|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringtir
Ossiriand
Sep 7 2016, 3:59am
Post #51 of 92
(1674 views)
Shortcut
|
I even use the IMO expression in the post. Thanks anyway!
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Menegroth
Sep 7 2016, 5:57am
Post #52 of 92
(1674 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is a difference between the two
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I imagine what people usually mean when they complain about not enough Bilbo is the fact that the book is very strongly told from Bilbo's perspective. The book is called The Hobbit because it's squarely focused on the eponymous Hobbit. With the exception of Smaug's attack on Laketown, Bilbo appears in every scene of the book. It's not unreasonable for fans of the book to want to see a movie where he doesn't seem to get lost in the shuffle quite so often.
In contrast, Lord of the Rings heavily divides its focus among multiple characters, to the point where Frodo isn't even in the first half of TTT. Of course any movie adaptation is going to have to divide up the screen time as well.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Sep 7 2016, 6:51am
Post #53 of 92
(1662 views)
Shortcut
|
I even use the IMO expression in the post. Thanks anyway!
I see it right near the end of your post. We have enough users who have English as a secondary language that it is easy to imagine difficulty in understanding some phrases, abbreviations, and acronyms.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 7 2016, 12:25pm
Post #54 of 92
(1648 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Is Bilbo front and centre all the time in the book?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I imagine what people usually mean when they complain about not enough Bilbo is the fact that the book is very strongly told from Bilbo's perspective. The book is called The Hobbit because it's squarely focused on the eponymous Hobbit. With the exception of Smaug's attack on Laketown, Bilbo appears in every scene of the book. It's not unreasonable for fans of the book to want to see a movie where he doesn't seem to get lost in the shuffle quite so often.
In contrast, Lord of the Rings heavily divides its focus among multiple characters, to the point where Frodo isn't even in the first half of TTT. Of course any movie adaptation is going to have to divide up the screen time as well.
All this is true.
But it seems to me that the only reason that Bilbo is always present in our minds when we read The Hobbit is because we see almost everything from his point of view. A good deal of the time he is little more than a piece of luggage brought along by the Dwarves, until he finds his inner hero and becomes an active rather than a passive participant in the story. Aside from the Troll incident, he does little but whine to himself until well into the narrative. It’s true that the description of many events in the novel is so sparse that the characters could have been saying or doing anything at many points, but we don’t know.
In the movie Bilbo actually has more to do than in the book and there are many, many reaction shots of him when others are pushing forward the plot or action. It’s just that there is a lot of other stuff happening as well, other stories being told along with Bilbo’s.
We can argue about the nature and merits of many of PJ’s embellishments and outright creations but some things seem pretty self evident and commonsensical to me, especially since TH movies came after LotR. The White Council/ Dol Guldur plot needed to be included, the Ring would have more of a presence, characters like Thorin, Bard and Thranduil would be explored more thoroughly and, since Legolas was an Elf of Mirkwood and the king’s son, it was logical that he should appear when the company got to Mirkwood.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Sep 7 2016, 4:44pm
Post #55 of 92
(1634 views)
Shortcut
|
The movies begin and end with Bilbo, he does EVERYTHING he did in the book and then some, and he had more screentime than Thorin! No doubt Legolas crowded out Beorn, too much Alfrid, etc. but I can't agree with anyone that Bilbo was sidelined in any way. Really, the one thing BOT5A did for me was help me better appreciate the book's ending. I've said before how much I hated the fact that Thorin AND the nephews died, but really, it was Bilbo's story all along - his life, his adventure, and his friendship with both Thorin and Gandalf. It's all there in TH movies, how can anyone miss that?
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Sep 7 2016, 5:09pm
Post #56 of 92
(1625 views)
Shortcut
|
BTW thank you for a courteous discussion! as w. differing opinions at times the "sandbox" that is TORn - as a mod referred to it, where we all play, can get riled up at times...which, of course, IMO, is also a hallmark of a good film or book, because otherwise no-one cares or even discusses it.
Anyway.
Why does a song get massive while the other don't? Does this means that one is better than the other? Is this enough to call something a success and something not? IMO this isn't enough. But at the same time, popularity also means quality (or a huge fraud), and how many people review the whole LOTR trilogy around the world while they stopped in DoS or even in AUJ? Take Doug Walker for example. Anyway, it's just opinions, and tastes.
