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:
The barrels scene: dwarves not hidden???
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Salmacis81
Grey Havens


Jul 11 2013, 2:26am

Post #26 of 50 (709 views)
Shortcut
Bilbo riding the barrels... [In reply to] Can't Post

jumping from barrel to barrel, while wearing the Ring, would have created enough suspense and worked just fine for me...

This scene should have been about Bilbo, not the dwarves...


Bombadil
Half-elven


Jul 11 2013, 2:36am

Post #27 of 50 (708 views)
Shortcut
Here is another thing to Remember? [In reply to] Can't Post

The Tallest Dwarve is Dwalin portrayed as about
Maybe?
close to 5 foot tall.

As explained in other posts therefore they weight less than Humans.
Sure some water will get in, and only Anchor it deeper in the Rapids.
But the Bouyancy?
of.. Mirkwood Elves Oak Wine BARRELS!!!
that have been used over and over for Years,
should be pretty Water Tight.

Often Bomby feels
we can't keep Thinking of these "Low to ground Little guys are Human",
maybe because we know them as
Roughly 6 foot WORLD-Class Actors.

Bomby thinks it will BE..
"WORLD-Class Beautiful!

(AS only PJ&Co can deliver)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 2:44am

Post #28 of 50 (717 views)
Shortcut
Why not? [In reply to] Can't Post

Jackson has insisted on changing as many things about the book as he can.This is just one more instance of Jackson choosing spectacle over the details of the story. He simply doesn't get it that its the fine details Tolkien wrote into the story that make it what it is. And all his changes make his version what it is... Not as good IMO. For those who like that sort of tale and are happy with what they are getting I am happy for them, but for those like me who wanted the Hobbit and not a bunch of made up stuff i sympathize. Wink

In the book Bilbo chose secrecy to get the dwarfs out. The materials were there, the situation was there. Bilbo just had to figure out the details.... Bilbo planned and plotted to get them all out without being noticed. The elves drink wine they send the barrels back to be refilled... THAT was part of the charm of the scene in the book, the reader or in this case the viewer has no idea what has become of the dwarfs. Have they drown, are they alright? Bilbo wondering did he make the right decision in floating them down the river in the barrels? Then there is the fact that floating the barrels down stream was the way of returning the barrels to Laketown to be refilled with wine. If the river were all rapids wouldn't the barrels be smashed against the rocks? Must be they just rebuild them after every use... That and what about Bilbo's riddle to smaug? He who drowns his friends and then brings the back to life... Not exact I know but part of the book... Which IMO Jackson cares little about. I guess Jackson forgot to use common sense in this sequence in favor of spectacle.Unsure

Nobody said the barrel sequence had to be anything more than just a few minutes anyways but again that wouldn't be enough to stretch the Hobbit in 3 films now would it? I mean really fighting with swords and axes while floating down the river. ever heard of physics? the barrels having open tops would capsize . Well OOOPS I forgot middle earth now has Willie coyote and roadrunner laws of physics now Sorry, My bad.... Tongue

I mean really I don't think Jackson understands the source material and is just content to butcher ( my opinion) it into something it was never intended to be. Tolkien was never going to rewrite the whole Hobbit, parts of it, Yes just to make it more in line with LOTR sure, making more backstory in line with LOTR Sure, But in the end Tolkien felt changing too much of the Hobbit made it lose what made it what it was. But Peter Jackson is content to make it something it wasn't by adding a bunch of made up professional grade fan fiction, which makes his version confusing and cluttered. Instead of the linear story that Tolkien wrote. But like I said earlier if he didn't add a bunch of made up non Tolkien stuff there wouldn't be 3 movies worth of material now would there be?

So I say again Why not change the barrel sequence? He has had to alter almost everything else in the story that Tolkien wrote so that its more of an original story than Tolkien's.MadMadMad


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 2:49am

Post #29 of 50 (688 views)
Shortcut
Nobody said the scene had to be a long one [In reply to] Can't Post

but I guess you can't stretch it out into 3 films unless you milk it for all its worth Wink

Personally I thought part of the charm was not knowing what happened to the dwarfs. we could hear grumbling inside the barrels, there could be some rapids. but a 5 to 10 minute scene would have worked fine. But like I said you can't ring more cash out of the film going public with less movies.plus Jackson has to get in more made up non Tolkien material. That's how the Hobbit has worked so far.Crazy


angelclaw
Bree

Jul 11 2013, 2:51am

Post #30 of 50 (684 views)
Shortcut
It may work for you [In reply to] Can't Post

But we have to face the fact that this film is made to appeal to the masses, not just diehard Tolkien fans, and with that in mind I don't think it could've been done in a suspenseful enough way to warrant a scene longer than a minute or so at most. I really don't think this part should be all about Bilbo, either - even in the book his time to shine comes when he organizes and facilitates their escape; after that, all I wanted to know was whether the Dwarves were okay.

