Amph One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rings of Power + The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies

Well...he did. Just not at the beginning. Bolg did hit him on the head, rendering him unconscious for most of the important scenes after (Kili vs. Bolg, Legolas vs. Bolg, Thorin vs. Azog). What kind of a movie would it have been if it had killed off three main characters and not even shown it happen? I can understand wanting it to be exactly like the book, but even if Tauriel, Legolas, and Azog had not been in the movie (remember, he was already dead in the book and Bolg lead the Orcs), I think that after Bilbo was knocked out they should've shown the battle itself, because with the focus on Kili and Fili, not showing their deaths would've been a big mistake, IMO.

 

It just makes it kind of embarrassing when you spend three movies building up two characters' deaths and it still doesn't land at all when they're gutted. The Hobbit is a book about Bilbo Baggins. Tolkien uses the narrative to subvert expectations of the hero's quest, of what heroism means, juxtaposing the mythic model of the warrior with a more modern understanding of course, the middle-class Englishman. That is primarily why we don't see much of the battle in the book, and why the battle is ultimately unnecessary to show outside of Bilbo's perspective in a hypothetical film version. I don't think anyone expected to see something like yankee8255's suggestion once the films became a trilogy, but it does show either a lack of comprehension or care on Jackson's part. I'm inclined to think he, Boyens, and Walsh deeply understand the book, but ultimately don't care about it or see that others care about it in the same way that fans care about LOTR. What kind of a movie would The Hobbit had been if it had killed off three main characters and not even shown it happen? A richer one. The book does not focus on Kili and Fili at all, and even in the films, they are not major characters, much less protagonists. If anything, these films have proven that even when given eight hours of screen time, we (I) don't care about their deaths outside of the impact on Thorin, who dies in this film not even knowing of Kili's death or the collapse of his line. That's much more of a missed opportunity than hashing out all three deaths in extraneous detail. I was going to use the word gory, but Jackson refuses to show us any impact of Azog and Bolg's kills, which I suppose is part of the reason why their scenes felt so empty and meaningless.

 

Isn't Legolas a Sindar Elf?

 

Yes, he is a Sindar Elf

 

Tauriel got Kili, Legolas got Gimli, and Thranduil got a rare Elven laugh.

 

Well Tauriel ended up getting nothing at the end

 

My bad, that's right. He and Thranduil were Sindar, the other elves of Mirkwood (mostly) Silvan.

Still, a big step down for a Noldor.

 

Tauriel was a Silvan Elf right?

 

I don't think Elrond cares that much, himself is half elf as well.

 

A Noldo. Noldor is plural.

 

Well I disagree with most of this, the deaths of Thorin, Fili and Kili worked for me, I felt them.
Yes I have read the book but while I really like the LotR book, the Hobbit book didn't do much for me.
Bilbo works but the dwarves were most just a collection of similar sounding names and one fat one. Thorin get a little development but not much. His death in the book didn't much register beyond that Bilbo was sad. Fili's and Kili's were total non-events. Parts of the book was just a chore to get through, when in Mirkwood and there is soo much complaining. I enjoyed LotR and have read it several times, Hobbit I read because I was interested in the backstory of LotR.

As for PJ, I think his understanding was about how to make this work for a film. Having a big battle occur totally off-screen and having three characters deaths be told basically in passing. This could work for a book, but would have much more difficulty working on a film.
Ex. take ANH and remove the DS attack, just have the X-Wings fly off and then come back, job done. Would this make the film great? I doubt it.
Another point I would give to the movie is that Bard was introduced BEFORE he killed Smaug and not while he did it. And overall I cared a lot more about the dwarves in the film than I did when I read the book and I found a lot more interesting.
To me, characters is what I tend to find important in books, films, etc. If I care and are involved in the characters, then the story can be pretty basic. However if I don't care about the characters then the story would have to be really special for me to be invested.

