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:
Food for thought for Hobbit bookfans
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 9 2016, 3:05pm

Post #101 of 147 (892 views)
Shortcut
Thorin [In reply to] Can't Post

There was no reason though to try to make him the hero Aragorn was in LotR. He had been in his day among his people. Those days were gone but one his true motivations for the quest was a realization his days were closing in. I mentioned in a previous post that an audience can connect to character without actually liking them. I don't like Magneto and find some his acts not redeemable but having been given a window into his life's trials and Michael Fassbender's acting, I greatly sympathize with him and the character has the weight to emotionally move me. I don't know why Thorin wasn't handled in a similar fashion. It would have been true to the book/lore and would have left it a Bilbo centered story. It also wouldn't have required such deviation from the book as to rewrite Azog's history, Dain's history, and the actual Battle of the Five Armies. There would have been no need for the Dragon-Dwarf chase scene in Erebor.

Dain was the greatest warrior of the Dwarves and the slayer of Azog when he was only 32. Just old enough to fight for a Dwarf. There is a reason he was honored among the Dwarves but the only thing you get from the movie is this is a bad dude. That he was, but his historic legacy was as heralded as Thorin's.

Bolg ended up as a plot device to give Legolas a narrative arc. Beorn who acutally swept in and rescued the free peoples was relegated to brief flash so Thorin and Azog's showdown could have tide turning significance. Beorn who could be argued was a representation of the raw power of nature served more than just the Dues Ex in the book, his intervention validated Thorin's redemption. It robbed Thorin of his tragic charge with Kili and Fili's heroic deaths defending their uncle and demonstrating dwarven loyalty to family and king. Of course all this was swept aside to try and make Thorin a likable protagonist.


weathertop
Rohan


Jun 9 2016, 3:10pm

Post #102 of 147 (888 views)
Shortcut
i fully appreciate this line of thought [In reply to] Can't Post

and have no issue with it; heck, I play devil's advocate quite a bit to stir the thought from both sides of the topic. but with those actions, i do expect a variance in the give and take and to produce something more than was there before - not just the same words ordered different ways.

Enginerd


weathertop
Rohan


Jun 9 2016, 3:16pm

Post #103 of 147 (885 views)
Shortcut
yeah, i apologize [In reply to] Can't Post

for the personal touch to that post.
I can appreciate that you don't care (to put it lightly Tongue ) for the movies; but I really am looking for the 'why'. I mean take this response. all it does is reiterate your stance, it doesn't actually touch on the question i posed. I fully expected something in the line of KDC's respose.

Enginerd


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jun 9 2016, 3:21pm

Post #104 of 147 (884 views)
Shortcut
agreed - [In reply to] Can't Post

- I read posts in this forum regularly, trying to 'understand what merit others find in these films', as you put it. But unlike you, I no longer post. The gap has become too wide.


Noria
Gondor

Jun 9 2016, 3:48pm

Post #105 of 147 (874 views)
Shortcut
Good points, TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense. [In reply to] Can't Post

Strictly speaking, the stories, as in the themes, of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings could be explored in many other settings. The books don’t have to take place in Middle-earth to examine the heroism of the ordinary person, greed, friendship, nature versus technology, death and immortality and all the rest. But Tolkien chose to set his stories in the world of his imagination and isn’t that really why we love them?

Tolkien also chose to include lots of stuff that is not strictly necessary to the story being told but sometimes drives character or builds the world or is just fun. Things like the talking purse, the stone giants, Beorn’s animals and so on. We love those too, or at least some of us love some of them, others not so much.

As an artist in his own right, Peter Jackson did something more-or-less similar. First he and his crew looked at TH (and LotR), decided what aspects of the book they wished to explore in their adaptation and developed their story. Then they changed and embellished the original material as they saw fit, which is the essence of adaptation and what any director would do. Bits that didn’t fit with their vision were left out, elements necessary to it were created. Some book stuff was included because it was iconic, other things were added for fun. An important influence on all this was the obvious requirement that these movies match their predecessors in size and scope so as to capture the interest the LotR audience and make lots of money. The fact that some elements are different from the book doesn’t automatically make them bad anymore than it makes them good. Tolkien sold these stories to be developed in a medium that was always going to demand change and it’s just sad that many here don’t like this particular set of changes.