Of course a chase sequence (rather Bilbo's unspoken musings on whether they're all going to suffocate or drown) is the easiest way to get an audience to feel that their heroes are in peril, so that's what PJ chose to do here and for once I'm fine with it. I don't think it affects the plot as much as other changes we're going to see, so I'm willing to let this one go and just enjoy the action.


angelclaw
Bree

Jul 11 2013, 2:58am

Post #31 of 50 (683 views)
Shortcut
True enough, it could've been a shorter scene... [In reply to] Can't Post

But as you say, PJ had to stretch it into 3 films so he chose to make it an action sequence. Personally I'd rather have that than some of the other made-up scenes that could have been used as filler - but that's because I really like the cast of Dwarves, and want to see them doing more of anything rather than a bunch more Elf and Wizard expository.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 2:59am

Post #32 of 50 (661 views)
Shortcut
That makes one of us// [In reply to] Can't Post

 


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 3:04am

Post #33 of 50 (696 views)
Shortcut
another thing to consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

this was suppose to be the ending scene in the first film before it was a trilogy, so it would make sense as to why they spiced it up a bit more than how it is in the book.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


angelclaw
Bree

Jul 11 2013, 3:08am

Post #34 of 50 (670 views)
Shortcut
What would you rather see? [In reply to] Can't Post

More plot-mangling in Dol Guldur? More Azog? More Radagast? I'm genuinely curious what you think would better fill that time, all complaints of a relatively short children's book being stretched into three films aside Wink


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 3:23am

Post #35 of 50 (669 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I would rather see more Tolkien and LESS Peter Jackson made up nonsense (my opinion) on screen. There is no reason that Jackson couldn't stick to the books more closely and make an entertaining set of films. Honestly I think he lacks vision and listened to the wrong people this time around...I think he chose to milk the movie going public by doing this 3 film decision by merely adding more and more made up content just to pad the films. I honestly would have rather had one or two films instead of 3 films filled with non Tolkien material. Jackson rearranged scenarios which are taken out of context or turned into OTT spectacle. Why is it so hard for Jackson to film something along the lines of the book? What he has put on screen my mind never even imagined (thank god) because it's NOT the Hobbit, parts of it are but they take a backseat to Jackson's constant OTT action and altered scenes.

So what I would rather see would be more Tolkien LESS Jackson even if it means shorter or less movies. If they have to add filler add more Radagast, more DolGuldur just film all the stuff from the book as close as possible cause when its all said and done I can edit that crap out and have a version of the Hobbit that follows the book. That is actually enjoyable. I've said it time and again when Jackson sticks to Tolkien his films were great but his deviations and alterations are truly cringeworthy.


Escapist
Gondor


Jul 11 2013, 3:39am

Post #36 of 50 (659 views)
Shortcut
But the difference might be [In reply to] Can't Post

that this scene was originally supposed to happen near / at the end of a movie and now it is more likely to be near the middle.
Pacing and rhythm and keeping people interested is possibly part of it - which is all different for the same scene happening at the beginning, middle or end.

It may be likely that things weren't "re-worked" or "reviewed" in these terms and what they had seemed fine so why spend the time and energy focusing there with the whole rest of the movie to work on?

I could see it working many different ways and really enjoy seeing other people's take on it. I always have the book and my eyelids movie screen to consult any time I like. I don't always get to see what someone else sees when they approach the story so this will be fun.


angelclaw
Bree

Jul 11 2013, 3:54am

Post #37 of 50 (649 views)
Shortcut
While I can agree [In reply to] Can't Post

That it would've been better to leave out all the made-up stuff and just stick to the book, the barrel sequence being OTT just doesn't bother me as much as lots and lots of other things. I'm torn between wanting to like these films and ripping them apart, so I've chosen to save my criticism for what I feel are the very worst deviations from the story I grew up with. To me at least, this isn't one of them, so I'm willing to go along for the ride.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 4:20am

Post #38 of 50 (646 views)
Shortcut
Hopefully you can enjoy the ride [In reply to] Can't Post

I can enjoy the parts that stick close to the book but after almost 40 years the parts that are drastic deviations make me cringe. and I just can't get into them But I will say I enjoy the stuff that sticks close to the book Wink


Macfeast
Rohan


Jul 11 2013, 1:59pm

Post #39 of 50 (595 views)
Shortcut
Indeed. [In reply to] Can't Post

Closed barrels cruising along the rapids, crashing into rocks and the like, us not knowing which barrel contains a dwarf? Plenty of potential for tension in that. Additionally, that moment when the lids come off, when we find the dwarves safe and sound, would be a moment of great relief.

