EPTUnless you would level the same complaint to such heroic characters as Sir Launfal or Sir Orfeo.
[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 57
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Falling
Canada11586 Posts
Unless you would level the same complaint to such heroic characters as Sir Launfal or Sir Orfeo. | ||
|
BlackPaladin
United States9316 Posts
Part of it is basically the idea of someone who doesn't know their history so is doomed to repeat it (boromir) vs someone who knows their history and has learned from the mistskes of the past (faramir). It's also "listen to your elders" (gandalf), which is an idea that orginated from the middle ages, which is what tolkien's works are based around. The only real gripe i have with the lotr movies was the faramir change, because faramir upholds so many ideologies that even today are still greatly believed in. Making him a carbon copy of boromir just serves to weaken the movie, moreso than even if frodo and sam had no real obstacle in TT's movie by keeping faramir true to thr books. Plus, it would be like "the deep breath before the plunge." No real problems then in rotk they would have dove into a lot of trouble. | ||
|
gimpy
United States72 Posts
Also, the motivations were all wrong. The dwarves weren't motivated by a sense of home. They lust for their gold and never forget a wrong or much less an insult to to them or their kin. That is why they stormed Moria and killed Azog in the first place. They might not have sought revenge on Azon for killing that dwarf (I forget his name) but the insult they sent concerning the dead dwarf burned in the dwarfs ever since. Tolkiens motivations are much more rich and facinating imo. Tolkien spent much of his life tweaking these things into a masterpiece. Its a shame many of them were preverted for any reason. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
I'm nervous about how much liberty Jackson will have to take to make a 3 hour movie out of a collection of notes and a few essays, but I'm also really interested to see this developed. | ||
|
Eartz
France54 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:12 gimpy wrote: Tolkien spent much of his life tweaking these things into a masterpiece. Its a shame many of them were preverted for any reason. Afaik Tolkien himself considered The Hobbit imperfect and changed parts of the book multiple times after it's first edition (see wikipedia). I'm a Tolkien fanboy and I respect his work, but I still enjoyed the movie : I got chills when I saw the kingdom under the mountain and at the end of the movie I didn't see the time pass. To me It looks like the movie writers really care about the original author, It shows on details such as the "Misty mountains" song written in octosyllabic form (Tolkien's favourite afaik). I can't remember if it's the exact same song in the book though, it's been a long time (plus I read it in french). They simply can't copy and paste the book. EDIT : bad english | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On January 04 2013 17:56 Xeris wrote: Yea it's pretty obvious that the 2nd movie will likely be the completion of the Hobbit and the 3rd movie will be 'bridging the gap' between the hobbit and lotr by adding Gandalf and the other Wizard's removal of Sauron from Dol Guldur. I'm nervous about how much liberty Jackson will have to take to make a 3 hour movie out of a collection of notes and a few essays, but I'm also really interested to see this developed. That's not at all what I expected. I was picturing the second movie going from their current spot to lake town, all through Murkwood. I can even see it ending right after Smaug, since there's still the battle of five armies. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
|
Kaien
Belgium178 Posts
He is portrayed as the main villain of this adventure and if they killed him off ppl that haven't read the book will think the third movie is all about making more money. Im pretty sure laketown and dolguldur will be the end of the second film. | ||
|
Saumure
France404 Posts
On January 04 2013 17:56 Xeris wrote: Yea it's pretty obvious that the 2nd movie will likely be the completion of the Hobbit and the 3rd movie will be 'bridging the gap' between the hobbit and lotr by adding Gandalf and the other Wizard's removal of Sauron from Dol Guldur. Are we sure that it is Sauron? Did not look like him in the movie... | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On January 05 2013 01:52 Saumure wrote: Are we sure that it is Sauron? Did not look like him in the movie... We are. It's basically outside knowledge, the book (the hobbit) hardly says anything about it, much less than the movie, but the other books make it quite clear. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On January 05 2013 01:52 Saumure wrote: Are we sure that it is Sauron? Did not look like him in the movie... hate to spoil it for you but yes, the necromancer is Sauron | ||
|
Saumure
France404 Posts
On January 05 2013 02:06 Pulimuli wrote: hate to spoil it for you but yes, the necromancer is Sauron i know the story -.- just saying, it looked like a nazgul + In the movie, Radagast found a blade that looks like a morgul blade. I know that in the books it was not him who went to Dol Guldur. | ||
|
Eartz
France54 Posts
On January 05 2013 01:51 Kaien wrote: There is no way Smaug will die in the second film. He is portrayed as the main villain of this adventure and if they killed him off ppl that haven't read the book will think the third movie is all about making more money. Im pretty sure laketown and dolguldur will be the end of the second film. I don't know, while it's clear in the movie that the main goal of the dwarves is to get their kingdom back, they don't talk much about smaug. They don't even know for sure whether he's still alive or not. He's indeed pictured as a villain, but not the main 'goal' of the quest to me. Plus they basically tell the public that Smaug isn't the biggest threat (Gandalf doesn't want a dragon to be friend with Sauron). | ||
|
fifasnipe2224
United States243 Posts
| ||
|
Wrath 2.1
Germany880 Posts
On January 05 2013 02:23 fifasnipe2224 wrote: So I saw it in 2D and loved it. Is it worth a 2nd watch in Digital 3D: High Frame Rate? I saw it in 3d higher frames I guess and enjoyed it. You must know what you like. Me personally I prefer more the subtle 3D way, with smooth pictures and nice useage of the depth effects. It was well done, but I wouldn't go in the cinema for a 3d effect. If you think you'ld like to watch the movie again, do it in 3d, if you have a nice home cinema wait for the blue ray I guess. | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
On January 05 2013 02:11 Saumure wrote: i know the story -.- just saying, it looked like a nazgul + In the movie, Radagast found a blade that looks like a morgul blade. I know that in the books it was not him who went to Dol Guldur. In the books, it's originally occupied by Sauron, but he senses that Gandalf and others are coming for him, so he flees to Mordor and the Nazgul occupy it in his stead. Judging by how much they've changed the plot, it wouldn't surprise me if they make it so that Gandalf shows up and fights the Witch King or something, since what Radagast fought most definitely looked like a Nazgul. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
On January 05 2013 02:06 Pulimuli wrote: hate to spoil it for you but yes, the necromancer is Sauron wutttt? I'm shocked! | ||
|
tomastaz
United States976 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote: Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. | ||
| ||
