|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
May 15 2016, 2:31am
Post #201 of 234
(1274 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You're the one arguing for the sake of argument.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sorry, I don't accept anything you say. If Thorin and his nephews were meant to die, it hardly matters whether they were wearing heavy, light, or no armor. Btw, NONE of the people in your GIF are wearing armor - do THEY look dumb??? Thorin and his Company did not look dumb, I don't think anyone here will agree with you in that regard. We could go "no he doesn't/yes he does" all day long, and it won't change a thing. You're just arguing for the sake of argument.
I don't need to go tit for tat with you indefinitely (I'm certainly not going to). I know I'm right.
Except for Gandalf, they're all wearing armor. Look at the GIF again.
This is from the charge at the Black Gate. And here's another shot of the soldiers up close. Looks like armor to me. Moving on.
[way oversized pic removed from post] Please refer to picture posting guidelines here.
(This post was edited by Altaira on May 15 2016, 4:50am)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 15 2016, 2:32am
Post #202 of 234
(1258 views)
Shortcut
|
Galadriel may have been a 'one woman wrecking crew' (in one scene only - thoughts on her portrayal in "AUJ?"), but her immediate power was all but drained in the action. I've already elaborated on the fact that Tauriel was not presented as perfect, but if we need more proof than failing to defeat Bolg and losing her love at his hands, what about absolutely failing to effectively equal Thranduil's might in confronting him when it's apparent she has no intention of letting him leave the battlefield? Those points, combined with the truly little screen time her character is allotted compared to many other characters in the story is surely enough to discredit her as a model of perfection and *definitely* one of some kind of hyper-perfection. Galadriel may indeed be smarter and wiser than most, if not all, of her male counterparts in "Hobbit" but... why is this a problem? There is no pretense that she is perfect and if another example is required of her likewise, the White Council failed to realize Sauron's spirit had endured beyond his physical demise and she is a vital part of the White Council.
You think I've missed some point but I fear you've overlooked mine. Neither Galadriel nor Tauriel are strong characters because they can kick ass. They are strong, yet non-perfect (recall examples) female characters because of wisdom/intelligence (Galadriel) and empathy/love (Tauriel). There are only two prominent females in the whole of this story, so I suppose my question for you is: how messed up as individuals must they be for them to enhance the films? Why are they not allowed to be strong internally as well as externally, when neither are perfect?
The only character in all of these movies that would qualify as some kind of 'perfect being' is Legolas. Seriously. He has a slight issue with dwarves (resolved for good in "LotR") and had a nose bleed once.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
May 15 2016, 2:59am
Post #203 of 234
(1250 views)
Shortcut
|
I have no problem with Peter Jackson showcasing a female character. I did have some major issues with the way Galadriel beat Sauron. Cinemasins covered a number of my issues nicely. If Galadriel knew she could kick Sauron's butt, she could have done more for the Fellowship than go, "Here's some trinkets, fare thee well." Tolkien wrote about how valuable Saruman's spells had been in defeating the Necromancer. It would have made sense for Saruman to have played a bigger part in the Necromancer's defeat, so as to create shock later when it was revealed that Saruman was in point of fact evil.
As for Tauriel... Tauriel had too many scenes. Her interactions with Kili would have been a lot more charming if it hadn't started with that rauncy line about Tauriel checking Kili's trousers. The only scene I enjoyed with them was when they talked about the elven feast (which I wanted to see onscreen). If they had followed that up with Fili saving Tauriel from Bolg, and we saw how she was moved by his death, that would have been more compelling to me. Instead it turned it a tedious subplot whose purpose was to pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 15 2016, 4:05am
Post #204 of 234
(1236 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Though the author of the Cinema Sins videos admits he is not fond of "The Hobbit" trilogy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He is also a self-proclaimed (blank) who unnecessarily nicks movies in every way he can to justify being able to fill the videos with content on films of all levels of quality, from the truly horrid all the way on up to those of masterpiece status. Not that this matters at all (they exist for comedy, first and foremost), but he is also very often wrong on a logical level, as though he takes the time to think a moment from a movie through to the point where it appears it is invalid, but does not follow the train of thought to the correct conclusion he would reach if recalling earlier (or later) moments in the same film that puts the 'sin' into context. This isn't even worth mentioning and I wasn't going to but... when I get started...
