Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
The average lifespan of Dwarves in 250 or so. Dwalin was the longest lived at 340. Once dwarves reached a certain age they aged very slowly, almost imperceptibly to other races.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
In my opinion, on paper the whole molten gold idea is an appropriately dwarvish way of trying to kill a dragon, so I think the problems with that sequence lie purely in its execution. Aside from the unfinished VFX, Thorin never stops and communicates to the dwarves (i.e. - the audience) what his plan is. So a good chunk of that whole sequence comes off as a bit aimless.
And not to keep harping on the lack of the Misty Mountains theme, but the moment the golden statue is revealed would have been a perfect point to bring it back. Particularly the arrangement used in The World is Ahead.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Yeah, forging peerless weapons and armor is just silly compared to attempting a plan with a 1% chance of success that also requires dwarves to surf on molten gold.
Moria would've gone far better had they dropped a balrog statue on the beast. As it would've been the most effective and truest to their particular idiom.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Don't know what the general consensus is for TBOTFA but I was incredibly frustrated sitting through it. There's a fine movie underneath it all but there is just not enough stuff there to justify 140 minutes of footage.
General consensus is that it was a pretty big disappointment so you are not alone.
Just got back from the theater.
Y'know, I could do what I usually do and make a list of knee-jerk pros and cons, and my overall thoughts on the film in general...but this time I don't think I will - not yet. Because I don't think I saw the film, I think I saw a bastardized version of it with all of the meat cut off and nothing but the skeleton left. Seriously, that flew by, I barely had time to blink.
I have a feeling that in the future I'm going to refer to the theatrical cut of BOTFA as the "LGTOW Cut" or the "Let's Get This Over-With Cut". I'm almost curious if Jackson was pressured by New Line to make this thing as brief and straight-to-the-point as possible, since they knew the film was going to make assloads of cash regardless (and it's not like they saw an Oscar-sweep coming this trilogy's way). I'm not going to say definitively that BOTFA was disappointing. I'm going to say this weird-ass cut was disappointing.
I'm looking forward to the extended cut for BOTFA more than I ever was for AUJ or DOS - because it honestly felt like a laughably huge chunk of the film was removed from the theatrical version. To the point where I don't feel like I can even really comment on the movie as a whole because I don't feel like even saw the whole thing.
Y'know, I could do what I usually do and make a list of knee-jerk pros and cons, and my overall thoughts on the film in general...but this time I don't think I will - not yet. Because I don't think I saw the film, I think I saw a bastardized version of it with all of the meat cut off and nothing but the skeleton left. Seriously, that flew by, I barely had time to blink.
I have a feeling that in the future I'm going to refer to the theatrical cut of BOTFA as the "LGTOW Cut" or the "Let's Get This Over-With Cut". I'm almost curious if Jackson was pressured by New Line to make this thing as brief and straight-to-the-point as possible, since they knew the film was going to make assloads of cash regardless (and it's not like they saw an Oscar-sweep coming this trilogy's way). I'm not going to say definitively that BOTFA was disappointing. I'm going to say this weird-ass cut was disappointing.
I'm looking forward to the extended cut for BOTFA more than I ever was for AUJ or DOS - because it honestly felt like a laughably huge chunk of the film was removed from the theatrical version. To the point where I don't feel like I can even really comment on the movie as a whole because I don't feel like even saw the whole thing.
bengraven
Member
Interesting. I may wait a full year for the EE then.
Notice at the premiere of the movie, that PJ was very quick to say that the EE would be at least 30 minutes longer, as though he were subtly apologising to the fans and critics alike for the short nature of the film.