I suppose if film-makers for sure would love to have that elusive crystal ball of what works commercially and "artistically" (although at times IMO films praised at artistic triumphs or books I think are just junk and someone in the press is afraid to look stupid and SAY it's junk...like a herd mentality). I haven't gone back to look at critical comments about LOTR, or read what fans said. I do know, re the Hobbit, among the fans (I mean outside of the general audience that IMO makes any movie a commercial success, as I don't think ME fans alone could support LOTR or the Hobbit) there were posts on TORn, and elsewhere, flat-out furious about AUJ and refusals to see any more of the films.
That seemed to be true of certain folks who wanted, I suppose, a whimsical, more follows-the-book Hobbit film. Ironically, for me, since I believed PJ was initially making a "kiddie film" I had no interest, myself. On the other hand, unlike apparently many, I was not back then, and now, that blown away by LOTR - I mean, I am by the spectacle of the films, and the overall vision. But there are any number of things that get on my nerves, as I love the LOTR books.
Re the reception to the Hobbit, that's one thing IMO to resent the films for not being more "book-like". IMO what's weirder to me , reading some comments over times, is when a writer seems to resent that the Hobbit wasn't LOTR #2, even when the original source material was vastly different.
So, for me, on that score, IMO what PJ pulled off with the Hobbit was a triumph of balance - able to combine the charm of the source material and move it into darker waters, in the end. Some folks say they felt that balance was uneven; personally I don't think so. It was a success IMO in the narrative and flow of the films, and also because of a superlative cast, esp. I think Martin Freeman who did comedy and drama so well.
As you say, it's all opinion . But IMO PJ made the Hobbit book, on film, a thousand times better than I thought possible - richer, and I CARED about these characters! Of course there are things I wish PJ had done differently. But there is so much I love in the Hobbit films, and so much I think is just perfect - Gandalf, the dwarves, Mirkwood, Thranduil, Thorin, Bilbo, Smaug, Beorn, Erebor...
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 7 2016, 5:44pm
Post #58 of 92
(1624 views)
Shortcut
|
I think they did everything they could short of adding a caption "Look, it's Bilbo!" with a large red arrow pointing at him every time he appeared.
When Bilbo is around the camera is constantly returning to him. We see what he's thinking, how he reacts on every step of the journey... He actually does more than in the book because we see more scenes inside Erebor than the book gave us; more scenes in Rivendell, more scenes in Laketown; he gets knocked out later in the battle, and so on. And of course, as you point out, the story begins and ends with him.
It is Bilbo's story (the clue's in the title...) and I don't see what more he could have done in the films than he already does, or what more they could have done to bring him forward.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Ringtir
Ossiriand
Sep 7 2016, 5:46pm
Post #59 of 92
(1618 views)
Shortcut
|
For "DoS", it's definitive. The focus is shifted further onto Bilbo, especially during the elongated Mirkwood sequence and that one small - but vital; should never have been missing in the theatrical cut - moment where Bilbo vouches for Thorin in Laketown. That last bit adds the necessary weight to Bilbo's "What have we done?" line that I feel was entirely absent at the end of the TE.
But sadly, I don't see that shift on focus to Bilbo, or any other character from the book.
Ok. Beorn has some additions and I really enjoy those. I'm thankfull for the introduction that resembles the original one. And then, he seems to be the one who sets in motion the Gandalf's side quest. This gives much more weight to the skinchanger, maybe not all I recall from the book, but much more than the TE.
But then, there isn't too much for the other ones. There is more info about Laketown, Thrain (superb adittion), and then a lot of random things that doesn't move anything.
There is the bridge in Mirkwood, so the fans of the book won't complain, but what adds to the plot? There is no character development or set in motion in that scene. Maybe some talk between Bilbo and Thorin, but I don't see something that shows me their feelings move in some way.
Then we have the vouch in Laketown, wich is the third best addition in the movie, but it has one low point, in what moment did Bilbo understand that Thorin deserves his support in extreme situations?
You could say that in the ending of AUJ Bilbo defends Thorin putting in risk his life, but there it seems more like he needs to proves that he can be an adventurer, not specially for the affect that he have to Thorin. That was a proof to the group and to himself, the Tuk side was growing in him.
But during DoS, they seems more like neutral companions, like Bilbo and Gloin. Ok, Bilbo now is much more important to the group, but in the same weight of Nori and Fili, at least from Thorin eyes. I perceive more affection between Balin and anyone than Bilbo.
It seems that Smaug was right, Thorin it's just using the poor little hobbit.
