|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Menegroth
Sep 30 2016, 10:03pm
Post #26 of 43
(2442 views)
Shortcut
|
that sounds almost sinister. Im not sure they are looking to trick people into bankruptsy and forced to eat cat food that just doesnt sound like the Peter jackson I know.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 30 2016, 10:23pm
Post #27 of 43
(2416 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sorry, I was just thinking aloud....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..or at least, thinking onscreen, much as you were.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Mithlond
Oct 1 2016, 1:32am
Post #28 of 43
(2398 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, orcs are a tricky subject in Tolkien;
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He himself couldn't figure out in his head what he wanted them to be, either chaotic monsters or former elves.
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Oct 1 2016, 5:14am
Post #29 of 43
(2383 views)
Shortcut
|
Peter Jackson has nothing to do with the marketing. All the marketing rights belong to WB, and it's their PR department (and their big-business mindset) that Darkstone is talking about. Peter Jackson is much the same as he always was, but the studio approach is a lot different.
To put this into perspective for you, a lot of us were here for the Lord of the Rings days, and part of the reason that we are so cynical about WB is that we remember how much better New Line was at paying attention to and marketing to the fans. WB takes a decidedly mass-market, one-size-fits-all approach by comparison.
Silverlode
Roads go ever ever on
Under cloud and under star
Yet feet that wandering have gone
Turn at last to home afar.
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known.
|
|
|
2ndBreffest
Menegroth
Oct 1 2016, 2:22pm
Post #30 of 43
(2342 views)
Shortcut
|
i just meant that the Peter Jackson i know and love with all my heart wouldn't take part in a sinister scheme. Because he supposedly contributed to the box set by conducting a poll of favorite scenes and working closely with the shelf makers to select the best design. A lot of people online seem to think the only reason they made the Hobbit at all is for the money and did everything in their powers to get as much as possible with no regard for the source material. Like making up stuff so they had enough footage for a trilogy and writing in a female role etc. I just dont' like to believe this is true.
|
|
|
StingingFly
Menegroth
Oct 1 2016, 8:32pm
Post #31 of 43
(2302 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it's the historical inaccuracy that bothers people...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...as much as the fact that Azog takes up so much screen time...and isn't very interesting. He is the 'defiler', a really, really mean bully who just keeps on smirking and doing cruel things to the dwarves. The pay off, of course is to see him get his comeuppance in the final film. Though it was great to see Thorin finish him, I was really looking forward to him being mauled by Beorn! That would have been delightful, but what can you do?
...Also, the problem with the never-ending chase scene involving Azog is that the aspect of Man (or dwarf) vs. Nature was lost. That is a key element to Tolkien that was understated in these films.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Menegroth
Oct 2 2016, 5:28am
Post #32 of 43
(2271 views)
Shortcut
|
It's the Battle of Five Armies, not the Battle of Six Armies. The whole second Orc army was unnecessary except to give Azog a reason for being. The Five Armies in order of appearance were:
1. The Elves of Greenwood/Mirkwood
2. The Men of Long Lake
3. The Dwarves of the Iron Hills
4. The Orcs and Wargs of the Misty Mountains and Grey Mountains
5. The Eagles (and Beornlings)
There are some who count the Wargs as the Fifth army and don't count the Eagles and Beornlings as they appear at the end to win the battle but I always felt the Orcs and Wargs were a combined army and the Eagles and Beornlings are the final combined army that swing the tide of battle. Most other references I've seen seem to follow this division as well.
That's one of the inherent problems in this trilogy -- they really didn't need two orc armies amd they really didn't need Azog but the whole business with having Azog and a second orc army not only diluted the main story but added unnecessary length to the films. To some extent, they needed the second Orc army just to justify having both Azog and Bolg at the battle but it breaks the "Five Armies" name. Not having watched the Appendices for this trilogy, I can only surmise they did this to add more tension for Thorin (which again is why this IMO should have been titled "The Quest for Erebor" or "Thorin & Company" instead of "The Hobbit").