I definitely think there was studio interference.
zero shift
Banned
So I'm trying to start a Christmas tradition where every Christmas I start watching The Lord of the Rings. This is perfect timing being how
After seeing The Fellowship of the Ring again after some years it really got me seeing where The Hobbit went wrong:
- Characterization. This seems to be the number 1 complaint people have about The Hobbit. Do yourself a favor name all of the fellowship characters in the film. You have Biblo, Gandalf, Thorin,....the fat dwarf, the elf loving dwarf,....the once in a blue moon comic relief guy with the hat,....there are more right? In comparison to the Fellowship of the Ring, by the end...actually scratch that by the first five minutes of the introduction of each character you are already connected to them. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, Merry, and Pippin. All nine members of the fellowship immediately stick out to you. And there is a reason for that, each character has a very unique personality, unique traits, and most of all a unique purpose.
Even the lesser characters (the not so main main characters) are center to the film. Boromir displays not only how easy men can be corrupted by the ring, but also displays the tensions between different factions in mankind, and also at the end shows that mankind can indeed redeem itself. Merry and Pippin could have so easily have been thrown away as comic relief characters, yet even with them they serve a purpose to film as they show that even the goofiest people can become serious and courageous. They are also involved in many important plot points such as the goblins/orcs being unleashed in the mines and later being used as the opportunity of Boroir regaining his honor as he protected them and them later being kidnapped by the Uruk-hai (an important reason of Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas to continue their journey).
The Hobbit does a fucking atrocious job with this.Outside of like three of the dwarves, none of them served a relevant purpose to the film other than being part of a fighting force. Let alone each of them being memorable and enjoyable.
- Pacing. When I was watching Clerks II, there was a joke in there where Randall comments that The Lord of the Rings consisted of nothing but a bunch of people walking. Upon hearing that I thought it was stupid criticism of the films since the "Why don't they use the Eagles" comment. The film is brilliantly paced as no twenty minutes are the same. The shire, the forest, the town, the Elven kingdom, snowy mountain tops, and the mine. All packed into one film. Each of these areas of different tones and different events occurring in them. The shire is where we get a look at the simple relaxing life of a hobbit, the forest is where they take their first steps to the unknown world, the town is an uneasy place that shows maybe these hobbits are over their heads, the Elven kingdom is mysterious and almost holy, the snow mountain tops (though admittedly brief) are chaotic and dangerous, and the mine is where the action happens. The film may be long, but it consistently switches things up so you don't get bored.
In comparison let's look at the latest Hobbit film.You have an opening that isn't really even an opening but just the last twenty minutes of the previous film added on to the beginning of this one. An hour of tension between Thorin and everyone else. And an epic battle that awkwardly transitions to multiple one on one battles. Now I know someone will quote this and say "well you can make anything bad if you say it like that." but that's really the best way I can describe the movie.The opening is so rough because it isn't part of the film, the standoff between Thorin and others drags on way too long, and the end battle is just way too unpolished. I didn't even know what was going on some of the time, and I'm not sure how much of that is due to the film being confusing or me not caring. That last sentence pretty much describes the pacing in The Hobbit films.
- Polish and Soul. The Lord of the Rings film (I consider the movies one film) is just really fucking good. The editing is top notch. The cinematography is top notch. The score is top notch. The casting is top notch. The writing is top notch. You get the picture. When The Return of the King tied for the record of most Oscars won, it wasn't an accident, it deserved to. Every category of the film is amongst the best in the medium. My only complaint is why didn't The Fellowship and Two Towers can't swarmed with Oscars upon their release?
There is also the topic of "soul". It's very tricky thing to bring up because it isn't a set definition. But whatever it is, The Lord of the Rings has a lot of it. You can feel the love at the special effects in the film, especially the immense detail to the miniatures. Really with the effects you can tell they did what would get the best results instead of what would be the most cost effective or appealing. CGI is used only when it should be.There are also a lot of 80s esque quick cuts in the film that somehow don't feel out of place. There is also so much little detail throughout the film, the type in which you discover a lot of little things during a rewatch. The Hobbit doesn't deserve its own paragraph in comparison. It just deserves a sentence in that it doesn't have either of these things.
well The Fellowship of the Ring ties in with The Battle of the Five Armies ending.
