|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moahunter
Rohan
Jul 20 2014, 1:58am
Post #26 of 48
(842 views)
Shortcut
|
|
" If I remember correctly, Bofur did stay behind with Bombur, who couldn't climb the mountain "
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I assume you are referring to the book. They didn't stay behind in Lake-town but at the foot of the climb up to the hidden doorway, looking after the ponies and stores.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jul 20 2014, 7:40am
Post #27 of 48
(827 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think the reason for splitting the dwarves....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... leaving four in Laketown, is to raise the emotional stake when Laketown is attacked. That attack is going to mean a whole lot more to the dwarves in the Mountain - and put a lot more pressure on Thorin - if four of their own company are in Laketown when it happens and they have to deal with the uncertainty of what has happened to them. It may also be that when the four in Laketown reach the Mountain they will bring news.
I think that's why they've done it. I don't know why they made it four, or why those four particularly. With Kili the obvious answer is the Tauriel business, but I think there may be another reason why they've separated him and his brother from the main group. It highlights the relationship between Thorin and his nephews. It's already given them a chance to bring Fili forward, in the scene between him and Thorin. I'm guessing that they will develop that, with Thorin being especially worried about Fili and Kili and all the ramifications of their loss, and then being hugely relieved when they turn up. But as the tension begins to build between the dwarves in the Mountain and the armies outside, it's possible that Fili and Kili, having spent time in Laketown, might take a different line from their uncle and their might be arguments, and then - well, you know!
Of course I'm only guessing and they might do something quite different. But that's how I'd play it from this point onwards.
As for Oin and Bofur, I've no idea why they're there. Oin, I suppose, being the medical one would have stayed with Kili. There's no apparent reason for Bofur yet, but he may have something to do later.
|
|
|
Taladamir
The Shire
Jul 20 2014, 2:51pm
Post #28 of 48
(784 views)
Shortcut
|
...had a bit of an edge, just to help drive debate, sorry if I went OTT. A better wording would have been 'suspect motives'. My view comes from watching PB interviews and has been to some extent aggravated by posters seemingly endorsing/celebrating particular viewpoints and motives. Screenwriting, in my view should be about driving the story, I heartily dislike taints of 'this-is-what-the15-to-25-bracket-of-potential-viewers-wants-to-see' or any other sentiments that in my opinion have nothing to do with a great story, or in this particular case what some fans might call 'THE story'. Regarding the first sentence of your last paragraph, you are probably correct, however, wasn't it once again the screenwriting team that brought this whole issue into the light? They forced a romantic edge into a story that didn't have any, and then informed us of it regardless of the firestorm it would ignite. But if the rest of the puzzle pieces work together it may be something that we accept, much as I finally shrugged and accepted Sam going back down the stairs. Some things though will always leaving me wanting what isn't there, even if what is there makes sense and work well cinematically. Things like Faramir's story, which for me was always one of the most beautiful things about ROTK; and the Scouring of the Shire, I would often pick up the book just to flip to the end and read over and over again. (Maybe PJ should have split it into 3 movies ) That's the devil of adaptation though. Oh well, They are still good movies
|
|
|
Taladamir
The Shire
Jul 20 2014, 2:59pm
Post #29 of 48
(790 views)
Shortcut
|
Definitely would fly in the face of what was explicitly stated by JRRT. If it had to be, though, hopefully it wouldn't go past them standing together at Dain's coronation, at least we could ignore it if we wanted to I just realized that the magnitude of such a choice for an elf really hasn't been driven home, although it was done fairly well in the LOTR movies.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Jul 20 2014, 3:09pm
Post #30 of 48
(787 views)
Shortcut
|
"WELCOME" to" THE Club..OF CANON-istas"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
this is a movie
NOT a BOOK?
