|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 10:10am
Post #26 of 41
(191 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah yes, but being nice to characters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is not necessarily being nice to the story!
I certainly agree that it would be very sad for Radagast to die (as with the other deaths) and, for me, that's the reason it has potential. If you think about it you can't make decisions based on being kind to the characters - the whole process of creating these stories was Tolkien taking characters we like and putting them through danger, loss, injury and death.
If we liked Frodo why would we want him to go through all the pain and suffering of the quest to destroy the Ring? Instead we should wish his story was of a happy and quiet life in the Shire - but that wouldn't make for a great tale. The same for Thorin, or any other number of characters.
I'm sure those who like Thorin, if given the choice, might feel they prefer the idea that he regained Erebor, ruled as a wise and magnanimous king and died peacefully many years later. But it wouldn't be a better story I would argue!
From my perspective, I would argue that whilst perhaps tempting, making narrative choices to be nice to characters probably isn't the best idea for the story!
|
|
|
Imladris18
Lorien
Aug 8 2014, 2:52pm
Post #27 of 41
(172 views)
Shortcut
|
And I completely agree. However, like I said, it's the combination of factors in this particular instance that I will have issues with.
I also hate the literary theme of killing off characters just because they have "served their purpose" in the narrative, so that's probably another contributing factor. That just makes things slightly unbelievable for me. It's not like in real life when you accomplish something truly good that your chances of dying skyrocket because you have done what you were meant to do.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 5:55pm
Post #28 of 41
(151 views)
Shortcut
|
Although I guess that's sort of the nature of stories.
It's a bit like the suscpicious convenience that the the period of The Hobbit covers exactly the timeframe from Gandalf arriving to Bilbo returning home, rather than, say, the prior 12 months where Bilbo created a new rockery, cured a ham and organised his bookshelves!
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 6:58pm
Post #29 of 41
(149 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think the issue is just that...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...Tolkien did not intend for Radagast to die during the WC assault on Dol Guldur, therefore some of us would rather it not happen in the movie. No, we don't need Raddy alive for any reason to do with the LotR films, and sure, it could add weight to the Dol Guldur battle. But really, it's just as simple as this - it didn't happen this way at all in the books, so some of us would rather it not happen that way for the film. For some of us, killing off Radagast in Dol Guldur would be crossing a line that doesn't need to be crossed.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 7:07pm
Post #30 of 41
(142 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not something that's an issue for me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As an absolute. I certainly don't think different is bad when it comes to adaptation.
But mostly pointing out that one doesn't need to be a non-reader or terribly young to feel this way!
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 7:14pm
Post #31 of 41
(140 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well I guess it's just a matter of...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...how closely you would prefer to see the movies follow Tolkien's lore. If you really don't care all that much, then great. And I agree, different is not always bad, but we all have our line drawn in the sand somewhere. All down to personal preference, I guess.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 7:51pm
Post #32 of 41
(142 views)
Shortcut
|
For me it's essentially unimportant how close something is, just how good it is as an adaptation.
I suppose the only thing that's a bit tricky from a discussion point of view is that I'm willing to bet that there will substantial "distances" which most people will be hoping for in the next film - Bilbo not being unconscious, Fili and Kili not dying offscreen and without emotion etc.
But I assume the response there is just that all the things one happens to like are on the right side of the "line of acceptable distance" and the things one doesn't, aren't. Which is, of course, fine and may be completely accurate but just leaves you with the personal preference swap.
But there we are.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 10:15pm
Post #33 of 41
(132 views)
Shortcut
|
Fili and Kili getting an onscreen death is just a matter of showing something that was only mentioned in the book. I see no issue with that, as it doesn't contradict anything, and as many fans of the films are fond of saying, "It's a different medium". And since this tale is being told through the lens of not just The Hobbit but it's supplemental appendix material as well, we aren't seeing the story unfold solely from Bilbo's perspective (which is an idea I am 100% in favor of, as it's still Tolkien, or rather could have been). Bilbo getting knocked out cold, I'd love to see. I don't think there's a chance in hell it'll happen, but I'd prefer that to Bilbo slaughtering Orcs or whatever Jackson has planned for him.
In another example, I enjoyed Gandalf's duel with Sauron. However, I would have enjoyed it much more had it followed along the lines of the source material. I did not mind the whole "Bard the rogue" thing, but only because I think Bard needed expansion of some sort. However, I would have loved it if instead of some rogue bargeman, Bard was the captain of Lake-town's archers, like he should have been. So it's not a matter of "I like it, so it's acceptable." It's more "I liked it (or I didn't mind it), but it would've been better had it followed the book more closely". Of course, then there are the adaptation choices I outright hated, like Azog and the Tauriel/Kili mushfest.
Anyway, I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here. Haven't we already had this discussion, about 4 or 5 months ago? 99% sure you and I already have 
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Aug 8 2014, 10:16pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 10:26pm
Post #34 of 41
(128 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that's what I was saying, basically.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The things that people like, they explain the reasons for but those they don't are over the line and that's reason enough, I think. But as I say that's not an issue - it's just a bit of a dead end.
And no - first time for me!
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Aug 9 2014, 3:31am
Post #35 of 41
(121 views)
Shortcut
|
For me it's essentially unimportant how close something is, just how good it is as an adaptation.