After seeing The Fellowship of the Ring again after some years it really got me seeing where The Hobbit went wrong:
- Characterization. This seems to be the number 1 complaint people have about The Hobbit. Do yourself a favor name all of the fellowship characters in the film. You have Biblo, Gandalf, Thorin,....the fat dwarf, the elf loving dwarf,....the once in a blue moon comic relief guy with the hat,....there are more right? In comparison to the Fellowship of the Ring, by the end...actually scratch that by the first five minutes of the introduction of each character you are already connected to them. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, Merry, and Pippin. All nine members of the fellowship immediately stick out to you. And there is a reason for that, each character has a very unique personality, unique traits, and most of all a unique purpose.
Even the lesser characters (the not so main main characters) are center to the film. Boromir displays not only how easy men can be corrupted by the ring, but also displays the tensions between different factions in mankind, and also at the end shows that mankind can indeed redeem itself. Merry and Pippin could have so easily have been thrown away as comic relief characters, yet even with them they serve a purpose to film as they show that even the goofiest people can become serious and courageous. They are also involved in many important plot points such as the goblins/orcs being unleashed in the mines and later being used as the opportunity of Boroir regaining his honor as he protected them and them later being kidnapped by the Uruk-hai (an important reason of Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas to continue their journey).
The Hobbit does a fucking atrocious job with this.Outside of like three of the dwarves, none of them served a relevant purpose to the film other than being part of a fighting force. Let alone each of them being memorable and enjoyable.
- Pacing. When I was watching Clerks II, there was a joke in there where Randall comments that The Lord of the Rings consisted of nothing but a bunch of people walking. Upon hearing that I thought it was stupid criticism of the films since the "Why don't they use the Eagles" comment. The film is brilliantly paced as no twenty minutes are the same. The shire, the forest, the town, the Elven kingdom, snowy mountain tops, and the mine. All packed into one film. Each of these areas of different tones and different events occurring in them. The shire is where we get a look at the simple relaxing life of a hobbit, the forest is where they take their first steps to the unknown world, the town is an uneasy place that shows maybe these hobbits are over their heads, the Elven kingdom is mysterious and almost holy, the snow mountain tops (though admittedly brief) are chaotic and dangerous, and the mine is where the action happens. The film may be long, but it consistently switches things up so you don't get bored.
In comparison let's look at the latest Hobbit film.You have an opening that isn't really even an opening but just the last twenty minutes of the previous film added on to the beginning of this one. An hour of tension between Thorin and everyone else. And an epic battle that awkwardly transitions to multiple one on one battles. Now I know someone will quote this and say "well you can make anything bad if you say it like that." but that's really the best way I can describe the movie.The opening is so rough because it isn't part of the film, the standoff between Thorin and others drags on way too long, and the end battle is just way too unpolished. I didn't even know what was going on some of the time, and I'm not sure how much of that is due to the film being confusing or me not caring. That last sentence pretty much describes the pacing in The Hobbit films.
- Polish and Soul. The Lord of the Rings film (I consider the movies one film) is just really fucking good. The editing is top notch. The cinematography is top notch. The score is top notch. The casting is top notch. The writing is top notch. You get the picture. When The Return of the King tied for the record of most Oscars won, it wasn't an accident, it deserved to. Every category of the film is amongst the best in the medium. My only complaint is why didn't The Fellowship and Two Towers can't swarmed with Oscars upon their release?
There is also the topic of "soul". It's very tricky thing to bring up because it isn't a set definition. But whatever it is, The Lord of the Rings has a lot of it. You can feel the love at the special effects in the film, especially the immense detail to the miniatures. Really with the effects you can tell they did what would get the best results instead of what would be the most cost effective or appealing. CGI is used only when it should be.There are also a lot of 80s esque quick cuts in the film that somehow don't feel out of place. There is also so much little detail throughout the film, the type in which you discover a lot of little things during a rewatch. The Hobbit doesn't deserve its own paragraph in comparison. It just deserves a sentence in that it doesn't have either of these things.
