Movie: The Hobbit

[FlareKnight]

Originally Posted by GDB

I would assume his cousin that helped in the battle.

Someone said above (I think) what happens to the Arkenstone in the book, which is almost guaranteed to be in the extended edition.

I'll look forward to seeing that if it's in the extended edition. But for now I'll enjoy laughing at the idea that Bard managed to sneak off with the jewel everyone had been so focused on before hell broke loose .

[Wild Goose]

Originally Posted by FlareKnight

In a sense this movie was kind of hilarious.

Only half way home from the theater did I even think about the fate of the things that the conflicts in this movie were based on. Who is King under the Mountain now? What's going to happen with all that gold? Did Bard seriously just manage to sneak off with the Arkenstone?

If you'd read Lord of the Rings, or The Hobbit, Dain becomes King under the Mountain, given that he's Thorin's cousin and next in line.

They did a good job tying this in with the LOTR and make it all fit nicely as a 6 movie epic. But it's just kind of hilarious that so much was kind of ducked. I enjoyed the movie and the conclusion and didn't even think about what they kind of left out of mention until I was half way home.

I will say though my least liked moment was Thorin and his bunch charged the field and turned the tide of the battle...You are half a dozen guys! You aren't leading an army of the dead here. I was ok with some of them dying since that's the kind of result that is going to happen.

That actually happened in the book as well; Thorin and his crew basically charged out, and the Dwarven army rallied.

In the end the Hobbit films were fine. They were solid setup for the LOTR movies. But it's probably that trilogy of movies I'll see many times again and less the Hobbit movies. Good movies, but not quite as drawn towards having to rewatch them often.

Can't blame you. IMO this trilogy doesn't quite match up, but it's not bad by any measure.

I did enjoy Dol Gondur though. Galadriel walking into the fortress and pwning that orc, and then tenderly carrying Gandalf out, and then the Nine in all their power and armor and ghostly glory converge on her, Sauron's mocking-

"I am not alone."

And then Saruman and Elrond appear and kick arse.

Still, I'm very disappointed there was no shout of "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" as the Dwarves go to work on the elves.

[willx]

Yeah, this trilogy wasn't nearly as good as the Lord of the Rings series..

What bugged me the most were the liberties that the writers took with some of the content:
1) I don't remember any of Thorin's company dying in the book other than himself
2) Aren't they supposed to emerge covered in the finest weapons and armor which helps them turn the tide?
3) Related to #1, but this whole Tauriel falls in love with dwarf and then he dies buts he lives thing kind of seems awkward. It did definitely keep me guessing -> "Happy end? Sad end? Both dead? Hm, well, they can't kill off the woman I guess." And heck. how do you explain her being missing in the Lord of the Rings series then? Oh, and suddenly Legolas' dad stopped being racist? Or class/racist with respect to wood elves?

[Ithekro]

I remember three of the party dying. Thorin, Kili, and Fili. I don't remember if it was covered in the Hobbit but it was covered in The Return of the King.

[Ghiest Cid]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I remember three of the party dying. Thorin, Kili, and Fili. I don't remember if it was covered in the Hobbit but it was covered in The Return of the King.

The tomb of Balin in Moria. Ori is also there. Balin and co went to moria to reclaim it against the advice of the current king.

Originally Posted by willx

Yeah, this trilogy wasn't nearly as good as the Lord of the Rings series..

What bugged me the most were the liberties that the writers took with some of the content:
1) I don't remember any of Thorin's company dying in the book other than himself
2) Aren't they supposed to emerge covered in the finest weapons and armor which helps them turn the tide?
3) Related to #1, but this whole Tauriel falls in love with dwarf and then he dies buts he lives thing kind of seems awkward. It did definitely keep me guessing -> "Happy end? Sad end? Both dead? Hm, well, they can't kill off the woman I guess." And heck. how do you explain her being missing in the Lord of the Rings series then? Oh, and suddenly Legolas' dad stopped being racist? Or class/racist with respect to wood elves?

Elves can die cause of grief. Lúthien is an example when Beren died.

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by Ghiest Cid

The tomb of Balin in Moria. Ori is also there. Balin and co went to moria to reclaim it against the advice of the currentLut

Oín also died there because of the Watcher in the Water. The remainder of the Company is still alive and serving under Dáin Ironfoot, though they were quite elderly by the time Frodo reached Rivendell.

Originally Posted by willx

Yeah, this trilogy wasn't nearly as good as the Lord of the Rings series..

That's the problem when you try to adapt a short children's book into a first-rate feature film. The three LotR books gave PJ and his writers a lot of padding and wriggle room, but the Hobbit, with its difference in tone and smaller content, presented a new kind of challenge, especially since PJ wanted his first film trilogy to be an extension of the new one.

