|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Doriath
Dec 11 2015, 11:39pm
Post #1 of 24
(1664 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Further thoughts on Appendices
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think it's a great shame that the sequence in which Dwalin is trying to get to Thorin when he is fighting Azog on the ice is not shown even in the EE – the chap was actually in tears at the end of that sequence, I think only partly because it was his last day on the set. It did always jar with me that Dwalin disappeared after reaching Ravenhill with Thorin. That little sequence was very well done and is worth a thousand CGI Ligolases (would have thought it better to drop Ligolas and Tauriel, and include this scene and Beorn, but then I would think that).
Also greatly admire the way Richard Armitage played his role during the fight on the ice, and the ingenious mechanism employed with that plate he was balancing on. Must have been truly exhausting.
A side note on the Dwarven armour, in which Thorin's team was initially kitted out – it was superbly designed and it would have been brilliant to have seen them fight in it, though I can understand that it was just too heavy for the actors to move about in freely enough. Makes you wonder how all the 'tin-can' clad knights of old would have fought, and think about how strong they must have been by comparison to today's males…
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Mithlond
Dec 11 2015, 11:51pm
Post #2 of 24
(1604 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But how would the Dwalin scene work after that?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He see Thorin get hit by Azog and then what? He do not see that Thorin kills Azog and that he is still alive to walk to the end of the waterfall and then collapses and yet have time to talk to Bilbo? What did Dwalin do during all that? What I could see there was no more orcs to fight so what was stooping him to come to Thorin?
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Dec 12 2015, 12:03am
Post #3 of 24
(1598 views)
Shortcut
|
I would not have put the Dwalin bit back in, because it completely undermines the emotion of the scene. It makes it about Dwalin trying and failing to get to Thorin, not Thorin realizing the only way to end this is to sacrifice himself.
Thorin and the audience needs to know that Thorin is alone, that no help is coming, that there is nothing that will happen to end this for him. Even if Thorin doesn't hear/see Dwalin coming for him, we do. So we might think "well, if Thorin had just waited another 15 seconds, Dwalin would have saved him."
The scene is not about Dwalin, its about Thorin. Now if I were to do more with Dwalin on Ravenhill, it would be something to do with finding Fili's body and protecting it or something. That could be his emotional moment on Ravenhill.
Then there are the logistics of why Dwalin would not be the first one to Thorin's side, why he wouldn't see that Thorin is still alive when he kills Azog... all that. Dwalin would have, upon seeing Thorin still fighting, kept running to him.
Graham was really good, but just because its good doesn't mean it works perfectly within the context.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Doriath
Dec 12 2015, 12:19am
Post #4 of 24
(1587 views)
Shortcut
|
The scene is not about Dwalin, its about Thorin.
Neither is it about Ligolas, but we see more of him than practically anyone else.
I think it could have been worked into the sequence (after all, there must have been a reason why it was shot), and it could have filled in the gap left by a disappearing Dwalin. For instance, Dwalin could have beaten back the Orcs, but noticed from afar that it was too late for Thorin and fallen on his knees on the ice (it needn't have been anything more than that). It could have been a really emotional scene that fitted in with the death of Thorin very well, in my opinion.
As for 'So we might think "well, if Thorin had just waited another 15 seconds, Dwalin would have saved him" ', viewers thinking that wouldn't have been a hindrance to the plot, in my view.
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Dec 12 2015, 12:29am
Post #5 of 24
(1580 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't remember Legolas being shown when Thorin has Azog's sword coming down on him.
I'm not talking about how they could have done it. but how they did. The way they showed it edited, with intercutting between Thorin and Dwalin shouting his name as he fights through orcs, would have undermined it.
I don't need to see Dwalin to know he's off fighting orcs elsewhere on Ravenhill. They could do a generic Dwalin fighting to show that he's occupied, but not getting to Thorin specifically. That's not what the moment is about.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Doriath
Dec 12 2015, 2:52am
Post #6 of 24
(1547 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree, and disagree at the same time
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would have really liked to see Dwalin defending Fili's body, once he realized he simply could not reach Thorin....so the greater question is, "What is more in character for him?"- to defend the fallen Fili, or leave Fili to the possible end of defiling by the orcs in order to attempt to find and defend Thorin? Given his reaction to Fili's death, that's a tough one....he's clearly very close and fond of the lad 
OR- would he try to catch Kili, same as Thorin? I don't even know if the two knew that Kili had even died, which makes Thorin's death and not knowing before he died all the more tragic
(Psst- I agree with you- Legolas and Tauriel should have remained in Dale and Bilbo should have been the only one who could get through (due to the ring) to warn them (see my response on the "more fitting love story" thread on that subject)).