As for subverting expectations, well speaking just for myself, I prefer a movie, book, comic, etc that is actually good rather than one that only is about how clever the writer, director is.
The film and book, "No country for old men", I have only seen the film but the book is similar as I understand it. Here the film is a building confrontation between the killer and the guy he hunts but then the guy is killed off-screen by random people and the film goes on for a while and then just sort of stops. People have praised that film but it was a total dud for me.

Other people have said that this should have been just one film. Well an argument can certainly be made for two films and while I like these films, they have flaws a plenty and are not as good as the LotR films. But one film?
No, can't see that working well. Yes I have seen the animated version but I would not call that a great film and had PJ done that, then BO and reviews would have been quite a bit worse than they are now. I think some make the mistake of simply looking a the number of pages of the Hobbit book.
If do a page count and compare with the LotR book. Then after the whole Hobbit book, the LotR book has just left Moria. And to me, a lot more happens in the whole Hobbit book than in LotR up to and including Moria. The Hobbit has more events but they are described much more quickly and in much less detail and you also have a lot more narration. Which fits since it is a children's book.
Do all that narration in a film? Well then you could wind up with the Last Airbender movie. There you had lots of narration that just explained the plot and the main bad guy is killed by some random extras.

The main problem can indeed be the two to three films split but I think a big part of that is that it happened so late in the game. They set out just to make two films and film one was supposed to end with them meeting Bard. Then it got changed and they had to scramble to make a middle film out of the end of one and the start of another. Not the best way to make a film.

In all, I have enjoyed all three Hobbit films and I am glad they exist and would not want them unmade. And given all the effort PJ had to go thought to make them, I don't think this is a "cash grab".

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

The only thing I might disagree with in your post might be your opinion of No Country. If anything, though, I think this paragraph highlights my biggest grievances with the Hobbit films. The character arcs presented in the films just aren't given enough weight to justify the choice to make a trilogy. I did not care when Fili and Kili died, or when Tauriel mourned him. I did not feel Thranduil's own pain for his wife. The only element that felt earned was Bilbo's friendship was Thorin, and even that was strained given how long these films are with long stretches of time not spent focused on this primary development.

 

I was a bit sad when I heard "The Last Goodbye" in the theater, too. Especially when I saw Sir Christopher Lee's name.

Too bad they didn't let Liv Tyler make a return.

Thranduil's pain for his wife appeared too sudden and it was very vague.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet myself, but I always liked in the book that Bilbo wasn't there as a warrior (since one more fighter isn't going to mean much against the dragon anyway) but from the first Hobbit movie, things were already derailed, since it ended with Bilbo saving Thorin from that orc, what's his name. I'm pretty sure that battle was completely made up, and just felt like typical "argh, battle, swords, hitting, blah, blah blah!" action rubbish. I haven't seen either of the first two for years, but I think that was also when Bilbo won the dwarves' respect, for saving Thorin from the orc he failed to kill all those years ago (rather than Bilbo saving the dwarves from the elf king, or some other clever doing, partially thanks to his new ring). Which kind of diminishes Thorin, since there he was with another oaken branch shield, only to lose, then Bilbo leaps in with his dagger/sword and saves Thorin.

Having the big battle off-screen would probably be a bit too much, especially for a movie, but from comments in this thread, I don't really think Bilbo needed to fight in the actual battle. But as I said, they already turned Bilbo into a sort of action hero after the first one, so things are already ruined.

Going to see it in a few hours with my family, would skip it but its a family outing anyway. Then we'll see how bad it turns out.

 

Let's be honest, you just put way more thought into that than he would.

 

I wont make this post into a novel, I did however thoroughly enjoy this finale. It hit a lot of emotional highs and lows for me. I found the ending to be bittersweet bc it took me back to when I was 18 watching the first LOTR. My only complaint is was that it was too damn short.

 

Just got back. This will be me just rambling.

Liked it. Well, I liked a lot of it. Some parts had me going WTF. Why bring up Legolas mom at all? Why give that character 15 seconds of plot? In saying that I didn't mind Legolas. The bat thing was eye rolling, but whatever. Lots of good acting from Evans, Ian, Lilly, Freeman. The Black castle scene was great. Lots of Awesome from Lee and Weaving.