As for Galadriel, I know you know that the elves were leaving Middle-earth during the events of LotR and - as Gandalf, on the page and on celluloid, sometimes decides - just because a thing could have been done by her does not mean the thing will be done, in part because her place in the world is expiring and in part because she - like Gandalf - is a motivator for others to act and realize a potential they never knew they had. To look at it differently, if The Hobbit had never been filmed, your purported issue in LotR would still remain: Galadriel has been shown to be an immensely powerful being who would undoubtedly put a huge dent in Sauron's plans, still chooses not to, grants the fellowship some trinkets and departs from the shores of M-e.
Sir Christopher Lee's performance during Sauron's banishment was not one of pure terror, but of awe and intense curiosity. No matter that we lost the shock of Saruman revealed as evil - the performance is more in tune with his character. He's not going to actively attempt to defeat the Necromancer because, after he witnesses the latter's display of power, he wants in. Plain and simple.
The trouser line is admittedly not one of the better lines in the trilogy, but it's not graphic nor disturbing enough to be truly cringe-worthy. But man... that last sentence you wrote. You just couldn't help it, huh? Lol. It's not enough to say This is a subplot I did not enjoy. It must be tied with a knot to the presumption that its entire reason for being made manifest was to 'pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.' She's in about 7 scenes in BotFA and a few of these scenes are completed in well under two minutes. So much padding.
Let's talk about padding a post, as your second-to-last, random-as-all-hell, where-did-this-idea-come-from? sentence seems to be doing. May I ask how Tauriel being moved out of nowhere by the death of a character she has no special connection with would be more powerful than showing her and the one she loves tragically wrestling together with a monstrous foe, struggling in vain to keep the other alive for just a few seconds more until one of them is struck dead? Because I wouldn't buy that with a coupon making it free.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 15 2016, 6:20am)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 15 2016, 4:27am
Post #205 of 234
(1229 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We are in agreement on one thing, though (first time for everything!)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It would have been lovely to see some of the Feast of Starlight.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
cats16
Half-elven
May 15 2016, 5:54am
Post #206 of 234
(1216 views)
Shortcut
|
Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
May 15 2016, 5:57am
Post #207 of 234
(1216 views)
Shortcut
|
He is also a self-proclaimed (blank) who unnecessarily nicks movies in every way he can to justify being able to fill the videos with content on films of all levels of quality, from the truly horrid all the way on up to those of masterpiece status. Not that this matters at all (they exist for comedy, first and foremost), but he is also very often wrong on a logical level, as though he takes the time to think a moment from a movie through to the point where it appears it is invalid, but does not follow the train of thought to the correct conclusion he would reach if recalling earlier (or later) moments in the same film that puts the 'sin' into context. This isn't even worth mentioning and I wasn't going to but... when I get started...
I don't agree with all of his videos. But on the point of Galadriel, I'm in complete agreement with him.
As for Galadriel, I know you know that the elves were leaving Middle-earth during the events of LotR and - as Gandalf, on the page and on celluloid, sometimes decides - just because a thing could have been done by her does not mean the thing will be done, in part because her place in the world is expiring and in part because she - like Gandalf - is a motivator for others to act and realize a potential they never knew they had. To look at it differently, if The Hobbit had never been filmed, your purported issue in LotR would still remain: Galadriel has been shown to be an immensely powerful being who would undoubtedly put a huge dent in Sauron's plans, still chooses not to, grants the fellowship some trinkets and departs from the shores of M-e.
