post #72 of 106
(908 views)
Shortcut
|
Pandering works best when done disingenuously. Not sure ingenuous pandering would be very effective.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 6 2016, 6:51pm
Post #73 of 106
(907 views)
Shortcut
|
And, by the way, how come you thought I suggested Emilio Estevez as Aragorn?
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
May 6 2016, 6:58pm
Post #74 of 106
(903 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Because he's a talented and dynamic actor?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was just asking if you did. I saw it somewhere and couldn't remember who suggested it.
|
|
|
lionoferebor
Rohan
May 6 2016, 7:55pm
Post #75 of 106
(891 views)
Shortcut
|
Is that they were always going to have 3 Mirkwood elves to play big parts. Thranduil, Legolas, and one that would be completely made up for the film. So why not make it a woman? The story already has like 20 male characters, so the inclusion of one woman, for a character they were already going to create themselves anyway, makes perfect sense to me.
I've never heard this before. Based on behind the scenes footage, director film commentaries, and other outsource materials, i.e. articles, books, etc. my understanding is Tauriel was including (1) because the filmmakers felt there was a need for a strong female character and (2) they liked the idea of Galadriel and Gimli and wanted to incorporated something like it in these films. (Though IMHO Kili and Tauriel is more reminiscent of Aragorn and Arwen, but that's for another discussion).
And why make the third elf female? Because there are 20 males in the films? I'm sorry, for me that is not a valid reason. If the issue was the lack of a female character - with or without Tauriel - Galadriel, Bard's daughters, Hilda and the other women of Lake-town fill that void. If it was the need for a strong female character...I have one name for that: Galadriel. IMO, she is easily one of the strongest ME characters - male or female. Once she was included - and not to mention Hilda and the feisty women of Lake-town - the need for a strong female characters was fulfilled tenfold. Taking all this into consideration, why did the third Mirkwood elf have to be female? I can see why the filmmakers may have wanted to make the third elf a woman, but with the inclusion of the other female characters, and strong ones at that, I do not see why it was necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Kili is mentioned once for sure (perhaps twice) and only in passing. 