With exception to farm boys and servicemembers in the armed forces, I think the majority of today's males are, compared to old knights and soldiers and farmers, quite wimpy in comparison
|
|
|
Eruonen
Gondolin
Dec 12 2015, 5:59am
Post #7 of 24
(1506 views)
Shortcut
|
|
At least they should have shown him battling large numbers of orcs
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
allowing Thorin to slip away. It would have kept him quite occupied and unable to come to Thorin. I can see him defending a stair or path up to Ravenhill. He was the closest to a berserker. If I recall, the last we see of him is about when Bilbo is struck.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Mithlond
Dec 12 2015, 8:55am
Post #8 of 24
(1467 views)
Shortcut
|
Neither is it about Ligolas, but we see more of him than practically anyone else. First of all he is not in that scene, second of all I hope you are talking about Legolas vs Bolg scene and not the entire film because we don't see much of him in the film.
and it could have filled in the gap left by a disappearing Dwalin Dwalin did not disappear, no more then that the rest of the Company disappeared or Gandalf, Bard, Thranduil, we do know they are still fighting somewhere on the battlefield and have not disappeared. Dwalin is still fighting some where on Ravenhill but he did not just disappeared.
For instance, Dwalin could have beaten back the Orcs, but noticed from afar that it was too late for Thorin and fallen on his knees on the ice (it needn't have been anything more than that). It could have been a really emotional scene that fitted in with the death of Thorin very well, in my opinion. But did he not see Thorin kill Azog and was still alive for about five minutes? And if he did not see it he would not just give up but he would go after Azog and try to kill him. It did not look like there was any more orcs so what was stopping him?
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Doriath
Dec 12 2015, 11:46am
Post #9 of 24
(1439 views)
Shortcut
|
(Psst- I agree with you- Legolas and Tauriel should have remained in Dale and Bilbo should have been the only one who could get through (due to the ring) to warn them (see my response on the "more fitting love story" thread on that subject)). With exception to farm boys and servicemembers in the armed forces, I think the majority of today's males are, compared to old knights and soldiers and farmers, quite wimpy in comparison
Agree on both points – and also think that when the Dwalin sequence was filmed, it was with the aim of slotting it into the Ravenhill sequence; that there was a logic behind it, otherwise it would not have been shot. I remain convinced that there could have been a way to fit it into the sequence, perhaps if some of the detritus that ended up in it had been left out. I feel the same about the acorn scene at Dale, BTW – that a way could have been found to show this, which would have had a similar impact to the 'white shores' scene with Gandalf and Pippin on the battlements at Minas Tirith. Both these scenes are strong and well acted, with powerful emotional content.
I also think that having Dwalin attempting to reach Thorin, rather than Kili, would have had more impact, particularly given Dwalin's close relationship with Thorin, to whom he was a 'lieutenant' (according to the film) and who he always supported through thick and thin. For me, Kili is not a strong character and a defence of him by Dwalin would not have had quite the same effect. That's just my view. 
|
|
|
Riven Delve
Dor-Lomin
Dec 12 2015, 12:21pm
Post #10 of 24
(1437 views)
Shortcut
|
A side note on the Dwarven armour, in which Thorin's team was initially kitted out – it was superbly designed and it would have been brilliant to have seen them fight in it, though I can understand that it was just too heavy for the actors to move about in freely enough. Makes you wonder how all the 'tin-can' clad knights of old would have fought, and think about how strong they must have been by comparison to today's males…
Others please help me out here if you know, but wasn't plate armor in medieval times primarily used for mounted fighting? Not having to have as much mobility would make a huge difference in how much weight you could bear, I would guess.
Of course real Dwarves, being the tough little armored tanks they are, wouldn't have this strength issue. 