I doubt he would be apologizing to critics. Critics attacking the run time of the last two is likely a main factor in New Line putting pressure on him to reduce the run time.
Which ironically didn't do anything since it had the worst reviews of any of the Hobbit films and is on track to be the lowest grossing film of the 3 as well. Should have just let him release what he wanted since the lower running time isn't helping anything.
To be fair, they had to characterize thirteen dwarves. People have problems naming Snow White's paltry seven dwarves, and disney made an effort to make them all super different, what hope there is for thirteen dwarves with regular ass dwarf names.
I didn't understand the physics in this movie. How could
Remember this fight? It was short but had weight to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icQ9m4Qe0Gk
Azog jump out of the ice like that. How did Killi deflect the blows of a massive orc who seemed way stronger than him?
Remember this fight? It was short but had weight to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icQ9m4Qe0Gk
The best thing about the film was the character moments. Thorin's dragon sickness was great and I thought the most compelling storyline in the film.
Overall I have to say the best scene in the trilogy was the riddles in the dark one. That alone is enough for me to consider AUJ the best of the three.
Overall I have to say the best scene in the trilogy was the riddles in the dark one. That alone is enough for me to consider AUJ the best of the three.
To be fair, Legolas also took down a mumakil by himself and Aragorn got into a sword fight with an armored troll. Fellowship is definitely the most grounded of the three films, but TTT and ROTK certainly had some wacky stuff.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Akin to Kingdom of Heaven in that regard. Although it remains to be seen if the extended cut can improve the film in the same manner.
At least we know we'll get
, as confirmed by Peter and Phillappa.
Also, on my second viewing, I spotted the
our endings for Dain and Bard
Also, on my second viewing, I spotted the
shot of Radagast on the Eagle is flipped, the bird poo appears on the wrong side of his face.
Beorn can be spotted tending to his ponies on Bilbo and Gandalf's return journey.
It's on track to get close to or beat the $958 million of DoS, but it wouldn't be a Hobbit movie thread without someone trying to claim a close to billion dollar movie was somehow a financial failure or disappointment.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3983&p=.htm
Considering they've likely been making pure profit since the gross of AUJ, it's even more impressive.
zero shift
Banned
True. But the Fellowship had only four less. It would be one thing if there were two or three dwarves that had poor characterization. Instead it was practically all of them.
tryagainlater
Member
In all fairness, I was impressed by what we got compared to the book. In the book, a lot of the characters weren't more than names on a page. Bard who does arguably the most important thing in the story isn't introduced until his showdown with Smaug. Whereas in the movie, he gets some sort of characterization. I know this isn't a defense of the movie for a lot of people and if they were gonna make three of these things, maybe they should have tried to develop them all more. But for the most part, I'm happy with what they did with the dwarves. They were never really gonna be important to the story but I liked their little visual quirks that actually made them distinguishable from mere names like the book and they did a good job with Thorin and Balin in particular with a few others like the twins and Dwalin. I wasn't expecting Lord of the Rings because that's not what The Hobbit is. Jackson did try to make it more epic than the story is though so I understand why others were disappointed. I'm glad my expectations were different anyway.
zero shift
Banned
That is true. I've being saying this since The Hobbit was announced, it should be one film. There is no way it is epic enough to warrent to films, let alone a trilogy. The Lord of the Rings was one book, one film. The Hobbit is one book so it should be one film. This is why the pacing is so fucking awful as well as everything else. Jackson and friends were trying to make The Hobbit something it wasn't. You can try all you want, but you can't make The Hobbit into an "epic adventure" like The Lord of the Rings. The book is something different, something more condensed. That's where they went wrong.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
The Fellowship had six less. The Hobbit had 15: the 13 dwarves plus Bilbo and Gandalf.
The Fellowship also had the advantage of each member having a distinct role:
Frodo was the main hobbit.
Sam was Frodo's sidekick.