Been nice if the Hobbit films have been more focused around the Hobbit.

Why was Alfred even a character in this film? I mean that whole character, and the scenes he was in was just embarrassing. Enough to say "Shame on Jackson."

Smaug scene was the most well done of the entire movie. Brilliant even.

I think, I think, the battle was Jacksons attempt to make something like that of the "Battle of the Ice," from Alexander Nevsky. Which was also a long battle, but one that told a story. Jackson was trying to do that here. Have a long battle that told a story. Would have succeeded maybe if he didn't forget that other parts of the battle were going on at times. The stuff on the mountain was actually good, I thought. Over done.

and damn was there a lot of fat. Lots of staring. Lots of long walks. Lots of meaningless scenes.

Disappointed in the ending. The actual ending was fine, bilbo meeting Gandalf at the door. Still, the entire ending itself had little to no emotion. Very poor I thought. Instead of a heart felt, "It's been a long journey my friend, we'll meet again," goodbye between Gandalf and Bilbo, its a "Don't do anything stupid," from Gandalf.

We have a long journey with a bunch of underdeveloped Dwarves and Bilbo, and all we get is "Hey, stop by any time." No attempt at all for any type of tear jerking scene.

Seemed like a rush to just end it.

Not ashamed of these movies, but sloppy work. Del Toro probably would have done it better. LOTR had a lot of heart, these didn't. That's not to say you couldn't probably edit these films down to a 3 hour great movie though.

 

Double Post

 

And I have no doubt that some enterprising fan(s) will do just that once this one hits DVD.

 

Just got back from seeing the, the, what was the name of the movie again? Legolas and Bard? Sherlock? Something like that. My initial reaction is hated it, awful movie, but at best, I just found it long and boring. Probably a bit better than Desolation, but that's not saying much (at least it didn't have a pointless 15 minute dragon chase at the end).

Spoiler

First, did we really have to see the Master's lackey, Alfred (or whatever) so many times?! Seems like he showed up more often than Bilbo did. Lackey being cowardly/greedy/jerk, scene change, lackey again, scene change, lackey, etc. And I know its all movie original, the book was nowhere near this annoying. And he just gets to run off at the end with the gold? Or is him being killed something being saved for the Extended Edition, as this was already long enough as is? Though it feels like being cheated of a proper conclusion, not seeing him get his comeuppance.

And despite how long this was, we don't get to see the Arkenstone returned to Thorin's grave, or him buried, or the people of Laketown start rebuilding or the Elf king make nice? Or Dain being crowned either, but Dain barely showed up a few times, since the dwarf army didn't get much screen time. Guess there were more important things, like Tauriel and Kili staring at each other longingly. Instead, he tells Legolas to go find Aragorn a few decades early? Not to mention shafting Beorn. Why even bother showing him at all, since he didn't do anything, it was more the wonderful, wonderful eagles that turned the tide... again. I know the eagles served as the deus ex machina several times in the novels, but not quite this blatantly, this movie crew must really, really love eagles. Well, at least it gave Radagast something to do, he's still great. Unless Beorn gets more screen time in the Extended Edition, but that again feels like a cheat then. "Come see the movie, then wait until the Extended Edition to see all the proper conclusions!"

Great acting all around though, those few moments when Thorin wasn't going "Mine, mine, my precious!", when he was being camaraderie with Bilbo, those were nice. Just wish they hadn't spent like five minutes on his internal conflict. Not like the Elf king in the movie acted that much nicer, and he doesn't have to die to get redemption. In the book the elf king was much nicer, since there he delayed the march to the Lonely Mountain to help the Laketown people. But then everybody seems to have something that ended up in Smaug's stash.