|
|
|
Taladamir
The Shire
Jul 20 2014, 3:18pm
Post #31 of 48
(767 views)
Shortcut
|
Kili being the straw that broke the camel's back would sit better with me than him being the whole load I think there is a lot of room for tremendous depth of character here, yet frustratingly we barely see enough of it for it to come together as a whole. Having suffered personal loss herself at the hands of orcs, she probably feels a lot of empathy for the mother who will at some point, perhaps years later, learn of the (painfully protracted)death of her son.(does a morgul shaft turn one into a wraith?) I actually liked the fighting in Laketown, it had a gritty realistic edge, to me anyway, especially in HFR. (dang that horse though, it was bad, perhaps a late addition that was mostly ignored do to more important scenes?)
|
|
|
Taladamir
The Shire
Jul 20 2014, 3:28pm
Post #32 of 48
(771 views)
Shortcut
|
Alright! Let me ask you a question then. Just looking at the movies, wouldn't it feel repetitive or a callback to Aragorn and Arwen? The king without a Kingdom, gaining his Kingdom and marrying the Elf? It could turn into a ME style 'and they lived happily ever after'. I admit though that taking the hobbit by itself and disregarding canon, it could be seen to be something that might work well in the story. BUT this is supposed to be about Bilbo, not every character we see in the movie. Focus Jackson!
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 20 2014, 3:33pm
Post #33 of 48
(767 views)
Shortcut
|
The new Lord of Dale having an Elven queen would have been notable. It also seems too derivative of the tale of Aragorn and Arwen. Besides, we keep getting told that Tauriel's story ends in tragedy. I don't think becoming queen of Dale qualifies.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jul 20 2014, 5:03pm
Post #34 of 48
(760 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Conversation of Kili and Tauriel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am always fascinated when people hold up certain parts of the screen plays of all these PJ movies as without the spirit of Tolkien.
When i think of the exchange between the two in the dungeons I am reminded of the The Debate of Finrod and Andreth. These miniatures tell us as much about the sub creation of JRRT's as the creation myths themselves.
Here we see a creature of Aule and an Avari showing they have a spiritual dimension to their personalities and that connection invokes a romance of the spirit. But to give its 21 century multi lingual twist for translation into a myriad of languages there is the more uncouth and direct references to make the point. What JRRT would have made of the post industrial, internet connected instant gratification world that his stories are communicated in who knows but their are precedents in his writings for the kind of cultural clash between these two.
Is it a hollywood love affair with a jealous rival if that is what we mean by romance I vote no.
To me to make those assertions is as wrong as the Gandalf and Galadriel connection. it seems to me that as soon as two people show affection/connection/loyalty/understanding we bracket it in some stereotypical fashion.
I am bound to say that tells us more about the world in which we live and ourselves rather than what is on offer.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jul 20 2014, 5:06pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jul 20 2014, 5:26pm
Post #35 of 48
(742 views)
Shortcut
|
...it weakens Gimli's later character development in which he becomes "Elf-friend".
Sure, the whole googly-eyes aspect of this "relationship" is beyond silly, but the real damage is how it undermines the power of Legolas' and Gimli's dramatic reversal of cultural differences and against-all-odds friendship in the LotR trilogy.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jul 20 2014, 5:35pm
Post #36 of 48
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have no problem with the character,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
other than the "Kili" factor. Evangeline Lily is a winning presence, and it was fun seeing her in action. It's just that her character doesn't really have anything to do in the story, and what they made up for her doesn't work for me. Hopefully in the next film, with war looming on the horizon, she'll have much more of a role to play, and they drop that whole romance silliness.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Jul 20 2014, 5:42pm
Post #37 of 48
(745 views)
Shortcut
|
I've never viewed this myself as a romance. I view it as a mutual admiration scenario more than anything. Legolas hates Dwarves and him not wanting Tauriel to get to know them just goes with that. I don't view it as jealousy. I also don't think it takes away in any way from what we see in LOTR. I'm quite enjoying having Tauriel in these films and find her to be a welcome addition.
