|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 10 2016, 7:47pm
Post #1 of 54
(2346 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit expanded things
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is a good point of the trilogy. Of course, PJ brought a lot of crap, like SOME of Legolas funnies and the romance beetwen Arwen and Ara... oops, Tauriel and Kili. BUT, he did something different, cause in LOTR he deleted some stuff from the book (like Bombadil and Saruman in Shire) and in TH he added things, good things. He added characterization, gave Esgaroth a new look (it is a Russian city now) and AZOG.
Don't you agree?
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Jul 10 2016, 8:12pm
Post #2 of 54
(2227 views)
Shortcut
|
It's controversial, and I know many people didn't care for it, but one of the problems I had with the original book was that Gandalf just disappeared and reappeared for no reason. Well to me adding the Dol Goldur subplot (which came from the LoTR Appendices) fixed that problem. It was an expansion of material that Tolkien had written, unlike Tauriel. Now I of course have no problem with Tauriel per se, just wasn't crazy about the "love story" angle. I also didn't have a problem with Legolas per se, since he was identified in FoTR as a Mirkwood elf, and son of Thranduil. Now, having not read much I don't know how much of Thranduil was actually Tolkien (or at least based on Tolkien), and how much was PJ's invention, but Thranduil was definitely one of the best characters in the movie. Azog, meh, I could take him or leave him.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 10 2016, 8:31pm
Post #3 of 54
(2220 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gandalf's POV in Dol Goldur was not necessary
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He could just have told us in Dale (I'm talking about the idea of only one film, which I like)
I also don't have a problem with Tauriel or Legolas, I think they were used in a wrong way (very wrong)
SEE? These are the only two BIG problems I have. The Dol Guldor bull and the elven party (yeah, PJ, screw dwarves, let's talk about Legolas' mother. Bargh)
I've in my hea a much better version of the story. Many things I would keep, like Ravenhill and probably Alfrid (YES, he is not so bad). PJ's version was good (GREAT), but could have been better...
"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 Altaira on Oct 18 2016, 9:40pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Jul 10 2016, 10:25pm
Post #5 of 54
(2195 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand some of the changes.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Many of the additions came directly (more-or-less) from Tolkien's Appendices, mostly the addition of the White Council and Dol Guldur. I appreciate why the revelation of the Necromancer's identity came in the present time of the films; that way the audience doesn't have to wonder about the Council taking ninety years to act on the knowledge that Sauron has returned.
Kilidoescartwheels asked:
Now, having not read much I don't know how much of Thranduil was actually Tolkien (or at least based on Tolkien), and how much was PJ's invention, but Thranduil was definitely one of the best characters in the movie.
Thranduil's treatment of the Dwarves within his realm is pretty much from the book, although there he does not know Thorin on sight. His attitude towards the Dwarves at Erebor is harsher in the films (where Bard is less inclined towards violence). But Tolkien did not give the Elvenking much of a personal stake in Smaug's hoard.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 10 2016, 10:26pm)
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 10 2016, 11:19pm
Post #6 of 54
(2181 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, SJW know how to ruin something
[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
Jul 11 2016, 3:30am
Post #7 of 54
(2157 views)
Shortcut
|
He could just have told us in Dale (I'm talking about the idea of only one film, which I like) I'm sorry, but no. There's a huge difference between hearing someone tell me what happened, and actually SEEING it. Sorry, but thinking about Gandalf saying, "oh, by the way, I had to leave to check out Dol Goldur" just wouldn't be nearly as good as what we got in the movie, IMHO of course.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 4:12am
Post #8 of 54
(2152 views)
Shortcut
|
Don't you remember? Gandalf mentioned Dol Guldor when he was talking to Thranduil. They could have improved dat line and gave him more datailed lines about the event.
You say it does not work only because you never saw a version like this (fanedits).
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 4:26am
Post #9 of 54
(2142 views)
Shortcut
|
Film is a visual medium, with the general rule of "show, don't tell."
If you have Gandalf mention that he went to investigate DG, especially with the details of "I found Thrain, then he died, and then I found Sauron, who I fought and lost to, then the White Council rescued me..." The audience is going to immediately ask "That sounds awesome! Why didn't we get to SEE any of that?"