Then why even attack the Necromancer in the first place, if the White Council's place is only to get everybody else to do their dirty work? If the Hobbit had never been filmed, my issue would not have been as great. My reasoning was that the evil of Sauron could not simply be undone by physical force, but by an act of selflessness and love. Besides, I believed Sauron in LOTR seemed more powerful than the combined strength of the elves. But then PJ had Galadriel kick Sauron's butt just so audiences could "see a girl kick ass".
Sir Christopher Lee's performance during Sauron's banishment was not one of pure terror, but of awe and intense curiosity. No matter that we lost the shock of Saruman revealed as evil - the performance is more in tune with his character. He's not going to actively attempt to defeat the Necromancer because, after he witnesses the latter's display of power, he wants in. Plain and simple.
I never said Saruman was terrified. I believed Saruman already under Sauron's sway at that point, which is why he didn't want Gandalf and the dwarves to go to Erebor. To clarify, I wanted Saruman to play a bigger part so to create the ILLUSION that he had heroically helped to defeat Sauron. Which is what Tolkien hinted at. So as to reveal that Sauron withdrew from Mirkwood, not so much because he had been repelled by the might of the White Council, but because he had no further use for Mirkwood and wished to lull the Council into a false sense of security by having them think him vanquished.
The trouser line is admittedly not one of the better lines in the trilogy, but it's not graphic nor disturbing enough to be truly cringe-worthy. But man... that last sentence you wrote. You just couldn't help it, huh? Lol. It's not enough to say This is a subplot I did not enjoy. It must be tied with a knot to the presumption that its entire reason for being made manifest was to 'pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.' She's in about 7 scenes in BotFA and a few of these scenes are completed in well under two minutes. So much padding.
Not cringe worthy? Speak for yourself. A lot of people found that cringe worthy. I get it. You like Tauriel. She's not the only thing wrong with BOTFA. But I'd have rather seen Thranduil getting his gems back and calling BIlbo "elf friend", than watch a half baked romance that wasn't even in the books.
Let's talk about padding a post, as your second-to-last, random-as-all-hell, where-did-this-idea-come-from? sentence seems to be doing. May I ask how Tauriel being moved out of nowhere by the death of a character she has no special connection with would be more powerful than showing her and the one she loves tragically wrestling together with a monstrous foe, struggling in vain to keep the other alive for just a few seconds more until one of them is struck dead? Because I wouldn't buy that with a coupon making it free.
Gee...you're taking this pretty hard. Anyway, Tauriel and Kili never had that much of a special connection anyway. And the scenes they shared only served to show that there was real any basis to call their interactions "real" love. By snipping their interaction down to the two scenes I mentioned (and maybe the scene with Tauriel at the barrel chase), we lose most of the garbage.
(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 15 2016, 6:19am)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 15 2016, 6:18am
Post #208 of 234
(1220 views)
Shortcut
|
This yes-no argument is going nowhere. If anyone must continue the debate, take it to private messages - any more posts in this subthread will be deleted.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 15 2016, 6:21am)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 15 2016, 6:48am
Post #209 of 234
(1203 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, that Sigh emoji would be perfect right about now. "Now... where to begin?... Ah! Yes... "
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For some reason, I cannot figure out how to post multiple quotations for the life of me. Little help, anyone?
"Then why even attack the Necromancer in the first place, if the White Council's place is only to get everybody else to do their dirty work?"
That's a strange way of reading what I said back to me in a trashier version. Would we consider Gandalf someone who gets everyone else to do his dirty work? He and Galadriel are instigators for the greater good and there are some issues they will personally attend to and others they will not. Gandalf would be a great help in the labyrinth of Mirkwood, but he must confirm if his suspicions regarding the Necromancer are true and that takes top priority. Galadriel would be a great help in an assault against Sauron, but the course of action (secret trek to destroy the ring) had been decided, the fellowship of the ring formed and she along with her people are in the process of vacating Middle-earth forever. At Dol Goldur, the White Council were dealing with mounting suspicions, but only upon arrival understood just how grave the situation was Gandalf found himself in. She was already there - no need to be shy, right?