Merry and Pippin were the wacky trouble-making hobbits (though don't ask the average viewer which one was Merry and which one was Pippin)
Gandalf was the only wizard.
Gimli was the only dwarf.
Legolas was the only elf.
Boromir was the man who died.
Aragorn was the man who didn't die.
These things were all from the book, and they made it a lot easier for each of them to stand out in some way.
The Hobbit, on the other hand, did not have this. The book's characters basically looked like this:
Bilbo, the hobbit.
Gandalf, the wizard.
Thorin, the lead dwarf.
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
Dwarf
The movie was never going to make those twelve dwarves as distinct as the nine members of the Fellowship, no matter what. They'd have to have added a ton of new content to the movies to do that, new things for the dwarves to do to stand out. And considering how much hate these movies have gotten for where they did do that with Kili, I can't imagine how much backlash there would be if they did that for even half the dwarves, much less all of them.
Given the source material, I honestly think they went above and beyond and did a far better job than most would have. Even if they don't have great characterization, nearly every dwarf has at least something that stands out about them. The average viewer could probably easily point out "the fat one" or "the dumb one," even if they don't know that their names are Bombur and Ori. And the movie did give some decent characterization to Balin, Dwalin, Kili, and Bofur.
On an unrelated note, I watched The Two Towers today. Goddamn is that a boring movie. Nothing happens. Sam and Frodo meet Gollum, Gandalf comes back to life, and that's it. Even the battle of Helm's Deep wasn't a very good payoff. I literally almost fell asleep, and that never happens when I watch movies.
The dwarves had shit characterization in the book too, they were always "Thorin, the rest of the dwarves and Bombur bringing up the rear." They were an amorphous mass told apart only by the color of their beards, outside of Thorin they were just sort of there. Shit, even he was just sort of there most of the time.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
The Dwarves are merely an adjunct to the tale; named, described, taken directly without much modification from the Norse tale Tolkien borrowed from. They serve a purpose, as such characters do in tales of faerie, while not distracting from our bourgeois burglar. Thorin is the most developed, and provides a counterpoint to Bilbo. One who gives in to greed as certain heroes of old do (although redeemed), others who resist and prevail in their respective tales.
What we see in the trilogy is merely the result of elevating this tale beyond its original intent.
What we see in the trilogy is merely the result of elevating this tale beyond its original intent.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Close to 5000 posts. The last Hobbit trilogy discussion thread. Will the Tolkien community on this forum fall into shadow or find a new home? One wonders. Is a Tolkien community even needed now that the films are finished? What exactly is there left to discuss?
Edmond Dantès;144964300 said:
We still have TBOTFA EE and Appendices.
A marathon of all six EEs. Further analysis and discussion, comparison of page to screen.
Even if it's not posted in daily, I would always come back to that thread, same as I do this one.
We will not abandon TolkienGAF to torment and death. Not while we have strength left.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Edmond Dantès;144964300 said:
I'm rereading The Silmarillion and had forgot how beautiful it is in places. I want to talk about it, but the wife's eyes glaze over when I start to talk Elven lineages and whether or not Ungoliant is actually dead.
1) Orcs. I know Tolkien's letters change what The Silmarillion said about their creation, so what's your favorite theory? Personally, I feel as if they'll Naugrim that were found during Melkor's delves into the earth while running from Tulkas. It fits with everything we know about them. They couldn't have been created wholesale, as Melkor never possessed the ability to grant the spark of life, so they had to be something already alive. We know they weren't Elves, so...some of Aulë 's slumbering creations corrupted, maybe?
2) Hobbits. The more you learn about the Tolkien universe, the less they make sense. Every other thing that lives is given special recognition for their creation, but hobbits are just sort of "related to men." That seems odd. Is there a letter or something that sorts this bit of flotsam out?
3) The Entwives. Tolkien, in his later years, just sort of decided after it being a mystery for some time, that they were destroyed during the War of the Last Alliance. I feel as if his response was given sort of out of annoyance, but you know, his universe, his rules. Are there any other tangible theories?