(This post was edited by Elessar on Jul 20 2014, 5:42pm)
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 20 2014, 6:33pm
Post #38 of 48
(718 views)
Shortcut
|
Chronologically, Gimli and Legoals should have been the first Dwarf/Elf combo to break the mould, not Kili and Tauriel (my opinion of course).
And also, did we really need to see the whole thing twice? Did we need two instances of and Elf and a Dwarf putting aside their cultural differences to become friends?
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Jul 20 2014, 6:50pm
Post #39 of 48
(716 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Okay this is really how I feel too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Spot on. This is my feeling exactly.
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
Moahunter
Rohan
Jul 20 2014, 11:47pm
Post #40 of 48
(701 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thats the old hackneyed excuse.....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
letting the scriptwriter/director play fast and loose with the original author's work.
|
|
|
dreamflower
Lorien
Jul 21 2014, 1:11pm
Post #41 of 48
(664 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The so-called "romance" is not my problem
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Like a couple of other people who responded, I can choose to ignore the "romantic sub-text" (because that is definitely there), because even if the motive was to inject a little romance into a story devoid of it otherwise, it's not going to come to anything. Maybe there's a little spark of attraction between Tauriel and Kili, maybe that spark is one-sided. Maybe the same with Tauriel and Legolas. Maybe not. It's more likely than not that two out of the three of them will end up dead, and it won't be Legolas.
There is no denying that there is an element of "Sue-ness" to Tauriel, which annoys me a little, because she'd be a great addition to the story otherwise. And since she's an Elf, with all that implies about her ability, her skills as a warrior are not implausible. So, a little bit of a Mary Sue, but not too much. Until...
I was OK with her enhanced abilities right up to the point that athelas entered the story. First of all, we have Dwarves knowing about it as some sort of healing herb, and then we have Tauriel, a Wood-elf, suddenly able to use athelas. Not only that, but she goes all shiny and glowy like Arwen did with Frodo, when she does so.
No, just no. Athelas was a Numenorean thing, a Dunedain thing, and possibly a Rivendell thing. It didn't work for just anyone, not even any old Elf (or young Elf). All the evidence is that outside of that small circle, it was known only as a weed called "kingsfoil"; even in Gondor it was acknowledged mostly for its fragrance and the possibility that it might be good for headaches.
Everyone has a line they draw; Tauriel wielding athelas is my personal line-in-the-sand.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jul 21 2014, 3:00pm
Post #42 of 48
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
No, just no. Athelas was a Numenorean thing, a Dunedain thing, and possibly a Rivendell thing. It didn't work for just anyone, not even any old Elf (or young Elf). All the evidence is that outside of that small circle, it was known only as a weed called "kingsfoil"; even in Gondor it was acknowledged mostly for its fragrance and the possibility that it might be good for headaches.
Everyone has a line they draw; Tauriel wielding athelas is my personal line-in-the-sand.
Do we know from the books that athelas was not known to the Wood Elves? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say that there was just no evidence either way.
It really doesn't matter, because in the movieverse Thranduil's people do know about and use athelas.
That said, your line in the sand is yours to draw where you see fit.
|
|
|
dreamflower
Lorien
Jul 21 2014, 8:53pm
Post #43 of 48
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, that's true. For some folks it's the "romance" for others it's the bird-poop in Radagast's hair, for some it's other things. I'm sure almost all of us find at least one thing that we just can't quite accept even when it's easy for us to swallow everything else, LOL!
As to the athelas, in the book it's made clear that the plant was brought from Numenor by the Dunedain, and that it thrived only near places where that people had settled. Even in LotR movie-verse, it seemed to have been somewhat of a secret, known only as a "weed" called kingsfoil. Sam certainly did not know there was anything useful about it. So while the book does not say "Athelas is unknown in Mirkwood", it did not say it was known. And the implications are that most people did not know anything about it besides it being a weed, save in Gondor, where it was thought by some that it was good for headaches.
