Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Dwarves of the iron hills

Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


May 5 2013, 12:13pm

Post #1 of 16 (1168 views)
Shortcut
Dwarves of the iron hills Can't Post

I feel that DOS is gonna end with the fate of Smaug, though I dont think it will show the resolution of the conflict with the Necromancer. To me this is going t happen in film 3, so it will lead to a very interesting concluson of TH saga. Dwarves of the iron hills are giong to have a bigger role then I suspected, Iīm almost sure we are going to see their halls and that Dain may become some kind of Theoden. A leader that receives a help calling of his kin, and has to muster his folk to go and change the luck of the conflict

What do you think of them?

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


Kaede
Rivendell


May 5 2013, 1:20pm

Post #2 of 16 (537 views)
Shortcut
Excellent point [In reply to] Can't Post

...about Dain/Iron Hills dwarves being parallel to Theoden and the coming of Rohan to the siege of Minas Tirith in RoTK. Keen observation! Also fairly likely to parallel as third movie material. Since Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first, I guess we have to say that Theoden/Rohan mirrors Dain/Iron Hills dwarves. Take it a step further--I have been wondering all along how much the gold madness of Thorin will parallel the palantir madness of Denethor...and maybe this is complete coincidence and wild conjecture, but also notice the "thor" in both names...just sayin'...

Not sure about the Necromancer resolution, though. *If* we're looking at LoTR parallels, then we have Saruman as the parallel plot--he falls in TTT and we see the mop up in RoTK. So maybe we see the Necromancer fall in DoS and the mop up in TaBA?


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 5 2013, 5:32pm

Post #3 of 16 (480 views)
Shortcut
They have already [In reply to] Can't Post

made Dain look unsympathetic to Thorin and his quest. Thorin says as much in Baggend in AUJ.

Dwalin: "and what of Dain?"
Thorin: "He will not come", "he says this quest is ours and ours alone"

They have already portrayed Dain in a sour light as far as giving aid to Thorin. The sad part is they could have left this nonsense out of Baggend and Dain's arrival would have glorious. Now he just seems like some sort of scavenger arriving after Thorin advises him they have reclaimed the treasure. And to top it all off he has no character arc because of his omission from Anzunabizar, nobody will really understand why Dain is made King under the mountain after Thorin's death. They will just think of him as that dwarf that would not help Thorin on his quest.

As far as them ending Smaug in film 2, I hope they end the necromancer nonsense in film 2 and carry Smaug over to film 3 and have only minor residual stuff from the DolGuldur subplot in the 3rd film. I think making the necromancer a predominant factor in the films at all is a huge mistake and goes completely against what Tolkien wrote in the Hobbit. I would rather be left on a cliffhanger of not knowing what has happened to Smaug at the end of film 2, and seeing his death in the first quarter of the 3rd film. Leaving the rest of TABA to be about the aftermath of Smaug's death, the dispute between the Lakemen and the dwarfs, the BO5A, Thorin's death, and do not forget Bilbo's return trip home, and interrupting the auction and catching the Sackville-Baggins' trying to make off with Bilbo's belongings.


Oin's parasite
Rivendell


May 5 2013, 7:14pm

Post #4 of 16 (409 views)
Shortcut
This quote from Tolkien sums up your comment in my mind [In reply to] Can't Post

"Dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk who have a great knowledge of the value of money."
-The Hobbit

"I've got parasites as big as my arm!"


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 5 2013, 7:37pm

Post #5 of 16 (371 views)
Shortcut
I still think it paints Dain in a poor light [In reply to] Can't Post

just to show up after all the hard work is done. Had they kept his story the way Tolkien wrote it and him being the hero of Anzunabizar then I could see it being that way, OR if they weren't already trying to portray Thorin in the light of being a hero maybe. But they have already painted Thorin in the light of being a hero. Which the way the story unfolds completely takes away from Dain's character and his accomplishments. Only knowing the value of money, or being calculating goes against Jackson's own treatment of the main dwarfs we have seen thus far. IMO it makes Dain seem uncaring about his "kin" and more caring about the treasure which makes me wonder, Why would people accept Dain coming in to Thorin's aid after all the hard work was done, while showing no care for Thorin who is supposed to be his kin?... I mean maybe he did think the quest was folly but from what Jackson has shown us, dwarfs care more for family and heritage than they do anything else. (unless they have dragon sickness) It just makes no sense. To change the future King under the mountains character arc and portray him as someone who will not help his own kin.