I don't object to modifications in general, I object to specific changes that I think are non-canon or that dilute or change the story. A female elf isn't non-canon and even making her the captain of the guard doesn't really change the story. Creating a dwarf-elf romance IS non-canon. Having Bifur replace Dori as the one who takes more care of Bilbo is a minor change that does nothing to the overall story. Having Thorin bearing a grudge against all Elves is non-canon and changes a bit of the story (albeit not hugely). Having Azog pursuing Thorin as a blood-grudge after 60-100 years of doing nothing is not only non-canon, it significantly dilutes the main storyline.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Oct 2 2016, 9:09am
Post #33 of 43
(2259 views)
Shortcut
|
It's the Battle of Five Armies, not the Battle of Six Armies. The whole second Orc army was unnecessary except to give Azog a reason for being. The Five Armies in order of appearance were:
1. The Elves of Greenwood/Mirkwood
2. The Men of Long Lake
3. The Dwarves of the Iron Hills
4. The Orcs and Wargs of the Misty Mountains and Grey Mountains
5. The Eagles (and Beornlings)
There are some who count the Wargs as the Fifth army and don't count the Eagles and Beornlings as they appear at the end to win the battle but I always felt the Orcs and Wargs were a combined army and the Eagles and Beornlings are the final combined army that swing the tide of battle. Most other references I've seen seem to follow this division as well.
Since Tolkien himself was one of those who counted the Wargs as the fifth army, I take that as definitive. And the Beornings don't figure into it at all. They did not even exist as a culture until after the BoFA.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Oct 2 2016, 9:36am
Post #34 of 43
(2258 views)
Shortcut
|
|
On the original five armies I'm not sure....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The eagles' appearance is decisive, as is Beorn's. (There are no Beornings in the book, just Beorn himself ). But Tolkien seems to define the armies differently:
"Upon one side were the Goblins and the Wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves."
That seems pretty clear to me, even though it does leave out some important participants. If anyone breaks the "Five Armies" name, as you suggest, it was probably Tolkien himself.
Then, on the business of the need for a second army, I think you're missing something vital. You suggest that the second army was only needed in order to get Azog and Bolg on the battlefield. It think you've stood that on its head. Seems clear to me that Dol Guldur is the reason for the second army. They decided early on to develop the storyline of the Necromancer and Dol Guldur which is present in the background to the story and is actually important to the course of events, since it deprives the company of Gandalf at a vital moment. Having decided to include Dol Guldur they then had to build a story around the outline Tolkien sketched - the second army is part of that, because it links the Necromancer, Gandalf and the final battle. And once they had a second army, someone had to lead it - hence Azog. All these things were choices they made, but there is a kind of logic to them and they do constantly link back to Tolkien even when they change or embellish his storyline.
I think the same could be said for the other inventions you single out. If you haven't watched the Appendices you're not in a position to appreciate the thinking behind the changes made to the story. Take Tauriel and Kili: for all the objections that have been raised to this, they explain that the inspiration for this came from Tolkien's own story of Gimli and Galadriel. Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh were intrigued by Tolkien's idea of a dwarf loving an elf, given the antipathy between the races in his stories, and they wanted to explore it further. What happens between Kili and Tauriel isn't a love affair in the modern sense and they make it clear that it was never intended to be. Just the intense but ultimately doomed emotion that can spark between two individuals who are restless in their own surroundings. I'm betting that there wouldn't have been half the number of objections to it had it not been for a few clunky passages in the writing - and for me those are outweighed ten times over by the 'Feast of Starlight scene' which is one of the most beautiful in the trilogy.
Again, as for the grudge between Azog and Thorin, the pursuit by a living Azog is obviously a change to Tolkien but it has its seed in his story. When Azog is mentioned in the book, Thorin curses his name. And in general, the hatred between orcs/goblins and dwarves is certainly rooted in Tolkien.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
mae govannen
Dor-Lomin
Oct 8 2016, 11:48am
Post #35 of 43
(2076 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for putting it squarely as it is.
