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:
Stirring the pot re: outcome of BoFA
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

DanielLB
Immortal


May 22 2013, 7:04am

Post #26 of 45 (249 views)
Shortcut
Bombur *spoilers* [In reply to] Can't Post

won't die, and neither will any of them that aren't supposed to. Out of the 13 Dwarves, 6 of them get the most screentime (Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and Bofur). Killing any of the other 7 would be pointless to the story - the audience aren't going to care that the ginger one that doesn't talk gets killed (and then they'll probably wonder what the point of him being in the film was in the first place!) You don't kill a character "just because".

Reclaiming the gold and Erebor is all about Thorin's struggle, and the loss of Fili and Kili. Any other deaths would take the limelight away from these three. It should be very dramatic, and emotional. We shouldn't be thinking: "oh look, there goes another Dwarf".

Having 7 of them die is needless and utterly pointless.


(This post was edited by entmaiden on May 22 2013, 7:42pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 22 2013, 2:41pm

Post #27 of 45 (213 views)
Shortcut
Ive been saying this for a couple years now [In reply to] Can't Post

I think they should follow the R&B version in this respect. Not all the dwarfs need to survive. We know some like Gloin, Balin, and Ori do but the rest aren't mentioned again in Jackson's LOTR. It really wouldn't hurt anything to kill a few more of them off. It might actually make the journey have a perilous end, instead of not feeling any danger like in AUJ. Besides the norm Thorin, Kili, and Fili, I say kill off Nori, Bombur, and Bifur. That still leaves 7 of the original 13 dwarfs. 3 of which are referred to later, Balin and Ori dead in Moria, and Gloin at the council of Elrond.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 22 2013, 3:45pm

Post #28 of 45 (196 views)
Shortcut
It doesn't have to be a major event [In reply to] Can't Post

they could just mention it like in the R&B cartoon, there are no death scenes just Bilbo and Gandalf and what it shows is the cost of this battle. Having a scene with Bilbo asking Gandalf how many are left of the original 13 would work quite well I think in showing that Thorin's greed cost so much more than ever anticipated. But it doesn't have to be each one of them having a death scene, just a small conversation with Gandalf and Bilbo nothing more.


DanielLB
Immortal


May 22 2013, 4:15pm

Post #29 of 45 (191 views)
Shortcut
But what would the point be? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's a very needless change.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 22 2013, 4:15pm

Post #30 of 45 (187 views)
Shortcut
Why stop now? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


DanielLB
Immortal


May 22 2013, 4:18pm

Post #31 of 45 (190 views)
Shortcut
Well I'm asking you. [In reply to] Can't Post

Why should more Dwarves die than have to? It doesn't make the film any better, nor does it add any more drama or tension.

Smile


swordwhale
Grey Havens


May 22 2013, 4:30pm

Post #32 of 45 (194 views)
Shortcut
Oakentoons [In reply to] Can't Post

I found her site....

http://peckishowl.deviantart.com/gallery/41509876

they are brilliant!

Go outside and play...


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


May 22 2013, 4:46pm

Post #33 of 45 (183 views)
Shortcut
I think it adds [In reply to] Can't Post

to the peril of the story honestly, going into a battle and only 3 out of 13 die? I think it would add to the cost of the overall tale to have more than 3 die, 3 which happen to be closely related and none of the others perish to me just doesn't make sense. I think it would add to the weight of the journey if more were to die. To me that's a change that makes more sense than say bringing Azog back to life. I mean some of the dwarfs are never heard from again and their death dates are unknown in Tolkien's lore so why not? changes have already been made, I don't like the vast majority of them, so why stop making changes now?


swordwhale
Grey Havens


May 22 2013, 5:10pm

Post #34 of 45 (174 views)
Shortcut
of course, did it change anything in LOTR... [In reply to] Can't Post

...to only have one of the Fellowship actually die...

Would there have been more Dramatic Tension by losing others?