Let's not show the Battle and just have the dwarves tell Bilbo what happened. Let's have Galadriel tell the story of the Ring to Frodo in the glade instead of the Prologue. Let's have Leia tell Luke about Han getting frozen instead of going to Cloud City with them...
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 4:56am
Post #10 of 54
(2135 views)
Shortcut
|
This is Bilbo's story. This is his quest, how he reached the moutain. It is not about any nostalgia bull.
At least a flashback, but don't waste 30 freaking minutes in Dol Guldor, when you could be focusing in Bilbo and the dwarves.
"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 Altaira on Oct 18 2016, 9:40pm)
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 5:39am
Post #11 of 54
(2130 views)
Shortcut
|
What you see as trying to have "nostalgia," I see as expanding the story and the world with an event that Tolkien did say happened at the same time as the main story with a major enough character.
If you want to play it as "only Bilbo's story should get any attention," then get rid of expanding on Thranduil, Bard, Laketown, and even Thorin and the dwarves... when Bilbo is not with them. If "The Hobbit" should only focus on the hobbit Bilbo, then can we extend this to also applying to LOTR, if "the Lord of the Rings" refers to Frodo and Frodo has a quest to reach a mountain, we shouldn't have any stuff that does not involve Frodo and that quest, right?
In a 9-hour total runtime, 30 minutes is not that much. According to the math (9x60minutes=540minutes. 30/540=.055) it's only 5.5%.
(This post was edited by LSF on Jul 11 2016, 5:41am)
|
|
|
NoelGallagher
Nargothrond
Jul 11 2016, 5:40am
Post #12 of 54
(2127 views)
Shortcut
|
I dont think 30 minutes are wasted if you get an 8hours+ movie.
Seriously, thats rubbish...
By the way, the Dol Guldur stuff was visually impressive.
Maybe it lacked a bit of more details but overall im really happy it was included.
The High Fells as well, which many disliked.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Jul 11 2016, 7:03am
Post #13 of 54
(2108 views)
Shortcut
|
Don't you remember? Gandalf mentioned Dol Guldor when he was talking to Thranduil. They could have improved dat line and gave him more datailed lines about the event.
I have to echo the old saw: Film is a visual medium; it is better to show than to just tell. Peter Jackson chose to add elements from Tolkien's Appendices to tie the story more firmly to the previous trilogy. That means seeing Gandalf and the White Council and their campaign against Sauron at Dol Guldur.
You say it does not work only because you never saw a version like this (fanedits).
You presume too much. Besides the original book, many of us have seen the Rankin/Bass adaptation of The Hobbit, the graphic novel version and audio adaptations (not to mention the 1966 animated short). We know what a more faithful version can be like. The inclusion of the Necromancer subplot is not an inherently bad idea. However, we can debate how well Jackson used it.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 11 2016, 7:05am)
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Jul 11 2016, 12:06pm
Post #14 of 54
(2076 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I love the expanded Hobbit, probably more than I would have liked a more literal adaptation of the children’s book.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The kid’s book is great just as it is on the page, but I always wanted something more LotR-like from a movie version. What we got is not quite that but has its own flavor that I truly enjoy.
This movie trilogy tells three main stories: those of Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf, all three of which of course are intertwined and, with the several secondary stories, lead inexorably to the BOFA. Yet IMO Bilbo has been made a more active participant in the events we are shown, with more to do, such as trying to save Thorin from Azog, the Ring, solving the riddle of the map and finding the door into Erebor. In the book he is often a passive observer or at best a catalyst, and aside from a few important episodes, we wouldn’t know he was there a good deal of the time if he wasn’t the POV character.
I also like the expanded plotlines for Thranduil and Bard, and the use or introduction of Legolas and Tauriel for the former and the Master/Alfrid and Bard’s family for the latter to develop them, as well as the Woodland Realm and Laketown themselves. My only objection to the love story is that a female character always seems to have to have a love story, but otherwise I find it touching.
I completely agree that film is a visual medium and we needed to see, not hear about, where Gandalf went and what transpired. As it happens, I don’t find the conclusion of the Dol Guldur story in TBOTFA very satisfying but that is because of the execution and IMO that sequence absolutely had to be there
And
You say it does not work only because you never saw a version like this (fanedits). You presume too much. Besides the original book, many of us have seen the Rankin/Bass adaptation of The Hobbit, the graphic novel version and audio adaptations (not to mention the 1966 animated short). We know what a more faithful version can be like. The inclusion of the Necromancer subplot is not an inherently bad idea. However, we can debate how well Jackson used it.
