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.
Other than the dragon going from clever, witty and just remarkably badass, to a dragon who gets trolled over and over by dwaves, I find the scene with him staring into the golden statue rather genius. Dragons hoard gold. Riches. Priceless artifacts. The look and awe with Smaug with the statue was enjoyable. It was such a huge distraction to Smaug. How molten gold could kill a dragon however, they sort of forgot the idea of doing a quick cooling. See: Alien 3. (If that would even have the same effect). Unless they were just trying to encase the dragon in gold, eh. Details.
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.In my opinion, on paper the whole molten gold idea is an appropriately dwarvish way of trying to kill a dragon,
General consensus is that it was a pretty big disappointment so you are not alone.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 howwell 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.
I didn't understand the physics in this movie. How couldAzog 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
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.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.
Edmond Dantès;144843244 said: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.
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.
It's likely that this eventually reaches $700 million overseas; combine that with a likely $280-million-plus total in the U.S., and $1 billion is very much in play here.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edmond Dantès;144964300 said: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: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?
On Orcs: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
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 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.
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.
Tauriel probably, Thranduil less so. There isn't much to tell about him except the return or his beloved trinket.Wonder if we'll get endings forin 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 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.
The Hobbit novel is almost unrecognizable on screen
Edmond Dantès;145080412 said: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.
I could see that.
After burying the dwarf she tells Legolas that there is too much darkness here or something and if she stays she will wander the forests in grief until it kills her.
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.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 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.Galadriel to Sauron:
"You have no power here - servant of Morgoth! You are nameless, faceless, formless! Go back to the void from whence you came!"
Edmond Dantès;145099534 said: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.
Dagor Dagorath?
Dagor Dagorath?
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.I think Turin ends up killing him with Gurthang????
Dantes, you are needed