|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Feb 14 2018, 4:47pm
Post #26 of 30
(2576 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't want to get into all of your specific issues with the book of The Hobbit, Laineth, but this one stood out for me: If the slapstick in the novel annoyed you then surely the copious amounts of slapstick and other physical comedy in the films must have bothered you as well, no?
I don't mind slapstick and physical comedy themselves, I mind when something is all comedy and no depth. In the book it is pretty much all we are given. In the films there is far more depth/seriousness than comedy. Also, I think Alfrid's parts contribute to the overall theme of greed - they're ridiculous for a reason.
Of course it's purely personal taste between enjoying the book!comedy and/or film!comedy. I just find it mindboggling when people act like Tolkien hated slapstick and never used it. Having different personal tastes is great, acting like slapstick is a betrayal of Tolkien is unnecessary. Not that you are saying this, but I've seen a lot posts and articles over the years since the LotR films came out.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 14 2018, 5:12pm
Post #27 of 30
(2570 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for your reasoned and considerate reply. 
"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Feb 14 2018, 6:03pm
Post #28 of 30
(2562 views)
Shortcut
|
Also, I think Alfrid's parts contribute to the overall theme of greed - they're ridiculous for a reason.
Of course it's purely personal taste between enjoying the book!comedy and/or film!comedy. I just find it mindboggling when people act like Tolkien hated slapstick and never used it.
Oh, Alfrid and the Master are absolutely there to reflect a notion of greed.
Part of what makes The Desolation of Smaug so dark is that, when Bard accuses Thorin of pursuing this quest for a less-than-noble agenda, the film doesn't present the argument as a straw-man; Having the clearly-corrupt Master side with Thorin really underlines that Bard may have a point.
But I do think that once The Master is removed, Alfrid just about stops "working", as it were. Thankfully, the extended edition does away with him, which is all the more satisfying given how annoying he is.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Feb 14 2018, 6:07pm)
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Feb 18 2018, 4:49am
Post #30 of 30
(2457 views)
Shortcut
|
Also, I think Alfrid's parts contribute to the overall theme of greed - they're ridiculous for a reason.
Of course it's purely personal taste between enjoying the book!comedy and/or film!comedy. I just find it mindboggling when people act like Tolkien hated slapstick and never used it. Oh, Alfrid and the Master are absolutely there to reflect a notion of greed. Part of what makes The Desolation of Smaug so dark is that, when Bard accuses Thorin of pursuing this quest for a less-than-noble agenda, the film doesn't present the argument as a straw-man; Having the clearly-corrupt Master side with Thorin really underlines that Bard may have a point. But I do think that once The Master is removed, Alfrid just about stops "working", as it were. Thankfully, the extended edition does away with him, which is all the more satisfying given how annoying he is.
I agree with everything but Alfrid stops working. I think that his greed is an important counterpart to Thorin's - it shows that greed itself is nothing, it doesn't automatically come with power or competence. Which makes Thorin's fall even more sad.
|
|
|
|
|