Back when LotR was released, I remember thinking that the male eye candy was certainly appreciated, but had no impact on my feelings and thoughts about the movie. It was just a little lagniappe. Thorin’s hair (and the hot Dwarves generally) is the same: very nice to look at of course but it neither breaks or makes the movies and is, after all, only a wig. I really doubt that many people really only like TH movies because of one handsome Dwarf but the fangirling does, like sand, seem to get everywhere.


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 4:16pm

Post #106 of 147 (866 views)
Shortcut
Nice response [In reply to] Can't Post

And too true, negative comments about any film that are variations of "this film is &^^%$" don't tell me a lot, or perhaps more importantly, don't help me to empathize what another might be feeling - what THEY see. Some of the recent "beard" posts - an issue I was always unfazed about - were good enough to help me to "get" it, or why some might mourn aspects of the Hobbit that they cherished that they didn't feel were well handled, or left out.


Quote

In contrast, I am quite sick of hearing about how Thorin's hair glints in the moonlight or how it made total sense to have a love affair between Tauriel and Kili. There is plenty of annoying and empty praise for the movies.

But when you ask for responses and then complain about what you get, I am wondering if you did so merely to get a rise out of people. If I am wrong, I apologize. It's just rather odd.


Hmmm - I am not comfortable with that concept, personally. E.g., if someone is finding joy re some aspect of a book or film, even if I feel negatively about it, IMO it's not for me to say that that feeling is "empty". It may annoy me LOL in the sense, as a TORn mod wrote way back in commenting on the tension that can occur on a discussion board - I'm paraphrasing here, but basically more or less we, as people like stuff/people that like what we likeCool. For instance, since SDCC is coming up, folks like WETA will probably release new art figures. I notice with these "art figures" that "bad guys" tend to be made, and seem to sell well. And I could say "why are folks buying this statue of Bolg, what are they thinking, he's such a &^%$#!!! and he's uglyCool!!!"

I'd also add, that IMO in general posts have titles such that one can step over any like my own "Hair Threads" if one doesn't want to share in *rapturous feels* over the glorious hirsuteness of these filmsAngelic. But I would counter that it would be nice, although the more knowledgeable perhaps might feel? that folks should do their own research and readingCool, that if one doesn't introduce a topic they consider worthy - perhaps a post examining the development of neo-Khuzdul and its spread through the gaming and fan-fiction communities (was Thorin's use of the word "silence" in the Hobbit correct?), e.g.


Quote

The Dwarrow Scholar says: June 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm
The structure is indeed not the same as in English, though not that different either. The most obvious difference is the noun-adjective order, as opossed to the adjective-noun order in English. As an example: “the new book” would in fact translate as “book new”. There are other differences, but too many to mention in a swift reply. I invite you to follow the new neo-khuzdul lessons (that are being finalized these days), in which we’ll focus on this topic (among others). As for the neo-khuzdul lexicon, the new dictionary will include many more words. As for your phrase “shut up”, it is clearly a command hence would use the imperative form. “Atkât” in fact means “the silence” – the abstract concept of silence (using “aCCâC” form). “itkit!” – would have the meaning “silence! (as in “stop talking you!”). So that would be more proper I believe...



https://dwarrowscholar.wordpress.com/...the-dwarrow-scholar/

....if another TORn member doesn't take it upon themselves to introduce a topic, or write a commentary - well, for one thing, they may have interesting knowledge (like the discussion of Bard's barge that went on at one time, and that kind of vessel and its uses) that would be worth sharingTongue, and for another, I'm not sure it would be "moral" to wholly condemn an introduced topic, even if it's not something one enjoys.

Re:

Quote
And finally, posts about Thorin's hair are written by fangirls for fangirls (yeah, I confess, I've written a few), so it's perfectly okay if you find them annoying.Angelic



LOL. "Never apologize, never explain.EvilCoolWink" Thorin & co. are glorious, as are others in the Hobbit films. I personally don't find Thorin's hair glinting in the moonlight annoying.