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


May 5 2013, 8:13pm

Post #6 of 16 (393 views)
Shortcut
Dainīs role (ssspoilers) [In reply to] Can't Post

I can understand that Dain is gonna be shown in the way that Tokienīs statement points. It will emphazise in the foolishnes of Thorinīs quest (13 dwarves and an unexperienced, and unexpected burglar against a dragon, well a wizard aswell) And will increase Thorinīs pride in having succeeded and his determination to keep the treasure away of those who didnīt belive him, or betrayed him (elves) or distrusted (men).
I think no one is gonna be in a rich light except the men of Esgaroth, wanting the gold to restore the city. And in the last stage it will be Thorinīs final choice what would bring redemption to the whole ocnflict about the treasure.

Perhaps Thorin (who I feel is gonna be SPOILERS the main villian in film 3) shows everyone a unvaluable lesson at the end

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


Roheryn
Grey Havens

May 6 2013, 1:12am

Post #7 of 16 (270 views)
Shortcut
But the movies aren't over yet. [In reply to] Can't Post

We have no idea how Dain's character arc will play out. There are still two movies to go, and we haven't even seen Dain yet. There's no point in getting our knickers in a twist over this.

A different take: Dain has been shown to be sensible, refusing to send his people on what is likely to be a suicide mission. Thorin has to follow his duty to his people; Dain is following his own duty to his own people. Makes sense to me.

At this point, we have no idea what will motivate Dain to change his mind. I see no reason why his motivation couldn't be to help his kin. When Thorin and Company are besieged in Erebor, they're in a tight spot and need rescuing; there's no dragon any more so Dain's not committing to an obvious suicide mission; and Dain and his Dwarves stand a reasonable chance of making a huge difference to Thorin's plight (which was not true were Dain to send Dwarves along with Thorin to Erebor in the first place). He certainly isn't coming to the battle expecting Thorin and the princes to be slain, so likewise is certainly not expecting that he himself will inherit the kingdom.

It's quite possible Dain could slay Azog at Bo5A. If so, I suspect that would mean a LOT more to the audience ("YAY!!! He killed Thorin's archenemy!") than if he'd slain Azog at Azanulbizar ("Oh good, he killed a big Orc."). In the latter case, by the time we got to the end of Bo5A, we'd probably have forgotten about Dain's deed at Azanulbizar. Whatever he does at Bo5A, and I expect it will be something suitably heroic, will be fresh in our minds.

And it strikes me as slightly ironic that you complain about the "necromancer nonsense", when in fact it did happen during the story of The Hobbit -- just offscreen, as it were; but you want the Battle of Azanulbizar -- which did not happen during the story of The Hobbit -- to be portrayed with historical accuracy. If Jackson stuck strictly to just The Hobbit book, we'd get a brief last-minute mention that Dain slew Azog (with no explanation of why that has any importance), and Dain would have nothing particularly heroic to do before or during the Bo5A (except showing up, which he does only after the dragon is dead). I think that would make the audience even less sympathetic to Dain.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 6 2013, 2:03am

Post #8 of 16 (262 views)
Shortcut
the fact is though [In reply to] Can't Post

with Azanulbizar there are recorded documents written by Tolkien on them in the appendices, there is enough in them to make a scene that works and is correct in Tolkien's mythos. The necromancer is a whole whopping, 2 sentences in the Hobbit if that, and nothing substantial written anywhere else that Jackson has rights to use by Tolkien about the situation. All the necromancer business is nothing more than fan fiction created by Peter Jackson. Which IMO is the weakest part of his scripts.

