PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit Film... trilogy.



Pages : [1] 2

Zea mays
2012-07-31, 09:34 PM
First the obligatory link to the Comic-con + end of production video on Peter Jackson's facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ)


So yeah, apparently instead of two films they're making three.
That's, er, good, I guess (why make two movies when you can make three).
Or rather, I hope. Some of the casting choices are truly inspired (Sylvester McCoy for Radagast and Barry Humphries for the goblin king) and the glimpses of dale are quite tantalizing.

I wonder where all the extra story will be coming from (and if it will be worth while), and how they'll break the films up. Will the round journey between Bag-End and Erebor really take 9 hours?

Lord Seth
2012-07-31, 09:52 PM
Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?

Reverent-One
2012-07-31, 10:00 PM
While three films kinda surprises me too, there's a lot that goes on in the book that we don't really see or just gets summarized. And that's not even counting material that's entirely from the appendices. Book length isn't exactly the best indicator for how long it should be in visual form, for example:

Lord of the Rings: 1,349 pages, including prologue but not appendices, 557 minutes total for all three movies
A Game of Thrones: 835 pages, first season is 565 minutes.

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-31, 10:28 PM
Welcome to Peter Jackson's new trilogy; LOTR: The Appendices (Also Hobbit).

Eh, it just feels increasingly like the project is being blown out of all proportion and that The Hobbit story itself will suffer in favour of all of the other LOTR material that has nothing really to do with it, all in the name of trying to recreate his big success.

Though it'll likely be worth watching either way.

snoopy13a
2012-07-31, 11:00 PM
Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?

It is if you expect each movie to gross $300 million in box office sales.

Cespenar
2012-07-31, 11:37 PM
Looking at how they did Helm's Deep, I believe the Battle of Five Armies can take one film on its own, at least. Two films for the rest of the book is not that much, I'd guess.

SaintRidley
2012-07-31, 11:47 PM
I can't be honest if I don't say that this sounds entirely like a cash-grab.

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-08-01, 12:08 AM
Well, Jackson's first trilogy is my favorite movie of all time (the Extended Version of course), so I suppose I'll just have to make do with a sixth masterpiece on my movie shelf. :smallsigh: My life is soooooo difficult...

Karoht
2012-08-01, 12:25 AM
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.

The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.


Seriously internets? Fail.

DarthArminius
2012-08-01, 12:27 AM
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!


*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Eh I agree with you.

In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!

MLai
2012-08-01, 12:58 AM
Tell them movie 3 is about Saruman going back in time to scour the Shire and they'll love it again.

TheSummoner
2012-08-01, 01:02 AM
I don't seem to recall the fans demanding three movies instead of two...

The Hobbit isn't that long of a book. Two movies already seemed like a lot to cover it and now it's being extended to three. If they can pull it off without it seeming padded, great. Wonderful! I loved The Hobbit. I prefer it to LotR. But wondering whether or not there is enough source material to fill three films is a valid concern.

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-08-01, 01:15 AM
Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

You'll need this, good sir.
http://memesters.com/images/items/iDontWantToLiveOnThisPlanetAnymoreLandscape.png

And for Eru's sake take me with you!

shadow_archmagi
2012-08-01, 01:32 AM
I don't seem to recall the fans demanding three movies instead of two...

The Hobbit isn't that long of a book. Two movies already seemed like a lot to cover it and now it's being extended to three. If they can pull it off without it seeming padded, great. Wonderful! I loved The Hobbit. I prefer it to LotR. But wondering whether or not there is enough source material to fill three films is a valid concern.

Well, there's enough LOTR universe stuff that could be explored that doesn't get fully delved into in the books that you could easily make three movies. Particularly if they draw off the Silmarillion, which is basically 90% sentences like "And then Eyrindrel and Grlyalmor went on an adventure for six years in which they killed like, eighty dragons, before bringing back the Stone of the Sacred Tree" where a director could easily cram in a dozen film's worth of content.

Of course, that means it's up to the writing team to fill in the huge, huge blanks, which some fans may feel they can't or shouldn't do.

Zevox
2012-08-01, 01:32 AM
This does seem odd to me. I can see The Hobbit ending up a two-movie story, given all the events that are covered only briefly in the book, but three does seem more than is necessary. Maybe the third will end up as that movie covering the time in between The Hobbit and LotR that was initially rumored to be the second Hobbit movie? That would make more sense to me than three movies to cover just the events of the book.

Zevox

Joran
2012-08-01, 01:42 AM
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.


Neil Gaiman doesn't like Tom Bombadil. If it's good enough for Neil, it's good enough for me!

Seriously though, my largest complaint about LotR was that Peter Jackson ruined my favorite character: Faramir.

P.S. It feels like a cash grab and they're diverging from the Hobbit and adding some pieces from other source material. I'm concerned that this decision was based on monetary concerns, rather than a need for a third movie for story purposes. We'll see how it affects pacing and plot and whether the movies feel like they're dragging or some pieces feel tacked on (I'm looking at you 2nd and 3rd movie Arwen).

ThePhantasm
2012-08-01, 07:02 AM
I have a feeling the third film will be more along the lines of Unfinished Tales, covering material that happens between the Hobbit and LOTR. I don't think they plan to stretch out the Hobbit material itself (which, despite being a shorter book in comparison to LOTR, has quite a lot of story beats / events in it... thus I've always been on board with the two film plan).

I do wish, however, that Jackson was instead filming some Silmarillion material as a third film, instead of the in-between material. We'll see how it goes. The LOTR film trilogy was wonderful, aside from ROTK, so I'm optimistic that these 3 movies will be superb as well.

Traab
2012-08-01, 07:04 AM
I realize that there is probably enough middle earth material to cram a dozen movies worth of content into it, but that isnt the point. This is supposed to be The Hobbit. Not The Hobbit and Everything Else. That being said, I COULD see this being stretched out into a third film. Working backwards, I wouldnt be surprised if the death of smaug would be the end of film 2, and film 3 is the 13 dwarves and bilbo dealing with the siege, the battle of five armies, and bilbos trip home. That is rather a lot of stuff. Film 2 could start either at the entrance of mirkwood, or shortly after the eagles drop them all off on the other side of the river. Include the necromancer events, and you have a LOT of adventure going on. And of course the first one is the fellowship. We get to see all the main characters introduced, the plot of the story explained, and some solid bits of adventure. We get to see elrond, trolls, gollum, goblins, and yeah, thats one heck of a solid amount of events. You could even include dealing with Smaug in the third film if you want to shift it around a bit. Thats the good thing about The Hobbit. there are a LOT of potential transition points in the story.

Prime32
2012-08-01, 07:11 AM
Well how long are the films going to be? 3+ hours like LotR, or 1.5?

ThePhantasm
2012-08-01, 07:17 AM
The first film is 2.5 hours.

Weezer
2012-08-01, 08:13 AM
I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand overall I liked Jackson's LotR so I have a level of confidencebin him. However, it seems that everything major that Jackson changed or added (rather than left out) was awful. This includes gimli as comic relief, butchering Faramir and making the army of the dead show up at Minas Tirith. So I don't know how to feel about this. Still excited though.

shadow_archmagi
2012-08-01, 08:14 AM
This is supposed to be The Hobbit. Not The Hobbit and Everything Else.

I'm not sure where you're getting this concept of predestination. It's a film project, not someone's dying wish.

Traab
2012-08-01, 08:35 AM
I'm not sure where you're getting this concept of predestination. It's a film project, not someone's dying wish.

Well.... its The Hobbit. Its a movie based on the book. Thats what it has always been about. Thats how it has been marketed. "Hey guys! We are going to turn The Hobbit into a film! Come and see it!" Im just not sure if I would enjoy it if all of a sudden peter jackson starts cramming in even more than the necromancer into this film set in the interests of making an extra film. If the hobbit will honestly fit into three movies without being stretched or padded by unconnected stuff, then great, I will be fine with watching 7 and a half hours of the hobbit. If not, I wont be happy because it will no longer be The Hobbit. It will be, The Hobbit, Plus Other Stuff.

ThePhantasm
2012-08-01, 08:41 AM
It will be, The Hobbit, Plus Other Stuff.

This is what it has been planned to be from Day 1. Jackson has been very up front about the fact that they'd be following Gandalf during his absences from the party and showing various events leading up to LOTR. I personally don't mind it so long as it is well done, as most of the "Other Stuff" material still comes from Tolkien's writings / drafts / plans / appendices etc.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-01, 09:12 AM
Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?

Yes! Of course!

The Succubus
2012-08-01, 09:17 AM
Well, if anyone is capable of doing the Hobbit well, I'd trust it in the hands of the guy that did Lord of the Rings. *shrug*

Fragenstein
2012-08-01, 09:24 AM
Actually, I always thought it was "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale". I'm sure there's plenty of material that Bilbo left out which can be well depicted in the new films. Like when they all stop off at a Tim Horton's for the first time. That's always worthy of noting in any journey.

Karoht
2012-08-01, 09:36 AM
You'll need this, good sir.
http://memesters.com/images/items/iDontWantToLiveOnThisPlanetAnymoreLandscape.png

And for Eru's sake take me with you!

Agreed.
I also need "Shut up and take my money" but I feel posting that would be unnecessary, and be seen as over the top fanboyism.


The argument that 3 books took up 3 films so one book should take one film is silly. LoTR has many events that get swept over rather quickly. Helms Deep for instance, the actual lead up and battle is only a handful of pages, yet it made up the bulk of an entire film (if you factor in lead up) on its own.
LoTR was also PLANNED to take up 3 films, and if Peter Jackson had his way, it would have taken 5 because it would have told a more complete story.

Emmerask
2012-08-01, 10:02 AM
hmmm I´m not entirely sure about 3 films, 2 I could very well see but a third?

Either I misremember some of the stuff going on or the third film (with the splitting I imagine now) will be quite boring ^^

Anyway Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job with lotr (except for the ghost army ^^) so I trust him to do another good work with the hobit now :smallsmile:

The Succubus
2012-08-01, 10:03 AM
Actually, I always thought it was "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale". I'm sure there's plenty of material that Bilbo left out which can be well depicted in the new films. Like when they all stop off at a Tim Horton's for the first time. That's always worthy of noting in any journey.

I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.

Cheesegear
2012-08-01, 10:05 AM
I suspect it may also have something to do with length.

If there's two films each 2.5-3 hours long, in the wake of several critics saying that Dark Knight Rises was too long, it might be possible that the producers and/or director are unwilling to submit the audience to a movie of that length again in the immediate future and are breaking it into three, smaller chunks.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-01, 10:17 AM
This is what it has been planned to be from Day 1. Jackson has been very up front about the fact that they'd be following Gandalf during his absences from the party and showing various events leading up to LOTR. I personally don't mind it so long as it is well done, as most of the "Other Stuff" material still comes from Tolkien's writings / drafts / plans / appendices etc.

Day 1 of Peter Jackson's involvement, perhaps, but not Day 1 of the project.

Zea mays
2012-08-01, 10:24 AM
I suspect it may also have something to do with length.

If there's two films each 2.5-3 hours long, in the wake of several critics saying that Dark Knight Rises was too long, it might be possible that the producers and/or director are unwilling to submit the audience to a movie of that length again in the immediate future and are breaking it into three, smaller chunks.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Movie theaters like shorter movies because they charge per showing, not per minute of film, and a shorter film can have more showings per day. I seem to recall, they struggled to get Return of the King under three hours for it's theatrical release.

ThePhantasm
2012-08-01, 10:25 AM
Day 1 of Peter Jackson's involvement, perhaps, but not Day 1 of the project.

According to what information? Even when Del Toro was involved it was going to be 2 parts, and Jackson was working extensively with Del Toro on the script. Jackson has always been involved as the producer, from day 1. Check the wikipedia article on the film. There's a number of sources citing Del Toro discussing how they would explore Gandalf's departures from the party, material leading up to LOTR, etc.

Rallicus
2012-08-01, 10:32 AM
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.


Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In my entire life I've only read one book by Tolkien, and it just so happened to be Lord of the Rings. It's been over a decade since I read the book, but I remember when I watched the movie in theaters, I expected two things:

- Gandalf being dragged down by the Balrog.
- Tom Bombadil.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a casual fan who read the book as a kid. Tom plays a pretty memorable role in the story, and cutting him out made an impression.

That said, I don't think people are angry at Jackson for giving them more material. They're mad that this is obviously nothing more than an attempt at getting more money. They're mad and unsure of if Jackson will be able to stay faithful to the original, which is much shorter than the LoTR trilogy novels, when he stretches one shorter book over the course of three movies (whereas lotr was 3 books over the course of, hey - three movies).

Traab
2012-08-01, 10:33 AM
I admit that I havent been following this movie rabidly, but as far as I know, the only "extra" stuff included in the film was gandalf and the wizards council kicking necromancer butt, which got skipped over in the book, but at least got a mention there.I dont mind if that is the kind of extra stuff that will be included, things mentioned briefly in the book, but not gone into any detail. Another example might be beorn and his bear-venture into the mountains to determine if the dwarves were lying about what happened.

Mutant Sheep
2012-08-01, 10:37 AM
According to what information? Even when Del Toro was involved it was going to be 2 parts, and Jackson was working extensively with Del Toro on the script. Jackson has always been involved as the producer, from day 1. Check the wikipedia article on the film. There's a number of sources citing Del Toro discussing how they would explore Gandalf's departures from the party, material leading up to LOTR, etc.

I am sorry Phantasm, but saying "go look at wikipedia" invalidates your argument. Especially if its true. :smallbiggrin:

I can myself just... NOT GOING to see the third one in theatres and getting it in the DVD boxset instead. Definitely seeing the first two, if the second one feels like it closes at a good time, I can just wait to see The Hunt For Gollum-as actually produced by Peter Jackson. :smallwink:

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-01, 10:41 AM
I heard it would cover a lot of Necromancer stuff. I assume it'll draw some stuff from the Silmarillion, and I also heard that Tom Bombadil would be in these movies (Not that I'm overjoyed, personally I found him a bit out-of-place in the Fellowship). The only thing I'm not looking forward to is that I'll have to wait so long for each part. :P

For my part, I'm looking forward to solo-Gandalf adventures.

Altair_the_Vexed
2012-08-01, 10:48 AM
Remeber that PJ always plays his actions scenes really long and with pleny of slow motion!
In terms of the number of actions scenes, the Hobbit is longer than / as long as LotR.

We've got to get in trolls, the Misty Mountains, goblins, Gollum, escape (including more goblins and wargs), eagles, Beorn, Mirkwood, spiders, Wood Elves, escape (including barrels), Laketown, under the mountain, conversations with Smaug, theft of treasure, attack by Smaug, Smaug's defeat, theft of more treasure, Battle of Five Armies.

Whereas LotR only has leaving the Shire, Bree, Weathertop, Rivendell, Misty Mountains, Moria (including orcs and balrog), Amon Sul (breaking the Fellowship), then hunting the orcs / taming Gollum, ousting Saruman's influence over Theoden, Helms Deep, Shelob, crossing Mordor / the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the Black Gate / destruction of the Ring.

LotR's got way more filler and exposition compared with the Hobbit, which is a very fluffy, fast-paced and fun-filled book, lacking in the stodge of LotR.

In-universe, it's the difference between Bilbo's and Frodo's writing styles. If Bilbo had written LotR, it'd be much shorter!

Cikomyr
2012-08-01, 10:52 AM
Don't be silly people. This is clearly the Star Wars model of film making.

First you make the concluding trilogy.

Then you make the prequel trilogy that most peoplefind awkward.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-01, 10:59 AM
Well, if anyone is capable of doing the Hobbit well, I'd trust it in the hands of the guy that did Lord of the Rings. *shrug*

Even the best directors can make flops.

ThePhantasm
2012-08-01, 11:00 AM
I am sorry Phantasm, but saying "go look at wikipedia" invalidates your argument. Especially if its true. :smallbiggrin:


Yeah, I know... I've been feeling lazy today. Didn't want to bother finding all the articles and citing them myself...

I think most of you guys are judging this too harshly too far in advance. It might be a cash grab, but it might also be the best thing for the film adaption (film being, after all, a different medium than books). Or it could be both. But it seems rather early in the game to get annoyed by this move, given that we don't even know which parts of the story will be included in each movie.

Winter_Wolf
2012-08-01, 11:15 AM
The basic problem with taking 3 movies to tell the story of The Hobbit is that there's the very real risk of people losing interest after the first 1/3 of the story is told. Or at least, losing interest in paying that money to movie theaters. Definitely cable pay-per-view for my house.

I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.

Also, general backlash against movies that are so long that they need to bring back intermissions for potty breaks and leg stretching.

snoopy13a
2012-08-01, 11:27 AM
I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.



I thought the director's cut, like most director's cuts, was dull also. There's a reason why producers hire editors to cut out scenes :smallsmile:

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-08-01, 02:53 PM
I thought the director's cut, like most director's cuts, was dull also. There's a reason why producers hire editors to cut out scenes :smallsmile:

It wasn't a director's cut. Jackson made a cut of the film that went to theaters, but always intended to go back and add in the extra bits. The producers weren't involved.

Also, I refuse to watch the theatrical cuts because they're so inferior to the Extended. My family watches the whole trilogy on New Years as our tradition. Not tired of it yet.

mangosta71
2012-08-01, 04:28 PM
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In my entire life I've only read one book by Tolkien, and it just so happened to be Lord of the Rings. It's been over a decade since I read the book, but I remember when I watched the movie in theaters, I expected two things:

- Gandalf being dragged down by the Balrog.
- Tom Bombadil.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a casual fan who read the book as a kid. Tom plays a pretty memorable role in the story, and cutting him out made an impression.

That said, I don't think people are angry at Jackson for giving them more material. They're mad that this is obviously nothing more than an attempt at getting more money. They're mad and unsure of if Jackson will be able to stay faithful to the original, which is much shorter than the LoTR trilogy novels, when he stretches one shorter book over the course of three movies (whereas lotr was 3 books over the course of, hey - three movies).
One book? :smallconfused: Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Based on the bits you've mentioned, I assume you mean The Fellowship of the Ring.

My impression, after reading the entire trilogy, was that Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary. Those chapters were a bunch of talking about what had already been shown in the book up to that point, singing, and me wishing that the bloody story would just continue already. He didn't really do anything aside from giving the hobbits a place to rest for a bit before they continued their journey. It was almost as slow as the Council of Elrond, but at least the Council actually served some purpose in furthering the plot. The encounter with the barrow wights was more significant, as that's where the hobbits actually acquired their weapons.