(This post was edited by Ringtir on Sep 7 2016, 5:53pm)
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Sep 7 2016, 10:02pm
Post #60 of 92
(1597 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, I would disagree with.....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There is the bridge in Mirkwood, so the fans of the book won't complain, but what adds to the plot? There is no character development or set in motion in that scene. Maybe some talk between Bilbo and Thorin, but I don't see something that shows me their feelings move in some way.
Then we have the vouch in Laketown, wich is the third best addition in the movie, but it has one low point, in what moment did Bilbo understand that Thorin deserves his support in extreme situations?...But during DoS, they seems more like neutral companions, like Bilbo and Gloin. Ok, Bilbo now is much more important to the group, but in the same weight of Nori and Fili, at least from Thorin eyes. I perceive more affection between Balin and anyone than Bilbo.
It seems that Smaug was right, Thorin it's just using the poor little hobbit.
Although I'd be up at the front of the line bemoaning the minutes, hours of character development/moments I wish had been filmed - just one little moment of Thorin and Bilbo sitting by the night campfire, joking together, maybe Thorin looking Sting over, or laughing at Bilbo's pointed comments - just one little moment.
So maybe I agree on that score.
But - and apparently any number of fan-ficcers agree - IMO the visuals/body language/chemistry/placement of Bilbo and Thorin to me spoke volumes through DOS/BOFA, much like the non-verbal interactions of Kili and Fili. Although sadly IMO we never see Bilbo and Thorin's changed relationship in a quiet moment except IMO the acorn scene - IMO just watching two amazing actors work, and the narrative of the story - IMO by DOS there obvious huge changes in Bilbo, and Thorin and Bilbo's relationship.
Yes, Thorin treats him like one of the Company, even sends him across the bridge first, and that is huge, compared to the leader who contemptuously said "he's been lost, ever since he left home..."
Then there's "not our only hope"...IMO that's huge too, that this bad-ass, angry, suspicious dwarf has that much faith in this hobbit...
And again, quite a lot is done non-verbally IMO...
One of my favorite shots in all the movies, tho it's brief. Because it's Bilbo at Thorin's back. The Hobbit. Not Dwalin. Bilbo.
And I completely believe PJ did that shot and actor placement on purpose, and it's beautiful. Seriously, by DOS Thorin is close to a home he fought hard to get to,
and of all creatures in Middle Earth he has a hobbit at his back - not a dwarf.
Heck, the relationship between these two in the films (thanks to the right actors among other things) is one of the reasons I like the films better than the Hobbit book,
which to me - in the Appendices, pretty much says (as I interpret it) "well, too bad about Thorin, but at least we ended as, like, buddies, so that's OK" which really got on my nerves years before the films ever existed. IMO much better in the films.
Nor did it ever come across, since Thorin is brave to the point of suicidal, that he'd be "using Bilbo" - also if I thought that, I'd have to think Bilbo was both stupid and insensitive, to NOT know he was being used. But he responds to Smaug that the dragon is lying, so Bilbo doesn't believe that. Dwarves being what they seem to be, I would think it would be beneath that race to "use" another - probably elves as well - seems like that is a "mannish" thing, at least as these films depict the races.
So, I suppose a lot is interpolated, but I didn't find any issue with Thorin and Bilbo in the films, or completely believing their unlikely friendship, and the affection between the two - except there wasn't enough of them, or all the dwarves and some other characters. Or that Bilbo had toughened up and no longer fussed about his handkerchief and is perfectly willing to pull a sword out.
It's a shame about the non-existing moments between the characters (even Thranduil and Legolas as father/son), because when PJ wants to film a lovely quiet moment, it's exquisite IMO. And I won't bring up Fili, I won't bring up Fili... or that collector edition that might have had some *precious* unseen footage...
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 7 2016, 10:47pm
Post #61 of 92
(1589 views)
Shortcut
|
So much screentime was devoted to all of PJ's "artistic" creations that the entire focus of the story was shifted practically everywhere else but on Bilbo. PJ probably could have removed him from the movie entirely and most movie goers wouldn't have even missed him.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Sep 8 2016, 12:25am
Post #62 of 92
(1561 views)
Shortcut
|
So much screentime was devoted to all of PJ's "artistic" creations that the entire focus of the story was shifted practically everywhere else but on Bilbo. PJ probably could have removed him from the movie entirely and most movie goers wouldn't have even missed him.