"My reasoning was that the evil of Sauron could not simply be undone by physical force, but by an act of selflessness and love."
Sauron was undone by a combination of unfortunate (for him) distraction and happy accident. It was not selflessness and love that had Frodo and Gollum fighting over the ring at the edge of Mount Doom.
"I believed Saruman already under Sauron's sway at that point, which is why he didn't want Gandalf and the dwarves to go to Erebor. To clarify, I wanted Saruman to play a bigger part so to create the ILLUSION that he had heroically helped to defeat Sauron. Which is what Tolkien hinted at. So as to reveal that Sauron withdrew from Mirkwood, not so much because he had been repelled by the might of the White Council, but because he had no further use for Mirkwood and wished to lull the Council into a false sense of security by having them think him vanquished."
This... is a good point. I am happy with how effective these scenes played out on film, but it would indeed have been interesting to see it executed the way you've worded it.
"Not cringe worthy? Speak for yourself. A lot of people found that cringe worthy."
Ya'll cringe pretty easily.
"I get it. You like Tauriel."
Absolutely, she's a well-written and well-performed character. Why wouldn't I like her?
"She's not the only thing wrong with BOTFA."
Well, alright then. Why was she something wrong with BotFA, though?
"But I'd have rather seen Thranduil getting his gems back and calling BIlbo 'elf friend', than watch a half baked romance that wasn't even in the books."
I would have liked to see Thranduil reclaim his gems, as well. Why was the romance half-baked, though? Because it was short-lived? Because greater things were at stake and the film spent more time on them? Because people can't fall in love that quickly (SPOILER ALERT: They can)? Why does it matter that it wasn't in the books? Why does it matter to so many of you that things were present not in the books???
The only way a 100% faithful adaptation of The Hobbit - or any novel - could be shown on-screen is if the film was just one static shot of the novel itself as the pages are slowly turned over several hours. This is not opinion, by the way, but completely the truth. No movie can 100% accurately represent a written work it is based upon (any evolution of any thing will breed about additions and subtractions at the most microscopic of levels) and if that's the case, why knock the movie for not getting it 99.98% accurate? Why is J.R.R. Tolkien given this free pass for everything he's written, no matter what he's done with the mythological works and legends he based his work upon, but Peter Jackson is not given a freakin' inch of breathing room as an artist, just as legitimate and valid in his own right and in his own medium? I genuinely do wish I could understand why so many feel this way because it's bonkers to ask for, hope for and especially to expect. The kind of common sense that one only realizes stepping out into the world is actually scarce sense.
"Gee...you're taking this pretty hard."
I write hard. I'm in a good mood tonight.
"Anyway, Tauriel and Kili never had that much of a special connection anyway."
And this is where everything falls apart. Clearly they did, even if you didn't get anything out of it as a viewer. The dialogue, the music, the shared emotion and experience between them, the horror Kili feels as Bolg attacks Tauriel, the heartbreak she experiences over losing Kili, everything. Everything that is actually in the films of DoS and BotFA flies in the face of this accusation. Let me rephrase something you said earlier here: I get it. You don't like Tauriel and Kili together. They're not the only decent thing in BotFA.
"And the scenes they shared only served to show that there was real any basis to call their interactions 'real' love."
Let me rephrase that rephrasing one more time: I get it. You're a modern cynic with a specific set of requirements for love. There's not only a romance in BotFA.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 15 2016, 6:50am
Post #210 of 234
(1208 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh, now I had NO idea you had just written this!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm done, I promise! Lol.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 15 2016, 7:42am
Post #211 of 234
(1187 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*Priceless! Loud giggles from the teapot..... //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 15 2016, 12:00pm
Post #212 of 234
(1167 views)
Shortcut
|
For some reason, I cannot figure out how to post multiple quotations for the life of me. Little help, anyone?
Use the 'reply' or 'quote' buttons for this. Just don't forget to follow the passage with the end-reply (/reply) or end-quote (/quote). Or you can just add the appropriate widget by hand: bracket - reply - close-bracket and bracket - /reply - close-bracket (same with quotes).