Axinian
2012-08-01, 04:51 PM
In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!

Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).

Why?

No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.

Karoht
2012-08-01, 04:55 PM
Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).

Why?

No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.
But they do plan on including several of the songs from the book. Just saying.

Devonix
2012-08-01, 06:44 PM
From the moment this was announced they said it was going to be The Hobbit + things the things between the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship. I had at first assumed way back when that the first movie would be Hobbit and the second movie would be the other stuff. When they started talking about the Hobbit part being the two movie I thought it odd as how would they now have time to do that other stuff.

Now I see it as
First movie: First half of Hobbit
Second movie: Second half of Hobbit
Third movie: Appendecies and lead in to LotR

shadow_archmagi
2012-08-01, 07:25 PM
I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.

Welp, time to write Close Encounters of the Third Kind/LOTR fanfic.

Traab
2012-08-01, 07:56 PM
Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).

Why?

No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.

You go my lads! Ho ho, my lads! Seriously, that was the awesomest badass song in the entire crappy film. Honestly, there were a number of good parts, Smaug freaking ruled. FEAR SMAUG! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8G_jDcLNo&feature=related)

Karoht
2012-08-01, 07:57 PM
From the moment this was announced they said it was going to be The Hobbit + things the things between the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship. I had at first assumed way back when that the first movie would be Hobbit and the second movie would be the other stuff. When they started talking about the Hobbit part being the two movie I thought it odd as how would they now have time to do that other stuff.

Now I see it as
First movie: First half of Hobbit
Second movie: Second half of Hobbit
Third movie: Appendecies and lead in to LotR

Interesting viewpoint.

It was announced/leaked fairly early on that the first film would end with (if I have to spoiler tag this I swear...) one of the following:
-Bilbo encountering Gollum and the Ring.
-Bilbo making a mad dash with the Ring in his possession

I guess the big question I have now is, what endpoint will the first film have, or will it remain with that endpoint on release day.


My prediction:
First Film: Setup and establishment of some relevant and likely recent Middle Earth History, and some life in Hobbiton, Gandalf showing up, some hyjinx, Bilbo leaving, with the first film ending at the Misty Mountains.
Second Film: Everything from the Misty Mountains up to Smaug. Includes Gandalf taking a side quest somewhere along the lines.
Third Film: Defeat Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies, Ending and Epilogue, with the obvious connections being made to LoTR.

Peter Jackson really seems like a fan of the big buildup before a big battle, and he also seems like a fan of big battles. I fully expect the Third Film to be War and More War, and an ending.

Just some thoughts.

WalkingTarget
2012-08-01, 08:39 PM
One book? :smallconfused: Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Based on the bits you've mentioned, I assume you mean The Fellowship of the Ring.

It was split into three volumes due to publication limitations of the time, but was written as a single novel (in 6 "books"). Tolkien had originally intended to publish the Silmarillion and LotR together. In his published letters (#126 specifically) Tolkien noted that "(I had in my letter made a strong point that the Silmarillion etc. and The Lord of the Rings went together, as one long Saga of the Jewels and the Rings, and that I was resolved to treat them as one thing, however they might formally be issued.) I noted that the mass naturally divides only between The Silmarillion and The Lord (each about 600,000 words), but that the latter is not divisible except into artificial fragments."

My emphasis in bold. It's one story, just published serially. Depending on what your definition of "trilogy" is, either view has traction.


My impression, after reading the entire trilogy, was that Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary. Those chapters were a bunch of talking about what had already been shown in the book up to that point, singing, and me wishing that the bloody story would just continue already. He didn't really do anything aside from giving the hobbits a place to rest for a bit before they continued their journey. It was almost as slow as the Council of Elrond, but at least the Council actually served some purpose in furthering the plot. The encounter with the barrow wights was more significant, as that's where the hobbits actually acquired their weapons.

He's not important to the narrative and Tolkien is on record saying as much (in another letter). He's important in that he represents a philosophical point - the limit on the Ring's influence: it has none over somebody who has renounced the idea of Control. The point is also made that while this may be a laudable state of being, in the real world there must be others who will fight on their behalf (Bombadil could not hold the Ring in trust - Sauron would win at the end).

Most (all?) adaptations I've seen of the story strip out most of the philosophical underpinnings. Tom has no place in the narrative without those points, and so I don't really miss him in, say, the film trilogy as it exists.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-01, 09:01 PM
The first film is 2.5 hours.

That's not so bad. That's what? 7.5 hours for the whole thing. It's still a lot short than the LotR trilogy.

Traab
2012-08-01, 09:43 PM
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.

The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.


Seriously internets? Fail.

There is a gap between "skipping material" and "adding new material to the existing story" Ill be honest with you, yeah, I was upset the the scouring of the shire got completely cut out and never happened, and I was curious to see a movie version of bombadil, but my main problem with the lotr series was him changing the freaking canon. I understand some things dont translate between mediums well, but thats no excuse to straight up change the way the story goes.

In this movie trilogy thats going to come out, it isnt going to take three movies to tell The Hobbit. Its going to take three movies to tell The Hobbit, and tons of other bits and pieces that are only peripherally a part of the story. Like gandalf going off to chase off the necromancer, or whatever beorn did to check out the dwarves story, or what bilbo spent his time doing in the wood elf kings castle before he got the chance to break the dwarves out, or whatever else he wants to add in.

And thats assuming this is all he is doing, adding in extra scenes to cover these mentioned but not detailed events from the book. If the reason for a third movie is because he has gone off on a tangent talking about things that have little or nothing to do with the story, like a flashback showing us what lead the three oddly intelligent trolls to be in that clearing at that time, or ancient history of middle earth about the ancient kings of numenor or whatever, then I think we have a right to be annoyed. Because we want to see The Hobbit, and we are going to have to watch three films stuffed with what amounts to filler, just to be able to see the story we wanted.

If you watch anime at all its the same thing as cramming in a half dozen filler arcs before the main plot continues. You dont care about these little side quests that have no bearing on the main story and never get mentioned again, you want the story to keep moving!

Reverent-One
2012-08-02, 12:21 AM
On the other hand, I'd say those mentioned but not detailed scenes are worth seeing. The Hobbit is a book with a lot of things going on, but a number of them we don't see in any real detail. And some of those things (like the Council of Wizards dealing with the Necromancer) sounds really freaking cool.

Killer Angel
2012-08-02, 04:09 AM
The basic problem with taking 3 movies to tell the story of The Hobbit is that there's the very real risk of people losing interest after the first 1/3 of the story is told. Or at least, losing interest in paying that money to movie theaters. Definitely cable pay-per-view for my house.

I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.


That's true and I subscribe it. There's also the consideration that not all the viewers are fan of the original book, and cannot care less about what was written, and so on.
My wife enjoyed the first film of LOTR, but she found it a little longer. The third one? She threatened to divorce if I dared to suggest it once again... and it was the theatrical version.

I can sympatize with this PoV... 3 films for a single story are many. As a fan, i can be pleased, but as a generic customer? not so much.

MLai
2012-08-02, 04:49 AM
My single most fav character in the LOTR entire movie trilogy is Gandalf the Grey. Not the White. The Grey.

So if The Hobbit is getting padded so that we get more Gandalf the Grey, then no complaints from me at all. :smallredface:

Hopeless
2012-08-02, 04:58 AM
Sorry for the slight interruption but when the LOTR movies came out at the cinema I went to each, when they were released on dvd I went for the extended versions mostly because of the extras.
(And I still haven't managed to watch all of them, and find the start of the fellowship the most boring but thats more due to what I know lies ahead!:smallwink:)

As for the Hobbit, well thats my xmas present covered for the next four years!:smallbiggrin:

Only real question is imax 3d or regular?:smallwink:

I agree I'd love to know what else is going to be put into thits trilogy since from what I remember it sounds like part 1 might end with them meeting croaching in someones cave followed by Bilbo waking up a cranky wyrm with the third being the big battle of this series!

I think thats been mentioned earlier in this thread, but I am wondering what else to expect, since you've been mentioning the LOTR I was wondering if there was any bits in the Hobbit that might be ignored for the sake of the story?

VanBuren
2012-08-02, 05:08 AM
Here's my question: How would Tolkien have preferred it to be done? On the one hand, The Hobbit doesn't contain any of that extra material. On the other hand, he didn't have the greater story in mind when he wrote it. Sure, he made changes here and there after the fact but that's not the same thing as adding all that extra material into the story (though he did later provide it in another context)

But given that this is being adapted for a new medium, and gives a sort of ability to start fresh, there's no particular reason, pragmatically, why the story can't be told without all that background lore creeping in. The only question I have, is whether or not Tolkien would have wanted it that way.

Traab
2012-08-02, 07:30 AM
On the other hand, I'd say those mentioned but not detailed scenes are worth seeing. The Hobbit is a book with a lot of things going on, but a number of them we don't see in any real detail. And some of those things (like the Council of Wizards dealing with the Necromancer) sounds really freaking cool.

I agree, those mentioned but not detailed scenes would be fine, its if he starts cramming in other stuff like covering an extended history of the wizards council, or the evolution of trolls or, I dunno, the daily life of the elven prison guard after he got drunk and let the dwarves escape just to fill a third movie that i would object to. It might be interesting stuff, but its not a part of the hobbit story and should be left out if its going to drag the story through an extra film just to fit it all. And god help him if he does this and still leaves actual canon out, lol.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-02, 07:38 AM
Here's my question: How would Tolkien have preferred it to be done?

I suspect personally that you would struggle to find an author less suited to giving advice on film adaptions of his work. Editorial discipling isn't really what I associate the guy with.

pendell
2012-08-02, 08:13 AM
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.


I feel that way -- too much hobbit -- and let me explain why.

Up until Peter Jackson took it on , there had never been a creditable attempt at the Lord of the Rings. The only one I was aware of was Bakshi's (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm), which even at the tender age of 8 years old I knew was terrible. They cut it off halfway through the story.

I thought then that it would take 6 hours of theater time to do justice to the books.

Peter Jackson did 9. 12, in the extended edition.

I think he did a fantastic job! Yes, he cut things out of the book and moved things around, but I forgive those things. Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire simply didn't fit the pacing of a movie. And I think he did wonders with Arwen's and Aragorn's relationship which Tolkien did not.

So I'm happy with his length of Lord of the Rings. It was an epic, and required epic-length movies.

The Hobbit does not.

The Hobbit is a short, self-contained fairy tale. When I look at PJ's work, I compare it to what came before. No one had ever done Lord of the Rings as he had and I don't think anyone ever will again.

But the Hobbit has already been done as an animated movie lasting 90 minutes. It was short. It was self-contained. It was excellent. It was one of my favorite movies in grade school.

Turning a good 90 minute movie into 3 two hour movies does not bode well.

Of course, I intend to see the movies before I judge them. But prima facie expanding a good movie to something else many times its length does not necessarily scream "good story telling". It does, however, scream "we want to sell more movies".

I don't blame him for that. He's gotta eat, same as we do. But there's a very good chance that expanding the story to such a degree will hurt the story. That's a different monster entirely than LOTR, where PJ filmed the unfilmable epic, and deserves nothing but praise for doing so.


ETA: On the other hand, if he covers the War of the Dwarves And Orcs (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/War_of_the_Dwarves_and_Orcs), in which Thorin got his name "Oakenshield" and in which both Thror and Thrain are shown,I will squee like a fanboy. That's a story worth telling on screen.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Karoht
2012-08-02, 10:00 AM
I feel that way -- too much hobbit -- and let me explain why.

So I'm happy with his length of Lord of the Rings. It was an epic, and required epic-length movies.
The Hobbit does not.

The Hobbit is a short, self-contained fairy tale.

But the Hobbit has already been done as an animated movie lasting 90 minutes. It was short. It was self-contained. It was excellent. It was one of my favorite movies in grade school.Did it cover all the plot points? In 90 minutes? Without a wall of text style exposition dump?



Turning a good 90 minute movie into 3 two hour movies does not bode well.

Of course, I intend to see the movies before I judge them. But prima facie expanding a good movie to something else many times its length does not necessarily scream "good story telling". It does, however, scream "we want to sell more movies". Expanding the synopsis on the back of a novel into something the length of a novel. Same diff.
Look at romance novels. I can summarize one in under 15 seconds, most could probably just be short stories rather than whole novels, then there are the few that are turned into 90 minute or longer films. Just because the story can be told in 90 minutes or less doesn't mean it should. But conversely, I am willing to concede that just because a story can be told across a trilogy doesn't mean it should either.

My issue is that fan demand was "more more more" and now they are complaing that they are getting more, with accusations of 'money grab' and greed. I won't deny that money is a related motive. Is it the major motive? For the studio, maybe, for the director/producer, who should be first and foremost an artist, money should only be a cursory motive at best.

Imagine if the Pope had called Michaelangeo a greedy bugger and cut him off at the knees when he decided to use a church ceiling instead of a canvas.


But there's a very good chance that expanding the story to such a degree will hurt the story. That's a different monster entirely than LOTR, where PJ filmed the unfilmable epic, and deserves nothing but praise for doing so.He also expanded on aspects of LoTR. Arguably, it didn't hurt the story, and helped flesh it out. Also keep in mind that Helms Deep is largely not a massive event in Two Towers the novel. But establishing the lead up and the battle itself cinema style took 2 to 3 hours. Meanwhile, covering off all of Tolkien's description of terrain and other such minutae (which was largely the filler of LoTR) will take all of a few moments with a camera pan or two and some music to convey the feeling and emtion of the land and the party that is traveling through it.


ETA: On the other hand, if he covers the War of the Dwarves And Orcs (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/War_of_the_Dwarves_and_Orcs), in which Thorin got his name "Oakenshield" and in which both Thror and Thrain are shown,I will squee like a fanboy. That's a story worth telling on screen. You and me both. The better question is, would it be a better or worse film to include such a story?
And since he plans on covering off some of Gandalf's exploits (that aren't really detailed in the book but take place in that chronology), and probably backstory for the cast such as the story you linked the description of certain scenes and sequences are easily reaching the 3 film mark in my mind. Add on some necessary exposition from sources such as the Simarilion/Appendices which flesh out the world and it easily hits the 3 film mark.

Again, as above, would it be a better or worse film to include such details? That is probably a more relevant concern than 'is 3 films too long for the material.' Just my opinion, mind you.

Example:
Is Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring, a stronger or weaker film for including the Defeat of Sauron at the beginning of the film? Or was that a waste of 8 minutes?

Would The Hobbit be a stronger or weaker film for detailing a bit of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs? Or would that be a waste of (let's overestimate somewhat here) 15 minutes?

The man who filmed the Unfilmable Epic and won Oscars for his efforts seems to think that such details are worth taking the time for. And people such as you and I would rather they spend some time on such details rather than just an offhand comment about it. I prefer a good fight scene or two and some integration into the main narrative over "yeah it was awesome, he killed like, 50 orcs!" And unless I missed my guess, you would probably prefer such scenes and narrative integration over the throwaway reference (or no reference) as well.

Muz
2012-08-02, 01:33 PM
I'm holding off judgment of it being a trilogy until I see the finished product (I'm apprehensive, but can't judge it until I see it), I do want to say that the animated Hobbit film is NOT, in my opinion, a good adaptation.

I remember seeing it as a kid. I was excited to see a number of things on screen, only to be disappointed to find that were either glossed over, truncated, or just plain not there. I watched it again, about two months ago now, and...yeah. Just...wow. Horrible pacing, extremely choppy, with context for so much good stuff either mangled or downright missing. The animated Hobbit is a good film the way a Subway sandwich is a good 4-course meal.

Can it be stretched into 3 films (each with a satisfying arc and climax)? I don't know. I do know that 90 minutes is not enough to capture the story in the book.

WalkingTarget
2012-08-02, 01:59 PM
I'm holding off judgment of it being a trilogy until I see the finished product (I'm apprehensive, but can't judge it until I see it), I do want to say that the animated Hobbit film is NOT, in my opinion, a good adaptation.

I remember seeing it as a kid. I was excited to see a number of things on screen, only to be disappointed to find that were either glossed over, truncated, or just plain not there. I watched it again, about two months ago now, and...yeah. Just...wow. Horrible pacing, extremely choppy, with context for so much good stuff either mangled or downright missing. The animated Hobbit is a good film the way a Subway sandwich is a good 4-course meal.

Agreed. I look on that cartoon in much the same way as I watch the David Lynch Dune movie. It will have a place in my heart as its own thing and for being what prompted me to read the original novel, but it isn't a really great version of the story as originally written.

mangosta71
2012-08-02, 04:09 PM
The Wizard Council vs. the Necromancer is surely enough material to flesh out 90-120 minutes. The war between the dwarves and orcs could easily fill 120-150. I'd prefer these events get their own chance to shine rather than see abbreviated versions tacked onto another story as supplemental material. Particularly when said story works perfectly well as a stand alone work to begin with. The Hobbit is a good enough tale that it doesn't need a bunch of other stuff to make it awesome.

SoC175
2012-08-02, 05:38 PM
Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.Dream on. Even if they could skip them, they never would even if they would be forced to extend with scenes that were cut not for time reasons but because they were crap.

How else could they sell the DVDs and Blurays twice?

Reverent-One
2012-08-02, 06:34 PM
The Wizard Council vs. the Necromancer is surely enough material to flesh out 90-120 minutes. The war between the dwarves and orcs could easily fill 120-150. I'd prefer these events get their own chance to shine rather than see abbreviated versions tacked onto another story as supplemental material. Particularly when said story works perfectly well as a stand alone work to begin with. The Hobbit is a good enough tale that it doesn't need a bunch of other stuff to make it awesome.

While I agree with you on the war between the dwarves and orcs (which I don't expect to see in these movies), not so much on the Council vs Necromancer front. While they are two separate stories, given the temporal connection between them through Gandalf I think it makes sense to show them together. Otherwise you'd have random time skips as he moves between the two plots.

Turcano
2012-08-03, 12:26 AM
However, it seems that everything major that Jackson changed or added (rather than left out) was awful. This includes gimli and Merry and Pippin as comic relief, butchering Faramir everyone except Sam and making the army of the dead show up at Minas Tirith.

Fixed that for you.

pendell
2012-08-03, 08:03 AM
Did it cover all the plot points? In 90 minutes? Without a wall of text style exposition dump?