As Otaku-sempai says, many of us had already seen/heard other versions of The Hobbit over the years. Plus we have imaginations and can visualize what PJ's movies would be like with or without the Dol Goldur or any other plot.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Doriath
Jul 11 2016, 2:44pm
Post #15 of 54
(2045 views)
Shortcut
|
Don't you remember? Gandalf mentioned Dol Guldor when he was talking to Thranduil. They could have improved dat line and gave him more datailed lines about the event.
Doesn't matter, Gandalf said it to Thranduil, not Bilbo. A few extra lines doesn't change the fact that I personally would rather SEE it than hear about it.
You say it does not work only because you never saw a version like this (fanedits).
I confess, I have zero interest in seeing someone else's fanedit. I HAVE seen the Rankin-Bass cartoon, I used to own it. I already mentioned the reason I wouldn't like it - because to me Gandalf's disappearance was a plot hole in the original story that was not successfully dealt with. And for the record, I also prefer the movie's treatment of Bilbo in BOT5A, where he is an active participant instead of missing the entire battle because he got knocked unconscious. I particularly love how he defied Gandalf & ran up to Ravenhill to warn Thorin, even after Thorin tried to kill him - I mean, that just says a lot to me. Sorry, off track - that has nothing to do with Dol Goldur.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 3:25pm
Post #16 of 54
(2032 views)
Shortcut
|
is actually PJ trying to seel the films based on his old trilogy. This makes me sad.
"Look, it is Elrond, man!"
"Yeah, I rememba hims from LOTR"
CUT TO THE DWARVES
"Hey, dude, what is the name of this mustached dwarf"
"Hmmm, I don't know, man, I think PJ DIDN'T GAVE US TIME TO KNOW HIS NAME"
"Oh, course, man. Hey, look, Thranduil mantioned Aragorn."
"Cool"
Also, we're not introduced to Galadriel in the first film, cause they don't EXPLAIN who she is. We presume Saruman is another wizard (like Gandalf and Radagast) and Elrond is the Lord of Rivendell, but who is this woman? Oh, yes, we HAVE to see LOTR, because EVERYONE has seen LOTR, the greatest trilogy ever! So great PJ made another trilogy only to give the fans a bit of nostalgia.
AND Bard and Thranduil's stories are only SUBPLOTS, not a whole new movie like Dol Guldor's quest, which has nothing to do with Bilbo and only distract us from the real thing. Same for the romance, something is not even written in the Book of Western March. Dol Guldor is in South Mirkwood, if I'm not mistaken. FAR AWAY from Erebor.
You see, these things PJ included (I'm talking about the awful things) are only there because of LOTR. These mentions to Tolkien's lagendarium, Dol Guldor, love story and many other things (hot dwarves, Alfrid, three films and Frodo) wouldn't have place if the trilogy had been made BEFORE Lotr.
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 4:45pm
Post #17 of 54
(2015 views)
Shortcut
|
Also, we're not introduced to Galadriel in the first film, cause they don't EXPLAIN who she is. We presume Saruman is another wizard (like Gandalf and Radagast) and Elrond is the Lord of Rivendell, but who is this woman? Oh, yes, we HAVE to see LOTR, because EVERYONE has seen LOTR, the greatest trilogy ever! So great PJ made another trilogy only to give the fans a bit of nostalgia. After AUJ we do know that Galadriel is the lady of Lorien, is a member of the White council and a respectful elf. After BOFA we do know that she is powerful and is waring a powerful ring. When you have seen FOTR you will see her kingdom and understand everything. This is how you do a story with 6 films, you are not suppose to know everything after one film but after 6 films you will.
AND Bard and Thranduil's stories are only SUBPLOTS, not a whole new movie like Dol Guldor's quest, which has nothing to do with Bilbo and only distract us from the real thing. Same for the romance, something is not even written in the Book of Western March. Dol Guldor is in South Mirkwood, if I'm not mistaken. FAR AWAY from Erebor. Everything that happened in Rohan and Gondor during TT and ROTK had nothing to do with Frodo's journey to mordor.
|
|
|
DainPig
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 6:13pm
Post #18 of 54
(1990 views)
Shortcut
|
And I see the six films as two separated trilogies, and can't see it as a "saga". That's my unpopular opinion. What I mean is, for a person who've never watched Lotr, the question will remain: who is this blonde elf?