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 15 2016, 12:17pm
Post #213 of 234
(1162 views)
Shortcut
|
As for Galadriel, I know you know that the elves were leaving Middle-earth during the events of LotR and - as Gandalf, on the page and on celluloid, sometimes decides - just because a thing could have been done by her does not mean the thing will be done, in part because her place in the world is expiring and in part because she - like Gandalf - is a motivator for others to act and realize a potential they never knew they had. To look at it differently, if The Hobbit had never been filmed, your purported issue in LotR would still remain: Galadriel has been shown to be an immensely powerful being who would undoubtedly put a huge dent in Sauron's plans, still chooses not to, grants the fellowship some trinkets and departs from the shores of M-e.
Mostly agree, but there is a specific reason why Galadriel seems more passive in LotR: She remains with Celeborn in Lothlórien because of the possibility of a direct attack from the armies of the Enemy. Indeed, such attacks had already begun at least in Tolkien's canon, starting with the one on the Woodland Realm that allowed Gollum to escape.
Sir Christopher Lee's performance during Sauron's banishment was not one of pure terror, but of awe and intense curiosity. No matter that we lost the shock of Saruman revealed as evil - the performance is more in tune with his character. He's not going to actively attempt to defeat the Necromancer because, after he witnesses the latter's display of power, he wants in. Plain and simple.
I disagree that Saruman has already fallen; although his investigation of and experiments in Ring-lore (which we don't actually see) have started him down that path. This is much more obvious, though, in Tolkien's legendarium where we learn that the White Wizard is secretly attempting to find the One Ring and has been avoiding interfering with the Necromancer for that reason. Saruman's fall starts in earnest with the last meeting of the White Council in 2953 after Sauron openly declares himself.
The trouser line is admittedly not one of the better lines in the trilogy, but it's not graphic nor disturbing enough to be truly cringe-worthy. But man... that last sentence you wrote. You just couldn't help it, huh? Lol. It's not enough to say This is a subplot I did not enjoy. It must be tied with a knot to the presumption that its entire reason for being made manifest was to 'pad the running time in order to justify an unnecessary third film.' She's in about 7 scenes in BotFA and a few of these scenes are completed in well under two minutes. So much padding.
Agreed about the running time issue. The character of Tauriel had some sort of romantic interest connected to her from the start, when her name was still Itaril. Just the nature of the love story was changed. Instead of an Elf-lord (from Rivendell? Perhaps connected to the White Council subplot?), it became the young Dwarf Kili.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 15 2016, 1:06pm
Post #214 of 234
(1157 views)
Shortcut
|
I actually agree with Wizzardly (who presumably actually saw LotR) that Frodo lost a great moment at the Fords, though I understand why they did it and it works for Arwen. Her introduction scene with Aragorn doesn't sit well with me either. But overall I like what they did with Arwen in those films, except for the dying thing. Her suddenly appearing as a trophy wife at the end of RotK, as she does in the book, would not have flown in today’s world.
Those of us who love the books mostly don’t seem to mind the lack of female characters, partly I suspect because we are used to it. However, the LotR and Hobbit movies were meant for a wider, more varied audience in an era where women’s roles and capabilities are very different. What works in the books for lovers of the books wouldn't necessarily work on the screen.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 15 2016, 1:31pm
Post #215 of 234
(1150 views)
Shortcut
|
I seem to remember PJ or PB saying (maybe on the BOTFA commentary?) that Galadriel permanently expended much of her power while battling Sauron at Dol Guldur. That's why in the movieverse she could do no more than she did for the Fellowship.
Presumably they had to come up with some explanation as to why Galadriel seems much more passive in FotR when in BotFA she was kick-ass and Nenya was an offensive weapon. I think that's lame but there it is.