Muz disagrees with me, but I believe so, yes. Hit all the high points and the most exposition was in the Dwarf song which, set to music, was done extremely well. Certainly there were no walls of prose.



My issue is that fan demand was "more more more" and now they are complaing that they are getting more, with accusations of 'money grab' and greed. I won't deny that money is a related motive. Is it the major motive? For the studio, maybe, for the director/producer, who should be first and foremost an artist, money should only be a cursory motive at best.


*Cough* *Hack* *Choke*

Whatever the director feels about art vs. movies, he had producers who plunked down hundreds of millions of dollars. Five hundred MILLION dollars (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/one-budget-to-ruin-them-the-hobbit-destined-to-become-most-expensive-film-of-all-time/story-e6frfmvr-1225936918719).

Five hundred million dollars!

The Apollo Project itself clocked in at 20 billion (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/Apollo.html).

However PJ Jackson feels about art, the people who plunked down FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS didn't do so for the Sistine Chapel. They expect to earn MORE than five hundred million dollars back in screening, in DVD/wireless showing, in merchandising etc.

Heh. And people say there's no money for space exploration. If we took all the money put into movies for ONE year, both spent to make and what consumers spent to buy, we just might be able to go to Mars. But I digress.

Artists who care only about their art make low-budget art films or youtube videos. People who care only about the cash turn in knockoffs of older movies and stories like Starship Troopers or Transformers 2 or what not. But the best artists care about the cash AND about the art. I think PJ is in that category. He may not be in the top tier (though I'd be hard pressed to think of a modern film maker who does these things better) but he's definitely one of the best in the field today.



Imagine if the Pope had called Michaelangeo a greedy bugger and cut him off at the knees when he decided to use a church ceiling instead of a canvas.


Patrons in the Middle Ages would shell out any amount of money for art because the value of art to them was prestige, status. The whole point was to throw away money to show that you had money to burn. Modern moviemakers don't make movies for status -- they make a movie to show a profit.



He also expanded on aspects of LoTR. Arguably, it didn't hurt the story, and helped flesh it out. Also keep in mind that Helms Deep is largely not a massive event in Two Towers the novel. But establishing the lead up and the battle itself cinema style took 2 to 3 hours. Meanwhile, covering off all of Tolkien's description of terrain and other such minutae (which was largely the filler of LoTR) will take all of a few moments with a camera pan or two and some music to convey the feeling and emtion of the land and the party that is traveling through it.


Agree.



The man who filmed the Unfilmable Epic and won Oscars for his efforts seems to think that such details are worth taking the time for. And people such as you and I would rather they spend some time on such details rather than just an offhand comment about it. I prefer a good fight scene or two and some integration into the main narrative over "yeah it was awesome, he killed like, 50 orcs!" And unless I missed my guess, you would probably prefer such scenes and narrative integration over the throwaway reference (or no reference) as well.

And I believe that art is only one of the reasons he is doing this. The other reason is to maximize his budget to tell the story the way he wants to, but commercial people won't cut loose with that kind of cash unless the throws them a bone to show that it makes them more money. If they shelled out $100 million for a movie which makes $300 million, everyone's ecstatic. If they shell out $500 million for a movie which makes $300 million, you're going to have some very unhappy producers.

I think he's trying to find the optimal point which brings in maximum return, vacuums as much money from the rubes in the cheap seats as he can, while ALSO making a labor of love and a good movie. That, I believe, is what separates him from people like Uwe Boll. Here's hoping he gets it right.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Traab
2012-08-03, 08:22 AM
Hey! I LIKED Starship Troopers! Though the second and third one were pretty bad. :p

mangosta71
2012-08-03, 08:53 AM
Hey! I LIKED Starship Troopers! Though the second and third one were pretty bad. :p
See, I'd read the book, so I had a whole lot of expectations going in. I wanted to see power armor. I wanted intelligent bugs that used tools and weapons. I wanted to hear the MI troops singing "For the everlasting glory of the infantry!" when they charged into battle. I didn't get any of that, so, as you can probably imagine, I was extremely disappointed by the end.

Karoht
2012-08-03, 09:41 AM
Five hundred million dollars!

The Apollo Project itself clocked in at 20 billion (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/Apollo.html). There is a pretty big difference between 500 million and 20 billion. I don't really see what you are getting at here.

Related side note:
I find it interesting that most people have a problem with this due to economics and not due to story reasons or art reasons or anything of the like. If anything, I'm actually rather reassured that they've spent the money to make a really awesome trilogy of films as opposed to cutting corners. It's more investment in OUR enjoyment, so I largely don't care too much what they spend on it. And since they are making that investment, I'm okay with giving them my money 3 times instead of 2.



But the best artists care about the cash AND about the art. I think PJ is in that category. He may not be in the top tier (though I'd be hard pressed to think of a modern film maker who does these things better) but he's definitely one of the best in the field today.

And I believe that art is only one of the reasons he is doing this. The other reason is to maximize his budget to tell the story the way he wants to, but commercial people won't cut loose with that kind of cash unless the throws them a bone to show that it makes them more money.

I think he's trying to find the optimal point which brings in maximum return, vacuums as much money from the rubes in the cheap seats as he can, while ALSO making a labor of love and a good movie. That, I believe, is what separates him from people like Uwe Boll. Here's hoping he gets it right.
I think we are largely in agreement here. Bolded parts just for emphasis.
It's sad but true, money and art are not mutually exclusive terms these days. Again, I don't care if they want to make an investment spend more money to tell me a better story. It's like a date, they can take you to macdonalds and a movie, or they can take you to a fancy restaurant and the opera. I'm okay with having more money be spent on my enjoyment.

And by extention, I'm absolutely pleased that they spent more money so that Peter Jackson can tell me a better story. Especially because it acknowledges that they looked at the story they were going to tell, they asked if they could do better, the answer was yes, and then they made a commitment (a very very very large commitment, both in terms of money and artistic perspective) to telling a better story.


They delivered once before with astonishing results, I doubt they threw money at this without making sure that a worthwhile formula for success was there a second time.

Xondoure
2012-08-03, 10:33 AM
*Cough* *Hack* *Choke*

Whatever the director feels about art vs. movies, he had producers who plunked down hundreds of millions of dollars. Five hundred MILLION dollars (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/one-budget-to-ruin-them-the-hobbit-destined-to-become-most-expensive-film-of-all-time/story-e6frfmvr-1225936918719).

Five hundred million dollars!

The Apollo Project itself clocked in at 20 billion (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/Apollo.html).

Mwahahahahahahahaha! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY)

Mhmhmhm (cough.) Space travel isn't as profitable as the entire film industry, and it's an order of magnitude more expensive.

Edit: And was the article clear on the point that this was all for the first movie? Or is that the price for all three?

pendell
2012-08-03, 10:46 AM
There is a pretty big difference between 500 million and 20 billion. I don't really see what you are getting at here.


My point is that the expense to make a major movie is comparable to that spent on a space launch. 500 mil is 1/40th the cost of the entire Apollo program spread out from its inception in the early 60s to Apollo 17 in the 1970s. It ain't money you find under the sofa. It is a HEAP O'CASH. It's not something people interested in profit plunk down unless they're pretty sure there's going to be a return.

As an aside, that's why so many moves are so formulaic and trite these days. Formulaic and trite = guaranteed to produce a return. Producers would rather have mediocre art that's guaranteed to get their money back over something, new, radical and innovative that sets fire to hundreds of millions of dollars of their money.



Edit: And was the article clear on the point that this was all for the first movie? Or is that the price for all three?

When the article was made, the Hobbit was two movies, not three. I expect the cost has gone up.

Hmmm ... maybe THAT's why there are now three movies? The studio execs may have realized that they will get more cash back from the audience if the movies were split into three, rather than two, because now you have three box office openings rather than two, and you can now sell three movies on Amazon rather than only two? Increasing the total revenue from the movies by 30%?

If that's the case, I can't say I blame them. If *I* had plonked down better than half-a-billion dollars for a movie, I'd want to play every trick in the book I could to ensure I would make a profit. With those kind of numbers I can't afford for it to be plan 9 from outer space.



I doubt they threw money at this without making sure that a worthwhile formula for success was there a second time.


Back when there were video stores, you could walk down row and row and row of movies. And weep , because so many of them were going to be the next Big Thing, and they bombed.

If the moviemakers were following the "tried and true" formula, they'd put something on screen with car chases and explosions and scantily dressed women with a minimum of plot to move the whole thing along, vacuuming up young male money for summer popcorn entertainment. The Hobbit .. isn't that. It's a major risk. Here's hoping it pays off.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Xondoure
2012-08-03, 11:04 AM
I find it more likely that the general public was not as well informed about the number of films than the executives when it came time to start putting money on the table.

VanBuren
2012-08-03, 02:37 PM
However PJ Jackson feels about art, the people who plunked down FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS didn't do so for the Sistine Chapel.

Done on commission, incidentally.


Patrons in the Middle Ages would shell out any amount of money for art because the value of art to them was prestige, status. The whole point was to throw away money to show that you had money to burn. Modern movie makers don't make movies for status -- they make a movie to show a profit.

Indeed, but even though the motivations have changed, the relationship between the artist and the money has remained pretty constant.


I think we are largely in agreement here. Bolded parts just for emphasis.
It's sad but true, money and art are not mutually exclusive terms these days. Again, I don't care if they want to make an investment spend more money to tell me a better story. It's like a date, they can take you to macdonalds and a movie, or they can take you to a fancy restaurant and the opera. I'm okay with having more money be spent on my enjoyment.

When where they ever? Some of our greatest works were motivated by someone paying the artist.

dehro
2012-08-03, 03:28 PM
I'm worried.
mind you, I was worried when I first heard they were going to do LOTR.
so this time around I'm a bit less worried, because the people who did LOTR did a pretty damn good job, minus a few gripes that every fan of Tolkien cannot avoid having with what was taken out and/or changed. (faramir being the biggest crime in my eyes).
as far as I'm concerned, PJ is the most qualified man out there to tackle the entirety of Tolkien's opus and filmify it, so on that score he has my blessing, for what it's worth, to give us another dozen movies, if he thinks there's enough story to tell.
that said, I do think it is without a doubt true that adding a 3rd movie to the current effort IS a money grabbing scheme. when PJ tackled the trilogy, he pitched 2 movies because he didn't believe he could get money for 3. as soon as he got the green light for 3 movies, he rewrote the entire script and it was always going to be 3 movies from then on, even before casting. when he found that he had too much to tell he simply decided to make extended versions and longer movies. he's definitely not shy that way.
I don't think for a second that he's adding a third installment because he's decided he had too much to tell us to be able to do it in 2 movies.
I do believe they're adding more material, be it Silmarillion, speculation or other sources. I'm hoping they'll keep the "expanding on what tolkien glossed over" to a minimum..there's enough detailed material as it is.
what I'm really hoping for that this blatant executive meddling stops at this and doesn't also try to tell PJ what to tell in the movies and how to do it.
also, I'd wish they'd be honest and renamed the project from the hobbit into..well..whatever else there is that they're going to tell us.

so.. worried, cautiously optimistic, but not too much. Peter Jackson is a great director, but the combination of casting, talents, technical staff and ..many other things.. on the MOTR was exceptional and it is a hard act to follow.
comparisons with the first trilogy will be inevitable and probably crushing.. but..well.. let's hope for the best.

Ziegander
2012-08-03, 03:47 PM
What did Jackson do to ruin Faramir?

dehro
2012-08-03, 04:00 PM
What did Jackson do to ruin Faramir?

in LOTR 3 people are offered the ring, or a chance to take the ring. Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir. all 3 of them refuse the ring, thereby showing their quality and personal "greatness". In many ways, Faramir is seen by several of the characters as a return of the great men of Gondor of the past, more so than even his brother, the champion of Gondor.
by having him try to take the ring to Gondor, this is practically annulled and Faramir becomes nothing more than the vilified and unloved little brother who becomes Steward of Gondor not for personal quality but only because his dad and older brother died.
It was necessary for..logistic reasons..to some extent, to cut down some of Frodo's travel-screentime... but it ruined the stature and personality of an otherwise great character.

Karoht
2012-08-03, 04:02 PM
in LOTR 3 people are offered the ring, or a chance to take the ring. Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir. all 3 of them refuse the ring, thereby showing their quality and personal "greatness". In many ways, Faramir is seen by several of the characters as a return of the great men of Gondor of the past, more so than even his brother, the champion of Gondor.
by having him try to take the ring to Gondor, this is practically annulled and Faramir becomes nothing more than the vilified and unloved little brother who becomes Steward of Gondor not for personal quality but only because his dad and older brother died.
It was necessary for..logistic reasons..to some extent, to cut down some of Frodo's travel-screentime... but it ruined the stature and personality of an otherwise great character.
But he let the ring go. And by having that personal reflection it made a stronger character, as opposed to Faramir in the books who basically said 'I would not pick it up if I found it by the wayside' essentially dismissing it.

pendell
2012-08-03, 04:06 PM
What did Jackson do to ruin Faramir?

Made him much less noble. The book version of Faramir resisted the temptation of the ring ("Not even if I found it laying on the highway would I take it"). Movie Faramir fell, deciding to take the ring to Gondor. He didn't wholly succumb as Boromir did, in that he did not seize the ring for himself, but he succumbed enough to try to take Frodo to Gondor. Thus, Movie-Faramir is both less morally strong and less wise than book-Faramir.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

mangosta71
2012-08-03, 04:14 PM
But as Karoht said, he redeemed himself by letting Frodo go at the end. Even going so far as to admit that, by doing so, he was committing a capital offense.

We can go around in circles forever, debating which version is the more heroic/noble figure. There's no clear answer to the question. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-03, 04:18 PM
No, that seems pretty cut and dried.
Movie Faramir was wise and was noble, because he eventually let Frodo go.
Book Faramir was more wise and noble because he refused the ring altogether, like Gandalf and Galadriel.

Regardless of which version is preferable, from a standpoint of ammount-of-nobleness, it's not a difficult one.

Traab
2012-08-03, 04:26 PM
But as Karoht said, he redeemed himself by letting Frodo go at the end. Even going so far as to admit that, by doing so, he was committing a capital offense.

We can go around in circles forever, debating which version is the more heroic/noble figure. There's no clear answer to the question. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I just want to weigh in with the way I saw it. In the books, Faramir comes off as strong and highly resistant to the rings corruption, even if only over the short term. (Im sure if they marched together for a few weeks we would see a repeat of boromir without orcs) He says something, and he sticks to it, no matter what. That also brings in his high honor as well. Its been awhile since I read the books, but I think that after he realized frodo had the ring, there was a moments wavering, then he basically said, "No, I swore I wouldnt so much as pick it up off the roadside if it was lying there, so im not going to take it from you now."

One thing that got cut out that I understood, was the whole aragorn of the healing hands after the minas tirith battle. How the &^$% did that make any sense except as another random portent or proof that he was who he said he was? Its like tolkein was writing up an X-Men character and kept adding stuff onto it. "Ok, ok, he is an awesome tracker, he is a kickass fighter, He is a king in hiding, OOOH! and he can HEAL PEOPLE WITH WEEDS!"

Reverent-One
2012-08-03, 04:30 PM
Well, to split hairs, it could be that Faramir is just as wise and noble, but that the ring in the movie is even more powerful. That was a concern of the crew, that if it was weak enough that Faramir could fully resist it, it loses it's menace. He still is one of, if not the least affected by it, with it in arms reach and having plenty of reasons the Ring could exploit for him to take it, and yet he never does, and he sends it off the moment he sees any real evidence of the danger the ring poses.

mangosta71
2012-08-03, 04:37 PM
Someone could argue that, after going through the temptation, taking Frodo to the gates of Osgiliath, and then redeeming himself by letting Frodo go, Faramir was made more wise and noble than he would have been if he had simply not taken Frodo prisoner in the first place. It shows that he can overcome the influence of the Ring even after it's had time to work on him, which demonstrates strength and resilience of character.

pendell
2012-08-03, 04:49 PM
One thing that got cut out that I understood, was the whole aragorn of the healing hands after the minas tirith battle. How the &^$% did that make any sense except as another random portent or proof that he was who he said he was? Its like tolkein was writing up an X-Men character and kept adding stuff onto it. "Ok, ok, he is an awesome tracker, he is a kickass fighter, He is a king in hiding, OOOH! and he can HEAL PEOPLE WITH WEEDS!"

Because that's a thing only a king can do (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/kingsevil.aspx). Kings in the real world were expected to lay hands on sick people and make them well as late as 1825.

Aragorn was demonstrating that he was a legitimate king and had the supernatural gifts that only a king can claim. Because in this particular strand of myth , a king is more than just a person born into the right family. No, they are magical people (http://www.pavellelaw.com/MerovingianMythic.html), different from ordinary mortals, who have special gifts.

If Aragorn can do only the things ordinary people can, he is no true king. He must demonstrate that he is one of this unique race descended from both elves and men. Which, I note, the Merovingians also believed they were.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

dehro
2012-08-03, 04:52 PM
no.
in Osgiliath, Faramir is faced with proof that the nazgul were after the ring/Frodo. If anything, letting him go at this point makes him a bit of a coward because it means less trouble for him to go from Osgiliath to Gondor, without having the Nazgul on his heels... whereas he knows now that Frodo is going to be chased by Nazguls..and that he's put him in even greater danger...yet he doesn't really do much to remedy his blunder.
In the book Faramir is twice noble, firstly because he resists the power of the ring completely, secondly because he says, and we are led to believe him, that even had he known exactly what was in Frodo's possession, he would have resisted the temptation of taking the ring for no other reason that he was honour bound having given his word.
The moral fiber and inner strength make the character in those pages and are fundamental in hightening the wrong that his father does him later on in comparing and completely misjudging him and his brother. Without that crucial passage (crucial to Faramir of course) he becomes, to those who haven't read the book, more of a whiny unknown quantity...and not really someone who is worthy of Stewardship, Gandalf and the king's favour and marrying Eowyn.

Ziegander
2012-08-03, 04:54 PM
Yeah, the events surrounding Faramir and Frodo's initial interactions were changed between the books and the movies, as were the events in the aftermath of Boromir's death.

Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly, but in the books, didn't Faramir learn the events (or at least guess the events) of his brother's death before ever swearing not to take the ring?