2) Aren't they supposed to emerge covered in the finest weapons and armor which helps them turn the tide?

I'm afraid that route kind of got cockblocked with the "the mountain's gold is cursed with dragon sickness" theme that PJ used to illustrate Thorin's moral decay and upwelling greed. I mean, he even threw down his own grandfather's crown when he realized what he was becoming. The sequence after that pretty much proclaimed that them dwarves were not defined by their love of gold but by their unwavering loyalty and their inability to turn away from a battle. Which is why they ditched the bling and settled for good ole doughty iron.

3) Related to #1, but this whole Tauriel falls in love with dwarf and then he dies buts he lives thing kind of seems awkward.

Uh...he does die, both in the novel and the movie...unless my memory cheats me spectacularly, PJ seldom if ever allowed characters doomed to die in the books to survive in the movies, especially if they hold prominent roles. The only case I remember where a non-background character did NOT follow his ordained fate was Beregond, who died in the defense of Osgiliath in the third LotR movie (he gets speared on the ground by Gothmog, Sauron's deformed lieutenant) instead of becoming Faramir's vassal in Ithilien during the restoration of Gondor;

And heck. how do you explain her being missing in the Lord of the Rings series then?

Simple. She sailed over the sea and went to Valinor, answering the Valar's summons as all Elves are eventually meant to do (save, of course, Arwen, who will stay due to both grief and the fact that there will be no gray ship left in Middle-Earth, capable of bearing her to the Undying Lands), finding solace in a land of eternal song and bliss.

Oh, and suddenly Legolas' dad stopped being racist? Or class/racist with respect to wood elves?

Racist...? Well, thing is, his anger against the Dwarves appears to be born from the fact that Thrór, Thorin's grandfather, somehow got his hands on the White Gems of Lasgalen, a necklace wrought by the Elves of Mirkwood, reportedly as a wedding gift for Thranduil's now-deceased wife (Legolas later reveals she died at Gundabad and her body was never recovered). If you remember the first movie's extended edition, Thrór was practically goading Thranduil with them, almost snatching them from right under his nose ---- thus turning into a feud what was, so far, a perfectly mellow relationship between neighboring sovereigns. So, yeah, Thranduil resents the Dwarves for withholding the last physical memento of his wife (if this information turns out to be utterly correct, though, as the White Gems of Lasgalen seem to have been invented by PJ himself and not by Tolkien, and this is the explanation that's been making the rounds on the Internet; I don't know where are the original references), but from the looks of it, Thrór was the one who started it all with his megalomania.

Thranduil, OTOH, has no tiff against the Edain (the humans), the Hobbits or the Wizards (though he does describe them as an occasional nuisance, as they often come with trouble on their heels or just ready to conjure up some).

[willx]

Originally Posted by Renegade334

Thranduil, OTOH, has no tiff against the Edain (the humans), the Hobbits or the Wizards (though he does describe them as an occasional nuisance, as they often come with trouble on their heels or just ready to conjure up some).

I meant his disdain for wood elves. Basically the movie painted him as a giant pr!ck the whole time and then he gets all kindly after Kili dies, but yes, I do get your other points -- curious whether people are going to try to do a Silmarillion movie (or series of movies) now..

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by willx

I meant his disdain for wood elves. Basically the movie painted him as a giant pr!ck the whole time and then he gets all kindly after Kili dies, but yes, I do get your other points -- curious whether people are going to try to do a Silmarillion movie (or series of movies) now..

No info on that; maybe he just sees Tauriel as a commoner unfit for Legolas and her origins are merely another excuse for his disdain. Or maybe it had to do with the complex relationships between the different Elven people (those who stayed and those who left when the Valar issued their invitation to Aman) that dwelt in Middle-Earth when Beleriand still existed; many of these kingdoms were insular and wary of each other; some (especially those that belonged to the sons of Fëanor) even executed trespassers, regardless of whether they were Elven neighbors or not.

And Elves have long memories of those who wronged them or caused tragedies.

As for the Silmarillion, perish the thought: Christopher Tolkien will never allow another movie adaptation of his father's work. Despite the fact that both trilogies caused a resurgence in book sales, he's still sore about how the rights to LotR and the Hobbit were sold and how the stories were skewed. He won't sell the rights to the Silmarillion while he's still head of the Tolkien estate. His son is more open-minded, but CT practically marginalised him within the Tolkien trust a couple years back, in retaliation for lending his help to the LotR production crew.