It's such a lovely halo for those stunning azure eyes, after all.WinkEvil












Anubis
Rivendell


Jun 9 2016, 4:24pm

Post #107 of 147 (865 views)
Shortcut
Well said... [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with a lot of this. I mean, there's a lot of enjoyable stuff in the books that you don´t get to see or feel in the movies, yes, but it works both ways. There´s also stuff in the movies, good stuff that you just can´t experience while reading.
Certainly, a book copy-pasted to the screen can make for a great movie (I think I differ with you on that); but they will never be the same, movie and book.

In fact, it´s sometimes necessary to change some things, so that the adaptation can capture the essence of the book. Sometimes you actually have to deviate from the source to translate on-screen what the author expressed with words.
Also, as you said, not every change needs to move the plot forward.

Some posters in this forum claim that the movies have made a mess out of the books. I partially agree with them. PJ has changed a lot of things form the source material. But I think that many of them were changes that enhanced the movies. I can see some faults, but the book was not flawless, either. Nothing in this world is flawless (except maybe death...and, maths? Damn, this is getting too philosophical, moving on...)

I think the spirit of Tolkien remains in the movies, which is what every movie director that wants to adapt a book/comic/whatever should set out to do.

Also, I´m not saying that people should automatically like everything thrown at them that has the hobbit in its name. You may not like some changes, you may not like how the movies were made. But when you (in general) criticize, at least try to do it in a constructive way, not like certain posters who seem to want to crucify PJ or something, and keep saying how much they dislike the movies (that´s the only thing I get out of their words), with an aggressive tone, just for the sake of adding some fuel to the fire. Now, I´m all for discussions, but sometimes it just seems less of the insightful kind and more of the "stirring the pot because it´s fun" kind
Unsure

Some good discussions come up here and there, though, and I very much like this forum and the people in it. Cool


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 4:24pm

Post #108 of 147 (863 views)
Shortcut
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
There was no reason though to try to make him the hero Aragorn was in LotR. He had been in his day among his people. Those days were gone but one his true motivations for the quest was a realization his days were closing in.


I may be wrong here, but so far as I can remember no one involved with the adaptation has said they wanted to make Thorin another Aragorn. I don't recall Aragorn being mentioned by them at all. What Philippa Boyens does say is that they made Thorin younger because they wanted the audience to believe that he was still young enough to retake and hold his kingdom - to BE King under the Mountain. That's a choice they made but it seems to me it's a valid one. Those of us who know the books know that in Middle-earth different ages have different lifespans - often beyond the capability of ordinary humans. That's quite a hard concept to get across in a film to an audience that doesn't know the books. Any human actor would have to be a lot younger anyway than Thorin's 195 years so there was always going to be a decision about how young.

As to the rest - is there anything in the book that explicitly states that Thorin's true motivation was that he realised his days were closing in?

On Dain - I don't get from the film that he's 'a bad dude'. I get that he's a very tough dwarf who can stand his ground and doesn't like elves. I see nothing to say that he's bad.

I sense, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, that a lot of the things you're saying are your interpretations of either film or book. Perfectly interesting, vaild interpretations, but not ones you can apply to either film or book as fact.


For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


ange1e4e5
Gondor

Jun 9 2016, 5:21pm

Post #109 of 147 (849 views)
Shortcut
What's the deal with all the beard complaints, anyway? [In reply to] Can't Post

And is it beards, or "beards"?

I always follow my job through.


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 6:41pm

Post #110 of 147 (829 views)
Shortcut
Canon [In reply to] Can't Post

Thorin is distinctly described in the original book - from Wikipedia:


Quote
Thorin is described as haughty, stern, and officious. He sings and plays the harp, wears a gold chain, and has a long beard. He wears a distinctive sky blue hood with a long silver tassel. He refers to his home in the Blue Mountains as "poor lodgings in exile". He is a capable and a cunning warrior, if not a particularly inspiring or clever leader. While shorter than Elves or Men, Thorin is said to be quite tall for a Dwarf. Thorin was smart, proud, brave, vengeful, and stubborn. He was infamous for a high sense of his importance and rank. He shared the greed of his family, though he valued the welfare of others as well.