In the movie, after learning the events of his brother's death, he refuses to take the ring, it's just that the sequence of things was different and some bits were changed/added. He was still shown to be noble and wise, and still shown as fully capable of resisting the ring.

dehro
2012-08-03, 05:02 PM
Yeah, the events surrounding Faramir and Frodo's initial interactions were changed between the books and the movies, as were the events in the aftermath of Boromir's death.

Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly, but in the books, didn't Faramir learn the events (or at least guess the events) of his brother's death before ever swearing not to take the ring?

In the movie, after learning the events of his brother's death, he refuses to take the ring, it's just that the sequence of things was different and some bits were changed/added. He was still shown to be noble and wise, and still shown as fully capable of resisting the ring.

heu.. no he didn't resist the ring, in the movie. his first reaction was "we must take it to Gondor".
pretty much his brother's reaction.
In the book, Faramir hears the horn of Gondor in his dreams, and dreams of the death of Boromir..as does his father (who might have also learned of it through the Palantir). this happens before he grabs the hobbits.
the same happens in the movies.. and I'm not 100% sure that this happened before or after the capture of the hobbits. I seem to remember that at least in the extended version, dreams are mentioned. however, the crucial point is that no, he doesn't resist the ring as his first instinct is to bring it to Gondor. only later does he free the hobbits... and it's played in such a way that it doesn't necessarily look like done out of greatness..but can also be done as a strategic decision (though not a right one, by logic).. out of fear for the Nazgul, out of feeling a bit in over his head.. or maybe, out of finally understanding/glimpse of greatness.
However, this is nowhere near the greatness of character he shows in the book by refusing the ring straight away and completely.

it wasn't just a few lines placed differently.. it was a change that strongly nerfed the quality of the character.

Reverent-One
2012-08-03, 05:11 PM
Well, to split hairs, it could be that Faramir is just as wise and noble, but that the ring in the movie is even more powerful. That was a concern of the crew, that if it was weak enough that Faramir could fully resist it, it loses it's menace. He still is one of, if not the least affected by it, with it in arms reach and having plenty of reasons the Ring could exploit for him to take it, and yet he never does, and he sends it off the moment he sees any real evidence of the danger the ring poses.

Counterpoint: He's definitely less noble, regardless of how powerful the ring is in the movie compared to the book, because of Gollum's beating at the hands of his men.

Cikomyr
2012-08-03, 05:53 PM
If Faramir had truly fell to the power of the Ring, he would have simply overpowered Frodo and taken the ring right there and then, rather than have his ass hauled to Gondor.

The thing is, I don't like the idea of Faramir dismissing the ring out of hand. It reduces the power of the Ring's corruption, the capacity to ruin the man of Mages, Elves and Men alike. Gandalf clearly had trouble restraining himself when offered. Galadriel considered it her greatest challenge ever.

And Faramir just casually say he'd never even pick it up? Please. Faramir succumbing temporarily to temptation, AND COMING BACK FROM IT, was a show of hope. Showing that the heart of men could overcome ever a failure, that you could come back from the darkness.

True dedication is not never being tempted. It's to feel the bitter teeth of temptation in your soul and still resist. Book Faramir never was tempted, and thus was a much more cardboard cut-out character than Movie Faramir. "Incarnation of the Strenght of Men, perfect lil' buddy who casually walked away from what gave pause to Wizards and Elven Lords".

WalkingTarget
2012-08-03, 06:16 PM
If Faramir had truly fell to the power of the Ring, he would have simply overpowered Frodo and taken the ring right there and then, rather than have his ass hauled to Gondor.

The thing is, I don't like the idea of Faramir dismissing the ring out of hand. It reduces the power of the Ring's corruption, the capacity to ruin the man of Mages, Elves and Men alike. Gandalf clearly had trouble restraining himself when offered. Galadriel considered it her greatest challenge ever.

And Faramir just casually say he'd never even pick it up? Please. Faramir succumbing temporarily to temptation, AND COMING BACK FROM IT, was a show of hope. Showing that the heart of men could overcome ever a failure, that you could come back from the darkness.

True dedication is not never being tempted. It's to feel the bitter teeth of temptation in your soul and still resist. Book Faramir never was tempted, and thus was a much more cardboard cut-out character than Movie Faramir. "Incarnation of the Strenght of Men, perfect lil' buddy who casually walked away from what gave pause to Wizards and Elven Lords".

It's also worth noting that book-Faramir never saw the Ring. He knew that Frodo carried something of grave import - Isildur's Bane. He did not know what that meant, but he made his rejection of it on that knowledge alone.

Later, he learned what it meant and stuck by his principles and didn't go back on his word. My interpretation is that he had an easier time of it by virtue of the fact that he never saw it.

Traab
2012-08-03, 08:46 PM
If Faramir had truly fell to the power of the Ring, he would have simply overpowered Frodo and taken the ring right there and then, rather than have his ass hauled to Gondor.

The thing is, I don't like the idea of Faramir dismissing the ring out of hand. It reduces the power of the Ring's corruption, the capacity to ruin the man of Mages, Elves and Men alike. Gandalf clearly had trouble restraining himself when offered. Galadriel considered it her greatest challenge ever.

And Faramir just casually say he'd never even pick it up? Please. Faramir succumbing temporarily to temptation, AND COMING BACK FROM IT, was a show of hope. Showing that the heart of men could overcome ever a failure, that you could come back from the darkness.

True dedication is not never being tempted. It's to feel the bitter teeth of temptation in your soul and still resist. Book Faramir never was tempted, and thus was a much more cardboard cut-out character than Movie Faramir. "Incarnation of the Strenght of Men, perfect lil' buddy who casually walked away from what gave pause to Wizards and Elven Lords".

The ring isnt some instant mind breaking device, it whispers, and corrupts. It makes offers, until it finds what a person wants most then claims it can give it to him. Gandalf didnt dare take the ring because he knew eventually he would fall to its influence, key word being eventually. Galadriel was similar. She wasnt more than somewhat tempted, and was able to refuse right off the bat. Faramir in the book wasnt with frodo for very long, hence he wasnt able to be influenced by the ring for very long.

Honestly it makes me respect boromir even more. He ALWAYS wanted the ring. Day 1 he wanted it, to bring it to gondor. And for all those days and weeks he sat next to frodo, and was whispered to, and was tempted, and he held for an incredible length of time. That time near caradras when frodo fell and dropped the ring and boromir picked it up? He was pretty much holding the damn thing, and yet he had the inner strength to give it back. Yes in the end he fell to its call, but come on, he held it off for an insane length of time, especially considering that he had wanted the ring from the very start and his honor kept him from trying anything.

Faramir? Feh, he was with frodo for what, a day or two? He didnt even know frodo HAD the damn thing till the very end. Yeah he rejected it, something that before then had only been done by galadriel and gandalf, and yes that was fairly impressive, but other than boromir, and for a moment aragorn at the end, none of the fellowship ever so much as flinched or stared at the thing for all the time they were with frodo. Its ability to corrupt was never all that horribly powerful except for whoever was possessing it at the time. Bilbo, Frodo, Gollum, Isildur, these were the people who had to deal with its real capacity for corruption. Poor Boromir got a bum rap.

Ziegander
2012-08-03, 09:35 PM
Yeah, so, in the movie, before he met Frodo he:

a) Kinda figured his brother was dead, but had no idea what the circumstances were.

and b) Had NO IDEA that Frodo had the ring.

When he discovered that Frodo had the ring, and after he learned how and why his brother died, he then released Frodo and resisted the influence of the ring (which Humans were supposed to be weak against).

So, yes, lots of the events surrounding Faramir and his meeting with Frodo were changed between the book and the movie. Faramir's character however was not really one of them.

MLai
2012-08-03, 10:08 PM
Karoht: I'm actually rather reassured that they've spent the money to make a really awesome trilogy of films as opposed to cutting corners. It's more investment in OUR enjoyment, so I largely don't care too much what they spend on it.
20% of that $500M is for legal fees. Not for your enjoyment.
Bloodsucking lawyers. I'm in the wrong profession.


Movie Faramir was wise and was noble, because he eventually let Frodo go.
Book Faramir was more wise and noble because he refused the ring altogether, like Gandalf and Galadriel.
Regardless of which version is preferable, from a standpoint of ammount-of-nobleness, it's not a difficult one.
No.
Book Faramir is more noble only if a cardboard is more noble. Nobility is a human quality, admirable because humans are inherently flawed.
Elven royalty is allowed to be perfect angels, because they're elves in Tolkien-verse. Movie Faramir shows true human nobility by being tempted, and then wresting himself from temptation.
Tolkien was writing mythology with mythic characters; he wasn't aiming to write Game Of Thrones. So Aragorn is King Jesus with Laying Hands, and Faramir is "I made a verbal promise based on lack of information, so I'm honor-bound to ignore THE ONE RING (umm, shyeah right only in a fairy tale buddy)." I'm glad the movie portrayed them as down-to-earth, while still keeping the elves as demigods.

WalkingTarget
2012-08-04, 02:11 AM
The ring isnt some instant mind breaking device, it whispers, and corrupts. It makes offers, until it finds what a person wants most then claims it can give it to him. Gandalf didnt dare take the ring because he knew eventually he would fall to its influence, key word being eventually. Galadriel was similar. She wasnt more than somewhat tempted, and was able to refuse right off the bat. Faramir in the book wasnt with frodo for very long, hence he wasnt able to be influenced by the ring for very long.

Agreed. For the most part.


Honestly it makes me respect boromir even more. He ALWAYS wanted the ring. Day 1 he wanted it, to bring it to gondor. And for all those days and weeks he sat next to frodo, and was whispered to, and was tempted, and he held for an incredible length of time. That time near caradras when frodo fell and dropped the ring and boromir picked it up? He was pretty much holding the damn thing, and yet he had the inner strength to give it back. Yes in the end he fell to its call, but come on, he held it off for an insane length of time, especially considering that he had wanted the ring from the very start and his honor kept him from trying anything.

Minor nitpick for book-version. Boromir never held the Ring (or even close to it). He saw it briefly during the Council when Frodo was asked to show it. The scene on Caradhras where Frodo fell and the Ring came loose didn't happen in the book. From what I remember, there wasn't really an indication that Boromir was acting funny about it until Lothlorien or shortly after (wanting the Fellowship to head to Minas Tirith, sure, but not obsessive about it).


Faramir? Feh, he was with frodo for what, a day or two? He didnt even know frodo HAD the damn thing till the very end. Yeah he rejected it, something that before then had only been done by galadriel and gandalf, and yes that was fairly impressive, but other than boromir, and for a moment aragorn at the end, none of the fellowship ever so much as flinched or stared at the thing for all the time they were with frodo. Its ability to corrupt was never all that horribly powerful except for whoever was possessing it at the time. Bilbo, Frodo, Gollum, Isildur, these were the people who had to deal with its real capacity for corruption. Poor Boromir got a bum rap.

It might also be noted that Gandalf and Galadriel knew full well what the Ring was and what it represented, being Ring-bearers themselves. Faramir may have had some inkling as to what it meant after Sam spilled the beans, but just knowing of its existence isn't enough to trigger its draw (I don't think at least - I feel that not seeing it is significant, personally).

Think of it this way, though: Boromir was around it less time than Aragorn or the other Hobbits and the same time as Legolas and Gimli and he's the first one to crack. Tell Deagol that it needs a long time or possession to corrupt people. I see people talking about how men are "weak" to its power and Hobbits are "more resistant" but the one case we have of somebody getting all murdery after a glance at the damn thing was a Hobbit.


No.
Book Faramir is more noble only if a cardboard is more noble. Nobility is a human quality, admirable because humans are inherently flawed.
Elven royalty is allowed to be perfect angels, because they're elves in Tolkien-verse.

If you think that Tolkien's Elves are "perfect angels" then you've never read the Silmarillion. They're just as capable of being petty, arrogant, foolish, or any other descriptor as everybody else. Their longevity and skill just lets them screw up on a bigger scale. When Galadriel says that she passed the test, that is what allows her to go into the West. She was one of the Noldori exiles (although Tolkien went through a lot of trouble figuring out how she wasn't involved with the Kinslaying over in Valinor).


Movie Faramir shows true human nobility by being tempted, and then wresting himself from temptation.
Tolkien was writing mythology with mythic characters; he wasn't aiming to write Game Of Thrones. So Aragorn is King Jesus with Laying Hands, and Faramir is "I made a verbal promise based on lack of information, so I'm honor-bound to ignore THE ONE RING (umm, shyeah right only in a fairy tale buddy)." I'm glad the movie portrayed them as down-to-earth, while still keeping the elves as demigods.

Am I the only one who sees Aragorn's healing skill as just knowing something that nobody else in town knew? That is, that athelas is good for countering afflictions caused by the wraiths? I mean, that was shown back in book 1 when he treated Frodo's wound from Weathertop. Also, in the book version, the gift he received at Lothlorien wasn't a knife, but a scabbard for Anduril and the Elessar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstone_%28Middle-earth%29#Elfstone), noted for the abilities of healing it gives to the possessor. Aragorn doesn't have nifty "healing because I'm king" powers. He has rare knowledge and a specific artifact.

As for "nobility" that's an issue I have with the films - one of the themes in the book is the strength of Men. This is our time to stand up on our own, no Valar doing the heavy lifting for us and even the Elves have mostly left. It's up to us. Certain individuals are shown to be strong (in body, convictions, or both), in particular Aragorn, Theoden (once he's reminded that he can be strong - there wasn't a weird age spell or anything on him, he was just really old and Grima had convinced him that he was weak), and Faramir (not to mention the heroic Hobbits).

Even for the Men who fail, the method of their failing is on display: Boromir by the slow influence of the Ring (which was resisted by others, as I mentioned above), Denethor was deceived by Sauron via the Palantir - shown only reasons to despair and never anything to give hope, and Grima as somebody beaten down mentally and physically by a being with a stronger will.

The films just discard this. Men are weak - that's the new theme. We need Elves to help at Helm's Deep, Faramir loses the opportunity to keep his word due to the changes they made to that scene, Denethor is simply a madman, Aragorn is shaken by his conflict with Sauron via the Palantir rather than taking control. The only one I think was done really, really well was Boromir. I know why the filmmakers did it and it's easier to sell what's going on to the wider audience, but it's still a departure.

dehro
2012-08-04, 06:15 AM
Am I the only one who sees Aragorn's healing skill as just knowing something that nobody else in town knew? That is, that athelas is good for countering afflictions caused by the wraiths? I mean, that was shown back in book 1 when he treated Frodo's wound from Weathertop. Also, in the book version, the gift he received at Lothlorien wasn't a knife, but a scabbard for Anduril and the Elessar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstone_%28Middle-earth%29#Elfstone), noted for the abilities of healing it gives to the possessor. Aragorn doesn't have nifty "healing because I'm king" powers. He has rare knowledge and a specific artifact.
mmmhno.. it's made clear a number of times that the hands of the king are the hands of a healer.. it's the old adage that Ioreth spreads after having witnessed it..which incidentally convinces the general populace as much as the big winged crown and the frowning wizard do. it was ancient lore and was discarded over the centuries because there were no kings around to demonstrate the fact that Athelas/kingsfoil can indeed help. without the king, it's just a weed, which is why the top guy from the houses of healing dismisses it entirely. they tried using it, it didn't work..for them. Now however, the king is back. Had it been purely a matter of knowing the right herb, once Aragorn did it, the other healers would have picked up on it. But no, he had to return a few more times, if I remember correctly. He even had to disguise himself and come into the city anonimously instead of just sending word that that was the herb they needed to use.... and no other healer tried using the herb even after having learned of it's power.
On top of that, he used Athelas also before being given the elfstone in Lorien..so he wasn't depending on it for the trick to work.

The films just discard this. Men are weak - that's the new theme. We need Elves to help at Helm's Deep, Faramir loses the opportunity to keep his word due to the changes they made to that scene, Denethor is simply a madman, Aragorn is shaken by his conflict with Sauron via the Palantir rather than taking control. The only one I think was done really, really well was Boromir. I know why the filmmakers did it and it's easier to sell what's going on to the wider audience, but it's still a departure.
yes, this bugged me as well..
The elves at Helms deep, however awesome were a bit pointless. The only reason it works is that it's a better asspull to have Gandalf go fetch Eomer (which however requires some reinforcements in the form of elves to be at Hornburg), than it is to suddenly have Gandalf turn up with Erkenbrand and his men..who would make any viewer go :confused: if he hadn't read the book.
minor nitpick: do seem to remember that Aragorn had quite a hard time imposing his will on the Palantir..and that it drained him considerably.

grimbold
2012-08-04, 07:59 AM
20% of that $500M is for legal fees. Not for your enjoyment.
Bloodsucking lawyers. I'm in the wrong profession.


is this all related to the peter jackson fiasco that originally delayed these films?

Traab
2012-08-04, 10:09 AM
Think of it this way, though: Boromir was around it less time than Aragorn or the other Hobbits and the same time as Legolas and Gimli and he's the first one to crack. Tell Deagol that it needs a long time or possession to corrupt people. I see people talking about how men are "weak" to its power and Hobbits are "more resistant" but the one case we have of somebody getting all murdery after a glance at the damn thing was a Hobbit.

Yes, I agree that boromir wasnt around it as long as aragorn, but keep in mind that aragorn didnt want the ring from day 1. Boromir did. Boromir wanted the ring to get used, to get sent to gondor, its the equivalent of putting a big old sack of crack cocaine in front of two people. One is a recovering addict, one has never touched the stuff. Which one do YOU think would resist the urge to take it longest? The fact that boromir held out as long as he did, when combined with the fact that the entire time he wanted the ring, shows me that he had an insanely impressive resistance to its corruption and a powerful sense of honor, because he agreed to follow the councils plan, even though he was against it. I HIGHLY doubt Faramir, book OR movie version, would have done that much better than he did given the same time length of being around frodo.

I will concede to the fact that in general man is easier to corrupt than the dwarves and elves. Speaking of which, I know the human kings rings turned them into nazgul, and that the elven rings are still in use and havent corrupted them, but what happened withe the dwarven rings? What did the dwarven kings do with them, and how did it effect them?

Zea mays
2012-08-04, 10:56 AM
I don't remember it being covered in great detail. :smallconfused:

When Gloin asks Elrond's council about them, Gandalf does mention that Thrain (Thorin's father) inherited one of the dwarven rings and that it was taken from him when he was imprisoned by the necromancer.

