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

Yeah I'm amazed that bow string didn't hit his son in the face.

 

Have you read the appendices? Because that's entirely false. Most of it was, in fact, made up by Jackson et al.

 

No matter, the trilogy was great

Be jealous

 

Random Comments, while it is true that Azog died years before The Hobbit, his appearance in the flashback scene related by Balin in An Unexpected Journey makes perfect sense. He was the one who beheaded Thror as related in the appendices. Gandalf prevailed on Saruman and the White Council to attack Dol Guldur. He received the key from Thrain.

Nobody145, while giving Bard two daughters is a stretch, he probably already had his son at that point, though not mentioned in the book, of course.

 

Yeah...so...what happened to the torsion windlass from TDOS? That Thorin made a point of mentioning. Just sayin...

 

That's in the EE. Pee Jay wants you to spend another 35 bucks.

 

In the novel, Gimli confirms that the book Gandalf finds was written by Ori. Since the book was clutched in the skeleton's hands, it's safe to assume that Ori is dead.

 

How do you compare the Hobbit Trilogy to the PT?

 

Ori's fate is just an Easter egg, really. The fate of the survivors of Thorin's company (besides Balin) isn't mentioned at all in the films.

 

red herring​

noun

1.​

a smoked herring.​

2.​

something intended to divert attention from the real problem ormatter at hand; a misleading clue.​

3.​

Also called red-herring prospectus. Finance. a tentative prospectuscirculated by the underwriters of a new issue of stocks or bonds thatis pending approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:so called because the front cover of such a prospectus must carry a special notice printed in red.​

4.​

any similar tentative financial prospectus, as one concerning apending or proposed sale of cooperative or condominium apartments.​

Origin

Expand​

1375-1425; late Middle English

The real work behind the exposition in that scene lies in establishing the importance of the black arrow. Not a clever trick, but it's not exactly inconsistent. Possibly another setup/payoff casualty of the split.

 

First, why does the Arkenstone matter at the end?
It was important to Thorin personally but he is dead and won't need it anymore.
The other importance, which was more plot device, was that it could be used to unite the armies of the dwarves. Gandalf sets Thorin on this journey, to take back Errobor. If Samug is dead, then the dwarves can get in, claim their homeland and send word to their kin, no problem. If he is still alive, they can't hope to kill him, they need an army for that. To get said army, they need the Arkenstone and this is why Gandalf suggests Bilbo. He can get in, get the Arkenstone, leave and with the stone, Thorin can rally a big army to his cause and now he has a chance to kill Smaug.
At the end, Smaug is dead and Erebor is free. No need for a unified dwarf army now so the Arkenstone is just a pretty jewel.
Sure it would be nice closure to see it on Thorin's chest at the end but it is not that important.
Showing Thranduil getting his necklace is also not all that important. They were what motivated him, it explained why he had such a low opinion of dwarves and Thorin's line in particular. It also explained why he came with an army to seize Erebor. In the book he was just greedy, here he is still that but he has a more personal motivation.

Take Pulp Fiction, there was see a briefcase that is very important but we never see what is inside the case, and we don't need to. Same in Ronin, there a nother case is also important to a number of people, the CIA, the IRA etc. But again we don't learn what is inside of it and again it isn't necessary.

About length, again people seem to just go by a page count and not the content of those pages.
The whole Hobbit book is a long as the LotR book up to and including Moria. A lot more happens in the whole Hobbit book than in LotR up to Moria. The Hobbit book is written in a shorter form, events are explained quickly or in passing and there is a lot of narration that covers a lot of what happens.
In the book, they spend over a week going through Mirkwood, they spend days trying to get the door opened. The big battle is only about six pages long, The battle of Helms Deep is twice as long.

@Nobody145

Yes you can cover the events very quickly and the animated film did just that and I wouldn't call it very good. And I wouldn't say things went very wrong with PJ's films, some things could have been better, maybe two films would have worked better or they had set out with three films from the start.
But they got many things right, the characters for one. A failing the book has to me is that it has a lot of characters but only one or two is given any development. The films does more with some of the characters and thus they are far more interesting to me. As I said above, the book hints at larger events and goings on and also has quite a bit of backstory. I don't blame them for expanding on that and including some stuff from the appendix. And I certainly don't blame them for developing the characters more.

Simple, it was to explain that the men of Dale tried to fight Smaug and they shot black arrows from that crossbow and one did hit but only knocked a scale loose. This is told as a story in Bard's house but the dwarves dismiss it but when Bilbo meets with Smaug, he notices the missing scale and realizes that the story was true. When Smaug taunts Bard, he too notices the missing scale and then he knows where to shoot. So it was used to set up a weakness of the Dragon which is then paid off. What more do you want?

Buy for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Seeing as Smaug easily wrecked Dale & conquered Erebor, what made Thorin think a few thousand of his kin could take it back? There were loads of dwarves when Smaug attacked the mountain but they could do nothing.
The Elf army was also reluctant to challenge Smaug, clearly killing a Dragon is not easy even for an army.

What's wrong with the Windlance? That really should have been in the book. Jackson turned the Black Arrow into something more believable, as if a regular sized arrow could do anything to a house sized flying reptile.

 

It was a terrible, stupid mess for stupid people to enjoy. If somone beat Peter Jackson into a coma with the actual.Hobbit book i for one would understand their anger.

It is the worst film i have seen. AotC and RotS were bad but not this bad.

 

The PT (either than ROTS) are terrible but the Hobbit Trilogy is great

 

"Either than"?

You're a very committed troll, I'll give you that.

 

I don't troll

 

Oh come on. You like the prequels, you changed your name to "Legolas Skywalker" and have the most insipid quotes from films as your signature. Plus you like the Hobbit films. You have to be a troll.

 

Where did I say I like the prequels? I only like ROTS, the other two are garbage

 

Is Hobbit 3 worse than Batman & Robin?

 

Well at least Batman & Robin is fun in a so-bad-its-good kind of way. Hobbit 3 is just 3 hours of warmongering.

 

What? It's all true. You can't mount an intelligent argument here.