Either way, I think it's worth to note that it's not like it necessarily had to be one way or the other, a mutually exclusive choice between A and B. Just look at the dwarves' arrival at Bag End; The dwarves arriving exactly by the book, in six distinct groups, would potentially have felt dragged out and tedious. On the other hand, all the dwarves arriving at the same time would not have captured the tone of the book. The solution was not a choice of A or B, but a compromise between A and B; Three groups, and then the rest of the dwarves, capturing the tone of the book, without making the sequence drag on for too long.
That's how I see the barrel-sequence, an opportunity for a compromise; It could have started out with the barrels closed, capturing the tone of the book, giving Bilbo some time alone for a character-moment, and leaving us a little bit in the dark (as you say, a technique well proven). Then, the lids could come off sometime during the journey down the river, making way for some character-moments from the dwarves, and even an action-sequence if need be. Why choose between A and B, when we can have a little bit of A, and a little bit of B?


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Jul 11 2013, 2:07pm)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 11 2013, 2:58pm

Post #40 of 50 (565 views)
Shortcut
True, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

We know other things have been changed once the third film was announced. Even if this was originally used to spice up the ending to AUJ, that doesn't mean it had to stay that way once it got transposed to film 2.

"...not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall.
As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.
For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men,
it is bitter to receive." -Arwen Undómiel




nhui06
Rivendell

Jul 11 2013, 4:16pm

Post #41 of 50 (550 views)
Shortcut
Basically this! [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a film, not a book. Riding down the rapids will make a crazy ride for both the Dwarves and the audience. It is like those rollar coaster rides that capture the excitement of their guests by taking pictures of them. We get to see the reactions of the Dwarves as they go down the river.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 11 2013, 4:45pm

Post #42 of 50 (537 views)
Shortcut
Not every scene needs to be some roller coaster ride or be action packed [In reply to] Can't Post

like I said before the scene is about Bilbo's use of his mind and his thinking about whether he made the right decision to use the barrels. It about wondering if all the dwarfs survivved the trip. It doesn't need to be some 20 minute extravaganza with all the bells and whistles. I and many others would be fine with some mystery of the unknown to create some subtle tension instead of everything having to be OTT and ridiculous. A good story has lows and highs, action and quiet moments, but Jackson just wants one rollercoaster scene after another with only hints of the quiet moments in between instead of balancing the situations out. I loved the stuff like Baggend which stuck to the book it was balanced out but immediately after that it just goes OTT for more film than it balances out. RID was good, Goblin Town had some moments. But other than that it was OTT non stop action with very little qualiy moments .

people are going to want different things from films but all I want is the Hobbit and not something more made up with every D&D cliche' thrown in and claim its a middle earth film when it lacks the tone of Jackson's own LOTR.


Nira
Lorien


Jul 12 2013, 12:11am

Post #43 of 50 (496 views)
Shortcut
They should be closed barrels [In reply to] Can't Post

I can ignore all the broken laws of physics in AUJ, but for some reason not with the barrels scene. I don't care if the dwarves are as heavy as elephants or small as mice, there is no way any of them could ride down a river (especially one with rapids) with the barrel staying upright for any significant period of time. I hope someone will explain these "super barrels." Maybe the elves are talking to the water and getting it to help the dwarves stay upright?

Also, and more importantly, this was an important scene for me when I read it the book. There was so much tension and drama involved in not knowing how the dwarves were doing on the trip downstream. Then, there was great humor after the barrels were opened.

I can accept changes made to the book due to this being a film, but that leniency is being stretched awfully thin with these Hobbit movies.

"Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?" -Samwise


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Jul 12 2013, 1:11am

Post #44 of 50 (496 views)
Shortcut
The physics has already been discussed [In reply to] Can't Post

see This thread. The physics of floating in a barrel will also be Part 3 of the Symposium essay I have written on The Physics of The Hobbit.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jul 12 2013, 8:47pm

Post #45 of 50 (436 views)
Shortcut
It's about the center of gravity... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I can ignore all the broken laws of physics in AUJ, but for some reason not with the barrels scene. I don't care if the dwarves are as heavy as elephants or small as mice, there is no way any of them could ride down a river (especially one with rapids) with the barrel staying upright for any significant period of time. I hope someone will explain these "super barrels." Maybe the elves are talking to the water and getting it to help the dwarves stay upright?