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Dor-Lomin
Oct 8 2016, 11:50am
Post #36 of 43
(2072 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't believe either that it's true.//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Dor-Lomin
Oct 8 2016, 11:53am
Post #37 of 43
(2072 views)
Shortcut
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Dor-Lomin
Oct 8 2016, 12:08pm
Post #38 of 43
(2070 views)
Shortcut
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
Ingwion
Menegroth
Oct 8 2016, 12:10pm
Post #39 of 43
(2072 views)
Shortcut
|
If you haven't watched the Appendices you're not in a position to appreciate the thinking behind the changes made to the story. Take Tauriel and Kili: for all the objections that have been raised to this, they explain that the inspiration for this came from Tolkien's own story of Gimli and Galadriel.
I have not watched The Hobbit appendices, so this is the first time I've heard the Fili & Tauriel was inspired by Gimli & Galadriel. This makes the whole so much better for me - that it wasn't just a clumsy romance thrown in for wider appeal. The Hobbit trilogy just shot up in my estimation hugely.
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Menegroth
Oct 9 2016, 4:22am
Post #40 of 43
(2041 views)
Shortcut
|
First off, Gimli's adoration of Galadriel was not a romance. Secondly, it was supposed to be unique in Dwarf-Elf relations. Having the Kili-Tauriel romance destroys the special nature of Gimli's devotion to Galadriel and also makes no sense as it precedes Gimli's entry to Lothlorien.
|
|
|
Ingwion
Menegroth
Oct 9 2016, 2:33pm
Post #41 of 43
(2011 views)
Shortcut
|
I like the romance. I hate it. It's just I feel it's better having a disrespectful canon-disregarding poorly fabricated adoration than a disrespectful canon-disregarding poorly fabricated romance - I feel it's more middle-earthy. And I agree that Gimli's adoration of Galadriel was not a romance.
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Oct 9 2016, 4:26pm
Post #42 of 43
(1996 views)
Shortcut
|
Or perhaps "Swoons" would be more apt. 
I needn't detail my disgust with the whole tawdry Tauriel/Kili affair, and how Jackson entirely ignored the significance of Gimli's adoration of Galadriel; but without viewing it in the light of Catholic doctrine, then we reduce the grandeur of the story as a whole, and Tolkien's intent in particular.
What occurs between Gimli and Galadriel sets in motion a profound change in the dwarf, who previously was hostile to the Elves (who were equally mistrustful of the dwarf upon his entry into Lothlorien). What transpires is a mystical confluence wherein the dwarf's outlook is changed forever, to the point where Legolas and Gimli become fraternal comrades rather than antagonists:
She looked upon Gimli, who sat glowering and sad, and she smiled. And the Dwarf, hearing the names given in his own ancient tongue, looked up and met her eyes, and it seemed to him that he looked suddenly into the heart of an enemy and saw there love and understanding. Wonder came into his face, and then he smiled in answer.
This is not some romantic fling with a bit of dirty double-entendre thrown in. Galadriel was clearly an icon of the Virgin Mary in Tolkien's mind, and her role changed dramatically in Tolkien's writing to meet that image ("unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision”).
The chivalric interplay and adoration of Gimli towards her is in the spirit of Tolkien's Catholicity. The three golden hairs (Gimli asked meekly for one, but three is a number important to Tolkien for obvious religious reasons) the dwarf encases and wears on a gold chain about his neck is a symbol of the scapular, a small necklace particularly important in the Catholic adoration and remembrance of Mary (or "Our Lady", if you prefer).
So the intrusion of the bogus and badly scripted Tauriel/Kili relationship now supersedes the more important and mystical transformation of Gimli in the chronological story line, and demeans the original intent of the interplay between dwarf and elf.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Ingwion
Menegroth
Oct 9 2016, 4:34pm
Post #43 of 43
(1995 views)
Shortcut
|
I wish there was no hint of romance between k & t. Let her marry Legolas - I don't care. BUT LEAVE THE DWARVES ALONE. But I kinda thought it'd be better having Kili adore Tauriel, without any romance, instead of a mortal-immortal love story
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
|
|