And, I suspect as well, re Western culture - at least later Western culture at least from the early 1900s on? (not sure about that) dwarves seem to be depicted as heavily bearded. Still:


Quote

There’s nothing in Tolkien’s writing to suggest that other dwarves would shave their own beards in solidarity this way [re the "burned beards" of Thror and Thrain after Smaug takes Erebor], but it’s nice that Richard Armitage at least tried to find an internal motivation for the costume decision. ((EDIT: It is mentioned that, during the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, many dwarves tore at their beards in grief. I’m not sure what that means functionally - is it just tugging on the beard? Or does it mean that they would tear out chunks? Or did they actually cut some - or all - of their beards? Tolkien didn’t give more detail than that, but it does support the idea that Thorin’s beard is kept short as a sort of mourning ritual.))


http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/...ss-of-hair-or-beards

IMO, assuming Tolkien based dwarf culture on the Norse/Vikings, it seems new evidence suggests that the fierce raiding Vikings actually assimilated various cultures, so that a "Viking settlement' might have quite a mix of nationalities. Also older artwork re the Norse may suggest, possibly, that (long) beards for this culture may or may not have been of great importance? E.g, the depiction of dwarves as having huge long beards may be a more "modern" construct of folklore, as was the "shrinking" of the elves to cute little pixies. Possibly.UnsureUnsureUnsure



Depiction of Odin, Viking artifact




Wood panel depicting Norse myth, Medieval era

E.g., historically speaking, there may be room for some lively discussion. Beyond that, Thorin's appearance is different than the book description brings to mind. Including his "kingdom/clan" name (Durin's Folk were the Longbeards (Sigin-tarâg in Khuzdul) - but the degree of issue with film alteration of expected appearance (based on the book) I imagine is up to each individual. There are various threads on TORn about it, both pro and con.

http://newboards.theonering.net/..._time;so=DESC;mh=25;


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 9 2016, 7:02pm

Post #111 of 147 (811 views)
Shortcut
I'm sure some are [In reply to] Can't Post

Thorin was old and wanting to possess the gold that was his birthright are straight out of the book. He was still very capable as a fighter for his age as evidenced by his encounter with the Trolls or fatefull chargea at the the BoFA. But to de-age him to morph him into warrior god to defeat Azog which he didn't do in the legendarium, a legendary feat of his cousin long in the past was an attempt to create a hero-nemesis narrative that didn't exist in the book. They may not have mentioned that it was an attempt to recreate Aragorn and have the Frodo/Aragorn dual story line dynamic in these movies but it is pretty obvious.

Including Legolas in order to streamline Tolkien's lore with the order in which he wrote the books is one thing. Creating an arc making him a major character and the slayer of Bolg was a major deviation. The time devoted to Legolas, Alfrid, and Tauriel took time away from characters actually in the book.

Thorin did not swing the BoFA, nor did he affect the outcome as his charge stalled and he fell with Kili and Fili dying in an attempt to save him. Clearly that act was a redemptive one and not a battle changer. There was no "cutting off the head of the snake" for Thorin in the book. It was actually Beorn who rescued the free people and no one knew from where he arrived, it was act of providence.

I love the movies for what they are but not because they kept the faith with Tolkien as much as PJ did with LotR. I hope to see an another adaptation and who knows it could be worse, but for me personally I believe there is much better adaptation that won't so drastically change major characters, i.e. Thorin or deviate as much from the actual lore whether it be Thorin, Azog, Legolas, Bolg, or the conflict with Smaug and the BoFA.


(This post was edited by MedwedtoBeorn on Jun 9 2016, 7:13pm)


ange1e4e5
Gondor

Jun 9 2016, 7:05pm

Post #112 of 147 (811 views)
Shortcut
Didn't get the pun? [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I always follow my job through.


KW
Rivendell

Jun 9 2016, 7:19pm

Post #113 of 147 (797 views)
Shortcut
I started out a couple of lengthy responses but I won't bother. [In reply to] Can't Post

  

I'll just say that I think you are chasing your own tail. If you actually read Morthoron's post in good faith and in the context of the discussion I think you will find that you are attributing two arguments that M. did not make while entirely ignoring the one that was made. (Hint, disputing a fallacy based on a truism is not the same as disputing a truth.) But M. does not require my defense and so I will leave it at that.