“Tollers,” Lewis said to Tolkien, “there is too little of what we really like in stories. I am afraid we shall have to try and write some ourselves.”
|
|
|
PredatoR
Nevrast
Dec 12 2015, 2:06pm
Post #12 of 24
(1404 views)
Shortcut
|
I am very curious what was the abandoned prologue scene where Thranduil wore a different custom with a green leafed-crown. There were also Dwarves who migrated from somewhere to somewhere...
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Dec 12 2015, 6:42pm
Post #13 of 24
(1315 views)
Shortcut
|
The heavier armour was worn by mounted cavalry. It got so heavy they had to use heavier and heavier breeds of horses to manage the weight, as the style of combat changed. And if you fell off your horse you were in big trouble - some of those men were sitting ducks once that happened, because they couldn't get up.
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Dec 12 2015, 6:47pm
Post #14 of 24
(1318 views)
Shortcut
|
Quote:
With exception to farm boys and servicemembers in the armed forces, I think the majority of today's males are, compared to old knights and soldiers and farmers, quite wimpy in comparison
I think that's an unkind and sexist generalisation.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Doriath
Dec 12 2015, 8:02pm
Post #15 of 24
(1291 views)
Shortcut
|
I was basically making it a bit in jest, but validating Glorfindela's point at the same time.
Compared to back then, men (as a whole, and women as well- I haven't forgotten the ladies, it was simply not in Glorfindela's original thought so wasn't mentioned) are not nearly as strong as a whole as they were back then, due to most of the developed world not having labor-intensive, heavy lifting type jobs.
Back in historical times (and yes, I adore history and am well versed in many aspects of primitive life), the labor load on BOTH men and women makes today's load look, well, wimpy in comparison- that wasn't sexist, it was stating a fact.
Women may have been homemakers (for the most part- I acknowledge that various societies had slightly different roles for men and women, but the majority were set up this way), and men may have been tradesmen or agrarian workers, however EACH had a great load in terms of labor.
The women would raise the children, quite possibly grow and maintain the fruit and vegetable gardens, knead breads from scratch with their hands (no breadmakers, or grocery stores), dry, preserve, smoke, etc meat and vegetables and fruits for use in wintertime, husk corn, dry corn, hand grind with stones grains into meal/flour, haul water (often over long distances, depending on the viability of wells where they lived), weave cloth, make clothing by hand, fashion bone or wooden needles (later buying metal ones), dry beans, tend the home fire and haul wood or whatever was available for burning material at their location, heat water one pot at a time to bathe (often once a week, even less in water-restricted areas, like deserts or dry climates), spin wool/yarn, gather wild herbs and berries and greens, be healers and find healing herbs to use and other remedies, etc.
The men would farm or care for animals or do their trades, they would hunt and dress the game, they would tan hides (or women would, depending on the society), shear sheep, work day and night in all sorts of weather at times (especially with livestock, as animals could give birth or need to be herded to safety in flooding weather, defending flocks and herds from maurading animals, etc), take care of trade, make and repair farming equipment, forge their tools or make them by hand, etc.
If most of those in the developed world tried to take on these sorts of jobs all at once, we would probably pass out from sheer exhaustion and muscle fatigue within an hour or two (or longer for some who are more in shape than others) but I doubt we'd last the entire day if we took on the same day-to-day workload of those who did this everyday in history.
So, that's where my comment came from. It wasn't meant to be sexist in ANY way, or derogatory in ANY way- it was simply fact. Men and women today are, with exception to some still labor intensive jobs, FAR less strong than they were even as early as 100 years ago, due to advances in modern technology and moving away from more labor-intensive jobs as a whole.
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Dec 12 2015, 8:22pm
Post #16 of 24
(1278 views)
Shortcut
|
Quote:
So, that's where my comment came from. It wasn't meant to be sexist in ANY way, or derogatory in ANY way- it was simply fact.
Despite your lengthy explanation, I still find your original comment offensive. It is possible 'wimpy' means something else where you come from, but here it means weak, cowardly and pathetic. And that is never a term I would use to make a blanket statement about 'the majority of today's males', whether under your definition or mine.
|
|
|
Toukol
Nevrast
Dec 12 2015, 10:32pm
Post #17 of 24
(1229 views)
Shortcut
|
Neither is it about Ligolas, but we see more of him than practically anyone else.