It's starting to seem like the word 'adaptation' is starting to lose all of it's meaning.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 9 2014, 9:47am
Post #36 of 41
(113 views)
Shortcut
|
I would have said it was an altered or amended version of a text. What would you say?
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Aug 9 2014, 9:49am)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 9 2014, 6:50pm
Post #37 of 41
(96 views)
Shortcut
|
I would have said it was an altered or amended version of a text. What would you say?
This is the crux; that does not work for me as a definition for an adaptation. I would say that an adaption starts with a story (narrative) told in one medium (print, spoken-word, film, etc.) and retelling it in a different medium. Some elements do not translate well from one medium to another. Comics and film are a lot alike in that they both tend to condense and streamline a narrative; they differ in that film also incorporates movement, sound and music--things that were impossible to replicate in comics until the digital age.
In the context of a children's book, it was fine to have Bard appear out of nowhere to slay Smaug; or to have Gandalf disappear for a significant part of the story only to relate where he had been as a footnote to Bilbo's adventure. Neither of those work well on screen. Bard needs more of an introduction (although not necessarily the backstory that Jackson gave him). An audience already familiar with the LotR films wants to see what Gandalf is up to while the rest of the company is in Mirkwood, recuperating in Lake-town, and exploring Erebor.
Getting back to the subject, though, whatever happens that results in Gandalf having Radagast's staff should occur in Dol Guldur. I want the White Council to arrive with some support from the respective Elven Realms involved, but I'm not sure that that will happen. I do think that Beorn will be present. I am glad that Saruman should see some action, but I think that Lady Galadriel will use her power to bring down the walls (something that properly occurs at the end of the War of the Ring).
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 9 2014, 6:55pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Aug 9 2014, 7:22pm
Post #38 of 41
(94 views)
Shortcut
|
but i just do not see how a Tauriel/Kili romance (or whatever you want to call it), or Smaug chasing the dwarves around Erebor, or trying to drown Smaug in a melted statue's gold (or whatever it is they were trying to do) fits under the banner of 'adaptation'.
Streamlining the White Council's discovery of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur i understand. Changing the trolls' dialogue i understand (though i didn't like it much). Changing Bilbo's interactions with Gollum, or Smaug, i understand (and actually worked). Even Azog, which i hated, i kind of get why they brought him into the "present", though i think it was a terrible idea and does not work at all and is waaay better back in the past as it is in Tolkien's version. Even the stuff in LotR that doesn't quite work, like dying Arwen or lost Aragorn or troubled Faramir (well, that one works for me) or crazy Denethor, those are all adjustments that happen in adaptations (Bilbo turning Sam away and the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff do go too far, but they're just fleeting moments and easily overlooked). But that's the kind of stuff that happens when you adapt from one medium to another. All that other stuff in the Hobbit films, especially in the last half of DoS? Not adaptation.
(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Aug 9 2014, 7:24pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 9 2014, 7:32pm
Post #39 of 41
(89 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh that falls under the word "altered"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would say, in "an altered or amended version of a text."
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 9 2014, 7:52pm
Post #40 of 41
(89 views)
Shortcut
|
Well no obligation to accept it as a personally resonant definition, but it is a generally accepted one (so I only raise it in the context of the idea that we are discussing something which redefines the term!) It also has the virtue of being slightly snappier!
But on the meat of it that all sounds good to me. Rather looking forward to Saruman, myself. And yes I can certainly imagine the "cleansing" being rolled into the current timeline.
|
|
|
Girdle of Melian
Lorien
Aug 12 2014, 6:18pm
Post #41 of 41
(75 views)
Shortcut
|
Who will actually free Gandalf from the cage; my feeling is that it will be both Radagast and Galadriel while Elrond deals with most of the orc armies, and I do wish that Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond gets a team match with Sauron and and his Nazguls.
I think this how it would happen:
Radagast and Galadriel manages to get past the orc and most of the Nazgul defenders along with at least a battalion of Elves (if present) while Elrond is left behind to deal with the most of the orc army with the rest of his army from either Rivendell or Lorien. Saruman then will render assistance to Elrond before he joins with Galadriel and Radagast.
Both Radagast and Galadriel and their small contingent find Gandalf's location and attempt to free him but is confronted with the orcs and at least one or two Nazguls guarding Gandalf, possibly involving Sauron later or immediately. Radagast manages to free Gandalf while Galadriel and her small battalion deals with the orcs and any Nazgul present. Sauron joins the fight and manages to kill (if not incapacitate Radagast) and by this time kills the remaining Elven soldiers and turns to Galadriel, and I would imagine either Galadriel will first battle him through conventional means then and then use some enchantment that she may have learned from Melian, or most likely the Phial which I presume under her use would be more potent than how Frodo used it...it does not defeat Sauron but enough to keep him at Bay and he may use his powers to try to hurl rocks and stuff to Galadriel away from the light that he is unable to penetrate while she dodges them..at this stage, Saruman would have arrived and turn the tide of the Battle in favor of the White Council. Hence, I think that is Galadriel and Saruman that will defeat him together...I don't think Gandalf will be involved as he would be too weak at that stage (who knows what Sauron did to him when he was captured). In the end, as Galadriel tries to assuage Gandalf's broken body is when we see Saruman show sympathy to both of them.
It could play out in many ways, but for sure...Gandalf should not remain unguarded and any of the WC members should arrive without soldiers with them for sure, especially since there are two high Elves with them.
|
|
|
|
|