I never once have claimed I did not want to see where Gandalf went or what he was doing but it should not be as important a part of the story as the main quest that Bilbo is on. IMO Peter Jackson should have left the majority of that side quest vague just like Tolkien did, using it only as filler material to pad out a 2 film adaptation. We shouldn't really get a good idea of who the necromancer is, we find out more about Sauron in FOTR and IMO it should be left that way.

Now we have 3 films with a bunch of made up nonsense about Azog, Bolg working for the Necromancer and all evil in middle earth being directly linked in some way to Sauron. Sounds like they didn't think the Hobbit was good enough to be made into a film Crazy. If thats the case they should have left it alone... I mean really Tolkien abandoned any rewrite only changing Riddles in the dark to fit with LOTR. So rewriting the Hobbit is something Jackson should have never attempted IMHO, it would have worked fine with minor tweaking.


The Mitch King
Rohan


May 6 2013, 3:37am

Post #9 of 16 (248 views)
Shortcut
hmmm [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the problem was that there was just too much that needed to be shown (just from the book material alone) to fit into 2 movies without having all the fans upset one way or another. So they had to extend it to 3 movies and most likely needed to add some new stuff. Idk about anyone else but I like seeing Legolas one last time, or seeing what this necromancer business is all about(which intrigued me the most as a kid). We get to actually learn something about Bard and probably more about Beorn than the book gives us. The book is by no means perfect when it comes to giving background info and if shot as written would leave so many questions to common viewers. "Where did this random Bear guy come from?" "Why would he even show up for the BoFA at the end of the book?" "So that Bard guy was really random..." etc. etc. When all is said and done I'll bet we have a much more connected and understood story and characters.


(This post was edited by The Mitch King on May 6 2013, 3:38am)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 6 2013, 4:33pm

Post #10 of 16 (149 views)
Shortcut
My problem with that is [In reply to] Can't Post

were not getting Tolkien we are getting something completely made up by Peter Jackson. If the material were something Tolkien wrote Hey I'm all for it, but the fact remains it isn't Tolkien its made up fan fiction by Peter Jackson.Unsure


Arannir
Valinor


May 6 2013, 5:16pm

Post #11 of 16 (146 views)
Shortcut
I have complete understanding for this... [In reply to] Can't Post

.... since you obviously adore the Hobbit as a book very much.

And I think I might feel similar if I was more a lover of the book.

However, as someone who loves LotR, Sil and the Children without end, I never grew fond of the Hobbit as a book THAT much. Nice children's tale, but it never caught me and felt alien to the legendarium (probably because I read it long after the other books when I was an adult).

So for me, all I saw in AUJ yet, gives me hope that I will love this more than the original story. Some might call that heresy, but I do not say I want PJ to "improve" the Hobbit - because I know that what I call improvements might be total garbage to others. But I still feel this movie breaths Tolkien, and that is what counts to me the most. If it stays like this, I am even excited for the changes and hope they will fall into place and work in the final trilogy.

I do not want to contradict you with this, again, I totally see where you are coming from and have 100% understanding for it. Just wanted to give this other viewpoint and why some - although being Tolkien (and lore) fans - do not see this as nonsensical fan-fiction but as an embellished re-telling of a story we always liked but did not yet completely love.

(Not to say that I find AUJ without flaws, it feels too episodic and is, in that, not a weaker story but a weaker movie than FotR, imho and the Stone Giants are a missed opportunity imho... I also do not see the need for the Nazgul tombs, yet, or the Frodo intro).



“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.

(This post was edited by Arannir on May 6 2013, 5:18pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 6 2013, 7:08pm

Post #12 of 16 (124 views)
Shortcut
I can respect your views [In reply to] Can't Post

personally maybe my view of the Hobbit as it is has been because I first read the Hobbit when I was 6(1977 by the way) It was the first real book I ever read, so it does hold a very special place in my heart obviously. I have also read LOTR, the Sil, UT, HOME, and just about anything else I can get my hands on Tolkien related. I love the creation that Tolkien came up with and can see the Hobbit in a more mature way that fits with LOTR when I read it. I guess maybe others can not do that.