Not to derail the fascinating discussion about Faramir, but Gandalf's meeting with Thrain in the Necromancer's dungeon is one scene I do very much hope the new movies expand on.

dehro
2012-08-04, 11:03 AM
Sauron recovered most of them and gave them to new minions or depleted their power, if I remember well.
in general however, they've faded into obscurity

Xondoure
2012-08-04, 01:28 PM
If I recall correctly, the rings were directly responsible for attracting both Smaug and the Balrog by driving the greed of the bearers.

Traab
2012-08-04, 02:37 PM
If I recall correctly, the rings were directly responsible for attracting both Smaug and the Balrog by driving the greed of the bearers.

That really does make sense. Sarumon even says it. "Too deep and too greedily the dwarves delved. Little did they know what darkness" etc etc etc. And im pretty sure I could have bought the entire north american continent with the value of all that treasure smaug was stomping around on in the cartoon movie. Even ignoring the stuff like mithril, just the fact that the treasure room was so big and so filled that bilbo got lost trying to explore the mounds of gold should be a sign. When you include stuff like, "A mithril shirt that was valuable enough to buy the shire" as just one among many mithril suits, well.....

snoopy13a
2012-08-04, 02:49 PM
If I recall correctly, the rings were directly responsible for attracting both Smaug and the Balrog by driving the greed of the bearers.

Semantically, the ring was indirectly responsible (it was the same ring in both cases--the one held by the descendants of Durin). Dwarven treasure, which the ring helped increase, attracted Smaug; dwarven greed, which the ring increased, influenced the dwarves to delve too deep in Moria.

Unlike men, dwarves are too stubborn to fall under Sauron's influence but heightened greed (and greed is alreadly a dwarven vice) is the side-effect of the seven dwarven rings.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-04, 04:22 PM
Well, I can't say I wasn't surprised at the news it would be three films, but that was more because two films seemed to be more of a natural break-point (I assumed start-to-escaping-goblins//build-up-to-Battle of the Five Armies)... But on reflection, if Peter Jackson is in charge... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The new LotR trilogy are among my top favourite films, LotR itself still stands as my favourite book, and I think that PJ's LotR is as good - but in markedly different ways - as the lesser known but still stellar BBC radio adaption. (Which covered, incidnetly, LotR in thirteen hours, more than the films - and even that skipped old Tom1; same as every other adaption that I am aware of.) I didn't necessarily agree with all of the changes PJ made (though I think adding some humour in was to a grand benefit) but I sort of understood why he made them. And frankly, the effort he put in to make it LOOK like the LotR I'd always seen (not least because of taking on the iconic artists as part of his crew) more than covers that.

So I'll be optimistic, I think, especially if Gandalf's adventures are being expanded upon.



1I never mind old Tom being missed; it's not important to the story, and I think that fact that he was immune to the Ring's allure is a fairly unimportant - or at least rather irrelevant - point in the grand scheme of things. So he was immune. So what? It doesn't mean anything, because there is no way for that to have any relevance.

Xondoure
2012-08-04, 04:29 PM
Regarding Tom - I always felt if anyone knew where the Entwives were, it would be mr. Bombadil. And for that reason alone I'm still sad he wasn't in the films.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-04, 04:37 PM
I've read elsewhere a pretty plausible theory suggesting that Bombadil was a self insert, for Tolkein and his Wife.
All things told, quite possible.

I was mostly sorry he wasn't in it because I'd have loved to see how PJ would even begin to attempt to handle him and the post-barrow-wights "Naked Hobbit Frolick" sequence.

dehro
2012-08-04, 05:00 PM
I've read elsewhere a pretty plausible theory suggesting that Bombadil was a self insert, for Tolkein and his Wife.
All things told, quite possible.

I was mostly sorry he wasn't in it because I'd have loved to see how PJ would even begin to attempt to handle him and the post-barrow-wights "Naked Hobbit Frolick" sequence.

Tom Bombadil being an incarnation of the author is the theory I like best (even though the inscriptions on their graves makes me think he tends more towards seing himself and his wife as beren-luthien.. he's a romantic soul, after all).. I also like to think that if PJ had had the time and way to leave them in, he should have interpreted Bombadil himself ... although I don't think he's a good enough actor.. but it's still a nice idea.

Zevox
2012-08-04, 06:03 PM
I've read elsewhere a pretty plausible theory suggesting that Bombadil was a self insert, for Tolkein and his Wife.
All things told, quite possible.
Nah, Beren and Luthien are already Tolkien's self-admitted equivalents for himself and his wife in his stories. To the point where those names are on their tombstone (http://thinklings.org/images/TolkienHeadstone.jpg) alongside their own.

Zevox

WalkingTarget
2012-08-05, 01:31 AM
Wow, internet down all day. Quick note before bed:

The Rings given to Men and the Rings given to Dwarves? All the same kind of Ring and all originally made by and for Elves (with Sauron as executive producer). We don't see what the effect of the Rings on Elves would be since they took them all off as soon as the One was forged. After Sauron recovered and further corrupted the 16 he handed out to other races who didn't know better we see that Men turn to wraiths and are slaves to Sauron's will - it's to be assumed that it's similar to what he had originally planned for Elves too. Dwarves are running a different operating system and aren't effected the same way (being creations of Aule rather than Eru directly). The Three were special cases - Sauron never got his mitts on them, they just have the same back-door exploit that all Rings have since that's the way Sauron designed the technology.

dehro
2012-08-05, 02:51 AM
it's to be assumed that it's similar to what he had originally planned for Elves too.

I strongly doubt he planned anything specific for the Elvish rings, given that he had no hand in their crafting at all...and that these 3 rings being hidden during the time he had the one ring on his finger was mostly a precaution (a wise one, but still).

WalkingTarget
2012-08-05, 07:07 AM
I strongly doubt he planned anything specific for the Elvish rings, given that he had no hand in their crafting at all...and that these 3 rings being hidden during the time he had the one ring on his finger was mostly a precaution (a wise one, but still).

I meant all the others. He taught the Elves how to make Rings so he could enslave them. The Three were a special case, yeah, but the rest had his stamp on them. It's not like he planned that they would catch on immediately and he'd have to go to war as plan B.

grimbold
2012-08-05, 08:34 AM
Nah, Beren and Luthien are already Tolkien's self-admitted equivalents for himself and his wife in his stories. To the point where those names are on their tombstone (http://thinklings.org/images/TolkienHeadstone.jpg) alongside their own.

Zevox

i did not know that
but that is indeed awesome :smallcool:

Jivundus
2012-08-06, 07:12 AM
The new LotR trilogy are among my top favourite films, LotR itself still stands as my favourite book, and I think that PJ's LotR is as good - but in markedly different ways - as the lesser known but still stellar BBC radio adaption. (Which covered, incidnetly, LotR in thirteen hours, more than the films - and even that skipped old Tom1; same as every other adaption that I am aware of.)

Seconded, the BBC adaptation is amazing. Before the movies came out I was too young to really properly read through LotR, so I listened to it instead and the story became that much more involving because of it.

WalkingTarget
2012-08-06, 08:34 AM
Seconded, the BBC adaptation is amazing. Before the movies came out I was too young to really properly read through LotR, so I listened to it instead and the story became that much more involving because of it.

A fun note for anybody not familiar with it: Frodo was voiced by Ian Holm (i.e. Bilbo in the films).

Huh, and now that I look at the cast listing I see that Sam was Bill Nighy - I didn't know who that was the last time I listened to it.

Traab
2012-08-06, 08:46 AM
Seconded, the BBC adaptation is amazing. Before the movies came out I was too young to really properly read through LotR, so I listened to it instead and the story became that much more involving because of it.

Hell yes. No other audio version of the hobbit/lotr will ever be better than the bbc version. It had great actors, sound effects, music, they really went all out, and it makes me wish more audiobooks went that route. It kinda spoiled me for anything less.

*EDIT* Aotrs, the bbc version did have Tom Bombadil in it. I distinctly remember the voice used for him and his wife, with himw arning the hobbits about old man willow, the barrow wights, etc etc etc.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-06, 09:03 AM
Hell yes. No other audio version of the hobbit/lotr will ever be better than the bbc version. It had great actors, sound effects, music, they really went all out, and it makes me wish more audiobooks went that route. It kinda spoiled me for anything less.

*EDIT* Aotrs, the bbc version did have Tom Bombadil in it. I distinctly remember the voice used for him and his wife, with himw arning the hobbits about old man willow, the barrow wights, etc etc etc.

No, that's not the BBC radio version, which skipped from the Hobbits leaving the shire right to the Prancing Pony. (I know, I have the CDs, and have listened to it many times!)

Apparently, wiki says you are thinking of an earlier, even less well known radio drama often confused with the BBC version (but one apparently made in the US). (I have never heard of this particular version, personally.) It was apparently overshadowed by the BBC version which was released only a couple of years later. It is also the first adaption I've ever heard of that does apparently include old Tom.



I strongly recommend you seek out the BBC version and give it a listen (and you can tell us which one you think it better!)

Edit: Here's a snippet, one of my favourite bits - the songs, which really added some flesh to the bone of Tolkien's poetry - the march of the Ents. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5YwMpSN6CU)

Traab
2012-08-06, 09:49 AM
Problem is, I already own 2-3 versions of the books on audio. Dont think I can justify buying a 4th. :p I bought some version that was heavily padded in content, had a lot of details added in, like more of what went on with gollum when he went to barad dur and was captured. It wasnt BAD, but it wasnt as good in quality as the version we are talking about. I guess I just assumed, since im pretty sure they mention it was dadapted for radio, and had a british accented narrator and actor lineup that it was bbc.

Turcano
2012-08-07, 04:16 AM
No, that's not the BBC radio version, which skipped from the Hobbits leaving the shire right to the Prancing Pony. (I know, I have the CDs, and have listened to it many times!)

Apparently, wiki says you are thinking of an earlier, even less well known radio drama often confused with the BBC version (but one apparently made in the US). (I have never heard of this particular version, personally.) It was apparently overshadowed by the BBC version which was released only a couple of years later. It is also the first adaption I've ever heard of that does apparently include old Tom.

He's thinking of The Mind's Eye version from 1979 that has John Vickery in it and was recorded in a bathroom (no, I'm not making that up).

Dr.Epic
2012-08-07, 01:27 PM
Man, is anybody else excited for all the memes these films will generate? I mean, look at the first trilogy. We got, amongst many, how one does not simply walk into Mordor. I can't wait for all the new memes. I wonder if they're be better or worse than the old ones?

...and my axe!:smallwink:

Traab
2012-08-07, 04:48 PM
Man, is anybody else excited for all the memes these films will generate? I mean, look at the first trilogy. We got, amongst many, how one does not simply walk into Mordor. I can't wait for all the new memes. I wonder if they're be better or worse than the old ones?

...and my axe!:smallwink:

Im guessing,

_______, thats what bilbo baggins hates!

Fill in the blank with whatever, pedos, derps, off topic discussions, just about anything.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-08, 02:19 AM
Im guessing,

_______, thats what bilbo baggins hates!

Fill in the blank with whatever, pedos, derps, off topic discussions, just about anything.

Man, that's been a meme since the 70s when the animated version came out. I'm talking about new memes for a new generation.

oblivion6
2012-08-08, 03:24 AM
"by my life or death, i will protect you." yet another great quote from aragorn.

also is there any news on a release date? i believe i heard something about the holidays.

The Succubus
2012-08-08, 05:34 AM
I predict a new craze where large numbers of people will turn up on friends doorsteps one by one demanding cake.

dehro
2012-08-08, 05:35 AM
I predict a new craze where large numbers of people will turn up on friends doorsteps one by one demanding cake.

if I had friends who would get the joke, I would totally organize just that

Traab
2012-08-08, 07:36 AM
Its hard to say really, it depends on both the dialogue in the movie, as well as how its delivered. I bet "One does not simply walk into mordor" would have been noticeable if it hadnt been delivered so well. In all honesty, one of the exchanges I REALLY want to see is the bilbo/gollum meetup. I want to hear, "What... has it got... IN ITS POCKETSES!!!!!" screamed out through the dark cave as bilbo hides in terror. My audio version did it great, it sent chills down my spine and made ME want to hide till gollum was gone. Im also curious to see if the whole, "Old fat spider" taunting rhyming thing will be altered, because honestly, what the hell is an attercop, tomnoddy, lazy lob and crazy cob, etc etc etc. I know the meanings because I googled the hell out of them but none of those are words most people in america are going to know off the top of their head. You might as well have bilbo start speaking mandarin for all the sense it will make.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 07:49 AM
what the hell is an attercop, tomnoddy, lazy lob and crazy cob, etc etc etc. I know the meanings because I googled the hell out of them but none of those are words most people in america are going to know off the top of their head.

They are sufficiently obscure (because Tolkien was, after all a linguist) that I wasn't originally aware they HAD a meaning other than nonsense words - Tolkien certainly wouldn't have expected the bulk of his readers (especially given the Hobbit was written more as a children's tale) to know what they meant. I suspect the only reason he used real words at all was for a bit of an in-joke to himself; as in the days before the Internet, I suspect you would have been fairly hard-pressed to find them in your average household dictionary.

Not everything always needs to be spelled out, nor should it be. The context provided was more than sufficient explanation "no spider has ever liked being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course is insulting to anybody." The true meaning of the words is sort of left to the reader's imagination unless they happen to look it up, whereupon they can have a good giggle at Tolkien being obscure.

Aran nu tasar
2012-08-08, 07:52 AM
also is there any news on a release date? i believe i heard something about the holidays.

The first one will be released onn December 14, the second December 13 2013. And the third one sometime in the summer of 2014.

Traab
2012-08-08, 08:14 AM
They are sufficiently obscure (because Tolkien was, after all a linguist) that I wasn't originally aware they HAD a meaning other than nonsense words - Tolkien certainly wouldn't have expected the bulk of his readers (especially given the Hobbit was written more as a children's tale) to know what they meant. I suspect the only reason he used real words at all was for a bit of an in-joke to himself; as in the days before the Internet, I suspect you would have been fairly hard-pressed to find them in your average household dictionary.

Not everything always needs to be spelled out, nor should it be. The context provided was more than sufficient explanation "no spider has ever liked being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course is insulting to anybody." The true meaning of the words is sort of left to the reader's imagination unless they happen to look it up, whereupon they can have a good giggle at Tolkien being obscure.

Ah, my apologies, as an american, I was unaware if those terms were like old slang in england, like "the bees knees" or something like the poem about the jabberwocky with its made up words. And you do have a point about the context, although i dunno if this is a movie that will be narrated, so trying to explain that these are insults may have to rely on the spiders hissing even more loudly or something. I say when bilbo starts taunting, we skip straight to the french castle guards in quest for the holy grail instead. THOSE are insults that could enrage anyone!

grimbold
2012-08-08, 09:14 AM
He's thinking of The Mind's Eye version from 1979 that has John Vickery in it and was recorded in a bathroom (no, I'm not making that up).

thats kind of...concerning?

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 09:48 AM
Ah, my apologies, as an american, I was unaware if those terms were like old slang in england, like "the bees knees" or something like the poem about the jabberwocky with its made up words. And you do have a point about the context, although i dunno if this is a movie that will be narrated, so trying to explain that these are insults may have to rely on the spiders hissing even more loudly or something. I say when bilbo starts taunting, we skip straight to the french castle guards in quest for the holy grail instead. THOSE are insults that could enrage anyone!

Well, the Spiders could talk, so you could have them reacting to that verbally.

Or, yes, the French castle guards...

Traab
2012-08-08, 10:33 AM
Well, the Spiders could talk, so you could have them reacting to that verbally.

Or, yes, the French castle guards...

I just started laughing, because I pictured Bilbo spewing all sorts of obscure insults like attercop and lazy lob, while the spiders get ticked and just start spewing curses at him. "Attercop?! YOU &%^$*^&%! My mother was a SAINT!" (yes, I know the response doesnt make sense)

Muz
2012-08-08, 10:52 AM
Speaking of which, I am still curious to see how they handle the spiders talking, and the trolls. Will they still talk at all? It doesn't seem in keeping with LOTR, but then in LOTR (book or movie, I think), you wouldn't get trolls named Tom, Burt, and Will, either.

Hmm. Did Shelob have any dialogue in the book? I'm thinking she didn't...

I don't really know which way PJ's going to go on this. I'm just curious to see what they come up with. :smallsmile:

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-08, 10:58 AM
Hmm. Did Shelob have any dialogue in the book? I'm thinking she didn't...

She doesn't, but she is revealed to be the literal mother of all giant spiders.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 11:01 AM
Speaking of which, I am still curious to see how they handle the spiders talking, and the trolls. Will they still talk at all? It doesn't seem in keeping with LOTR, but then in LOTR (book or movie, I think), you wouldn't get trolls named Tom, Burt, and Will, either.

Hmm. Did Shelob have any dialogue in the book? I'm thinking she didn't...

I don't really know which way PJ's going to go on this. I'm just curious to see what they come up with. :smallsmile:

Shelob didn't talk, but that doesn't mean she didn't necessarily know how. Or it could be that her smaller offspring - a more favourable environment (because seriously, Mordor) - were smarter than her.

But yes, it will be interesting to see if they have the spiders talking. I coulld see PJ doing it either way.

The trolls they really should, because, like Orcs, Trolls were intelligent after all. (For a given value of "intelligent".) Also, it would be hard for Gandalf to verbally outwit the stone trolls if they couldn't talk...!

snoopy13a
2012-08-08, 11:03 AM
I predict a new craze where large numbers of people will turn up on friends doorsteps one by one demanding cake.

I think PJ will cut that scene for something "more dignified." I'm expecting all of the light-heartness and silliness to be sucked out of these movie for "serious" LOTR-the prequels. :smallannoyed:

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 11:04 AM
I think PJ will cut that scene for something "more dignified." I'm expecting all of the light-heartness and silliness to be sucked out of these movie for "serious" LOTR-the prequels. :smallannoyed:

Given that Jacskon put humour back IN to the LotR films, I somehow doubt that.

Muz
2012-08-08, 11:44 AM
I think PJ will cut that scene for something "more dignified." I'm expecting all of the light-heartness and silliness to be sucked out of these movie for "serious" LOTR-the prequels. :smallannoyed:

So you haven't seen the trailer then, I take it?

grimbold
2012-08-10, 04:41 PM
sure jackson put humor into those films
but at their heart they are still rather serious


the hobbit is a lot less serious, and i'm not sure if jackson can really communicate that without losing fans

personally i'm not sure i can take the dwarves, as such, seriously...