Also, the athelas by itself would have just made me roll my eyes. But the athelas plus the going all glow-y and the altered voice made me both roll my eyes and groan. It was the combination of things.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Jul 22 2014, 1:55pm
Post #44 of 48
(603 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tauriel's character is just an integrated part of a larger web of changes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You bring up some interesting questions, considering that the sub-text of (one-sided) romance seems to have been added to the film at a late stage and doesn't really feel neccessary to the story. This is palpable when you see this part of her story after the chase down the river, which consist of rather uninspired rehashes or varieties of plot items and references from LoTR.
For me having Tauriel as a character and captain of the guard is just fine and Evangeline Lilly's performance was very good. The expansions they added to her character and the route they went with it is for me however related to a larger web of changes, including Thranduil and Legolas, which I felt were extremely questionable in terms of how you adapt a story.
Tauriel is polarized against Thranduil, who IMO was almost vilefied and in several ways not very convincingly, especially the part about his not stepping in to aid the dwarves at the sack of Erebor. I don't really see why painting Thranduil as an arrogant isolationist is more important than setting up his relationship with the people of Lake Town, which after all is the heart of this part of the original story as far as Thranduil is concerned, along with setting up his motives and thoughts concerning Thorin's quest. I also have no problem with having Legolas in these films, it's only natural after all, but I don't see why it should be more important to focus so much on setting the stage for his personal motivations in LoTR rather than focus on the themes of the story of the Hobbit. In the same vein I don't see why it should be more important to use Tauriel's character to try to repeat a kind of story strand or motif from LoTR rather than primarily focus on using her to illuminate the themes of the Hobbit.
As far as I'm concerned the film makers are great when they use or tweak/refashion the original material in the films, but when they fabricate material and divisions which are either subsidiary/peripheral to the original story when there's enough of relevant material from the original story to draw from, I find that they lose focus of what's important and the quality of the film also suffers quite visibly. Tauriel's conversation with Kili about "starlight" was a great way of showing a difference between an elven and a dwarvish perspective on the world, which after all is an integrated part of the original story. If they had deepened this kind of theme I think Tauriel's character would have been much more interesting and relevant.
A good use of her character would be to continue having her be a competent fighter and also let her be the guard which discovers Bilbo sneaking into the camp of the Elves at Erebor.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jul 22 2014, 3:43pm
Post #45 of 48
(590 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't see Thranduil as overly vilified
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because the filmmakers I think are making certain points without being excessively detailed. For instance, we know Bilbo has changed quite a lot, once reason being that when Beorn is coming through the door, BILBO DRAWS A SWORD which is quite different than the hobbit who had never used a sword in his whole life re AUJ.
And I think it's shown without overly detailing things that Thranduil was protecting his people. And while it's been pointed out that PJ could not use certain backstory elements re literary permissions, I can't get out of my head that Thranduil arrived back at Greenwood/ Mirkwood from the Battle of Dagorlad with his father gone, and I think the figure was 1/3 of the elves they started with. Also the scar reveal. Also if I never saw any of that, these elves are obviously living in a very dangerous forest by that time. I wouldn't expect them to be warm and fuzzy - Thranduil's palace might be elegant but it also looks like a fortress.
but I don't see why it should be more important to focus so much on setting the stage for his [Legolas] personal motivations in LoTR rather than focus on the themes of the story of the Hobbit. In the same vein I don't see why it should be more important to use Tauriel's character to try to repeat a kind of story strand or motif from LoTR rather than primarily focus on using her to illuminate the themes of the Hobbit.
This. *Shrug* the fillmmakers seemed to think these tie-ins were important, or fans would like it. And PJ & co. seem to be something of romantics. Just like if PJ wants a bunny sled, we get a bunny sled or an axe imbedded in Bifur. So if someone like me doesn't even WANT to know Legolas' motivations to that detail, because I like my elves to be a bit unfathomable e.g. elvish, I just have to put up with it, because there are so many good things in these films that I think are wonderful.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Jul 22 2014, 4:45pm
Post #46 of 48
(580 views)
Shortcut
|
I also think Thranduil is protecting his people at Erebor and reasonably so, instead of leading a suicidal charge against the dragon. The way Thorin remembers this incident says much more about him than about Thranduil.