For what its worth I find most of Jackson's changes to be subpar in comparison to what Tolkien wrote, He chooses cheap spectacle and flashy scenes to draw in an audience who were never given a chance to appreciate the way Tolkien wrote his tales. Which IMO gives the viewers of Peter Jackson's films a false glimpse into Tolkien's world. I think LOTR was good maybe because even though it strayed in spots the feeling was still there of the story. With the Hobbit I don't get that same feeling of the story. I get a feeling Jackson was more content to make up his own version of what Tolkien wrote instead of having some reverence for the source material. It just feels like they are content to deviate from the book. Not once this time around has anyone said how much they care about the book. All we hear about are the appendices (which obviously have NOT been used properly, nor are there 125 pages like Jackson keeps insisiting there are) and how they are changing the Hobbit to fit with that material. Instead of telling the truth and just admitting they are making up a bunch of their own material because they think the story Tolkien wrote and published in 1937 is not good enough to be made into a film of its own right.

This time around they have relied on countless tie ins to LOTR that were not in the Hobbit, changed characters to be something they are not (Thorin, and Bard spring to mind), trading small moments for OTT spectacle (stone giants, a 20 minute chase thru Goblin Town), and making up a bunch of stuff that was never in any of Tolkien's mythos (Azog chasing the dwarfs all over middle earth, Radagast being some dirty crap covered drug addict who refuses to bathe, Nazgul in tombs) There are some things I didn't mind like Thorin showing up late by himself, The betting scene, the conversation with Bofur before Goblin Town. I found those additions rather likable.

But PJ does feel he is "improving" the Hobbit that is the problem. I don't see it as improving I see it as rewriting. What i find sad is people were never given a chance to enjoy the Hobbit as Tolkien wrote it. Because Jackson started out with changing it in mind right from the start. I think if people were given a chance they would have enjoyed the Hobbit as a set of films without all the manipulation that Jackson has done to it. But we were never given that chance. Unsure


(This post was edited by sinister71 on May 6 2013, 7:09pm)


The Mitch King
Rohan


May 6 2013, 7:27pm

Post #13 of 16 (118 views)
Shortcut
To quote Gandalf... [In reply to] Can't Post

All good stories deserve embellishment. Wink


Arannir
Valinor


May 6 2013, 7:54pm

Post #14 of 16 (114 views)
Shortcut
I see the changes you list, of course. [In reply to] Can't Post

However, I do not see them as cheap in most cases, especially the character changes. At least so far.

But of course, all this links back to the original perception of what one hoped these movies would be. And I always hoped for something similar to what we got... though also I was surprised by Azog, for example. Not in a negative way - yet - but surprised nevertheless.

I am sure, by the way, that PJ and Co will comment on the changes on the commentary and do not want to hide that those are changes to the lore. Not that this makes it better for those not liking them, but I doubt there is deliberate organized lying behind it. They stood by all of their changes in LotR, I do not see why they wouldn't comment and explain on them for TH. The appendicies quotes you mention were used, as far as I recall, when questions regarding the two and then the three movie split came up - as to why one would need two or three movies to tell that tale.


But again, there is no use in discussing every change, because we both agree that our perceptions come from the different way we approached this movies to begin with.

I just feel that - even if one does not like the outcome - this was a valid way to approach the material. One that has and will find its fans. And not just because it seems more flashy at some points. I surely would not count me to those who fall for these kind of things.


I hope very much though, that they will open up the books for more readers (recent bestseller lists do imply so) and that the next two volumes may bring some peace to those devoted fans who are disappointed now.