4) Fëanor. What a dick. But, why, in specific, is all of his creations central to the corruption of so much of Arda? Was that due to his pride, or was it because he was so great that Melkor and Co. took so much interest in turning everything he did to evil ends?
I could go on, but you know, saving some for the Tolkien 2015 Community Thread
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
On Orcs:
The origins of the Orcs are shrouded in mystery but the closest to a definitive answer is this; degenerate men taken in by Melkor long before Men started mingling with Elves. Melkor appeared to them in fair form as a false saviour and corrupted certain numbers of them. He made an ill of the Gift of Iluvatar (death, freedom from Arda) that would later have such repercussions for the Men of Numenor. The dark early history that the race of Men are so reluctant to talk about. Then the degenerates were crossbred with Elves who had not made the journey to Valinor. Thus, the Orcs were engineered by Melkor, not created. Evil cannot create in the Legendarium, one of the reasons behind Melkor's fall, his bitterness of being impotent in that regard. Some of the more powerful Orc captains were Maiar incarnate; who better to lead the Orcs on the battlefield than Maiar who are aligned to you.
Again like Melian, Luthien's mother, these Maiar Orcs could breed, hence creating powerful offspring.
Also, later on the Orcs were once again crossbred with a breed of very hardy men, hence the Uruk-hai. Some Orcs actually took on the characteristics of Men rather than Orcs, hence these half-breeds looking almost human. These were seen at Bree by Frodo and co.
On hobbits:
In Letter 158 Tolkien stated that their origins were unknown even to themselves, but elaborated in a footnote to this letter the following:
"The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) -- hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth."
On the Entwives:
Theories have been put forward about the Entwives existing in the Third Age, but none are particularly convincing. Tolkien stated in a letter that they were wiped out, a genocide carried out by Sauron. Many of the scholars I've discussed this with, ascribe to this. Some though think it was an elaborate joke by Tolkien and I've met individuals who like to describe the Entwives as enigmas akin to Tom Bombadil.
On Fëanor:
Tolkien created him, to parallel the fall of Melkor as well as Sauron: examining Tolkien's description of Fëanor:
"...Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him."
A description that parallels that of He who rebelled.
Those quick to anger and to show pride are those who fall in Tolkien's legendarium, whether it be Melkor, Feanor, Sauron, Saruman, Boromir etc.
Arrogance exhibited by him in terms of language also plays a part: to presume his was the only way and others were folly, although he had reason for his position.
Essentially the loss of his mother and a phonological change adopted by his stepmother that he strongly opposed.
The change was: þ > s
The þ as in the th in thing. Which was especially important to Feanor as his mother's Amilessë (mother-name) was Þerindë.
To quote Fëanor:
"We speak as is right, and as King Finwë himself did before he was led astray. We are his heirs by right and the elder house. Let them sá-sí, if they can speak no better".
A complex character indeed.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
So I just finished watching RotK, and it feels strange saying this, but... I might prefer the Hobbit trilogy to the LotR trilogy. I don't know for sure. It's close.
I liked Bilbo more than Frodo. Martin Freeman killed it. I also liked the dwarves a lot. They were more fun than the Fellowship, though I don't know if that necessarily makes them better. The Fellowship, as has been discussed in this thread, certainly has more characterization. But I loved Balin, Dwalin, Kili, and Bofur, and Bombur made me laugh almost every time he did anything.
I also liked Azog and Smaug as villains. They got a lot more characterization than the villains of LotR, I thought. In LotR, the villains are Sauron, who does basically nothing; Saruman, who was a decent villain and had some characterization; and the ring wraiths, who don't even have names except for the Witch King. Other than those, it's all nameless orcs. The Hobbit also had Bolg, who didn't get much characterization, but at least had a name and a distinct appearance.