Bilbo still found the Ring; Bilbo still rescued them from the Mirkwood dungeons; Bilbo still went into Erebor and found the Arkenstone; confronted Smaug; gave the Arkenstone to Bard, etc. etc. etc. I realize you're being sarcastic, but I've gotta call you out on this one - it is simply not true.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Sep 8 2016, 12:57am
Post #63 of 92
(1550 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It is the story of Thorin from Bilbo's point of view
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Sep 8 2016, 2:50am
Post #65 of 92
(1539 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't see it that way - I think it's Bilbo's story about his great adventure with the Company of Thorin Oakenshield. Really, in the book even Thorin barely gets much attention; but we see Bilbo talking to Gollum, fighting spiders, running around the Mirkwood dungeons, finding the Arkenstone and trading it with Bard. Thorin's role is certainly pumped up in the movies, but his role is still centered on his relationship with Bilbo.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Sep 8 2016, 1:41pm
Post #66 of 92
(1512 views)
Shortcut
|
So, you reckon if they cut all the opening scenes featuring Bilbo....
Then cut: Gandalf comes to Bag End, the dwarves at Bag End, Bilbo leaving Bag End, the journey to Rivendell, the encounter with the trolls, Rivendell, the journey from Rivendell, the goblin tunnels, Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, Bilbo's escape from Gollum and his rejoining the company, 'Out of the Fyring Pan', the Eagles.....
...the opening scenes of DoS, Beorn's house, leaving Beorn's and the journey to Mirkwood, going through Mirkwood, Bilbo and the butterflies, Bilbo and the spiders, the escape from the Elvenking's halls, the Barrels, the journey to Laketown, Bard's house, the confrontation outside the Town Hall, the journey to the Mountain, finding the hidden door, entering Erebor, Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug, the dwarves' confrontation with Smaug (which "artistic creation" though it is, features Bilbo prominently); that last horrified moment when Bilbo realises what will happen to Laketown.....
and the opening of BotFA when Bilbo and the dwarves look on helpless as it happens; Bilbo's scenes inside Erebor (various, conversations with Thorin, Balin, the dwarves returning from Laketown, Bofur - there's some really artistic stuff there); Bilbo and the Arkenstone; Bilbo's escape' Bilbo inside the King's tent; Bilbo and the dwarves on the battlement; Bilbo and Gandalf watch the battle start; Bilbo's reactions as things get desperate; Bilbo witnesses Thorin's company emerging from the Mountain; Bilbo and Gandalf watching Thorin & co ride up Ravenhill Bilbo hears the news that Bolg is coming with an army from the north and takes it on himself to warn Thorin; Bilbo witnessing the death of Fili; Bilbo is knocked unconscious; Bilbo comes to to see Thorin about to die and is with him when he dies; Bilbo and Gandalf at the end of the battle; Bilbo at the funeral; Bilbo says goodbye to the surviving dwarves; Bilbo and Gandalf return to the Shire; Bilbo arrives home to find the auction in progress; Bilbo in his empty home; old Bilbo hears Gandalf knock at the door...
...and all the other Bilbo scenes I haven't listed...
Just cut all that because - hey, Bilbo was really sidelined in these films, wasn't he? I mean, Peter Jackson hardly bothered about Bilbo at all, did he? - and when all of these irrelevant scenes have been cut from the films, tell me, what, precisely do we have left?
Sorry wizzardly, but I'm calling your bluff on this one. For all your very legitimate frustration with the way Peter Jackson adapted The Hobbit I don't believe that even you actually believe what you've posted here. Unless.... you have seen the films, haven't you?
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Sep 8 2016, 1:56pm
Post #67 of 92
(1505 views)
Shortcut
|
I think The Hobbit is Thorin's story. Though, he is not the protagonist. To enter the story we have Bilbo. We are Bilbo sharing this adventure with Thorin. Got it? In AUJs prologue we have Bilbo telling us about Thorin, later in the film he is saved by the hobbit and they are friends. Then in Dos prologue we see how Thorin decided to start his journey. "That's why we are going to need a burglar", cut to Bilbo. Then in BOTFA Thorin is sick and Bilbo witnesses it. At the end, "He was my friend". That's it.
Thorin is the main character, Bilbo is a way to see his story.