(This post was edited by KW on Jun 9 2016, 7:20pm)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 9 2016, 7:31pm

Post #114 of 147 (790 views)
Shortcut
Good thing it wasn't the longer version [In reply to] Can't Post

Because I understood the two posts I read and responded to certain talking points Morthoron highlighted as I saw fit, rather than directly getting involved in the back-and-forth already taking place.

Take it or leave it, but I only chase tails on the weekend (and my own when sloshed).

"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


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 7:40pm

Post #115 of 147 (780 views)
Shortcut
Well, no, it isn't obvious - that's the point I'm trying to make.... [In reply to] Can't Post

If at any time Peter Jackson or one of the others had said, "We've re-envisaged Thorin as another Aragorn" or words to that effect then "I don't think they should have tried to recreate Aragorn" is a reasonable criticism to make.

If they have never said that, or thought it, and have actually explained their interpretation of Thorin in some other way then it makes no sense to criticise them for doing what they didn't do.

You're doing it again because 'to de-age him to morph him into a warrior god" is nowhere near what they intended in making him younger. I don't know where you got that idea - we see Thorin making a pretty serious mistake in fighting Azog and paying for it with his life, and that's something gods tend not to do. They made Thorin younger because they wanted an audience with no knowledge of Tolkien to believe him capable of retaking the Mountain and reigning as King. (Bottom line, if he's end the end of his life, why bother?) If you want to criticise their decisions, criticise them on those grounds because those are their stated intentions.

I agree that Legolas is a major change, as is his fight with Bolg. I agree that Thorin didn't win the battle in the book - though I don't agree that he didn't affect the outcome. Things were going badly when he made his charge - it may be that he gave just enough impetus to keep things going until Beorn arrived, we can't know that. But then, Thorin doesn win the battled in the film either. Without the arrival of the eagles and Beorn in the film Thorin would have been facing not only Azog alone, but the whole of Bolg's army behind him. It is the eagles and Beorn who eliminate that threat.

I know they changed a lot and someone else might change less (or more). But it seems to me that you're looking for more than fidelity to the book. You're looking for things that reside in only in your interpretation of the book and no filmmaker can ever give you that.

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


Jun 9 2016, 7:53pm

Post #116 of 147 (779 views)
Shortcut
Don't know about Avandel... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but I don't see any pun at all in your post.

"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"


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 8:54pm

Post #117 of 147 (751 views)
Shortcut
That "the book was not flawless" is usually not worth mentioning. [In reply to] Can't Post

Especially when that comment is expanded to "Nothing in the world is flawless", which is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. No one, or at least no one worth arguing with, claims that Tolkien's Hobbit is perfect or that any film adaptation thereof must include no changes from the source. (Which is impossible, anyway.) The arguments are against the merits of this particular adaptation, and its premises are that the source is a work of enough importance for us to be discussing its adaptation in the first place, and that some changes will be worse than others.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 9 2016, 8:57pm

Post #118 of 147 (746 views)
Shortcut
Younger [In reply to] Can't Post

You can say that it was an organic decision to make him younger for the audience to buy into Thorin retaking his kingdom and reigning but what was the genesis of that idea? It deviated from the story. On the face of it the Quest was a fool's errand and if not for Bilbo and the providence Gandalf foresaw in Bilbo's participation it would have failed. In the book, the success of ousting and destroying Smaug was neither instigated or achieved by Thorin but by Bilbo and Bard. On top of that Azog was dead at the time of the Hobbit and there were no other nemesis in which Thorin engaged with in singular mortal combat. In LotR the audience emotionally invested in Aragorn and the payoff was that he did reclaim his kingdom and reign after the story. In their own words they were casting and modifying their story in away that created the same arc of Thorin reclaiming a kingdom and perceived as reigning long after which is what they though the audience needed. Why? I cant help wonder the affect of prior experience(Aragorn and the LotR) and how it shaped their thinking as to what they perceived audiences would want. Even if it wasn't an outright attempt to duplicate it is odd that aside from Thorin's death his role in the story was expanded and shared similar elements.