I think I liked AUJ more than FotR. I'm not sure. They're both great starts to their respective trilogies. But, again, AUJ is just more fun. In FotR, Frodo is forced out of his door so he won't get hunted down and killed. But in AUJ, Bilbo voluntarily runs from his house screaming, "I'm going on an adventure!" I think that difference is a good representation of the difference in tone between the two movies, and the tone in AUJ just appeals to me more.
For the middle of both trilogies, I can easily give it to DoS, because TTT is the only movie in the series that I particularly dislike. As I said a few posts ago, it's just so boring. I don't get how people can accuse The Hobbit of being boring when TTT exists. I loved DoS though. The barrel scene might be my favorite action scene in the series.
Finally, I do have to say that RotK is a much, much better ending than BotFA. It's just so epic. The Battle of Minas Tirith absolutely dwarfs the Battle of the Five Armies in terms of scale and excitement. Plus there was everything with Frodo and Sam, and the ending gave much more closure than BotFA.
But despite the comparably lacking finale (although I still enjoyed BotFA), I think it just comes down to that I liked the tone and characters of The Hobbit more.
I think I'll watch DoS again and see BotFA in theaters one more time before I say for sure that I like The Hobbit more, but that's the way I'm feeling right now.
I liked Bilbo more than Frodo. Martin Freeman killed it. I also liked the dwarves a lot. They were more fun than the Fellowship, though I don't know if that necessarily makes them better. The Fellowship, as has been discussed in this thread, certainly has more characterization. But I loved Balin, Dwalin, Kili, and Bofur, and Bombur made me laugh almost every time he did anything.
I also liked Azog and Smaug as villains. They got a lot more characterization than the villains of LotR, I thought. In LotR, the villains are Sauron, who does basically nothing; Saruman, who was a decent villain and had some characterization; and the ring wraiths, who don't even have names except for the Witch King. Other than those, it's all nameless orcs. The Hobbit also had Bolg, who didn't get much characterization, but at least had a name and a distinct appearance.
I think I liked AUJ more than FotR. I'm not sure. They're both great starts to their respective trilogies. But, again, AUJ is just more fun. In FotR, Frodo is forced out of his door so he won't get hunted down and killed. But in AUJ, Bilbo voluntarily runs from his house screaming, "I'm going on an adventure!" I think that difference is a good representation of the difference in tone between the two movies, and the tone in AUJ just appeals to me more.
For the middle of both trilogies, I can easily give it to DoS, because TTT is the only movie in the series that I particularly dislike. As I said a few posts ago, it's just so boring. I don't get how people can accuse The Hobbit of being boring when TTT exists. I loved DoS though. The barrel scene might be my favorite action scene in the series.
Finally, I do have to say that RotK is a much, much better ending than BotFA. It's just so epic. The Battle of Minas Tirith absolutely dwarfs the Battle of the Five Armies in terms of scale and excitement. Plus there was everything with Frodo and Sam, and the ending gave much more closure than BotFA.
But despite the comparably lacking finale (although I still enjoyed BotFA), I think it just comes down to that I liked the tone and characters of The Hobbit more.
I think I'll watch DoS again and see BotFA in theaters one more time before I say for sure that I like The Hobbit more, but that's the way I'm feeling right now.
I have to ask, did you read The Hobbit? I notice that almost everyone who read the book can't stand the films while those who didn't read it seem to like it.
A much much more dramatic divide than there was between readers and non-readers for the LOTR films since The Hobbit novel is almost unrecognizable on screen, while LOTR was a good deal closer.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
I read it when I was like 10 years old. Though I don't remember if I actually even finished it. However far I got, I barely remembered it.
Though after skimming through the book the other day, I have to say that "almost unrecognizable" is pretty extreme. Pretty much any page I flipped to and started reading, I found myself thinking, "Hey, yeah, I remember when that happened in the movie!" Maybe they added a lot of stuff, but from what I read, I don't feel like they changed a ton. There were even some parts that were, word for word, exactly what happened in the movie. And where they did change stuff, I feel like it was usually changed for the better, such as making Azog a major villain instead of just one passing mention.