Traab
2012-08-10, 07:06 PM
sure jackson put humor into those films
but at their heart they are still rather serious


the hobbit is a lot less serious, and i'm not sure if jackson can really communicate that without losing fans

personally i'm not sure i can take the dwarves, as such, seriously...

I know because of gimli I will be wondering how many of them are actually female.

MLai
2012-08-11, 01:59 AM
On the topic of dwarves, I don't like how they made Thorin Oakenshield not really dwarf-like. It's ok that they made him "heroic dwarf" height, i.e. much taller than other dwarves pretty much the size of a medieval man... But his face, is just really really human.

Especially because the actor is a tall well-built guy to begin with IRL. So his facial features are completely that of a tall human. And there's no makeup at all to make his features dwarvish. And his beard is not a beard for a dwarf; it's more like a dwarf-woman's 5 o'clock shadow.

Hopeless
2012-08-11, 06:31 AM
On the topic of dwarves, I don't like how they made Thorin Oakenshield not really dwarf-like. It's ok that they made him "heroic dwarf" height, i.e. much taller than other dwarves pretty much the size of a medieval man... But his face, is just really really human.

Especially because the actor is a tall well-built guy to begin with IRL. So his facial features are completely that of a tall human. And there's no makeup at all to make his features dwarvish. And his beard is not a beard for a dwarf; it's more like a dwarf-woman's 5 o'clock shadow.

So the rest might be 1e he is probably 4e whilst Kili or Fili is 3e?

Did Tolkien describe what weapons each dwarf wielded?

I'd have assumed PJ would try and keep that as close to the book as he could...

grimbold
2012-08-11, 07:09 AM
I know because of gimli I will be wondering how many of them are actually female.

eeyup

also
i do agree that thorin seems off... we'll see what they do with him...

Sweetie Welf
2012-08-11, 08:51 AM
On the topic of dwarves, I don't like how they made Thorin Oakenshield not really dwarf-like. It's ok that they made him "heroic dwarf" height, i.e. much taller than other dwarves pretty much the size of a medieval man... But his face, is just really really human.

Especially because the actor is a tall well-built guy to begin with IRL. So his facial features are completely that of a tall human. And there's no makeup at all to make his features dwarvish. And his beard is not a beard for a dwarf; it's more like a dwarf-woman's 5 o'clock shadow.

I think that was the right choice; Thorin is a tragic and serious character, and it wouldn't fit if he was "funny" looking like the other dwarfs. And he he is described as being tall enough to mount a horse, unlike other dwarfs who have to use ponies.

Androgeus
2012-08-11, 09:01 AM
And his beard is not a beard for a dwarf; it's more like a dwarf-woman's 5 o'clock shadow.

At least it's more of a beard than Kili's, that's the 5 o'clock shadow. :smalltongue:

Sweetie Welf
2012-08-11, 01:46 PM
Now I dislike Thorin's design (http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2011/07/2011-07-17-thorin-533x355.jpg). It reminds me of John Travolta on Battlefield Earth (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4NTA3MDA3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTEyMzc3._V1._ SX500_SY333_.jpg). And I can't unsee it. :smallfrown: I really hope he will kick rear-end in that movie, so that memory is erased from my brain.

Caesar
2012-08-11, 01:54 PM
Eh I agree with you.

In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!

Chip the glasses, crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-11, 02:55 PM
Now I dislike Thorin's design (http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2011/07/2011-07-17-thorin-533x355.jpg). It reminds me of John Travolta on Battlefield Earth (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4NTA3MDA3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTEyMzc3._V1._ SX500_SY333_.jpg). And I can't unsee it. :smallfrown: I really hope he will kick rear-end in that movie, so that memory is erased from my brain.

Klingon.
That is all.

grimbold
2012-08-11, 03:57 PM
Chip the glasses, crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!

thats another thing! the songs in the hobbit are a lot sillier
how will they handle those?
i recently reread the hobbit (like, 2 weeks ago) and reading the attercrop song that bilbo sings when he chases the spider made me cringe
how are they going to communicate things like that?

Traab
2012-08-11, 04:52 PM
Klingon.
That is all.

I was thinking Gowron or whatever that klingons name was. Only the forehead ridges got sanded down a bit. :p

grimbold
2012-08-11, 05:44 PM
suddenly the klingon thing just clicked...
well played :smallamused:

Sweetie Welf
2012-08-11, 06:47 PM
Hm, Klingons, that might help. The pain goes away, and I can take Thorin serious again.

Traab
2012-08-11, 07:16 PM
Hm, Klingons, that might help. The pain goes away, and I can take Thorin serious again.

"Today is a GOOD day... to kill a dragon!"

On a more serious note, I think jackson will handle the lightheartedness just fine. He had gimli cracking jokes at helms deep and such, there is nothing to say that his view of dwarves must be stern and unbending. They can talk about the mission they have obsessed over, then switch off and joke around about how much bilbo is panicking over his crockery.

Starbuck_II
2012-08-11, 07:48 PM
thats another thing! the songs in the hobbit are a lot sillier
how will they handle those?
i recently reread the hobbit (like, 2 weeks ago) and reading the attercrop song that bilbo sings when he chases the spider made me cringe
how are they going to communicate things like that?

I liked them in the old cartoon version.

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-11, 08:20 PM
So, apparently they've been shooting the movies at a higher framerate than... all other movies that've come out ever. Apparently a lot of people don't like it, saying that it feels like a soap opera set (AKA, completely unrealistic.)

So apparently now the 48 FPS version is just going to be a limited release.

Links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_n_1452391.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-48-fps-warner-bros-peter-jackson_n_1755388.html

Xondoure
2012-08-11, 09:35 PM
The problem with home video's surpassing cinema with framerates... And perhaps the bigger problem of me only knowing this from xkcd.

Axinian
2012-08-11, 10:13 PM
Now I dislike Thorin's design (http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2011/07/2011-07-17-thorin-533x355.jpg). It reminds me of John Travolta on Battlefield Earth (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4NTA3MDA3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTEyMzc3._V1._ SX500_SY333_.jpg). And I can't unsee it. :smallfrown: I really hope he will kick rear-end in that movie, so that memory is erased from my brain.

While you were still learning to SPELL YOUR NAME! I was being trained... TO SLAY DRAGONS!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqWK85gJaxc)

Nekura
2012-08-11, 11:02 PM
Now I dislike Thorin's design (http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2011/07/2011-07-17-thorin-533x355.jpg). It reminds me of John Travolta on Battlefield Earth (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4NTA3MDA3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTEyMzc3._V1._ SX500_SY333_.jpg). And I can't unsee it. :smallfrown: I really hope he will kick rear-end in that movie, so that memory is erased from my brain.

I am pretty sure I remember Tolkien describing the dwarves having bears so long the had to tuck them into their belts.



Originally post by Dr.Epic
Man, is anybody else excited for all the memes these films will generate? I mean, look at the first trilogy. We got, amongst many, how one does not simply walk into Mordor. I can't wait for all the new memes. I wonder if they're be better or worse than the old ones?

...and my axe!


Perhaps something along the lines of

Bilbo "I keep telling you I am not a thief."

Dwarves "Ok thief. Here's what we need you to do."

I am paraphrasing of course I don’t remember the exact lines.

Lhurgyof
2012-08-11, 11:40 PM
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.

The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.


Seriously internets? Fail.

I am indeed surprised that he's making it in 3 installments. I'm only upset over the fact that I'll have to wait longer to see them all!

I have just recently read all 3 Lord of the Rings books, and too thought it a little weird that Tom Bombadil was left out.

But then again, he's kind of a weird character that shows up out of nowhere, so it may not have been best for the movie.

snoopy13a
2012-08-12, 12:53 AM
Did Tolkien describe what weapons each dwarf wielded?



No, but he described what musical instrument each one played (seriously :smallbiggrin:).

Eldan
2012-08-12, 06:23 AM
Yeah. The took their harps and cellos adventuring with them. That's a healthy set of dwarven priorities.

Addendum: at least some dwarves had bows, though.

grimbold
2012-08-12, 08:05 AM
No, but he described what musical instrument each one played (seriously :smallbiggrin:).

thats tolkien for you

i wonder how many complete languages he created...

Traab
2012-08-12, 08:49 AM
I am pretty sure I remember Tolkien describing the dwarves having bears so long the had to tuck them into their belts.




Perhaps something along the lines of

Bilbo "I keep telling you I am not a thief."

Dwarves "Ok thief. Here's what we need you to do."

I am paraphrasing of course I don’t remember the exact lines.

I think it was more, they didnt believe he really was a thief until bilbo got the ring and managed to sneak up on the dwarves while invisible. "More a grocer than a burglar" They tried using him as a scout once, and it got them nearly eaten by trolls, he was useless on escaping the goblins and had to be freaking carried on doris back as they ran iirc, then again later on dori had to climb down out of the tree they were hiding in to save bilbo because the little midget couldnt grab the low hanging branches. (Seriously? They tried to hide in a TREE?!) Honestly, until the spiders of mirkwood, bilbo was thoroughly useless to the dwarves and it was only gandalfs insistence that kept them from kicking him to the curb weeks earlier.

snoopy13a
2012-08-12, 12:37 PM
I think it was more, they didnt believe he really was a thief until bilbo got the ring and managed to sneak up on the dwarves while invisible. "More a grocer than a burglar" They tried using him as a scout once, and it got them nearly eaten by trolls, he was useless on escaping the goblins and had to be freaking carried on doris back as they ran iirc, then again later on dori had to climb down out of the tree they were hiding in to save bilbo because the little midget couldnt grab the low hanging branches. (Seriously? They tried to hide in a TREE?!) Honestly, until the spiders of mirkwood, bilbo was thoroughly useless to the dwarves and it was only gandalfs insistence that kept them from kicking him to the curb weeks earlier.

It was either climb the trees or get eaten by wargs. Not much of a choice. That scene is also solid evidence that Gandalf was not all-powerful. Gandalf thought the goblins and wargs would kill them all until they were rescued by the eagles.

The funny thing about the trolls is Bilbo would have done his job if he didn't feel that the dwarves expected way too much of him. He thought that, at the very least, he should pick their pockets--which didn't end well. If he had just returned to the dwarves, then everything would have been fine--although we'd have missed a funny scene.

Eldan
2012-08-12, 02:10 PM
Well, in that scene, I'd guess Gandalf just wasn't allowed to interfere with much magic. They were not fighting supernatural evil, after all.

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-12, 02:23 PM
It was either climb the trees or get eaten by wargs. Not much of a choice. That scene is also solid evidence that Gandalf was not all-powerful. Gandalf thought the goblins and wargs would kill them all until they were rescued by the eagles.

Isn't it funny how, if it were an RPG, the goblins and wargs wouldn't have stood a chance? :P

Traab
2012-08-12, 03:45 PM
It was either climb the trees or get eaten by wargs. Not much of a choice. That scene is also solid evidence that Gandalf was not all-powerful. Gandalf thought the goblins and wargs would kill them all until they were rescued by the eagles.

The funny thing about the trolls is Bilbo would have done his job if he didn't feel that the dwarves expected way too much of him. He thought that, at the very least, he should pick their pockets--which didn't end well. If he had just returned to the dwarves, then everything would have been fine--although we'd have missed a funny scene.

Yeah but, you cant fight in a tree, and they arent going to just go away because you climbed. Goblins are bigger than dwarves, so its not like they couldnt climb after them, or, you know, BURN THE TREES. A far better option (without future knowledge) would have been to find the most defensible spot they could and fight. Climb a tree? They might as well have gone for duck and cover as a means of protecting themselves. Climbing trees did nothing but mean they didnt have to fight the wargs, which sounds handy, but there were way more than enough goblins to slaughter them anyways, so its like if they were the spartans, "Well, we stopped half of the persian army from attacking us. of course, that still leaves 500,000 troops that still can."

grimbold
2012-08-12, 06:07 PM
Isn't it funny how, if it were an RPG, the goblins and wargs wouldn't have stood a chance? :P

upon figuring out gandalfs char sheet you find that he's only really a 5-6th level wizard :P

MLai
2012-08-12, 10:52 PM
Isn't it funny how, if it were an RPG, the goblins and wargs wouldn't have stood a chance? :P
Well no, he's a wizard. He's a glass cannon. If you have weight of numbers, you can just swarm him and interrupt his spellcasting every turn.
Theoretically he does have 13 tanks around him (and one level 1 rogue), but they were all stuck up in trees right?


That scene is also solid evidence that Gandalf was not all-powerful.
Well, Gandalf the Grey.
That's why I like GtG.

Clertar
2012-08-13, 04:20 AM
Apparently that's what they played:

Thorin: Golden Harp
Kili and Fili: little fiddles
Dori, Nori and Ori: flutes
Bombur: drum
Bifur and Bofur: clarinets
Dwalin and Balin: Viols

grimbold
2012-08-13, 07:14 AM
when i was little i wondered if bombur just beat his belly :P

Androgeus
2012-08-13, 07:43 AM
Yeah. The took their harps and cellos adventuring with them. That's a healthy set of dwarven priorities.

Every adventuring groups should be ready to provide their own background music

pendell
2012-08-15, 10:34 AM
Every adventuring groups should be ready to provide their own background music

All those people with instruments and no one took a level of Bard? How disappointing. Imagine if Bilbo had to sneak into the lonely mountain to a chorus of :elan: "Sneak, sneak, sneak by the evil red dragon!"

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Gnoman
2012-08-15, 08:24 PM
No, but he described what musical instrument each one played (seriously :smallbiggrin:).

Until the Battle of Five Armies, the party was armed only with scavenged gear. Most of the dwarves took daggers (and Thorin the great sword Orcrist) from the troll lair, and Beorn provided bows (the arrows of which the dwarves promptly wasted.) In the Battle of Five Armies, the dwarf army from the Iron Hills used mattocks, while Thorin & Company wielded axes from the hoard.

Traab
2012-08-15, 09:16 PM
Until the Battle of Five Armies, the party was armed only with scavenged gear. Most of the dwarves took daggers (and Thorin the great sword Orcrist) from the troll lair, and Beorn provided bows (the arrows of which the dwarves promptly wasted.) In the Battle of Five Armies, the dwarf army from the Iron Hills used mattocks, while Thorin & Company wielded axes from the hoard.

I thought they only scavenged the daggers and such because it was rightful pillage, and thorin and gandalf kept their weapons because they were really really good ones. It seems kind of stupid to me if they had actually gone off on their quest unarmed.

"Hey guys, are we ready to go kill the dragon that wiped out 99% of our clan and retake our home?"

"Yup, all set. Got my harp and everything."

"Got your food and water? A change of clothes?"

"Of course, dont be silly. Why would I forget important stuff like that?"

"Well what about swords and axes and such? You remember to pack those?"

"What the hell would we need with weapons? We have harps and such! Its just a perilous journey of several months through goblin infested mountains, monster infested woods, and then battling a dragon that killed our entire clan."

"Yeah, sorry, dont know what I was thinking. We need to save pack space for our sheet music after all."

Gnoman
2012-08-15, 09:28 PM
Those are the only weapons that they are ever stated to have, and a point is made that the troll plunder was confiscated from them. At this point in the Third Age, the roads were mostly safe west of Rivendell, and taking on the dragon directly was beyond them no matter how well armed. Not being armed is not particularly absurd.

MLai
2012-08-15, 10:53 PM
Not being armed is not particularly absurd.
1. They're dwarves.
2. This is a world setting akin to European medieval times.
3. They're going to be traveling through forests, wilds, and other sparsely populated areas.
4. They're dwarves.

Not being armed with at least mundane weapons is absolutely absurd.

Starbuck_II
2012-08-16, 12:20 AM
All those people with instruments and no one took a level of Bard? How disappointing. Imagine if Bilbo had to sneak into the lonely mountain to a chorus of :elan: "Sneak, sneak, sneak by the evil red dragon!"

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

If you watch the old cartoon version of Bilbo? He did sneak to a chorus of "sneak, sneak".
The barrel song was good too.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-16, 01:07 AM
If you watch the old cartoon version of Bilbo? He did sneak to a chorus of "sneak, sneak".
The barrel song was good too.

But wasn't that chorus on the OTHER side of the 4th wall? Makes all the difference... :smallbiggrin:


1. They're dwarves.
2. This is a world setting akin to European medieval times.
3. They're going to be traveling through forests, wilds, and other sparsely populated areas.
4. They're dwarves.

Not being armed with at least mundane weapons is absolutely absurd.

1. No argument there.
2. I don't know how it worked in the rest of Europe, but up here farmers had no right to carry weapons other than knives.
3. Hunting gear on the other hand...
4. No argument there.

Astrella
2012-08-16, 05:53 AM
I thought the Goblins took away most of their stuff when they were captured? I remember Gandalf saying he had enough time to quickly grab Orcrist and the other fancy sword but I always assumed most of their other stuff got left behind then. And the same thing happened again when they get captured by the Wood Elves.

Eldan
2012-08-16, 06:02 AM
Why would they have weapons just because they are dwarves? I don't remember Tolkien's dwarves ever being described as particularly warlike. Craftsmen, yes. Greedy, yes. Dour, yes. Stealthy, yes. But not warlike.

For some reason, later writers took Tolkien's ideas and somehow got fro m "Gimli had an axe" to "all dwarves use giant axes all the time".

VanBuren
2012-08-16, 06:07 AM
Why would they have weapons just because they are dwarves? I don't remember Tolkien's dwarves ever being described as particularly warlike. Craftsmen, yes. Greedy, yes. Dour, yes. Stealthy, yes. But not warlike.

For some reason, later writers took Tolkien's ideas and somehow got fro m "Gimli had an axe" to "all dwarves use giant axes all the time".

Same way we got Scottish accents from a race that used a vaguely Semitic language.

Astrella
2012-08-16, 06:10 AM
Why would they have weapons just because they are dwarves? I don't remember Tolkien's dwarves ever being described as particularly warlike. Craftsmen, yes. Greedy, yes. Dour, yes. Stealthy, yes. But not warlike.

For some reason, later writers took Tolkien's ideas and somehow got fro m "Gimli had an axe" to "all dwarves use giant axes all the time".

