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

I'm kind of glad she didn't. Nothing against Liv but I found Arwen to be one of the weaker characters of the original trilogy. Incredibly one note and boring. I wouldn't want to see her show up just for the sake of it, especially when we already had Tauriel who turned out to be a completely pointless character not worth the screentime.

 

Your argument was that they were not developed and so their deaths were empty and meaningless. I don't agree and I think they got some development, enough to make their deaths have some meaning. Certainly a lot more than they got in the book where their deaths is basically, "Oh by the way, these two dwarf extras also died." When I first read the book I had to go back and see who these guys were and if they had been mentioned at all in the book.

I would agree that they got more development in the second film than in the first one as they had more to do. But again that was perhaps the reason why PJ made more than one film. You have 13 dwarves plus Bilbo, Gandalf and a bunch of other people. It would be hard to develop all characters equally.

I have mentioned some examples of scenes where their characters are developed and explored.
Are they the most developed characters? No but again, we have a lot of characters here.
If we just count the named book characters with speaking roles, we have 13 dwarves, Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, Gollum, Beorn, the Master, Bard, the Eleven King and Smaug. That is over 20 characters.
The film also adds Radagast, Saruman, Galadriel, Tauriel and Legolas.

For myself, the dwarves that are developed the most in the first film, aside from Thorin are Balin, Dwalin and Bofur. Balin have some good scenes with Thorin, Bofur a good one with Bilbo when he is about to leave. Fili and Kili I have some sense of who they are, Bombur is just fat and the rest, I can tell who is who.

Martin Freeman has been consistently excellent in these films in my opinion and has a number of good scenes and he is able to say a lot even without speaking. I would say that Richard Armitage is also good. Had they not worked, then these films would probably have failed badly for me.

I wouldn't call it great writing but it didn't really bother me. The biggest problem I had with AUJ was the pacing, the film was long and felt long. DOS had an overly long and very silly Dragon chase that made the Dragon look inept. PJ has a tendency to dial things up to 11 and he did this in the LotR films but less often than here and that is another reason why I feel those films are better.

If PJ had done as some here suggested and make one film then you will have Thorin, a fat dwarf and 11 totally interchangeable dwarves. An Eleven King with no name, that acts like a **** to the dwarves for no reason, a guy that out of nowhere kills Smaug and gets only a token backstory afterwards.

I would certainly agree that not all PJ's bright ideas are all that but to me he is trying to make the characters more developed and interesting and there I think he mostly succeeded. I was more invested in them then when I read the book and I cared more about those that died.

[/QUOTE]

I will agree on the Arwen thing, that was redundant, came from nowhere and promptly went nowhere.
The Treebeard thing didn't really bother me because in the book, Treebeard has known about what Saruman is doing for some time and not bothered to do anything about it. Then Merry and Pippin tell him their story and suddenly he gets "hasty" and decides to act. Also the scene and music when the Ents come out and walk towards Isengard was and is great and I got chills when I first saw it.

In the book, the only character that had any arc was Bilbo, Thorin had some development but not a lot. He, and the rest of the dwarves are mostly useless, having to be saved by Gandalf or Bilbo all the time. Then after Smaug is dead, Thorin gets very greedy all of a sudden and acts like a ****. But he changes his mind and dies a better person.

Bilbo has an arc in the films and to me it works very well. Thorin has one too and it also works well.
Some of the other characters don't really have arcs as such but they are developed enough to make them interesting and some do change a bit over the three films.

Lastly, about the LotR films, one scene that I like that was added to the films was when Aragorn met Frodo after Boromir tried to take the ring. I know some Tolkien purists really hate it but I liked seeing Aragorn actually face temptation from the Ring and overcome it. I also liked Boromir a lot more in the film than in the book. That was both due to the actor, Sean Bean and the writer/director.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

So, I looked over the Battle of the Five Armies in the books again, and the movie is actually very accurate to it, with a few exceptions. Here's this list:

*There were war bats in the book.
*The Elves charged first in the book. Technically, even though the Dwarves charged first in the movie, the Elves struck first (jumping over the Dwarves and attacking). The Dwarves attacked immediately thereafter in the book. I'd call that accurate.
*The wall of Erebor broke down and Thorin's Dwarves charged out, exactly like in the movie.
*Bilbo was on Ravenhill when he was knocked out. And there were Elves on Ravenhill.
*The Orcs, led by Bolg, came from Gundabad, and Bolg did not make his appearance until late in the battle.
*Bilbo did say "The Eagles are coming."
*Thorin and the others were cut off from the main battle.