The filmmakers felt they needed another female character besides Galadriel and picked an Elf, possibly because they thought that the Woodland Realm needed more characters. I would guess that they wanted a younger, less wise and more impulsive and physically active character as a contrast to Galadriel. IMO opinion Tauriel has an interesting journey and the fact that her relationship with Kili starts with the sort of stupid thing that young men say to young women is minor.
IMO Tauriel is a great character, especially in DOS where she is more about rejecting Thranduil's callous isolationism and doing what she thinks is right. Her dawning relationship with Kili, the openness and ability to get past prejudice that both Tauriel and Kili display is a strong contrast to the bigotry and hatefulness of Thranduil and Thorin. But in BotFA her story is more about Kili, which is unfortunate in my view.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 15 2016, 1:43pm
Post #216 of 234
(1150 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One of the first stills I saw of FotR, long before it was released...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...was of Arwen carrying Frodo to Rivendell. I really hated the idea because Glorfindel's part in the story was one of my early favourites and it made me worry from the outset about what else they might have changed and - not to put to fine a point on it - whether this meant they were going to ruin everything! But once it came to the film it was OK, I didn't mind it as I thought I would. It worked. I'd have to agree that it was a lost moment for Frodo (though I minded Glorfindel's lost moment more) but I also understand why they did it and both still have their moments in the book.
On the male/female question I never noticed the lack of female characters in either story but with me I don't think it's because I'm used to it. It never occurred to me, I think, because in reading I've always become caught up with the characters I liked irrespective of whether they were male or female - after all, it wasn't really any more far-fetched to imagine myself as a boy or a man than to imagine being an elf or a mole, or Lucy going through the wardrobe, or Alice - or even a dormouse! But when the story is filmed you can't get away with that. For film so many things that writers can safely leave to the imagination have to be defined
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
May 15 2016, 3:13pm
Post #217 of 234
(1135 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hmmm ... another point that chaps my posterior ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have no problem with Peter Jackson showcasing a female character. I did have some major issues with the way Galadriel beat Sauron. Cinemasins covered a number of my issues nicely. If Galadriel knew she could kick Sauron's butt, she could have done more for the Fellowship than go, "Here's some trinkets, fare thee well." Tolkien wrote about how valuable Saruman's spells had been in defeating the Necromancer. It would have made sense for Saruman to have played a bigger part in the Necromancer's defeat, so as to create shock later when it was revealed that Saruman was in point of fact evil.
My perception of magic in Tolkien's world has always been that it's a subtler magic. The Elves and wizards use magic to enhance and bring out natural properties. Galadriel's magic (like Melian's Girdle before) enhances the naturally protective properties of the surrounding area to hide their retreat and keep enemies out of its borders. Gandalf uses black powder for his fireworks but he enhances them so his are more spectacular. Those with the appropriate gifts can talk to animals and it's not ridiculous.
Middle-earth isn't Harry Potter or other fantasy worlds where someone says a few words and then farts lightning. They have magic but they are not conjurors. Even in his fight with the Balrog, Gandalf relied mostly on staff and sword.
Galadriel was one of the most powerful beings in Middle-earth, holding her own with Gandalf and Saruman and Sauron, but such power comes with its own limitations. She saw and regretted the Kin-slaying. I just found the fireworks show in the movie to be uncharacteristic.
As for Saruman, I felt Saruman was slowly seduced and corrupted by the power Sauron showed him in the Palantir. It wasn't so much (IMO) that he saw the power and wanted in, as he saw power that seemed to be irresistable. The difference between Saruman and Denethor in the end was that Saruman concluded Sauron could be resisted and supplanted if he had the Ring.
This is one point that I liked in The Hobbit movies over the LOTR movies. Saruman's fall from grace and Gandalf's sorrow over it was something I didn't think came through as well in the LOTR movies as the books. In the movies (until TH), Saruman was malevolent from the start in LOTR ... in TH, you see that he is still fighting against Sauron but you see the beginnings of his corruption.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 15 2016, 5:44pm
Post #218 of 234
(1115 views)
Shortcut
|
That was way too needlessly confusing for me.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on May 15 2016, 5:54pm)
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
May 16 2016, 9:33am
Post #219 of 234
(1078 views)
Shortcut
|
I was watching Desolation of Smaug, while looking over scenes for my Fan-edit and...