We can watch Frodo's journey and Aragorn's journey separately, there are even several fan edits like this.
"Se mais pessoas valorizassem o lar acima do ouro, o mundo seria muito mais feliz."
dainpigblog.blogspot.com
historiasderafaelrodriguesdarocha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 6:29pm
Post #19 of 54
(1984 views)
Shortcut
|
If you don't want any references to LOTR and the larger Middle Earth story in The Hobbit (which I see as impossible when both stories take place in the same world only 60 years apart and share characters, locations, objects, and themes) then what do you think about the Hobbit references in FOTR? Showing Thorin's map at Bilbo's house, Bilbo writing his story in Rivendell, Gandalf mentioning Thorin giving Bilbo the mithril vest... Those don't have much to do with Frodo's journey, especially since the Prologue told us everything we needed to know about the Ring.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 6:38pm
Post #20 of 54
(1979 views)
Shortcut
|
And I see the six films as two separated trilogies, and can't see it as a "saga". That's my unpopular opinion. What I mean is, for a person who've never watched Lotr, the question will remain: who is this blonde elf? If you have never seen any Middle-Earth films and starts with AUJ then you will learn that Galadriel is the lady of Lorien and a respectfull elf, then you will see DOS where she only has a cameo, then you have BOFA and you will learn that Galadriel is powerful and have a powerful ring and after that you will see FOTR and you will see her kingdom and understand who she is.
When PJ made The hobbit this is how he wonted it to be, he even talks about it in the eppendices, he made the Hobbit films part 1, 2 and 3 out of 6 films and that is how new audience members are suppose to watch them.
We can watch Frodo's journey and Aragorn's journey separately, there are even several fan edits like this. You can do the same with Bilbo's journey and Gandalf's journey.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Jul 11 2016, 7:02pm
Post #21 of 54
(1967 views)
Shortcut
|
is actually PJ trying to seel the films based on his old trilogy. This makes me sad.
Seel? It doesn't help you when you use made up words. However, since Peter Jackson was introducing the Necromancer subplot then it was necessary to include the White Council. That means at least including Lady Galadriel, Saruman and Lord Elrond. it was completely gratuitous to name-check Strider, but I wonder if you would object as strenuously if we simply encountered a young boy called Estel in Rivendell (which wasn't going to happen because of the altered timeline of the LotR films).
[replyAlso, we're not introduced to Galadriel in the first film, cause they don't EXPLAIN who she is. We presume Saruman is another wizard (like Gandalf and Radagast) and Elrond is the Lord of Rivendell, but who is this woman?
We are introduced to Galadriel and are told everything we need to know about her at this time: She is a powerful Elf-lady who is one of the Wise and a member of the White Council who gets along well with Gandalf.
AND Bard and Thranduil's stories are only SUBPLOTS, not a whole new movie like Dol Guldor's quest, which has nothing to do with Bilbo and only distract us from the real thing. Same for the romance, something is not even written in the Book of Western March. Dol Guldor is in South Mirkwood, if I'm not mistaken. FAR AWAY from Erebor.
And yet you are okay with Jackson's alterations to the characters of Thranduil and Bard. If you remember the book, Bard was almost spoiling for a fight by the time that Dain shows up while the Elvenking advised patience and hoped for a peaceful resolution.
The Dol Guldur subplot puts the Quest of Erebor in a larger context of events affecting Middle-earth at this point in time. It also serves to show the audience why Gandalf had to leave the company and what he was doing during that time. Personally, I could have done without the completely made-up tombs at the High Fells and the introduction of all nine Nazgûl to the story. This was especially awkward after the High Fells sequence was moved from the first movie to the second.
I do agree with you that the relationship between Tauriel and Kili was an unneeded distraction. I was fine with Tauriel in her original role as a foil for Thranduil's isolationism, but that got a bit lost in her love story.
You see, these things PJ included (I'm talking about the awful things) are only there because of LOTR. These mentions to Tolkien's lagendarium, Dol Guldor, love story and many other things (hot dwarves, Alfrid, three films and Frodo) wouldn't have place if the trilogy had been made BEFORE Lotr.