Here are the differences (all fairly minor, but for one):

*In the book, Beorn came in alone, after the Eagles.
*Azog was already dead, having been killed by Dain in Moria.
*Thorin wielded an axe, not a sword (big whoop-tee-doo).
*In the book, Beorn killed Bolg, not Legolas. However, Bolg was still crushed (under Beorn vs. under rocks after Legolas stabbed him).
*Thorin was killed by Bolg's bodyguard, not Azog.
*The five armies were Elves, Dwarves, Men, Orcs, and Wargs. The Wargs seem to be replaced by Trolls in the movie.

Like I said, minor differences, mostly cosmetic. The only major difference is Bolg's killer. And, I guess, Thorin's. But I think that all of this could even be said to be hearsay. Most of the differences were after Bilbo was knocked out, so Bilbo in the book could've had an unreliable report about the battle if you want to go that route, I guess. To me, all the major events were the same and that's all that matters.

 

Your solution to discrepancies is that....the book must have been wrong? Really?

 

fun stuff. heading out now to see it with the boys.

 

Can't wait to see this movie again

 

So in the Special, Special Edition when Ahsoka blows up the Death Star instead of Luke, that will be a "minor" difference? Or how there will be Death Star 3 for Starkiller to blow up?

I'm sorry, but I just can't see those as minor differences. If you like the movie version more, fine, that's your opinion, but saying the original book was unreliable? In the book, Beorn is the key figure that turned things around for a dwarf, human and elf victory. In the movie, he's barely a cameo. I kind of wish they had let Thorin live, since they were taking liberties. The death scene was still pretty good at least.

 

To be fair everyone who wasn't Bilbo or Thorin in the book was a cameo or background character.

 

It was a joke/sarcasm. Should've put a smiley, I guess.

 

Ah, sorry then, hard to detect sarcasm over the Internets. I know there's been a good deal of positive reception to the movie, and everyone has the right to their own opinion of course, but just wish people wouldn't call it a good adaptation. Good action movie, maybe, but not a good adaptation.

 

Saw this today. Smaug remains the best part of this whole trilogy by far. Overall enjoyable action movie. I was kind of hoping to see Aragorn again, at least for one scene, since that is where Legolas was going.

 

Oh, I did like it. A lot, honestly. And like I said, there were a lot of parts that were surprisingly identical to the book, even if other parts are significantly changed. As an adaption, it's nowhere near as good as the LOTR trilogy obviously, but I did think it really was a good Middle-Earth movie. Can't wait to see it again with the family on Tuesday.

 

So I know some of the dwarfs were underwritten, but does anyone remember anything that Nori said or did in these three films? I am struggling here. I know he had hair in the shape of a star.

 

He said one line in AUJ, IIRC. After they escaped Goblin-Town, he said he saw Bilbo sneaking away when they were captured. Other than that, nada.

Also, I can't wait for BOFA's EE, because I want to finally hear Bombur speak a full line (besides his one-word line, "Traitor!" in AUJ).

 

He tried to steal money, and he was tapping the moon door trying to find the keyhole

 

I thought that Smaug died a bit too quickly. I kind of expected the dwarves to try and get to Lake-town to try and stop him. But of course dwarves are greedy and selfish, so that was wishful thinking on my part. I was pretty disappointed with the battle in Dol Guldur. After all the build-up of the Necromancer and his dark power and the revelation that he was in fact Sauron, I though there would be a titanic battle between him and Saruman, especially after Curunir's line in the trailer.