(This post was edited by MedwedtoBeorn on Jun 9 2016, 9:01pm)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 9 2016, 10:03pm

Post #119 of 147 (729 views)
Shortcut
Actually, there's another reason [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You can say that it was an organic decision to make him younger for the audience to buy into Thorin retaking his kingdom and reigning but what was the genesis of that idea? It deviated from the story. On the face of it the Quest was a fool's errand and if not for Bilbo and the providence Gandalf foresaw in Bilbo's participation it would have failed. In the book, the success of ousting and destroying Smaug was neither instigated or achieved by Thorin but by Bilbo and Bard. On top of that Azog was dead at the time of the Hobbit and there were no other nemesis in which Thorin engaged with in singular mortal combat. In LotR the audience emotionally invested in Aragorn and the payoff was that he did reclaim his kingdom and reign after the story. In their own words they were casting and modifying their story in away that created the same arc of Thorin reclaiming a kingdom and perceived as reigning long after which is what they though the audience needed. Why? I cant help wonder the affect of prior experience(Aragorn and the LotR) and how it shaped their thinking as to what they perceived audiences would want. Even if it wasn't an outright attempt to duplicate it is odd that aside from Thorin's death his role in the story was expanded and shared similar elements.


Another reason, stated in one of the Appendices, is a filmmakers understanding of the aging process as seen on film. They specifically said they needed an actor who could look younger for the pre-Smaug Erebor scenes, and the battle of Anza-nevercangetthatnameright scenes. I guess they wanted to emphasize that dozens of years had gone by between the two. But I never really thought that movie Thorin's story arc had anything in common with Aragorn, I would come closer to saying Boromir.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 10:12pm

Post #120 of 147 (726 views)
Shortcut
Who said anything about an organic decision? [In reply to] Can't Post

You're making this way too complicated. Philippa Boyens explains that they made Thorin younger because they wanted an audience that knew nothing about Tolkien to believe that he was capable of being King under the Mountain in more than name. Nothing organic about that - a deliberate decision to depart from the book for what seemed to them to be a good reason. It was how Thorin was meant to look, "Thorin, son of Thrain, son of Thror King under the Mountain!" said the dwarf in a loud voice, and he looked it, in spite of his torn clothes and draggled hood. The gold gleamed on his neck and waist and his eyes were dark and deep. "I have come back...." Seems to me it worked because in the film too Thorin has that presence and that power.

In the film too Smaug is ousted and destroyed by Bilbo and Bard. Bilbo lets slip the fatal 'barrel rider', Bard fires the arrow.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


LSF
Gondor

Jun 9 2016, 10:12pm

Post #121 of 147 (723 views)
Shortcut
agree [In reply to] Can't Post

" But I never really thought that movie Thorin's story arc had anything in common with Aragorn"

Other than both being lost kings and good fighters, they are very different in personality and arc. Aragorn is reluctant and hesitant to assume the throne, because of a mistake make by his ancestor from over 1000? years ago and the possibility of making the same mistake. Thorin believes in his kingship status despite the mistake made by his grandfather and the sickness that may be in him too. Aragorn is a humble ranger and grows into leadership. Thorin was raised as a prince and been a leader for awhile before the story starts. Their entire goal is different, with Aragorn going on the journey to aid Frodo, not to reclaim his throne, compared to Thorin going to reclaim his.

PJ and Co compared Bard to Aragorn, not Thorin. That's a much closer similarity.



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 9 2016, 10:30pm

Post #122 of 147 (718 views)
Shortcut
Regarding Thorin & Dain [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course you are right that an audience can sympathize with a "villain," you point out Fassbender's Magneto (or Ian McKellan, for that matter), and I'd point out Tom Hiddleston's Loki for a similar reason. But I don't think they were trying to make Thorin "likeable." Note that in the first movie he treats Bilbo with such disdain, in the second movie he leaves his beloved nephew behind (both of them, really), then threatens Bilbo, and then in the third movie he completely loses himself. THAT is actually what I think they were trying to accomplish - by giving him some admirable characteristics, it makes his fall from grace that much harder. We go from the leader who stood on a rock during the Warg chase & made sure all his men were safe before jumping down (probably the scene that made me love him!EvilHeart) to a greedy, suspicious warmonger that was willing to sacrifice his cousin and hundreds of other Dwarves for the sake of gold. Whereas movie Aragorn resisted the temptation of the ring with no problem, so I don't see the similarity here.