The final Azog-Thorin showdown on the ice lasts almost five minutes in the EE. Legolas was not shown once and had not been on screen in over five minutes, and he only appears briefly one more time after he kills Bolg.
His total screen time in the entire battle barely amounts to more than 5 minutes, so there is hardly "more of him than practically anyone else".
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Doriath
Dec 12 2015, 11:43pm
Post #18 of 24
(1211 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For what it's worth, Cirashala
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I thoroughly agree with what you've said, and don't find it remotely sexist – especially as you made it clear that what you said was done so in jest. I've studied history and archaeology, and compared the lives of people who lived in medieval times and before with those of people who exist today, and can confirm that your analysis is correct. People in general lived much harder lives than they do today, especially in the West, and it stands to reason that many of those who survived to adulthood were far more hardened – and had to be physically stronger – than adults are today. A lot more people also engaged in sustained hard physical work, for which considerable strength was often required. Such hard work has almost vanished in societies in the West especially. It stands to reason, then, that males would have been stronger in past times than they are today – especially than ones who tend to sit in front of screens and lead generally inactive lives.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Doriath
Dec 13 2015, 3:28am
Post #19 of 24
(1174 views)
Shortcut
|
Sometimes it's a derogatory term (like you describe), but when said in jest (as I verified) it is simply a joke and not offensive to us here (at least, from what I have seen of Americans). It's no more derogatory than describing full armor clad dwarves as "little tanks", to be honest. It's an accurate statement taken, in jest, to a slightly exaggerated extent as part of the jest.
Idioms are a funny thing. One thing that may be massively different in one culture may be met with only confusion from someone in another culture. Some common curse words in England and many former English colonies (which I will not list out here, as I know they're bad curse words to some on here) wouldn't elicit ANY reaction, or at most a raised eyebrow and confusion, to people here.
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Menegroth
Dec 13 2015, 3:54am
Post #20 of 24
(1171 views)
Shortcut
|
...I don't find it the least bit offensive. It's true, nowadays most of us are gentle folk who can neither fight nor fend for ourselves.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Doriath
Dec 13 2015, 4:07am
Post #21 of 24
(1162 views)
Shortcut
|
That was the entire point with my jest- thank you for illustrating it so eloquently (good use of a movie quote too, I might add) 
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Dec 13 2015, 3:12pm
Post #22 of 24
(1091 views)
Shortcut
|
The final Azog-Thorin showdown on the ice lasts almost five minutes in the EE. Legolas was not shown once and had not been on screen in over five minutes, and he only appears briefly one more time after he kills Bolg.
His total screen time in the entire battle barely amounts to more than 5 minutes, so there is hardly "more of him than practically anyone else".
I haven't timed different sequences - but - it FEELS as though there's an awful lot of Legolas re the end battles, and for me his battles seem to drag. Tho it may just be me as his "thing" with Bolg for me isn't compelling. It just feels like a couple of guys going at it outside a bar or something, most of the time. For me it's not even as interesting as watching Tauriel with Bolg, except for the EE bits with Legolas where it gets more gritty here and there with the knives in the hand. Legolas IMO has some good moments but I would trim that down, somehow, if I could.
Also, if I had the editing software, I'd chop that bit of Legolas hollering for Tauriel right out as fast as I could cut the frames. Because Azog and Thorin are engaging and all of a sudden it cuts away to IMO a useless boring blip, since logically Legolas would go look for Tauriel, and we never see them together again. I don't know how I would have done it differently, but I still think the editing of the interspersed fighting scenes could use some smoothing. 
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Dec 13 2015, 4:06pm
Post #24 of 24
(1069 views)
Shortcut
|
It does bother me that Dwalin, Thorin's most loyal right-hand man, just disappears? I mean yes, I realize he'd be fighting Orcs somewhere, but it would be nice to KNOW - but I agree that if he'd seen Thorin get stabbed, why didn't he go after him? He certainly would have, so it wouldn't have just been Bilbo and Thorin talking. You're right, it was a great scene, but it needed something to explain why Dwalin didn't go after Thorin. I've always imagined that Dwalin tried to reach Kili per Thorin's order, and was the one that told Tauriel that the Dwarves would want to bury him. I suppose if Dwalin came and Thorin told him to find Kili, that could fix it.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, to both these things
[