However, instead of getting Sauron vs Saruman, we got Sauron vs Galadriel, which has the Lady of the Golden Wood banishing the Dark Lord on her own. Galadriel is apparently more powerful than the mightiest of the Istari. That trailer was really misleading, I was all amped up for Sauron vs Saruman. Instead we got Saruman vs Ringwraiths and Saruon fleeing before the terrible might of the Elf-Queen. While I did like seeing Galadriel unleashed, I really wanted to see Saruman show why he is the leader of the Istari. What a disappointment. At least there's always this excellent fanfic.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/2468503/1/Saruman-and-the-Blue-Wizards

 

I like her a lot.

 

we know

 

watched it in 3d and my god it was weird. Not the movie just the way it was shot with the new process. The first hour felt like I was watching the same effects as a playstation 4 game. It just felt wrong. They did very few outdoor shots but made it feel like it was outside with really crappy lighting and cheesy effects that tried to hard.

 

bloom effect

 

The boys and I let out a number of collective groans at various moments. I really wanted to shout at Legolas to get the hell out of the hobbit movie you ******* interloper. Who wanted to see the final transformation of Legolas from elf to superhero to cartoon character in a Loony Tunes short? He's like the road runner: immortal and has rewired the laws of physics.

 

I thought it was a great movie... Not too long, and on the same level as Lord of the Rings. They also didn't add any new major changes... Just conclusions to the changes already made.

But anyways... Thranduil. Still don't understand that guy. His son chooses to exile himself because he disagrees with dad, his love is injured and crying over her true soulmate, and Thranduil decides to say... at least your mother truly loved you. What???? And then he goes to apparently comfort the elf he had been treating harshly and who threatened to kill him. And I had this weird vibe that Thranduil was about to "reunite" her with Kili.

 

Actually the better comparison is that in ANH, Luke DOESN'T blow up the DS, Wedge does. Do you think would make the film better?

[/QUOTE]

Beorn is basically a cameo in the book as well. And in a film, having the big battle be won singlehandedly by a guy that had a five minute cameo earlier, that might not work that well.

To be fair, since the film gave him some backstory with Azog, and how his whole family had been killed. It would make sense to have him be more prominent in the battle. Say instead of Azog having killed his family, it was Bolg and Legolas fights Bolg but is beaten and then Beorn shows up in human form, has some words and then takes down Bolg.

That depends on what you mean by "Good adaptation". Do you consider Kubrick's the Shining a good adaptation?
Also, I haven't seen that many call it a good adaptation, good movie yes.

As I've said before, if you had followed the book exactly then none of the dwarves, except Thorin would have any development and barely any character. Bard would be introduced when he kills Smaug. Gandalf would just go off at random intervals and the big end battle would be just be told to Bilbo.
Just consider all the events in the book and imagine it ALL being in one film.
Introduction of Bilbo, Gandalf, 13 dwarves. Party in Bag End, the trolls, Rivendell, capture by Goblins, Bilbo meets Gollum, escape from Goblins. Attack by wargs, saved by Eagles. Beorn, Mirkwood, capture by spiders, capture by elves, Bilbo saving them. Barrels and Lake town. Erebor, Bilbo talks to Smaug, Smaug destroying Lake town and dying. Thorn gets greedy, an army of elves and men come to Erebor and Thorin acts like a ****. An army of dwarves show up and they three start to fight until a big army of goblins, wargs and bats show up and you have a really big battle. Thorin is killed as are Fili and Kili. Bilbo says his goodbye, goes home, stops in Mirkwood and Rivendel and then gets home only to find his stuff is being sold off.
To me, there is stuff here for more than one film.
@Revanfan1

In DOS, when they are in Mirkwood he is the one who says the path has disappeared when Thorin asks why they have stopped.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

That's because almost everything movie-Thranduil does is movie-original, which is why it makes little to no sense. I'm very critical, but honestly not sure what the point of that plotline was. Just wish they hadn't had to up the jerkiness of almost everyone by 10. In the book, Thranduil has this line near the battle "Long will I tarry, ere I begin this war for gold".