Also, and more importantly, this was an important scene for me when I read it the book. There was so much tension and drama involved in not knowing how the dwarves were doing on the trip downstream. Then, there was great humor after the barrels were opened.

I can accept changes made to the book due to this being a film, but that leniency is being stretched awfully thin with these Hobbit movies.



If the Dwarves are crouched down then the barrels will maintain a low center of gravity, so it is not that far-fetched. However, perhaps the lids are on fairly loosely when they first go into the water and they only pop them off after they are clear of the water-gate.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Jul 13 2013, 3:07am

Post #46 of 50 (418 views)
Shortcut
Those triple integrals... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the comment. Although we have only seen the barrels in short glimpses, I would imagine that if the Dwarves are inside, then the center of gravity will almost always be below the centroid of the volume of the barrel (= center of buoyancy), and therefore create a torque serving as a restoring force. Holy smokes, am I going to need to explain volume integrals in order to have folks believe that the barrels can be stableUnsure??

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




marillaraina
Rohan


Jul 15 2013, 1:46pm

Post #47 of 50 (357 views)
Shortcut
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But as you say, PJ had to stretch it into 3 films so he chose to make it an action sequence. Personally I'd rather have that than some of the other made-up scenes that could have been used as filler - but that's because I really like the cast of Dwarves, and want to see them doing more of anything rather than a bunch more Elf and Wizard expository.


The more we get of the dwarves the better IMO so I'm perfectly happy to see them riding in the barrels. :)


aarondirebear
Bree

Jul 26 2013, 2:14pm

Post #48 of 50 (347 views)
Shortcut
qft [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...is that in the book they escape in barrels because it is the only way Bilbo can think of to get them out in secret. If the lids aren't on, what is the purpose of using the barrels? Why the bloody heck does PJ have to change things that were perfect to begin with (the trolls scene, Bilbo accidentally answering the 'time' question in the riddle game, etc). There are times when I think he honestly doesn't understand what makes the book so damn good.


I don't think this, I know it. And it isn't just some of the time, it is all of the time.

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien


aarondirebear
Bree

Jul 26 2013, 2:24pm

Post #49 of 50 (324 views)
Shortcut
the masses [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But we have to face the fact that this film is made to appeal to the masses, not just diehard Tolkien fans, and with that in mind I don't think it could've been done in a suspenseful enough way to warrant a scene longer than a minute or so at most. I really don't think this part should be all about Bilbo, either - even in the book his time to shine comes when he organizes and facilitates their escape; after that, all I wanted to know was whether the Dwarves were okay.

Of course a chase sequence (rather Bilbo's unspoken musings on whether they're all going to suffocate or drown) is the easiest way to get an audience to feel that their heroes are in peril, so that's what PJ chose to do here and for once I'm fine with it. I don't think it affects the plot as much as other changes we're going to see, so I'm willing to let this one go and just enjoy the action.


Then make the scene less than a minute!!!!!!!!
Also, to HELL with the masses, This is not their story. Masses will watch anything, so make the films to cater to the diehard fans and the moronic masses will still watch it.

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien

(This post was edited by aarondirebear on Jul 26 2013, 2:25pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jul 28 2013, 7:10pm

Post #50 of 50 (327 views)
Shortcut
I agree to an extent [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Masses will watch anything, so make the films to cater to the diehard fans and the moronic masses will still watch it.

The sad part for me is that Jackson didn't trust in the source material enough to let the audience decide whether it liked what Tolkien wrote or not. He chose to gave us a bunch of made up nonsense (IMO) compared to what Tolkien wrote. Many of his changes like Azog in place of Bolg, Radagast being a moron vagrant covered in bird crap, The expansion of events surrounding Sauron to the extent of the DolGuldur subplot being as important as Bilbo's quest, to me stretch the story of the Hobbit into something it was never meant to be.

I realize some people are content with that, and like Jackson's changes and additions, but all of the deviations are not something I ever wanted, needed, or asked for.Wink

And I think had the masses been given a faithful representation of the Hobbit, not exact word for word, but something faithful. They would have enjoyed it just as much as Jackson's OTT monstrosity he keeps claiming to be the Hobbit. More like quest for Erobor IMO


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.