But it wasn't made before the LotR films and no complaints are going to change that. And I cannot agree that the references to Tolkien's larger legendarium are among the awful things in the films. And, Frodo? He was only part of Jackson's framing sequences, although that did rob us of Tolkien's own epilogue to the story that featured Balin and Gandalf.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 11 2016, 7:03pm)
|
|
|
LSF
Mithlond
Jul 11 2016, 7:16pm
Post #22 of 54
(1959 views)
Shortcut
|
"In the book he is often a passive observer or at best a catalyst, and aside from a few important episodes, we wouldn’t know he was there a good deal of the time if he wasn’t the POV character."
From everything I've read about the Hobbit book (haven't read it myself because Tolkien's writing is very tedious for me, but I have read a lot on the wikis and asked people who have read and such), agrees with that. From what I understand, the only things Bilbo does that affects the story/quest is rescuing them from the spiders and Thranduil's dungeon. He talks to Gollum and Smaug and gets the Ring, but the quest could probably go on without those events.
So I can only conclude that the movies actually are more about Bilbo than the book is, since PJ and Co changed how events happened or added ones to give him things to do with character and action.
|
|
|
Withywindle
Nevrast
Jul 11 2016, 9:40pm
Post #24 of 54
(1917 views)
Shortcut
|
I think, LSF, that there are other things which Bilbo does that affects the plot of the book which you have excluded. He did after all trick Smaug into revealing his weak spot. This was then relayed to Bard, however unknown to Bilbo, through the thrush. Also the ring is a very important item on the quest and I don't think the company would have survived without him obtaining it. So yes the ring greatly affects the plot.
"'... The Withywindle valley is said to be queerest part of the whole wood- the centre from which all the queerness comes, as it were.'" -Merry, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book I, Chapter VI, The Old Forest
(This post was edited by Withywindle on Jul 11 2016, 9:41pm)
|
|
|
Avandel
Gondolin
Jul 11 2016, 9:43pm
Post #25 of 54
(1916 views)
Shortcut
|
This is Bilbo's story. This is his quest, how he reached the moutain. It is not about any nostalgia bull.
At least a flashback, but don't waste 30 freaking minutes in Dol Guldor, when you could be focusing in Bilbo and the dwarves.
Since I was always annoyed by Gandalf abandoning the dwarves - particularly as in the films Thranduil points out quite rightly that Gandalf started this - if nothing else, for me *emotionally speaking* it was nice to really see, visually, how dire this "creeping darkness" really was.
As films go, IMO seeing what was going on in DG was no different than being able to see any other scenes going on simultaneously - Erebor and Laketown, for instance - because things are happening with groups of characters at the same time.
So DG doesn't bother me. However, IMO PJ's attempts to tie the two sets of films together was, to me, too heavy-handed. And I never FEEL the two sets of films tied together - at least mentally for me there's a 60-year separation of events. I haven't the slightest desire to sit down and watch all six back to back, and then feel the way I do when concluding an epic novel. I didn't thrill to Thranduil's allusion to Aragorn *shrug*.
IMO Bilbo DID get primary focus. As for the dwarves outside of Thorin and Kili - well, IMO it's unfortunate that PJ did not stick with his apparent early dwarf enthusiasm and the things that might have been - dwarf character moments; a crazed Thorin idly plucking a discarded harp; the dwarves singing to soothe Thorin; some interaction w. the Durins, some interaction between the dwarves, seeing the dwarves fight more. And more Beorn.
Too much emphasis IMO on Legolas/Tauriel/Tauriel+Kili; on Alfrid...but IMO these decisions are something separate from including DG. And IMO the designs for the Nine in DG are AMAZING - also it was fun seeing Galadriel be badass w. that orc.
Although, not to be all negative, there's some IMO special stuff and things I never imagined seeing - Thorin and Gandalf in Bree. That little scene of the Men of the North burying Angmar. A spectacular dwarf army w. those whirly things and battle rams. Armored war trolls. Amazing Dain. OMG Thranduil entering Dale.
And finally, my quibbles aside, dealing w. the Hobbit was no easy task; IMO because the need to require the whimsical with a lot of serious issues, I can only bow deeply at what PJ was able to accomplish. My quibbles don't prevent the Hobbit films from being my favorite movies.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Oct 18 2016, 9:42pm)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
[
. 
IMO DG was a worthy expansion
[
1