[Ghiest Cid]

About sindar silvan relationship.
http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post...wly-silvan-elf

Here is profile of thranduil and state how they merge with silvan.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Thranduil


Here is appendix b of unfinished tales.
http://www.oocities.org/ulmo10/ut-cg-appendixb.html

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I just want to report that, as a slowpoke, I just watched the third film a few hours ago.

My opinions:
1. This film was good. Worth seeing.
but
2. It is clear that in order to make this film, the previous film had to suffer by laying down the foundations but nothing else.

I didn't like the 2nd film very much, and almost didn't see the third. Now I see that film 2 and 3 together, was a MUCH better combo. All the extra bits in 2 that made no sense was neatly tied together in 3.

Peter Jackson messed up when he ended up with an unplanned trilogy. What he had was good as a whole, but film 2 ended up being weak because it had too much story elements that didn't go anywhere until the final film.

I think it would have been better if the dragon was slain in the 2nd film. But I guess they had no choice because they needed to lengthen the third movie somehow.

The actions were fine. The fighting was done well and much better than the goblin mine rubbish. The portrayal of the madness and Bilbo, and the Council, were well done.

All in all, I feel bad that many people might have been put off by the bad decisions in film 2. I went into film 3 with very low expectations, almost preparing to hate it. But I believe the third film is worthy of the LotR film legacy.

It is just a pity that the 2nd film just didn't have a payoff. The dragon battle and gold smelting was silly, I didn't feel anything then. The third film? I FEEL the heroism. Even the Scottish Dwarf, who had just shown up mid-film, I cared for. And the Elf Dwarf romance did have a point.

I went to the cinema waiting to be disappointed. I came back out very glad that I was wrong. The Hobbit was a fine trilogy... As long as film 2 and 3 are watched back-to-back.

[GDB]

Anyone check out the fan-made "Tolkien Edit" yet? They cut the three movies down to about four and a half hours and supposedly made it vastly closer to the original book.

[Ghiest Cid]

Originally Posted by GDB

Anyone check out the fan-made "Tolkien Edit" yet? They cut the three movies down to about four and a half hours and supposedly made it vastly closer to the original book.

I hear there is also an edited fan version of lotr trilogy.

[BPD Renegade]

Oh dear, oh my. I stumbled upon a few Hobbit clips on YouTube, one of which was of

Spoiler for :

Kili's death.

Turns out that it was a good thing I didn't see this in theaters, since I was unable to stifle any laughter. Oh god, I know it was supposed to be emotional, but their faces! I'm a terrible person.

Sigh. So much for dying with his brother to, ya know, defend their homeland and uncle, 'cause, ya know, things like that totally aren't central to Tolkien's verse.

But, I shouldn't criticize what I haven't seen. I'm going to have to find time to watch the entire thing one day. It'll be entertaining once I shut off my inner critic.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by Ghiest Cid

Elves can die cause of grief. Lúthien is an example when Beren died.

I think "die from grief" is just a fancy metaphor the book uses for suicide or allowing themselves to die from starvation. Elves are immortal but not invincible, they can off themselves if they want to.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

I thought it was because they 'faded'? I'm sure I remember Arwen living long past the age of Aragon and so on, and eventually fading away from sadness or something (I'd have to go read the Silmarillion again). But suicide would work too.

[Renegade334]

In the Silmarillion, Tolkien specifically states that

"Whereas the Elves remain until the end of days, and their love of the Earth and all the world is more single and more poignant therefore, and as the years lengthen ever more sorrowful. For the Elves die not till the world dies, unless they are slain or waste in grief (and to both these seeming deaths they are subject); neither does age subdue their strength, unless one grow weary of ten thousand centuries; and dying they are gathered to the halls of Mandos in Valinor, whence they may in time return."

So, yes, it is possible for Elves to actually die from grief, provided it is strong and debilitating enough. In Arwen's case, it is not stated how long she lived as she left the company of the mortals (thus no one chronicled the event), but rumor has it she went into seclusion in the now-abandoned Lothlórien and lived there, until one day, she laid herself down on a hill and at long last passed away, probably too tired to continue living in a gray, joyless world (the power of the rings no longer conceals the disheartening "decay" of Middle-Earth from the eyes of the Elves and thus this state of affairs aggrieves them far more than it does Men [cf. above quote], who do not fully live in complete communion with Nature, thus leading to an inevitable state of constant depression) where no white ship remains to bear her back to Aman, the land of everlasting bliss (and therefore a chance at healing). You can find the conclusion of that tale in the appendices of The Return of the King, not The Silmarillion.