Like you. I really appreciate the way btw, that we can discuss this here. Often those discussion drift swiftly into insults or snarky remarks, I really like your attitude though :)



“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 7 2013, 1:26pm

Post #15 of 16 (65 views)
Shortcut
issue with the appendices [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I am sure, by the way, that PJ and Co will comment on the changes on the commentary and do not want to hide that those are changes to the lore. Not that this makes it better for those not liking them, but I doubt there is deliberate organized lying behind it. They stood by all of their changes in LotR, I do not see why they wouldn't comment and explain on them for TH. The appendicies quotes you mention were used, as far as I recall, when questions regarding the two and then the three movie split came up - as to why one would need two or three movies to tell that tale.

My issue is not them using the appendices but the misleading that they are doing while promoting them. Jackson has always insisted there are 125 pages, which that much is correct. The problem is there are maybe 11 or 12 pages at most that have anything to do with the Hobbit or the characters contained in the Hobbit. Most of which being in the section on Durin's Folk (appendix A section III) which is roughly 8 and a half pages with a nice lineage tree as well. The only thing from them that Jackson did right was Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror, other than that unfortunately, events of the dwarfs was altered so that it does not resemble what is in the appendices. 3 pages of the appendices are of the battle of Azanulbizar their lead up and execution Nothing like what we got in the film.

Personally I think 2 films would have been enough, the Hobbit is a 309 page book, FOTR was 376 pages, TTT was 321 pages, and ROTK was 382 pages (all roughly depending on the versions you have) without the index but including the appendices. Adding of the Necromancer and DolGuldur surely is not 3 films worth of material, not to mention the Azanulbizar flashbacks we got are maybe 15 minutes of film. Definitely not 3 films worth IMO, unless one whole film is made up fan fiction content Which to me is the worst idea ever in the history of film Unsure...

I also think its great for people to be introduced to Tolkien but Jackson isn't doing that. The people who pick up the books thanks to his films have a wide variety of experiences because of being introduced to his films first. Some do not like Tolkien because it doesn't match what Jackson put on film, some could take it or leave it and do not care, and then from my understanding it is only a small percentage that actually end up loving the books as much or more than the films. I feel it would be better if Jackson stuck closer to the book that way when a persona reads the book they can see where it was drawn from, instead of having to wade thru all the made up stuff that Jackson felt he needed to insert into the story. One of my nephews is a prime example of hating the book after seeing Jackson's film first. He read it after seeing the Hobbit AUJ, upon reading it he wanted to know where Azog was or Radagast. When I informed him that Neither were characters in the book he thought that the "book sucked" and "wasn't like the movie at all"... So to me a more faithful (not exact) representation of Tolkien's works on film would be better to interest people into reading the books. Which is not what Jackson gave us. LOTR while being diferent from the source in some ways at least had the feel and tone making smaller deviations, where as the Hobbit makes monumental deviation waving its bare behind in Tolkien's face IMO.
Now had they kept the dwarf history as it should have been and inserted more of it THAT I would have loved to have seen. But watching an Orc who was dead for years suddenly resurrected just to make a film villain and changing Brilliant dwarf history was just a waste of time and misleading to people who will read the book, but thats just MY opinion Wink



Yngwulff
Gondor


May 12 2013, 5:12am

Post #16 of 16 (66 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
My issue is not them using the appendices but the misleading that they are doing while promoting them. Jackson has always insisted there are 125 pages, which that much is correct. The problem is there are maybe 11 or 12 pages at most that have anything to do with the Hobbit or the characters contained in the Hobbit. Most of which being in the section on Durin's Folk (appendix A section III) which is roughly 8 and a half pages with a nice lineage tree as well. The only thing from them that Jackson did right was Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror, other than that unfortunately, events of the dwarfs was altered so that it does not resemble what is in the appendices. 3 pages of the appendices are of the battle of Azanulbizar their lead up and execution Nothing like what we got in the film.



a 2 film series with a more complete/accurate Dwarven backstory would have been more to my liking a more true to Tolkien canon with the Necromancer subplot just recieving an honorable mention.


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!

 
 

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.