Smaug attacking Laketown was cool, but I hate seeing kids added to movies. Oh, the children, think of the children. Really? Especially since it lessens Bard's achievement, instead of shooting the dragon in mid-air, he has to use his son's shoulder as a bow. Really? Not to mention that Smaug was busy gloating at him, on the ground, rather than flying around, but guess Legolas is the only one who gets to pull off supernaturally good arrow shots. And boy did Legolas get a lot of screen time. Well, the way Bard busted out of jail was cool, but still. On the bright side, Bard still got to kill the dragon, not one of the elves, and it didn't involve that giant crossbow they mentioned in the second movie. I'm glad they didn't change that part, but then why bother introducing it in the first place? These movies are full of stupid moments as is already.

And when did this turn into Starcraft, with the nydus worms? Guess bats replaced wargs as one of the five armies? And sure was a lot of running around and scene changes, rather than everybody converging on the Mountain. Oh, Angmar, more orcs approaching, no surprise. Unless that second army of orcs counts as one of the five/six armies? Not that the human peasants really count as much of an army anyway. Too much of the fighting in the ruins of Dale felt like a rehash of the siege of Gondor too. That troll headbutting a hole in the wall was kind of funny, but still.

Well, at least the White Council storming Dol Guldur wasn't that long, I was afraid it would take up half the movie. Though kind of silly that Sauron, the great enemy, has emerged and they don't panic more, but that's due to this movie trilogy being a clumsy prequel. While the conclusion felt a bit sudden and rushed (Bilbo just sits there, shellshocked, while Gandalf tries to smoke) at least they kept the auction bit, silver spoons and Sackville-Baggins. Even if it is silly to see Bilbo lugging that chest alone instead of with a pony, and wish Bilbo had gotten more credit (since I'm pretty sure in the book, Elves, men and dwarves praise Bilbo for his kindness and generosity and offer him much more, but he declines, out of modesty and trying to drag that much back home to the Shire would be crazy. RotK remembered to show the four hobbits being honored for everything they had done. But then these Hobbit movies have really gone off the rails. Sort of nice to see Ian Holm at the end, but was briefly hoping it would be the one of the dwarves coming to visit Bilbo, but guess they had to set up LotR more.

Thorin killing Azog at last was nice, one of the few changes from the book I appreciate. Then again the whole Thorn vs. Azog rivalry was mostly added for the movie, since originally Dain killed Azog and that was that. But since they mostly got rid of Beorn killing Bolg, at least Thorin got to kill the Bolg replacement (even if it was silly for him to just stand there on the ice while Azog floated by).

Still annoyed about no Arkenstone conclusion, unless I accidentally slept through it? Anyone? I would honestly like to know if they showed anything, considering how much Thorin was obsessing over it for much of hte movie.

Its a shame Bilbo didn't get more screen time, Martin Freeman was still great. I know Bilbo is unconscious for much of the battle in the book, but still, hobbits really aren't meant for that much combat. Even Frodo and Sam sneak about more (and Merry and Pippin get a growth spurt). But then these movies really did try to make Bilbo into more of an action hero. If the adaptation had stayed at only 2 movies, then Bilbo's absence from battle wouldn't be that noticeable. Not like there aren't another dozen dwarves who could have done the fighting for Bilbo, oh wait. Well, Bombur doesn't count, and Kili barely got any spotlight on him, so its hard to care about his death here, despite trying to ham it up with the love triangle.

I know others love these movies, and I'm a book purist so I hate unessential changes or additions (ugh, love triangles), but aside from that, I still feel like it wasn't that great a movie or trilogy. What could have been a relatively simple giant army battle started getting more and more complicated and there was a lot of people walking to and from pompously for the first half.

I would have skipped this movie entirely, but had to accompany my parents, and they liked it well enough, so guess its good enough for the general population. Just wish they would come up with their own original title if they want to film this kind of movie, rather than wasting the Hobbit name on this.