Thorin and his company can't find those giant steps leading up into the mountain, but Bilbo basically just points and Thorin says, "You have keen eyes, Master Baggins..."
Come on. It doesn't take keen eyes to see those gigantic steps in the mountain. That was kind of silly.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 16 2016, 12:40pm
Post #220 of 234
(1070 views)
Shortcut
|
I find that to be a fairly minor quibble as it seems that the steps were supposed to be taken initially to be a simple, decorative element and not a route up the Mountain. I was more irritated about the moon being in the wrong phase on Durin's Day (and magically turning into a full moon at the start of TH:BotFA--in the wrong part of the sky). To be fair, you might see that as a minor issue.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 16 2016, 12:51pm
Post #221 of 234
(1065 views)
Shortcut
|
The key is the word 'hidden' as in 'Hidden Door'. To those in the know (presumably only the King and his heir) the door provides an escape route out of the Mountain with the way up/down hidden in the statue. Outsiders see only a statue: those privy to the secret - and Mr Baggins, with his keen eyes - recognised the hidden staircase built into the design.
Seems curious to me that a viewer as discontented as yourself would even bother with a 'fan edit'. What will you leave in?
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 16 2016, 1:18pm
Post #222 of 234
(1056 views)
Shortcut
|
And none of the things he didn't write and nothing Tolkien would disapprove of and everything Tolkien would approve of and everything Christopher Tolkien would appreciate and nothing Christopher Tolkien wouldn't appreciate and everything that should have happened in one or two slim movies and nothing that shouldn't of happened in more and all that's pre-approved and expected by the book's fans and nothing that hasn't been cleared by those good folks and absolutely no kind of creativity that's not at least 75 years old, so help him, Lord!
:)
"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
May 17 2016, 1:10am
Post #223 of 234
(1009 views)
Shortcut
|
Seems curious to me that a viewer as discontented as yourself would even bother with a 'fan edit'. What will you leave in?
Fans don't create fan edits to films they're satisfied with...We had a whole discussion about my fan editing a while back.
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
May 18 2016, 10:15am
Post #224 of 234
(914 views)
Shortcut
|
What will you leave in?
To respond in more detail, I'm leaving in most everything appertaining to the book. Some of the events are greatly truncated.
Just SOME of the changes are:
-shorter Dwarf dinner scene (no Dwarf song)
- no Balin/Thorin talk after Bilbo turns down's Gandalf's invitation to join the fellowship
-No flashback to Azog at Moria (ironically that's the only Azog scene in UJ that I liked)
- The scene with Elrond in armor meeting Gandalf is gone.
- The escape from the goblin mines is much shorter with the cartoon bits cut out.
- I switch the track from the burning tree so instead of the Nazgul theme playing, "An Ancient Enemy" track is playing instead. Then the track blends into "Out Of The Frying Pan"
-The White Council scene is shown as a flashback
- Mirkwood is much shorter
-Tauriel and Kili's interactions are removed
-Smaug's scene plays without interruption. The dwarf chase is gone.
-Bard doesn't end up in prison.
- No orcs at the river for the barrel
- Radagast isn't seen until Gandalf checks out the Witch King's tomb, thus the fight scene with the bunny sled being chased by wargs is gone.
I have other film jobs to do that take precedence, so I just work on the edit in my spare time. It's pretty much just for friends. When it's done, I'll probably invite some California friends to a private viewing. I don't want to hurt New Line. I just want a version of the Hobbit that I can put on my shelf, and watch in three hours. That way I can have a marathon of the Hobbit and LOTR extended editions back to back.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 18 2016, 11:12am
Post #225 of 234
(906 views)
Shortcut
|
It's good to see that there are some scenes you like
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe. //
[
This subthread ends here.
[