Perhaps Tolkien saw enough tragedy in the trenches of WWI (where, if I remember the statistic right, something like 9 out of 10 of the young men he went to school with did not return)...

Go outside and play...


The Mitch King
Rohan


May 22 2013, 5:23pm

Post #35 of 45 (178 views)
Shortcut
ooooooo idk about killing more dwarves [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm inclined to agree with Daniel. There is nothing added to the story other than drowning out the other 3 very important deaths. I love this company of the dwarves and I don't want more to die! I do want the deaths according to the book though. Comparing that change to the Azog change is apples and oranges. One is used as a plot device(Bolg could have done it just fine I admit), the other is just killing more characters unnecessarily


DanielLB
Immortal


May 22 2013, 6:15pm

Post #36 of 45 (173 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure the two are comparable [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think keeping Azog alive is a comparable change to killing off Dwarves that are supposed to stay alive. Sure, Azog lives longer than he should do, but history is still restored within the films - he still dies, and probably from Dain as well.

I agree that changing Azog's history is a needless change as well. But killing more Dwarves is even more needless. Keeping Azog alive leads to some sort of story progression (or so the film-makers say), whereas killing more Dwarves for the sake of killing them (to make the battle more real) doesn't make sense to me. It's like killing Merry and Pippin at the Black Gates.

Doesn't sit right with me.

Smile


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 22 2013, 7:44pm

Post #37 of 45 (167 views)
Shortcut
REMINDER: Let's watch the spoilers, especially in the subject lines [In reply to] Can't Post

Not everyone has read the book, so let's be careful about giving away any of the outcomes.


The Mitch King
Rohan


May 23 2013, 2:54am

Post #38 of 45 (138 views)
Shortcut
whoops sorry! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Not everyone has read the book, so let's be careful about giving away any of the outcomes.



Cirashala
Grey Havens


May 23 2013, 5:32am

Post #39 of 45 (148 views)
Shortcut
ending (spoilers) [In reply to] Can't Post

The tragedy lies in WHICH three are killed, not that ONLY three are killed.

Bookverse- It shows that Thorin's greed comes at a price-the loss of his heirs and the end of his line.

Movieverse- With Azog's appearance, this will be a huge emotional blow to the fans (not because they are "hot" dwarves but because of character). Azog has vowed to wipe out the line of Durin, and is Thorin's sworn enemy. Yet, in the end, it is Thorin himself who is responsible for fulfilling his archenemy's goal-his greed leads to the death's of Himself, Fili, and Kili, thus wiping out the direct elder line of Durin-just like Azog wanted and it destroyed everything he had fought for. He had essentially done what Azog planned to do, and in a way became the very thing he hated most. And I think that realization is what is going to lead to his deathbed redemption in the movie.

I know there will be many arguments about whether Thorin was truly responsible or if it was just meant to be, but there are other threads about that, and regardless of whether or not blame should be laid to Thorin, HE WILL BLAME HIMSELF because that is the type of leader he is-when he is sane he takes responsibility for his company and his kin.

Either way, I think that the devastation of WHO dies will be just as weighty as if half the company had died. The disinherited King who could never rule the homeland he watched destroyed and who wanted to reclaim it his entire adult life, and the two innocent of the world happy go lucky young and full of promise optimistic enthusiastic barely of age boys who followed him blindly into something they could not have possibly anticipated fighting for a home they had never seen against odds they never could have imagined and died thought they alone of the dwarves did not fall prey to gold lust.

THAT is why the deaths of the three carry so much weight. It isn't a numbers game-it's an emotional game. And we are going to be sobbing buckets when it happens.

(Btw, I saw a youtube video of an interview Dean O'Gorman did and one question posed was if he could ever do the Hobbit again what would he do differently and he said he would not die. So we have confirmation that YES at least Fili dies! Not that it makes me feel giddy but rather at least I believe they will stick to canon at least regarding dwarf deaths )
Frown

Half Elven Daughter of Celethian of the Woodland Realm


Yngwulff
Gondor


May 23 2013, 5:44am

Post #40 of 45 (154 views)
Shortcut
Had either Fili or Kili *spoilers* [In reply to] Can't Post

survived ....Would they have been the king under the mountain instead of Dain?