I'm planning on reading the whole book through some time soon, so maybe I'll feel differently then... but I doubt it.
Ixion
Member
Most of what's in the book is in the films, but there were a large amount of additions and an important change in focus. The book strictly focused on Bilbo's whimsical journey. The films focus on creating an epic, more serious story arc that leads into LOTR. They feel a lot different in the end.
Honestly, even though I think the films are pretty good, it doesn't feel like I received an adaptation of The Hobbit. It feels like I received LOTR prequels, which was PJ's intention.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
I wonder what Dantès the Grey would have thought about all this. Shame that he fell into shadow.
Wonder if we'll get endings for
in the EE?
Thranduil and Tauriel
Assuming we're getting the funeral scene, it would make sense for Tauriel to be there to pay her respects, as she said she wanted to bury Kili.
I know she's not particularly well liked, but she disappears after that last scene of her holding Kili, with no inkling of what becomes of her character.
I know she's not particularly well liked, but she disappears after that last scene of her holding Kili, with no inkling of what becomes of her character.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Tauriel probably, Thranduil less so. There isn't much to tell about him except the return or his beloved trinket.
Tauriel and her potential exile may be detailed. Possibly giving her something to do a la Legolas and his quest to find Aragorn.
Or just put her on a boat to Valinor and be rid of her.
VistraNorrez
Member
You are talking about skimming through a book, it's not remotely fair to make a comparison that way. And you are talking strictly events in the novel, which are clearly colored by having the movies strong in your memory. As was mentioned before, there is a big tonal change from book to film. They added so much to the movies that it forced it into being a different type of story altogether. The fact that pretty much everyone who remembers the book well and has seen the films and has said the films are a very liberal adaptation, should make you rethink what you are saying here.
Now I'm not saying you cannot like the films or think they are better, but to act like they are close to the book is wrong.
For the record, I enjoyed the films. Not as good as the LotR, but I was entertained and will watch then again and probably most times together with the LotR films.
Completely disagree having read the book straight after watching AuJ & DoS.
Additionally, the line of thinking that is "the book has razor sharp focus on Bilbo only", is something of a myth that has developed either from decade long memories or not having read the books at all recently.
That would be a complete change of character after the "are we not part of this world?" speech in DoS.
I think she's definitely in ME somewhere.
For the record, Evangeline believes she was allowed to go back to Mirkwood and be a Captain again.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Not a myth at all. It is scholarly opinion that I share in and advocate. The individuation and maturation are indeed the primary focus on the novel.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
That was a nice reference to Melkor, although Sauron was never banished to the Void as his Master was. He ever remained in Arda from his arrival until his fall and ever after clawed at the physical world reduced to a mere ghostly being devoid of his inherent might. A sad end for a being so great in origin.
Melkor fared better and in one thought, Tolkien claimed that he would return from the Void having recovered all his former strength. Melkor as he once was; the greatest of the Ainur.
The Last Emperor
Member
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Indeed. The end on all things that would see the end of Melkor and the creation of a second Arda, the Kingdom of Heaven, free from the residual discord of Melkor. But Tolkien reconsidered this and thought better to end in such a way. It was too pagan an end for his mythos.
Turin would indeed avenge his family by driving his famous sword into the breast of Melkor.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Middle-earth may be dead and buried, but the future holds two Tolkien biopics in store for us. Of course, many have no interest in his life and value only the inventions of his mind. His life was very interesting though, on par with the likes of T.E Lawrence and Christopher Lee certainly.
There is however a strong possibility that the aforesaid projects will fall by the wayside.
There is however a strong possibility that the aforesaid projects will fall by the wayside.
I find Tolkien's life very interesting but unfortunately it's not very action-packed (with the obvious exception of his WWI service, but even then he spent much of the time in hospital). I fervently hope that the filmmakers behind the biopics resist the temptation to "spice things up".
- Status