As for Dain, you're not the first poster to note (quite correctly) that Dain was robbed of his hero moment, which was then transferred to Thorin. But see, this is why I like having these discussions - I didn't know Dain was only 32 when he killed Azog! Way younger than Fili & Kili, and pretty cool (and I assume by "bad dude" you mean "badass warrior?"). Now granted, I've read "The Hobbit" maybe 2 or 3 times, but I never picked up on that in the book. All I knew (and one of the reasons I didn't care much for the story) is this guy shows up at the very end of the book and ends up with everything. That's how it read to me, and that seemed terribly unfair. Perhaps that is the reason I don't care much for book Dain (and honestly, didn't care much for book Thorin either). But the movie does show that which I didn't pick up on in the book, that Dain was a greatly honored Dwarf hero, and beyond skilled fighter. My favorite movie Dain scene is actually the funeral in the BOT5A EE, when he bows to the Company after they salute him with "Long live the King," like he's saying "thank you for your support."


And finally, I have to disagree that Beorn validated Thorin's redemption in the book. I've said before that, book or movie, Thorin redeemed himself when he rejoined the battle, and no validation was needed. Yes, he apologized to Bilbo on his deathbed, but the reason he was on his deathbed is the action he took, the turn to do the right thing and come to Dain's aid despite the likely consequence. That is, of course, my opinion, my interpretation of the events in the Battle of 5 Armies. Not sure what it was that robbed Thorin of his tragic charge; IMO we still had the tragic charge & tragic consequence in the movie as we did in the book. Oh well....

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 9 2016, 11:09pm

Post #123 of 147 (706 views)
Shortcut
Younger Thorin [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that it was a deliberate decision and disagree only that IMHO they in the instance didn't have faith in the source material or the audience on Thorin. Whether it was Brian Cox or Ian McShane, they could have delivered an aged Thorin that had power and presence without all the hero scenes. It wouldn't have required the the arc with Azog, the elaborate fight scenes whether it be out of the frying pan, barrels out of bondage, escaping the Goblin king or the duel to the death with Azog who was made into the main antagonist of the movies. In the book, pride and greed were truly the main antagonist and while on display they became secondary. Since the story was about Bilbo anyway, I don't know that it mattered if the perception of Thorin was capable of being King under the Mountain in name only.

While the barrel rider slip pointed Smaug at Laketown it was pretty clear in the movie it was the 25 minute conflict and battle with Smaug in Erebor that enraged him.


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Jun 9 2016, 11:31pm

Post #124 of 147 (695 views)
Shortcut
story arc [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not implying that their backstories were similar or their actual narrative only that a structure was created to make Thorin an equal protagonist with Bilbo so a three movie story arc equaling Bilbo's needed to be built for him. I lament the unfortunate side effects of this. It changed the casting of the character. It crowded Bilbo's journey and being the focal point of the story. It also created the lore changes with Azog and Dain and required inserted elaborate fight scenes to demonstrate Thorin's prowess and continuing conflict with Azog. It altered the BoFA and Kili and Fili's end story. It robbed Beorn of his role as the U-catastrophe and his significance. Those are just some of the effects of that one script decision. Some think they were great.

I actually really enjoy the movies. But unlike the LotR, where I sit and contemplate the tall task for another director to do a significantly better three movie LotR adaptation, I don't think that with the Hobbit.

With the Hobbit movies, I believe it is entirely possible to make superior movies and it might be as a two movie adaptation.


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jun 9 2016, 11:37pm

Post #125 of 147 (690 views)
Shortcut
Doesn't Tolkien himself "rob" Beorn of impact? [In reply to] Can't Post

By tossing off the conclusion of the battle into a paragraph or two related after the fact?

Now that would have been a bold filmmaking choice.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 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.