I should have been more specific when I wrote about Thranduil's vilification. I have no problem understanding Thranduil's point of view in his talk with Thorin, which is a very fine scene. When I said that I find Thranduil overly vilified, I'm thinking of the isolationist theme, the way he's polarized against Tauriel and his dismissive attitude towards her. None of these things really have any basis in the story these films are based on and it paints him as more arrogant than what is called for instead of taking the opportunity to show a more nuanced character.
I certainly have to put up with things I don't like or agree with in the films and the sensible thing would be to just forget all of these things and move on. When it comes to DoS it's unfortunately not just small things, which I can easily ignore, but significant sections where the story and characterization feels quite distorted and the quality of both the film and the adaptation in itself isn't particularly good in my opinion. I can still enjoy the quality of the acting and the beautiful sets, of course, but personally I need more than this to be satisfied. While AUJ had its weak spots, I think it was clearly better and more focused both as a film and an adaptation.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jul 22 2014, 6:58pm
Post #47 of 48
(573 views)
Shortcut
|
When I said that I find Thranduil overly vilified, I'm thinking of the isolationist theme, the way he's polarized against Tauriel and his dismissive attitude towards her. None of these things really have any basis in the story these films are based on and it paints him as more arrogant than what is called for instead of taking the opportunity to show a more nuanced character.
And we only know that Tauriel has been protected and favored because Legolas says so, e.g. the scene you reference could have been expanded where Thranduil himself alludes to his preference for Tauriel, but that she will never be able to be, in theory, a queen - or something like that. Tho I will cut PJ & co. some slack on this - along with so many other places - *sigh* in that they are experienced fillmmakers and have to spin a story in a given time frame, to a wide audience, so perhaps there just isn't TIME for a script to show all the nuances we would like. I'd be good with an 8-hour film, but a general audience?
When it comes to DoS it's unfortunately not just small things, which I can easily ignore, but significant sections where the story and characterization feels quite distorted and the quality of both the film and the adaptation in itself isn't particularly good in my opinion. I can still enjoy the quality of the acting and the beautiful sets, of course, but personally I need more than this to be satisfied. While AUJ had its weak spots, I think it was clearly better and more focused both as a film and an adaptation.
For me, I view this as one long film, mostly - and here and there are things I would have changed, expanded, contracted. Overall tho both films for me are favorites. But you are of course completely entitled to feeling frustrated - and even downright annoyed. For while nothing in the Hobbit movies is driving me crazy (because of the spectacular cast, IMO a great script, and so many other things I love) there are DEFINITELY things in LOTR that irritate me no end, and oddly it's gotten worse with time - tho I appreciate Gollum more than ever.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Rohan
Jul 22 2014, 7:56pm
Post #48 of 48
(569 views)
Shortcut
|
First of all: thank you for your generous post! I agree with you that there isn't time to show all the nuances one would like, and I'm certainly not in the camp that says "the more, the better". I think the film makers should try to fit the story in a given time frame and generally be quite disciplined in their approach, which includes making hard choices about what to include. As far as spending time well and being disciplined is concerned, though, I don't really think this part of DoS succeeds. It seems to me that PJ & co are trying to have their cake and eating it - wanting to add quite a lot of their own made up stuff, use some of the material from the book and add a considerable amount of tie-ins to LoTR at the same time.
Personally I don't think this scene needs more content, but a completely different content to make Thranduil's introduction and position more nuanced. IMO this sceme ought to have been the place where they start setting up the relationship between the wood elves and the Lake Men, while the isolationist theme is something which easily could be abandonded altogether.
It's good to hear that you enjoy both films as favourites, it's much more fun when you can see it as one long film. In the case of Bilbo's story, I'm also able to do so. There are also certainly several things I enjoy very much in DoS as well, but I don't think I would have reacted so strongly to what I dislike if I hadn't been so fond of AUJ in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