Thorin himself fought in the big war between Dwarves and Goblins though. It's where he got the name Oakenshield from.

Eldan
2012-08-16, 06:10 AM
I thought that was just because Scots are small, bearded and live underground?

:smalltongue:

Traab
2012-08-16, 06:41 AM
Why would they have weapons just because they are dwarves? I don't remember Tolkien's dwarves ever being described as particularly warlike. Craftsmen, yes. Greedy, yes. Dour, yes. Stealthy, yes. But not warlike.

For some reason, later writers took Tolkien's ideas and somehow got fro m "Gimli had an axe" to "all dwarves use giant axes all the time".

While I disagree with the, "They are dwarves, of course they were armed" reasoning, the simple fact is, this was a group of dwarves that knew where they were going. They were going into goblin infested mountains, through mirkwood forest, and lord knows what they would encounter. Its POSSIBLE that they were so stupidly assured of the fact that, "This is our destiny to win, therefore we dont need to do anything to try" but I really hope not, because I would hate to learn the main characters, gandalf included, consisted of utter morons. Just because the first third of their journey would be through well traveled and relatively safe lands, is no excuse for them to not bring weapons along. Although, the more I think about it, the more I am starting to believe they WERE idiots. They had no plan at all. It was like the underpants gnomes strategy.

1) Get a burglar
2) Get to the lonely mountain and find smaug
3) ?
4) Profit!

They had no idea what they were going to do once they got there. They had no plan in place to deal with the dragon. Bilbo could have brought his entire race to the mountain and had them work in relays for weeks nonstop to steal the treasure from smaug. And the very idea of a burglar being able to do anything beyond find the secret way in was silly. GAH! The more I say, the worse it gets! By the end of the smaug arc, the dwarves were acting like a bunch of spoiled 6 year olds while bilbo was the only one capable of rational thought and had effectively taken charge of the group, because the dwarves were all too dim to know to come in out of the rain! Thanks guys, because you people made me think about it, the new theme song for the dwarves I will hear eternally in my head will be this! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE)

tomswift123
2012-08-16, 06:52 AM
After TLOTR, it will definitely be another great trilogy.

mangosta71
2012-08-16, 08:55 AM
Same way we got Scottish accents from a race that used a vaguely Semitic language.
And vaguely Nordic names. And the fact that stereotypical dwarves tend to look a lot like Vikings...

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-16, 10:38 AM
And vaguely Nordic names. And the fact that stereotypical dwarves tend to look a lot like Vikings...

Well, that's because they came from Norse myths & legends. Same with Light Elves and Dark Elves.

grimbold
2012-08-17, 07:26 AM
If you watch the old cartoon version of Bilbo? He did sneak to a chorus of "sneak, sneak".
The barrel song was good too.

oh god...
i remember how dissapointed i was by that film

(i saw it at 13 as a LotR nerd):smalltongue:

Nekura
2012-08-17, 07:15 PM
While I disagree with the, "They are dwarves, of course they were armed" reasoning, the simple fact is, this was a group of dwarves that knew where they were going. They were going into goblin infested mountains, through mirkwood forest, and lord knows what they would encounter. Its POSSIBLE that they were so stupidly assured of the fact that, "This is our destiny to win, therefore we dont need to do anything to try" but I really hope not, because I would hate to learn the main characters, gandalf included, consisted of utter morons. Just because the first third of their journey would be through well traveled and relatively safe lands, is no excuse for them to not bring weapons along. Although, the more I think about it, the more I am starting to believe they WERE idiots. They had no plan at all. It was like the underpants gnomes strategy.

1) Get a burglar
2) Get to the lonely mountain and find smaug
3) ?
4) Profit!

They had no idea what they were going to do once they got there. They had no plan in place to deal with the dragon. Bilbo could have brought his entire race to the mountain and had them work in relays for weeks nonstop to steal the treasure from smaug. And the very idea of a burglar being able to do anything beyond find the secret way in was silly. GAH! The more I say, the worse it gets! By the end of the smaug arc, the dwarves were acting like a bunch of spoiled 6 year olds while bilbo was the only one capable of rational thought and had effectively taken charge of the group, because the dwarves were all too dim to know to come in out of the rain! Thanks guys, because you people made me think about it, the new theme song for the dwarves I will hear eternally in my head will be this! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE)

Bilbo even called them out on it, asked if they expected him to steal their treasure back one piece at a time. Bilbo was a “thief” not an assassin. Were they hoping Gandalf would take pity on them and kill the dragon? Smaug took over the mountain from a large group of dwarves what chance did they expect to have.

Androgeus
2012-08-17, 07:27 PM
Perhaps they planned to defeat Smaug with music.

VanBuren
2012-08-17, 08:29 PM
Perhaps they planned to defeat Smaug with music.

I shall tame the dragon WITH THE POWER OF ROCK

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-17, 08:57 PM
I shall tame the dragon WITH THE POWER OF ROCK

Which sadly only works if your bard isn't an idiot. (http://what-do-you-do.net/2011/07/roll-the-rock/)

Traab
2012-08-18, 09:43 AM
Bilbo even called them out on it, asked if they expected him to steal their treasure back one piece at a time. Bilbo was a “thief” not an assassin. Were they hoping Gandalf would take pity on them and kill the dragon? Smaug took over the mountain from a large group of dwarves what chance did they expect to have.

Yeah, but even after reading that, I didnt realize that they actually left on their excellent adventure unarmed. After all, the trolls got them by surprise, so did the goblins, so the lack of weaponry was never an issue. The only time their lack of gear was mentioned was with the spiders when they had to fight with rocks and sticks, but even that I attributed to losing their gear escaping the goblins. Its just... now that i KNOW they were unarmed, god, I just lost all my faith in the dwarves.

Not having a plan in place to kill the dragon was dumb, but honestly somewhat understandable. They would have needed to gather more intel before anything other than a vague idea could be made anyways, but to not even bother bringing weapons on a journey that they KNOW will travel through dangerous lands? Ugh.

Xondoure
2012-08-18, 12:31 PM
Yeah, but even after reading that, I didnt realize that they actually left on their excellent adventure unarmed. After all, the trolls got them by surprise, so did the goblins, so the lack of weaponry was never an issue. The only time their lack of gear was mentioned was with the spiders when they had to fight with rocks and sticks, but even that I attributed to losing their gear escaping the goblins. Its just... now that i KNOW they were unarmed, god, I just lost all my faith in the dwarves.

Not having a plan in place to kill the dragon was dumb, but honestly somewhat understandable. They would have needed to gather more intel before anything other than a vague idea could be made anyways, but to not even bother bringing weapons on a journey that they KNOW will travel through dangerous lands? Ugh.

I always thought the plan was to make it to Rivendell and get armed there. After all, they're travelling through more civilized lands and the party is fifteen at the time and includes Gandalf the Grey. Who is, you know, Gandalf.

Traab
2012-08-18, 01:23 PM
I always thought the plan was to make it to Rivendell and get armed there. After all, they're travelling through more civilized lands and the party is fifteen at the time and includes Gandalf the Grey. Who is, you know, Gandalf.

And yet, traveling through those "civilized" lands, they got captured by a trio of TROLLS. What were they doing before gandalf got them to the shire? Why couldnt they have packed up a fricking knife along with their cellos and drums? Why the hell would a group of dwarves, who incidentally, are NOT great friends and allies with elves in general, go through the start of their journey unarmed and rely on elrond to equip them? Sell the damn harp and buy a sword. As for gandalf, yeah, woohoo for gandalf, the master of the burning pinecones of doom. Lord of the flashlight staff. Oh wait, he is also the grand high poobah of smoke rings.

Xondoure
2012-08-18, 03:01 PM
And yet, traveling through those "civilized" lands, they got captured by a trio of TROLLS. What were they doing before gandalf got them to the shire? Why couldnt they have packed up a fricking knife along with their cellos and drums? Why the hell would a group of dwarves, who incidentally, are NOT great friends and allies with elves in general, go through the start of their journey unarmed and rely on elrond to equip them? Sell the damn harp and buy a sword. As for gandalf, yeah, woohoo for gandalf, the master of the burning pinecones of doom. Lord of the flashlight staff. Oh wait, he is also the grand high poobah of smoke rings.

And you know, defeated the trolls, broke them out of the goblin king's lair, and finds enough time to finish off a Neromancer while building a party of dragonslayers.

dehro
2012-08-18, 03:21 PM
I like to think of the Hobbit being written more in the style of fables for children.. to be driven by plot and eventual hurdles to be faced with ingenuity, magic, fate and suchlikes..more so than weapons.
it seems to me it's written less with "epic saga" in mind..and more with.. fables of the 1001 nights kind.. or those fables about youngest knights who must face tests to snag the princess..and never think of bringing a bit of 4x2, with which most of their problems could just be bashed in the head... but it still always work out.
after all, I do think it was aimed at children of the younger age-group... much more so than his later work.

Traab
2012-08-18, 05:02 PM
And you know, defeated the trolls, broke them out of the goblin king's lair, and finds enough time to finish off a Neromancer while building a party of dragonslayers.

He defeated the trolls with ventriloquism, he was jeff dunham with a beard. The goblin thing I admit, he did cause a handy distraction and landed a nice sneak attack on the king gobbo, the dwarves arent aware of what gandalf did or did not do to the necromancer, and his "party of dragonslayers" consisted of 13 unarmed dwarves and a hobbit that hadnt used anything more dangerous than a butterknife before. And they didnt do squat to kill the dragon except piss it off and make it attack laketown, causing untold destruction and an unknown amount of innocent deaths.

Crime doesnt stop just because a land is "civilized", just look at your local areas police reports for the week. So using that as an excuse to run about unarmed is silly. They had pack space and money to afford musical instruments, there is no excuse for them to not have weaponry.

oblivion6
2012-08-18, 05:13 PM
despite the hobbit being aimed for a different audience, this is peter jackson whos directing it, so he will probably arm them to the teeth like gimli...

Xondoure
2012-08-18, 06:59 PM
Using ventriloquism rather than directly slaying three trolls is in a lot of ways more impressive, and certainly more wizard like.

Zea mays
2012-08-18, 08:14 PM
And yet, traveling through those "civilized" lands, they got captured by a trio of TROLLS. What were they doing before gandalf got them to the shire? Why couldnt they have packed up a fricking knife along with their cellos and drums? Why the hell would a group of dwarves, who incidentally, are NOT great friends and allies with elves in general, go through the start of their journey unarmed and rely on elrond to equip them? Sell the damn harp and buy a sword. As for gandalf, yeah, woohoo for gandalf, the master of the burning pinecones of doom. Lord of the flashlight staff. Oh wait, he is also the grand high poobah of smoke rings.

You do, you do realize that the whole thing started as a bedtime story he was telling his children, no? :smallsmile:

As for the different characterisation of Dwarves in The Hobbit, how about the different depiction of the elves? You know, will we see them cavorting and singing doggerel songs as the party rides into Rivendell and making jokes about their beards? :smallyuk:

MLai
2012-08-18, 08:43 PM
And yet, traveling through those "civilized" lands, they got captured by a trio of TROLLS. What were they doing before gandalf got them to the shire? Why couldnt they have packed up a fricking knife along with their cellos and drums? Why the hell would a group of dwarves, who incidentally, are NOT great friends and allies with elves in general, go through the start of their journey unarmed and rely on elrond to equip them? Sell the damn harp and buy a sword. As for gandalf, yeah, woohoo for gandalf, the master of the burning pinecones of doom. Lord of the flashlight staff. Oh wait, he is also the grand high poobah of smoke rings.
Y'know, you just gave me a great idea. The Hobbit should be a comedy.
(1) Leaves Shire and promptly gets captured by TROLLS. Song and Hilarity!
(2) 13 dwarves trying to haggle elf weapons from Agent Elrond, with harps. Song and Hilarity!
(3) Gandalf the great Disney wizard. Song and Hilarity!


As for the different characterisation of Dwarves in The Hobbit, how about the different depiction of the elves? You know, will we see them cavorting and singing doggerel songs as the party rides into Rivendell and making jokes about their beards?
Ironically if PJ tries to actually be faithful to the book of The Hobbit, he'll probably face unprecedented fanhate.

dehro
2012-08-19, 03:28 AM
Ironically if PJ tries to actually be faithful to the book of The Hobbit, he'll probably face unprecedented fanhate.

a sad truth I may become partly guilty of.. but that fanhate is going to come from people who have read only LOTR or have re-read LOTR dozens of times without bothering re-reading the hobbit more than, say twice(my case)

it's a bit of a pickle.. does he aim for the people who liked his first trilogy and who are either adults or..well.. 10 years older than when they watched that.. does he aim for the intended age-group of the Hobbit? does he.. adultify the themes and the movies in order to keep the same tones and ..level of drama/epic/lessoffafairytale of the MOTR?
either way he's going to disappoint a fair number of people.

then again, maybe that's a reason why there are more than one movie (I'm still disappointed by the moneygrabbery of adding a third film so late in production).. maybe he's trying to offset the relative fairytalish vibe of the hobbit with the tale of the adventures of gandalf and so on.. in order to somehow tie the 2 trilogies together in a way..

I have the feeling I've made up a few words here..

Clertar
2012-08-19, 06:25 PM
Even as an adult, I've always preferred The Hobbit to The LOTR in a way. I don't think the story is much more of a fairy tale than the LOTR is, it's rather the storytelling style, or voice, that makes it so. There are a couple of touches (the cheerful elves, the talking purse...) but even things like the escape from the elves and the riddle game with Gollum could be told as something close to dark fantasy :smalltongue:

IRT Traab:
"And yet, traveling through those "civilized" lands, they got captured by a trio of TROLLS. "

Truth be told, as the elves said to Gandalf, the three trolls had recently come down from the mountains and the whole region was alarmed about their presence, they had attacked other people and the Rivendell elves were worried about them. So it wasn't something usual...

Now, getting into mountain caves, that was just asking for trouble :smallbiggrin:

(Also, they were a group of travelers escorted by a powerful mage. The concept of "adventuring parties" as we now have it in most modern RPGs and fantasy fiction didn't exist at the time. We could say it came to be as a cheesy institutionalisation of the Fellowship of the Ring.)

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-19, 07:30 PM
Even as an adult, I've always preferred The Hobbit to The LOTR in a way. I don't think the story is much more of a fairy tale than the LOTR is, it's rather the storytelling style, or voice, that makes it so. There are a couple of touches (the cheerful elves, the talking purse...) but even things like the escape from the elves and the riddle game with Gollum could be told as something close to dark fantasy :smalltongue:


The Hobbit is a Fairy Tale. LOTR is an epic. Epics are like fairy tales, they take place in fantastical worlds championed by fantastic people, but they are often darker and lengthier, whereas fairy tales are shorter and generally* lighthearted. The Rape of Proserpine is a fairy tale, the Odyssey is an epic.

*When they aren't lighthearted, they generally exist to convey a message.

Gnoman
2012-08-19, 10:32 PM
The dwarves were incredibly optimistic about the travel conditions. Thorin actually states that when the got to Mirkwood "Then the trouble will begin." Gandalf rebukes him, but it's pretty clear that they didn't really know what they were getting into.

MLai
2012-08-20, 01:41 AM
Based on the simple fact that PJ is casting a Klingon as the actor for Thorin, I highly suspect PJ is aiming to tell an epic rather than a fairy tale.

Can you imagine the movie Thorin acting the way Thorin did in the book (except for the last battle ofc)?

grimbold
2012-08-20, 03:35 AM
i'm sorry
i think i missed something
where exactly does it say the dwarves are unarmed?

because honestly, they couldn't have done much better even if they had weapons (which i'm pretty sure they did) because they where just so stupid

for example with the trolls
the dwarves are caught one by one
if they had all bunched together they MIGHT have had a chance, but still trolls are pretty big enemies for some dwarves to habdles.

with the goblins, they where caught in their sleep, again, no chance to really use their weapons... (And then of course they lost their stuff)
so does it even matter if they where armed?

Hopeless
2012-08-20, 04:26 AM
I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.

Be realistic... it has to be a chocolate fudge cake with chocolate marzipan covering and an interior of chocolate ice cream with an option that has actual cream that pours out of the top when cut to simulate the chocolate volcano erupting...:smallwink:

Hopeless
2012-08-20, 05:02 AM
1. They're dwarves.
2. This is a world setting akin to European medieval times.
3. They're going to be traveling through forests, wilds, and other sparsely populated areas.
4. They're dwarves.

Not being armed with at least mundane weapons is absolutely absurd.

You forgot;

5. They're sober
6. They're dwarves

Never ever try to remove weapons from a bunch of sober dwarves... its much easier if they're blind drunk and even then you're taking chances since only dwarves brew drink that can get them drunk!:smalltongue:

MLai
2012-08-20, 09:36 AM
I hear wood alcohol is capable of getting them drunk without bankrupting you.
But they don't like drinking it much cuz the name makes it sound like something elves would drink. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2012-08-20, 09:45 AM
Real dwarves drink fermented crude petroleum. It has "stone" in its name.

TheSummoner
2012-08-20, 10:02 AM
Bah, no Dwarf is ever sober. Likewise, even if they tried, no Dwarf could ever get so drunk that it wouldn't be able to fight. There are just different levels of drunkenness.

VanBuren
2012-08-20, 03:01 PM
Bah, no Dwarf is ever sober. Likewise, even if they tried, no Dwarf could ever get so drunk that it wouldn't be able to fight. There are just different levels of drunkenness.

Dwarves, like pirates, simply become more proficient as they becomes more intoxicated.

Gnoman
2012-08-20, 04:05 PM
i'm sorry
i think i missed something
where exactly does it say the dwarves are unarmed?

because honestly, they couldn't have done much better even if they had weapons (which i'm pretty sure they did) because they where just so stupid

for example with the trolls
the dwarves are caught one by one
if they had all bunched together they MIGHT have had a chance, but still trolls are pretty big enemies for some dwarves to habdles.

with the goblins, they where caught in their sleep, again, no chance to really use their weapons... (And then of course they lost their stuff)
so does it even matter if they where armed?

The only weapons ever mentioned are the ones recovered from the trolls, the bows given to them by Beorn, or the weapons in the treasure hoarde. This is in a book where the narration explains in more than one place what weapons were and were not taken. This heavily implies that they were not carrying arms at the time of the Unexpected Party.