Besides, Tolkien is not like one of the nameless authors of the Bible who replaced certain nouns and verbs with euphemisms (like how one prudish monk/scribes discreetly replaced the original Hebrew or Greek verb for "having carnal relations with (x)" with "to 'know' (x)"); he's rather straightforward and unambiguous (especially if the deaths mirror their Norse/Teutonic/Anglo-Saxon sources of inspiration) on this point, such as in the case of Nienor Níniel, who unknowingly married her lost brother Túrin Turambar (after both were separated during their childhood and reunited years later, unaware of each other's identity), and committed suicide when the dragon Glaurung, in an ultimate fit of spite (a "F-U" from beyond the grave, really), revealed her the truth. In those cases, Tolkien even describes how the suicide victims did the deed.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Engels

Why do people feel the romance between an Elf and a Dwarf is ''inappropriate''? Perhaps the more informed Tolkien fans can give some clues?

They were created by different gods. So in a sense they are like "space aliens" to each other rather than just being different races.

Also, it is important that the races don't freely interbreed, as that is the only way the story would have distinct races instead of everyone being half and quarter of anything.

But really, the in-story reason was already explained in the first Hobbit film.

[Renegade334]

@Vallen Chaos Valiant: more like they were "designed" with different fates altogether, hence why it's sometimes best if they don't mingle too much, as their paths will ultimately diverge down the road: Men will remain masters of Middle-Earth until the end of time, the Dwarves' race will endure from a certain amount of time until it eventually "fails" (sic), and the Elves have been ordered to relocate to Aman, which has been permanently sundered from ME.


The dwarves are a naturally disruptive race, because they were not created, or even thought of, by Eru Ilúvatar (you have Aulë and his moment of pride to blame for that) and they don't really fit the great scenario Eru willed into existence during the symphony of Middle Earth. Eru himself warned Aulë that the dwarves would be forever cursed to find strife with his two true creations, the Men and the Elves. Dwarves are literally the ones that don't fit in the picture...and therefore cause trouble because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place.


The root of the hatred can mainly be traced back to the Fall of Doriath tragedy, where the dwarves working for king Thingol got greedy and demanded that the Nauglamir necklace be given to them as payment for their services, and Thingol flat-out refused...which led to the dwarves slaying the king, scampering back to Nogrod and feeding a cock-and-bull story to their kin, so that they could all raise a dwarven army and go lay waste to Doriath. Even though the dwarves of Nogrod were ultimately destroyed a few days later by Beren, the Laiquendi and the Ents, the Elves as a whole never forgot the treachery of the dwarves and the day where Elu Thingol, one of the oldest beings in Middle Earth, was killed for a bauble.


And then there's Peter Jackson's touch to the story:
- Thrór being consumed by greed and goading Thranduil with the Gems of Lasgalen he held hostage (not sure whether it was just arrogance compelling him to do that, or whether it was a form of payback harkening back to the Fall of Doriath tragedy).
- Thranduil choosing not to lend help to the dwarves when Smaug got inside the mountain (two obvious reasons: movie-Thranduil obviously suffered greatly against the fire-drakes of the north and thus wouldn't risk his people for such a perilous -if not suicidal- task, and of course, he wasn't about to help Thrór after the aforementioned insult involving his wife's Gems).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Renegade334

The dwarves are a naturally disruptive race, because they were not created, or even thought of, by Eru Ilúvatar (you have Aulë and his moment of pride to blame for that) and they don't really fit the great scenario Eru willed into existence during the symphony of Middle Earth. Eru himself warned Aulë that the dwarves would be forever cursed to find strife with his two true creations, the Men and the Elves. Dwarves are literally the ones that don't fit in the picture...and therefore cause trouble because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

That is... DANGEROUSLY close to declaring the Dwarves as unworthy of existing, and should be exterminated for the good of Middle Earth.

Does Tolkien realised what he has written? He just declared a race as been unworthy and would be killed off because they shouldn't be there. Not because of anything they did or what they want to do, but because they dared to have been born.

I guess he is just being truthful to his religious upbringing. That genocide is okay as long as god does it.

[Ithekro]

I think that is more an interpretation of what was written rather than the actual text. I don't think any of the Elven gods suggested killing the dwarves, only that they would see strife due to the nature of their creation. They do, but they also cause things to happen when the other races are being insular. Had there been no dwarves, no one would have gone on a quest that brought another Hobbit into contact with the One Ring. The One Ring would have remained lost until the ring would have heeded the call of its master and abandoned Gollum for a goblin would have taken the ring to its master. As it was, because of the dwarves, the One Ring found its way to the one species that was extremely resistant to the Ring's power....the Hobbit, resulting in its eventual destruction and the end of the great evil in Middle Earth.