I think so ... opinions ...


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

(This post was edited by entmaiden on May 23 2013, 4:53pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


May 23 2013, 7:05am

Post #41 of 45 (124 views)
Shortcut
Of course they would have. [In reply to] Can't Post

Fili is next in line for the throne.


Súlimë
Rivendell


May 23 2013, 7:27am

Post #42 of 45 (120 views)
Shortcut
Thank you! [In reply to] Can't Post

I've had it bookmarked. Now I'll have something to do until November Laugh


Na Vedui
Rohan

May 23 2013, 3:08pm

Post #43 of 45 (117 views)
Shortcut
Not a numbers game [In reply to] Can't Post

Very well put!

I* really* hope they stick to Tolkien's version and don't kill anyone else off just for the sake of it. No extra Dwarves. Nor Radagast - he doesn't appear in movie-LOTR but he was definitely alive in book-LOTR so killing him off in The Hobbit would just feel wrong and unnecessary to me.
(Tauriel is a bit different, being a movieverse character, they have a free hand with her, so to speak.)


marillaraina
Rohan


May 24 2013, 6:16pm

Post #44 of 45 (81 views)
Shortcut
Spoilers [In reply to] Can't Post

This is what Aidan said in answer to a question about if his last scene was satisfying:

"I can not imagine to be satisfied with your own death. It was incredibly hard, harder than I had originally thought, but I think he gains depth for the audience."(translated from English to German and back to English)

So I think it's safe to say Kili and Fili both die, given Dean O'Gorman's comments.


(This post was edited by marillaraina on May 24 2013, 6:16pm)


Semper Fi
Rohan

May 26 2013, 10:55am

Post #45 of 45 (76 views)
Shortcut
Death can be random and not always meaningful [In reply to] Can't Post

Deaths don`t have to be meaningful and emotional all the time and there have been lots of criticism of the first movie that action was overly cartoonish precisely because nobody died. So, IMO, they could easily off few background dwarves just to show that nobody is safe. Many background, faceless characters died during Helm`s Deep and Pelenor Fields and that didn`t take away from majesty and horror of those events. If anything, it raised the stakes and made the danger palatable. But when 13 people survives most OTT dangers that`s GI Joe/other stupid movie territory that isn`t needed here. Jackson deviates from the source a lot to make movies more cinematic so offing few dwarves who won`t get any development anyway is actually a change that is more welcome and reasonable than, lets say, giving Kili a love interest.

Speaking of Kili and Fili, I don`t see why anyone thinks that sparing them is a possibility. The Hobbit trilogy is acting as a tie-in with LOTR and those dwarves aren`t even mentioned in LOTR. So sparing them would create a plot hole in that they didn`t attend Elrond`s Council,etc,etc, which, based on their current age and status as princes, they would be absolutely required to. For people who care fo such details. Also, please cut Jackson some slack. He never spared a character who died in books so why does anyone expect such a huge change this time around? The biggest change that I could see happening is Kili dying to save Tauriel and not Thorin. This is just based on Aidan Turner interview where he said that Kili would have a crush on her but it would be unrequited. And we know that unrequited love/crush always ends with romantic runner-up dying for the woman he cannot have. So that`s really the only thing we should worry about, not whether Kili and Fili will die or not. They will but question is only for whom Kili will die.



In Reply To
Killing any of the other 7 would be pointless to the story - the audience aren't going to care that the ginger one that doesn't talk gets killed (and then they'll probably wonder what the point of him being in the film was in the first place!) You don't kill a character "just because".


Having 7 of them die is needless and utterly pointless.


First page Previous page 1 2 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.