MLai
2012-08-21, 07:36 AM
See, your problem is you assume the dwarves are just packing musical instruments instead of weapons:
Real dwarves understand how to pack sensibly with limited luggage space. You don't pack your instrument or your axe.

http://www.kramermaniaxe.com/AXES.JPG

You pack your instrument and your axe.

dehro
2012-08-21, 07:46 AM
Mlai wins the argument.


I've last read the Hobbit .. probabily about 12-14 years ago.. but I'd think that common sense would mean that just because they weren't mentioned, weapons weren't necessarily left home.
and should I be wrong.. meh.. ancient lore, mythology and fables are full of people who adventure without even a piece of string in their pockets and end up finding the weapons when they need them..
that said, I wonder, had Tolkien thought of rewriting the hobbit to match it's style and setting more to middle-earth as per silmarillion and LOTR, what he would have changed..

Eldan
2012-08-21, 10:54 AM
I think I've seen that mentioned, yes. That he had not intended for the Hobbit to be fully compatible with his larger world, and that he later wished it had been more consistent in tone.

Eldan
2012-08-21, 11:00 AM
I think I've seen that mentioned, yes. That he had not intended for the Hobbit to be fully compatible with his larger world, and that he later wished it had been more consistent in tone.

SmartAlec
2012-08-21, 05:24 PM
that said, I wonder, had Tolkien thought of rewriting the hobbit to match it's style and setting more to middle-earth as per silmarillion and LOTR, what he would have changed..

There was a slight change made, originally. The first editions of the book published had Gollum offer to give Bilbo a present if he won their riddle-game - the Ring. But once it was later established that Gollum's ring was also the One Ring, the Master Ring, etc, the chapter Riddles in the Dark was rewritten so that Gollum simply offers to show Bilbo the way out, and never mentions the Ring. Giving it to someone else isn't something Gollum'd even joke about.

This is explained in-universe by Bilbo originally writing the story that way, so as to cement his ownership of the Ring. After Gandalf pressed him for facts while the wizard searched for the truth, though, Bilbo told the true story and corrected the facts in his book to the 'true' version we have in subsequent prints.

Karoht
2012-08-21, 05:30 PM
This is explained in-universe by Bilbo originally writing the story that way, so as to cement his ownership of the Ring. After Gandalf pressed him for facts while the wizard searched for the truth, though, Bilbo told the true story and corrected the facts in his book to the 'true' version we have in subsequent prints.
That is one thing I really like about LotR lore. The idea of telling a story and having different versions (because people fib, or embellish, or leave out the embarassing parts) is actually a bit of a theme. Having other characters in the story care about the real version of that story is also an excellent touch.

snoopy13a
2012-08-21, 08:56 PM
The only weapons ever mentioned are the ones recovered from the trolls, the bows given to them by Beorn, or the weapons in the treasure hoarde. This is in a book where the narration explains in more than one place what weapons were and were not taken. This heavily implies that they were not carrying arms at the time of the Unexpected Party.

Another interesting detail is that when Thorin investigates the troll campsite, he "came expecting mischief" but he doesn't bring a weapon. Instead, when he sees the trolls, he runs to the campfire and arms himself with a lit branch from the fire.

I suppose the dwarves could have packed weapons in their ponies' saddlebags (and not bothered to unpack them to investigate the campsite), but it does appear that they weren't armed at the beginning of their journey.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-22, 05:29 AM
Another interesting detail is that when Thorin investigates the troll campsite, he "came expecting mischief" but he doesn't bring a weapon. Instead, when he sees the trolls, he runs to the campfire and arms himself with a lit branch from the fire.

I suppose the dwarves could have packed weapons in their ponies' saddlebags (and not bothered to unpack them to investigate the campsite), but it does appear that they weren't armed at the beginning of their journey.

Actually, that would make some sense, since you really wouldn't need to carry weapons around in the Shire, which was just about the safest place in Middle-Earth at the time. So they could have put the majority of their weapons on the ponies, and the one who got the short straw and the majority of their wargear just happened to be one that went into the river just prior to the encounter with the trolls, along with their supplies (it was "mostly food.")

If all Thorin had on him was a knife or something, a burning brand would be better for dealing with the trolls because it'd have a little more reach.

grimbold
2012-08-22, 10:20 AM
Dwarves, like pirates, simply become more proficient as they becomes more intoxicated.

permission to sig?

@Gnoman thank you very much

@eldan didn't he say something in a letter about not liking the style of the hobbit? especially with the substitution of goblins for orcs and the depiction of the elves

and finally on the matter of snoopy, that is a very good point i think though that trolls are thick skinned and maybe a sword wouldn't hurt them as much as fire?

thats all i got :/

mangosta71
2012-08-22, 02:48 PM
Actually, that would make some sense, since you really wouldn't need to carry weapons around in the Shire, which was just about the safest place in Middle-Earth at the time.
If they had come from the Shire originally, this might be a fair point. But they didn't. They started in their mountain or whatever. And traveled through wild country to get to the Shire in the first place.

So they could have put the majority of their weapons on the ponies, and the one who got the short straw and the majority of their wargear just happened to be one that went into the river just prior to the encounter with the trolls, along with their supplies (it was "mostly food.")
If the Shire is so safe, maybe it's reasonable to stow their weapons while they're there. But after they'd gotten into wild, untamed lands? First thing they should have done was strap their iron back on. Especially if they'd already been warned that there were freakin' trolls derping around in the area.

And even in civilized areas, it would be reasonable to have a bow or sling ready to knock off any rabbits that cross your path (which a bunch of farmers would certainly appreciate, in both senses of the word) to add to the dry rations in your luggage.

The whole thing seems to me more like Tolkien simply forgot to arm the dwarves in the original tale, and didn't want to retcon weapons in after the manuscript had gone to the editor/publisher.

Cuthalion
2012-08-22, 03:00 PM
Bah, no Dwarf is ever sober. Likewise, even if they tried, no Dwarf could ever get so drunk that it wouldn't be able to fight. There are just different levels of drunkenness.

You realize that Tolkien never wrote that Dwarves were drunk or at all tending to be so. That is a weird random connection with Irish, and influences of the movie.

VanBuren
2012-08-22, 04:39 PM
permission to sig?

@Gnoman thank you very much

@eldan didn't he say something in a letter about not liking the style of the hobbit? especially with the substitution of goblins for orcs and the depiction of the elves

and finally on the matter of snoopy, that is a very good point i think though that trolls are thick skinned and maybe a sword wouldn't hurt them as much as fire?

thats all i got :/

So long as you fix that typo in it, you have my permission. :smalltongue:

Cdr.Fallout
2012-08-22, 05:23 PM
Maybe evil creatures are like bears, and the dwarves stomped their feet the whole way to the Shire so they'd be left alone...

grimbold
2012-08-23, 07:13 AM
You realize that Tolkien never wrote that Dwarves were drunk or at all tending to be so. That is a weird random connection with Irish, and influences of the movie.

exactly
dwarves haven't been drunkards for very long


also
thank you again van buren :)

MLai
2012-08-23, 10:49 AM
What are you talking about? How the heck do you think Aule kept the Seven Fathers asleep so that Iluvatar can make those prissy elves the first children of Middle Earth?

pendell
2012-08-23, 11:14 AM
If they had come from the Shire originally, this might be a fair point. But they didn't. They started in their mountain or whatever. And traveled through wild country to get to the Shire in the first place.


As I understand it , the Dwarves traveled east from the blue mountains near the sea to the Shire, so coming to the Shire should present no more danger and difficulty than traveling from Manchester to London. Every thing is safe and civilized up to Rivendell ... or should be. That's why it's called the "Last Homely House".

Of the 13 dwarves, I believe only Thorin Oakenshield is a confirmed combat veteran, having fought in the Dwarf and Goblin war under the mountain. The orcs of the Misty Mountains in that time period had been wellnigh exterminated. So it could be that the dwarves really believed there journey would be without incident -- which it should, in normal times. Recollect that Bilbo's return home warrants about a paragraph in the book, because what with the goblins killed in the battle of five armies and travelling in the company of Gandalf, Bilbo was safe enough.

Possibly that's what the dwarves were reckoning on: That the goblins had been exterminated or nearly so, while the wizard would see off any problems.

In other words, the dwarves had spent decades if not centuries mining coal under the mountains and had forgotten what the outside world was like. They spent so much time telling each other stories about the mountains that they had no idea what conditions on the ground were really like. It's a failure that could be said of other folk, in fantasy worlds and the real one.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

grimbold
2012-08-24, 07:01 AM
that....
well played pendell well played


at the same time
going into a foreign place for the first time, a place that could very well be dangerous
wouldn't YOU bring a weapon?

Hopeless
2012-08-24, 07:14 AM
that....
well played pendell well played
at the same time
going into a foreign place for the first time, a place that could very well be dangerous
wouldn't YOU bring a weapon?

Or to quote a literary character,"Would you deprive an old man of his walking staff?":smalltongue:

MLai
2012-08-24, 07:49 AM
Or to quote a literary character,"Would you deprive an old man of his walking staff?":smalltongue:
I can hear in my mind, Gimli quickly following with "Or a dwarf of his axe?" :smallamused:

Teron
2012-08-24, 08:28 AM
It's a dwarven walking stick with a really big headpiece.

pendell
2012-08-24, 08:42 AM
that....
well played pendell well played


at the same time
going into a foreign place for the first time, a place that could very well be dangerous
wouldn't YOU bring a weapon?

You'd be amazed how many tourists wander around third world hellholes without bodyguards or weapons. I had some friends at church who toddled off to an orphanage in Haiti for an aid mission and there wasn't a weapon among 'em. Their self defense consisted of sticking to known areas and not going places where they weren't welcome. Since we got as many back as went out, it seems to work.

One answer might be: "A weapon! Sure, I brought a weapon. I call it : a wizard".

Tolkien's Dwarves are not Short Klingons. They are craftsman first and foremost, soldiers and warriors as the need arises. Mim in the Silmarrillion was no fighter, and Thror went into Moria UNARMED AND ALONE. They don't quaff ale copiously ( I think Thorin is portrayed as drinking WINE at the dinner party! WINE , for Manwe's sake!), they don't fight at the drop of a hat, and they fight with swords as well as axes. Thorin was buried with a sword, after all.


Also, The dwarvish expedition was invented in Tolkien's imagination a long time before there was such a thing as a D&D adventuring party. Which is presumably why he sent a bunch of level 0 commoners to tackle a dragon. Had the concept of CR existed back then, the first book might be called "Bilbo visits a keep on the borderlands".

It also explains why Tolkien was such a bad DM.

I see it sort of like this:

DM: There's a fire in the distance. What do you do?
Bilbo: I investigate! :rolls a 1:

DM: Okay, so you're all prisoners of the trolls and they're going to eat you all. [S]Hand me your character sheets .. um, suddenly Gandalf comes up and turns them all to stone! What luck!

.....

DM: Okay, you're in a mountain pass. What do you do.
Party: We all go to sleep without setting a watch.
DM: Okay. :rolls wandering monster table: you're beset by a party of orcs, who attack you by surprise because everyone was asleep

:One adjudicated commoners vs. orcs fight later:
DM: So now you're all prisoners (again) .. um, Gandalf swoops in and saves the day!

.....

DM: Okay, so you're in the forest and you hear the howl of a wolf. What do you od?
Party: We climb the trees to get away.
DM: Okay, so you climb the trees. Orcs who were to meet the wolves set the trees on fire. Roll up new characters. Um... suddenly the eagles swoop in and save you all!

--------
If this had happened at a convention , Gygax would have staged an intervention. Not just because the party is constantly being sent into inappropriate encounters, not just because the party is badly mismatched (no fighters, 1 absurdly overpowered DMPC wizard, not a cleric in sight, and a bunch of useless NPC commoners who can't do anything but grumble) but because Tolkien never allows the party to take the consequences for their bad decisions. Gandalf Ex Machina and Eagle Ex Machina show up all the time to get the party out of situations. You'd almost think he was DMing for his six year old son and couldn't utterly crush the boy's hopes or something :smallamused:.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

mangosta71
2012-08-24, 09:21 AM
You'd be amazed how many tourists wander around third world hellholes without bodyguards or weapons. I had some friends at church who toddled off to an orphanage in Haiti for an aid mission and there wasn't a weapon among 'em. Their self defense consisted of sticking to known areas and not going places where they weren't welcome. Since we got as many back as went out, it seems to work.
Yes, they were going there to build houses and distribute supplies and such. The point of the dwarves' expedition was to KILL A FRAKKING DRAGON. I guess they were hoping that Smaug would start with the least important members of the group and choke to death before he got to Thorin.

Hopeless
2012-08-24, 09:30 AM
Yes, they were going there to build houses and distribute supplies and such. The point of the dwarves' expedition was to KILL A FRAKKING DRAGON. I guess they were hoping that Smaug would start with the least important members of the group and choke to death before he got to Thorin.

Or they seriously thought Smaug was either already dead or they could somehow get Smaug to collapse the cavern he was sleeping in as he tried to catch the "thief" and kill himself in the process?
So exactly which part was Thorin involved in the planning process?
I don't think he was unless they made him think they had a plan but it involed the wizard blowing up the dragon, perhaps?:smallwink:

pendell
2012-08-24, 09:44 AM
Yes, they were going there to build houses and distribute supplies and such. The point of the dwarves' expedition was to KILL A FRAKKING DRAGON. I guess they were hoping that Smaug would start with the least important members of the group and choke to death before he got to Thorin.

I thought the point of the expedition was to *burgle* the dragon. Didn't they talk about that? Gandalf mentioned at the party that to kill the dragon they'd need a warrior, and he couldn't find one. So they settled on burglary instead. A stupidly insane plan. It should have been just Thorin, Balin, Fili and Kili if the object was to infiltrate the mountain. Only bring Bombur along if he's able to eat the dragon.

Actually, that's probably something they left out. How the dwarves REALLY escaped the mountain.

Goblins: Ah ha, stupid dwarves!
Bombur: Oh, I'm so HUNGRY ... NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM *eats a goblin, then eats another, pausing only to spit out the bones*

*Goblins flee*

Maybe Bombur was actually Cthulthu in disguise. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

snoopy13a
2012-08-24, 10:10 AM
I thought the point of the expedition was to *burgle* the dragon. Didn't they talk about that? Gandalf mentioned at the party that to kill the dragon they'd need a warrior, and he couldn't find one. So they settled on burglary instead. A stupidly insane plan. It should have been just Thorin, Balin, Fili and Kili if the object was to infiltrate the mountain. Only bring Bombur along if he's able to eat the dragon.

Actually, that's probably something they left out. How the dwarves REALLY escaped the mountain.

Goblins: Ah ha, stupid dwarves!
Bombur: Oh, I'm so HUNGRY ... NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM *eats a goblin, then eats another, pausing only to spit out the bones*

*Goblins flee*

Maybe Bombur was actually Cthulthu in disguise. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

It wasn't that insane. Their inept plan managed to "outsource" Smaug's killing to Bard the Bowman. Sure, Lake-town was destroyed and many innocents died, but they weren't dwarves, were they? Not only that, but the dwarves almost managed to avoid paying out any gold. If Dain would have gotten there a bit sooner, then the dwarves would have come out on top--and the men would have been the big losers.

Karoht
2012-08-24, 04:42 PM
I thought the point of the expedition was to *burgle* the dragon. Didn't they talk about that? Gandalf mentioned at the party that to kill the dragon they'd need a warrior, and he couldn't find one. So they settled on burglary instead. A stupidly insane plan. It should have been just Thorin, Balin, Fili and Kili if the object was to infiltrate the mountain. Only bring Bombur along if he's able to eat the dragon.

Actually, that's probably something they left out. How the dwarves REALLY escaped the mountain.

Goblins: Ah ha, stupid dwarves!
Bombur: Oh, I'm so HUNGRY ... NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM *eats a goblin, then eats another, pausing only to spit out the bones*

*Goblins flee*

Maybe Bombur was actually Cthulthu in disguise. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
You realize you are only serving to make this film sound more awesome by the minute.

grimbold
2012-08-24, 05:11 PM
You realize you are only serving to make this film sound more awesome by the minute.

i think that was his goal :P

The_Snark
2012-08-24, 05:24 PM
Yes, they were going there to build houses and distribute supplies and such. The point of the dwarves' expedition was to KILL A FRAKKING DRAGON. I guess they were hoping that Smaug would start with the least important members of the group and choke to death before he got to Thorin.

I'll be the first to admit that their plan* for dealing with Smaug was not very well thought out, but let's face it: weapons wouldn't have done them much good either. Smaug singlehandedly destroyed Dale and drove off every dwarf in Erebor. As far as they're concerned, fighting the dragon is a losing proposition.

*Or lack thereof

Muz
2012-08-24, 05:51 PM
Keep in mind also that Tolkien was telling a children's story originally, and--despite how foolish it would actually be, were we in the dwarves' shoes, to not carry weapons--he wanted to handle the assorted encounters with a bit of whimsy and such rather than just have the dwarves pull axes and have a bloody melee with the trolls, etc.

Also (and correct me if I'm wrong here, since I'm no Tolkien scholar), wasn't the man something of a pacifist? I can see him not wanting to teach his children to tackle problems by immediately going for a weapon, so he didn't make axes and such the centerpiece of most of the dwarves' efforts.

Or maybe weapons are just really expensive and coal mining didn't pay too well, so they went with spending their coin on ponies, and food. ...And instruments. And caps. Oh, and the processing fees for the Shire travel visas. Those things ain't cheap, ya know! :smallwink:

VanBuren
2012-08-24, 06:02 PM
Why waste money on weapons? They weren't going to be any good against Smaug anyway. They were probably just expecting Gandalf to handle the first few mobs until they gained a few levels and some nice loot.

Still, not the worst planning I've ever seen for a raid.

SmartAlec
2012-08-24, 06:39 PM
Also (and correct me if I'm wrong here, since I'm no Tolkien scholar), wasn't the man something of a pacifist?

I don't think Tolkien was a genuine pacifist. He didn't oppose his son fighting in WW2, for example. He was a strict Catholic and war fought 'right' in the name of what's right was a part of Catholic dogma in mid-20th century.

At the same time, the man had seen a lot of grim stuff in WW1 and knew exactly how ugly war could get. There's a strong sentiment in his stuff, especially in the Lord of the Rings, that armed conflict is a messy thing that can help bring about a resolution - but it's not the resolution itself, and a resolution can't come from war alone.