 

Well again, I disagree. Fili and Kili are developed a lot more than they are in the book. They are both young, well trained but inexperienced and haven't been around much. We see a little of this when they try to scare Bilbo with talk of an Orc attack and Thorin reprimands them.
When we get to Mirkwood and Tauriel talks to Kili, that I rather liked. Yes some of the romance is dialed up to 11 and is triple cheese with a side order of Ham at times. But just their talk in the dungeon was quite nice. Both were people that haven't been around much and both had some prejudice towards the other, probably told by their elders. Thranduil dislikes dwarves as much as Thorin despises elves and they really don't like each other. I think the Tauriel/Kili thing could have stayed just a friendship. Later when Kili is ill and gets left behind, Fili defies his uncle and stays with his brother. So to me, their deaths carried weight and we saw what one of their deaths did to Thorin.

As for Bilbo/Thorin, the first film spends a bit of time showing that Thorin is doubtful of Bilbo, views him as useless and just dead weight. But when Bilbo saves him, he has a change of heart and that was a scene I really liked. In the second film, we see that Thorin now trusts Bilbo and even tells his people to do as Bilbo says. The second film also begins to show the hints of Thorin's decent into greed when he confronts Bilbo over the arkenstone. In the third, I also liked the scene when Thorin comes at Bilbo and asks what he has in his hand and Bilbo reveals an acorn. Thorin's expression changes and says a lot. Later Thorin confides in Bilbo that he thinks on of the other dwarves has stolen the Arkenstone, so he now trusts Bilbo over his kin. That comes to a head when Bilbo reveals that he really did take it and Thorin is close to killing him. And at the end, Bilbo can't say "friend" about Thorin when he says goodbye to Balin but when he comes home to Bag End and he is asked "who is this Thorin Oakenshield?" Then he can say it, "He was my friend."
Both actors did a great job in all three films in my opinion and made both characters so much more than what they were in the book.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Then may I suggest that spending your time and money going to the cinema to see a movie called THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES may not have been the wisest investment you could have made?

Adapting the book exactly the way it is into a movie? What in heavens name is the point of that?

Samuel Vimes

Much thanks - it is always nice when someone else posts exactly what I was going to say and saves me the effort

Here's hoping Abrams is also thinking big like this with the action in TFA.

 

Fili/Kili are not developed very well at all. We don't even get a sense of who they are until midway through the second film when the group splits up. We so rarely see Thorin engage with Fili/Kili that it's often hard to believe they are related. I don't know what else to say except that we'll have to agree to disagree.

You are telling me about some of these moments. I remember them. They are very nice, but you haven't accounted for all the fat in between these few, small scenes spread out over the course of eight hours of screen time. That, more than anything, is what prevents these scenes from resonating with me. I can intellectually appreciate them, but the leisurely editing makes it difficult to connect with them on an emotional level. You haven't mentioned Thorin's death scene, which is just great. Sometimes I've questioned whether Martin Freeman is a great actor or not, but when he tries to tell Thorin's corpse about the eagles and then just starts squealing, just... egh. That moment did hit me very hard. Very, very hard. I will tip my hat to the filmmakers for that scene.

The biggest problem for me, aside from the transformation into a trilogy, is the writerly writing. The Screenplay 101 moments that screenwriters usually have the sense to remove after their first drafts. Things like exact repetitions of lines meant to convey transformation and meaning. This is especially amateurish when such moments occur when fifteen minutes of one another. Most of this dreck is given to Thranduil, which is a shame because I want to be Lee Pace. "YOUR LOVE ISN'T REAL!!" "...because it was real." "Your mother loved you, Legolas!"

These moments are just awful. "YOU REALLY ARE A MEMBER OF THE COMPANY BILBO I WAS WRONG." They're not arcs. They're split seconds of material added to make these films feel like complete experiences. And it doesn't work. The only time you see such shoddy work from these writers in LotR is in ROTK, when they think they suddenly have to up the stakes midway through to give Arwen some weight in the film, and in TTT, when they make Treebeard inept at the one thing he is supposed to do well, all in order to give Pippin an "arc." Something to "do." They're at their worst when they try and follow Robert McKee's advice to the letter, feeling as if they can't afford to just let the story breathe.

 

True to Jackson form, there's certainly some fat here, but as is the rousing action and meaningful payoffs.

My full review is here.