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
(This post was edited by DainPig on Sep 8 2016, 2:03pm)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Sep 8 2016, 2:10pm
Post #68 of 92
(1497 views)
Shortcut
|
I think The Hobbit is Thorin's story. Though, he is not the protagonist. To enter the story we have Bilbo. We are Bilbo sharing this adventure with Thorin. Got it? In AUJs prologue we have Bilbo telling us about Thorin, later in the film he is saved by the hobbit and they are friends. Then in Dos prologue we see how Thorin decided to start his journey. "That's why we are going to need a burglar", cut to Bilbo. Then in BOTFA Thorin is sick and Bilbo witnesses it. At the end, "He was my friend". That's it.
Thorin is the main character, Bilbo is a way to see his story.
Well, I don't really see it that way, but I do get where you're coming from. Difference of opinion, I guess.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Sep 8 2016, 3:43pm
Post #69 of 92
(1486 views)
Shortcut
|
Thorin is the catalyst to Bilbo's story.
Because IMO that's one of the main points, it's not like Bilbo was going to book a tour of eastern Middle Earth for fun, like some eco-tour where you have to sign a waiver before visiting the dragon that says you won't sue if you get torched.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Mithlond
Sep 8 2016, 3:49pm
Post #70 of 92
(1482 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gandalf is the catalyst, since he persuades Thorin that they need a burglar and is the first member of the party to show up at Bilbo's door, persuading Bilbo to come on the journey.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Nargothrond
Sep 8 2016, 10:45pm
Post #71 of 92
(1463 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ has very obviously made Thorin the main character and focus of his adaptation. Followed by the Tauriel/Kili/Legolas romance.
(This post was edited by wizzardly on Sep 8 2016, 10:45pm)
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Sep 8 2016, 11:36pm
Post #72 of 92
(1448 views)
Shortcut
|
I don' like those changes but I don't act like a kid as you're doing. Thorin being the main focus isn' even a bad thing. He was in the book. And as I said, it his story from Bilbo's pov.
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Ringtir
Ossiriand
Sep 9 2016, 4:43am
Post #74 of 92
(1408 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Focus, points of views, and the Great Eye
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
BTW thank you for a courteous discussion! as w. differing opinions at times the "sandbox" that is TORn - as a mod referred to it, where we all play, can get riled up at times...which, of course, IMO, is also a hallmark of a good film or book, because otherwise no-one cares or even discusses it.
Thanks for the kind words Avandel. I have to admit that in the Hobbit premiere times I was pissed off, something like wizzardly... I even have some heavy discussion with Smaug the Iron, Dainpig and that lovely mice who lives in the teapot. But with the time I began to understand that they have their own PoV and were so logic as my own. That's why I can feel more close to his opinion, without being a war. And while it seems that he is also trolling, all must understand that he doesn't like the movies and (by the fourth post he is criticizing it) you should accept it and live and let hate.
And about the title and the focus to the Hobbit. I have more problems with DoS, while I love all those little glimpses on the relationship between Thorin and Bilbo (and Fili and Kili), I miss more deep in their relation, at least something like Balin and Bilbo before entering the Dragon's Lair. BOFA makes a greater job in that aspect, the interact between the two during the first hour is lovely. And in my mind Bilbo is so worried about Thorin and his dragon disease because he already felt that strange (and horrible) ambition with the One Ring. If Peter really thought that, he is pure genius. If not, he's also a pure genius. But, for being beyond the title of the trilogy, I also missed more development for the charming Dori and his brothers, much more from Fili and the weight of being the next king and an older and protective brother, and the tragic story of Thranduil, one of the best plots that didn't get into the movie. And when some book lovers complaints about the movie being too far from the original source, its about this points. PJ make a great job with Bard, but the others are so lost while Legolas gains screentime and the relationship Gandalf/Galadriel becomes a bromance, and Sauron becomes the primal menace, all those things that belongs to LOTR but they are all over TH.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 9 2016, 12:49pm
Post #75 of 92
(1394 views)
Shortcut
|
Wizzardly, you already pretty well lost any credibility with me when you admitted that you had not actually watched TBOTFA and maybe even DOS (I forget). But now you are really reaching and coming up empty.
Dormouse, as she said, called your bluff when she ably listed many of the multiple scenes in which Bilbo is either featured or is prominent within the ensemble for all three movies. I despise fan edits but one in which Bilbo had been completely excised might be amusing, if short.
Thorin and Gandalf are also featured but over three movies there is plenty of room for Bilbo's story and it is there, in essence very similar to that of the book except for the addition of the effects of the Ring. Aside from the fighting in Laketown and on Ravenhill, Kili and Tauriel's story occupies just a few minutes over a handful of scenes.
|
|
|
|
|