In the movie, he's, what, doesn't like dwarves, wants a piece of the treasure and more specifically wants his late wife's jewelry back? Or something like that. I'm honestly not sure what was going on, and its hard to root for anyone. Well, aside from Bard, the refugees from Laketown and Bard's poor, adorable, cute children, wah, wah. I get it, they're the heroes of the trilogy, might as well rename the trilogy by now.

Somewhat surprised they didn't stick in more cameos. Wasn't Elijah Wood in the first one? Its been so long, I've forgotten, but I thought this trilogy had begun framed as a flashback/story. Not to mention references to Aragorn, the Ring and I'm half surprised they didn't throw in a shot of Gollum sneaking out to go chase down "Baggins!".

Which one was Gloin again? I'm not that good with details, and honestly I agree most of the dwarves aren't that memorable even in the book, but still, you'd think the father of one of the LotR characters would be important... oh wait, they're only dwarves, they don't count.

EDIT: Funny the timing of our posts. Anyway- I use the Ahsoka comparison as Legolas is a canon foreigner in the Hobbit and his probable overabundance of screen time is a big change from the book, since Legolas wasn't even there in the original. When I first heard that Legolas was going to show up, I hoped it would just be during the Mirkwood section, then again for the final battle, instead of what we actually got. Tauriel and the love triangle doesn't help either.

The exact definition of adaptation is debatable, but I think these movies stray a lot from the spirit of the books. Bilbo as an action hero, everybody is a lot meaner (that quote from the book I mentioned earlier), a love triangle? Yeah, don't really care for those kinds of things in a Hobbit adaptation. Had to sit through several trailers of a bunch of young adults and their romances (Divergent, Jupiter Ascending at least), and usually fantasy mixed with romance doesn't turn out well. It can work, but sick of all the Hunger Games stuff in the last few years.

There's always room to add things, or to foreshadow things, such as Gloin and Gimli, Bombur eating, or say Balin thinking about setting up a colony in Moria, even after the disastrous battle where the dwarves fought Azog. Or even have Balin visit Bilbo again at Bag End, instead of rehashing the start of FotR (though it was nice to see Ian Holm).

But instead more time was wasted on the love triangle, or Alfrid or Legolas than anything else.

Although I think the Rankin-Bass adaptation decades ago did a decent job of adapting the book. Its no surprise by now the Hobbit trilogy turned out like this, it has all the problems of the LotR trilogy but even worse now. I don't mind some changes (Thorin living long enough to see the orcs defeated after defeating his archenemy), but other things like all the Alfrid and Legolas and Tauriel screentime I find very annoying.

 

Well in the book, Thranduil takes an army with him and marches on Erebor as soon as he hears that Smaug is dead. Once he is told about the plight of the lake men, he turns away to aid them. But he was going to the mountain with an army. Why? The book do imply that he was after the treasure.

He sounds a bit greedy if you ask me.

And how is he in the book? The dwarves are hungry and starving and approach the elves to beg for food and yet the Elves just vanish. Then Thranduil question Thorin about this, he explains that they were hungry and starving and yet Thranduil doesn't seem to care. Then Thorin won't answer any more questions and the dwarves are all locked up.

In the film, Thraduil is after treasure, which fits his book counter part, but the reason isn't just greed, the gems belonged to his dead wife. So he gets a motivation beyond greed.
He is an isolationist and doesn't much care about what goes on in the rest of the world. Tauriel disagrees with him and Legolas is at first the obedient son but after a while he begins to doubt this policy as well. He is ill-tempered and apparently took the death of his wife very hard.

The film is framed as a flashback yes but old Bilbo starts it and finishes it, so having Frodo in the first one but not the third works fine.
The Ring is in the book as well and Tolkien rewrote bits of the book to make it fit better with the LotR book.

[/QUOTE]

Well Gloin do mention his son Gimli and as for character, Balin has to prod him to pay up when they are traveling with Bard. So he seems a bit cheap. He also is quite hostile to the elves in Rivendel and when Elrond invites them to dinner in elvish, he thinks they are being insulted. So he seems a bit belligerent as well.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface