Waiting for 'The Battle of the Five Armies' [2]

I'm just gonna through this out there because it's something I've been thinking about and something that REALLY bugs me.

TAURIEL vs. EOWYN: Why the latter is correct and the former is NOT.

The fundamental difference between Eowyn and Tauriel is how they DEAL with male-centric societies and rules. Eowyn is subjected to them, but does everything in her power to escape them, and essentially does. Yes, her love drives her (so does Tauriel's to an extent) however it's a love for her Uncle and her people and HERSELF. She doesn't want to be caged up forever, and suicidal as it was, she found a way to escape the cage and be free. As a result, she frees herself from her pre-conceived notion of what would make her happy (a glorious death, Aragorn, ect.) and allows herself to be content with a life in which someone is willing to make her happy by respecting her and not treating her like she's a princess for lack of a better word. Aragorn tip-toed around her feelings and never really gave her the time of day. She was in love with the idea of him more than anything else. She makes all of her own choices in the end, where Tauriel seems to but actually does not.
The first sign that there is a difference is in that immediately the producers and writers are TELLING the audience that they've created a female character for feminine energy. Already they've labeled her as an object to further a certain agenda, not a character with purpose in the story. Her purpose, though apparently told differently to Evangeline Lilly at the beginning of shooting, is to be the romantic interest of the film while also allegedly being strong like a man. She's in a love triangle that has absolutely no foundation anywhere. Eowyn's participation in the Aragorn Arwen love triangle was born out of her discontent for her life in Rohan. Tauriel's is based off of her discontent for... Thranduil? Legolas? It's not clear. Her only attraction then to Kili is his look, which is Romeo and Juliet esc. Look how well that ended for them. Her first introduction into the movie is saving Kili, therefore making every decision after that point revolved around him in some way. She leaves the realm to go after him. She stays to heal him. Sure she's helping others along the way, but it's coincidental as opposed to purposeful. I don't know how her story is resolved, but from the sound of it Kili is the deciding factor. Who resolved Eowyn's story? Eowyn. She decided to give up a life of war and suffering and to become a healer. She had help finding this out from Faramir, though the way it is written, it's equally a moment of self discovery for her.
So to tie it all up: Eowyn had motivation, Tauriel is reactive. The former makes decisions based off of her own counsel and dreams while the latter makes decisions based off of the criteria in front of her. That is why Eowyn is fundamentally a positive female icon while Tauriel is still dwelling in lower vibrations.

malickfan wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well the cat is offciailly out the bag and shitting in a corner.
From an interview with PJ-

'Obviously The Hobbit is the story of Thorin Oakenshield’s quest

Well, it is kinda, Bilbo is a passenger on the quest and it is told via his point of view, but It's defintely more concerned with his personal growth and character arc that killing dragons, or orc wrestling.

Speaking of the Book: It is absolutely not the story of Thorin. It is the story of how a homely hobbit was pulled into, rather against his better judgement, an adventure that changed him forever.
Speaking of the Movie: Well yeah, what else is new Mr. Jackson?

Tinuviel wrote:I'm just gonna through this out there because it's something I've been thinking about and something that REALLY bugs me.

TAURIEL vs. EOWYN: Why the latter is correct and the former is NOT.
[thorough argument here]

Well argued!
To clarify: "Why the latter is a correct representation of a strong female character and the former is not."

Very well put, Tin. Too many people take the "strong" in "strong female character" to refer to physical feats rather than depth of development and agency.

The 1st few seconds of that Vid are absolute tripe ! That Boyens gets me so ruffled ! Shes not only convinced herself but, anyone else dumb enough to hang off her coat tails, that she actually knows what she is on about ! I was very nearly brought to tears over all the lies & down right deceit. They BOTH said it in such a manner that anyone who has not tread the books would have honestly thought THEY had written The Hobbit AND LOTRs ! They seem to have such an ingrained,laid back attitude of saying whatever they want to say without any fear of reprisals or reprimand. If confronted Im sure they will say they are exercising their artistic bent & merely justifying their cinematic actions. Yet what they say is said with such strong conviction, as tho they feel untouchable ! It truly makes me sick to my stomach that they can both sit there with an air of total conviction whilst at the same time they are burying Tolkien & kicking the dirt over him till he all but disappears ! How fooking dare they do this ! To think they could ever replace the sheer majesty, magic & enduring phenomenon, that WILL out last & certainly out live Jackarse, Bogbrains & Co & ALL their descendants, with this utter deluded, foul TRIPE IL never understand or ever get to grips with ! They have taken a sweet, simplistic young persons dream & turned it into the worst "Nightmare on Elm Street" destruction Ive ever witnessed so far. They are both suffering from some medical condition that in any other person would warrant sectioning & withholding in some Asylum till they both were deemed sane, ( which will be never !) I feel The Hobbit has been snatched by evil hands & ripped & shredded beyond recognition & repair at the hands of these two lunatics ! And that Fran Whiplash isnt let off the hook either ! I cant believe what Ive just heard on that vid !

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
And her declaration of love coming so early just makes her seem like a silly school girl with a crush, not a grown woman desperate to escape a life that she feels is slowly killing her will to live.

At no point in the films does Eowyn look like a 'silly schoolgirl' thats just something you have decided that happens, not because its objecively true. There is no proof you can give me that she acts like a silly schoolgirl because it just aint there. sorry.

The thing I don't like from the video is how they're saying that Sauron is the reason for the BOFA, that he wants to claim the mountain. Yeah I get it's a tie in for the LOTR trilogy, but from what I remember, he didn't have the strength yet to even try to take the mountain. Exactly what was the purpose of the quest in the first place? Actually? Was it to prevent Sauron from getting to Smaug? But didn't Sauron not technically return in anyway when Gandalf met Thorin in Bree? I know he attacks Mirkwood and the mountain sometime before or after the fellowship sets out and I know he attacks again during the war of the ring...

Ughhh I'm getting to the point where the lies are mixing with the truth in my brain
Time to drink

Figg she acts like a school girl with a crush on pop star- which is fine as Tin pointed out there is an element of that in the book- she loves an idea in Aragorn not the person. But in PJ's she is acting on her school girl crush before she has even heard the band play. Its too soon and awkward and clumsy- and worst of all leaves their parting with nothing of substance left in it.

BOFA soundtrack was leaked today. I'm downloading it right now. I'll post my thoughts once I've had a chance to listen to the whole thing.

edit: oops, should have looked above.



Some new footage in this, but also a lot of crabbit inducing misinformation from the usual suspects.

Rotten Tomatoes has an early consensus: "Suitably grim, epic, and action-packed, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies ends Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy on a rousing high note."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/

That was a very well put-together video. I'm sure that anyone who was invested in the story of the first two Hobbit movies loved it. Since I'm not, however, it all rang a bit hollow, although it was still more effective for me than some supposedly emotional moments from the actual films. As a student of the books, a lot of the lore misconceptions bugged me, but it was clear that PJ and Boyens were speaking strictly about the cinematic version of things (such as when they say that Sauron initiated the BOFA). It sucks that this is going to confuse lots of people in the future, just as changes in LOTR have confused new readers for years, but a promotional video isn't really the medium for a detailed discussion of the changes that were made in the process of adaptation. There are EE documentaries and interviews with fansites for that.

That said, there was one point that they attempted to connect the trilogies on that really stuck out as bullshit to me, even if you ignore the books completely. First is the notion that Erebor is a position of great strategic importance that allows Sauron to begin cornering the free peoples. We already know from LOTR that Sauron commands the allegiance of the Easterlings and Southrons, so he already controls all the land routes into northwest Middle-earth, where the freeps live. Furthermore, Minas Morgul and Dol Guldur allow him to menace both Gondor and Rohan directly. Capturing Erebor would allow Sauron to attack the Woodland Realm from two different directions, but even considering that the Woodland Realm is much larger and stronger in the movies than in the books, it's still too isolated from the rest of the freeps to be of much significance, and Erebor is even more distant. I assume this is true in the movies as well as the books since the movies use the same maps. I should note that they sometimes changed the geography radically without reflecting it in the maps, but there is no indication of this happening in The Hobbit with regard to the location of Mirkwood or Erebor.

What makes this even more bizarre to me is that Tolkien already gave them a ready-made explanation for why Sauron might be interested in Erebor: to convert Smaug and send him flying across the north of Middle-earth to burn everything in his path. But I guess that doesn't explain why Sauron would send an army after Smaug's death, which would mean no BOFA if he didn't, since there are apparently no independent orcs in PJ's Middle-earth.

</geography nitpick>

Also, watching The Hobbit before LOTR is going to be just as dumb as watching the Star Wars prequels first. There are so many references and callbacks to the originals throughout both prequel trilogies that anyone using them as an introduction to the series is going to completely miss the intended emotional effect of many scenes.

Tinuviel wrote:The thing I don't like from the video is how they're saying that Sauron is the reason for the BOFA, that he wants to claim the mountain. Yeah I get it's a tie in for the LOTR trilogy, but from what I remember, he didn't have the strength yet to even try to take the mountain. Exactly what was the purpose of the quest in the first place? Actually? Was it to prevent Sauron from getting to Smaug? But didn't Sauron not technically return in anyway when Gandalf met Thorin in Bree? I know he attacks Mirkwood and the mountain sometime before or after the fellowship sets out and I know he attacks again during the war of the ring...

Ughhh I'm getting to the point where the lies are mixing with the truth in my brain
Time to drink

I would not hate their comments if they explained these are their ideas. But now any noob coming along would have every reason to believe these are Tolkiens ideas. Gandalf was only ever worried about Sauron using Smaug to great effect in the war, not all this tactical BS about the mountains location. Crappity, crap, crap, crap.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Figg she acts like a school girl with a crush on  pop star- which is fine as Tin pointed out there is an element of that in the book- she loves an idea in Aragorn not the person. But in PJ's she is acting on her school girl crush before she has even heard the band play. Its too soon and awkward and clumsy- and worst of all leaves their parting with nothing of substance left in it.

nope

Tinuviel wrote:

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS UTTER B***s***!  Its mind boggling, either I have totally misunderstood the books or they are flat out telling lies, they talk with such conviction its got me doubting whether I have read the same books a them.

I need a loremaster.   Is the BO5A really the first conflict in the War of the Ring?, is Sauron really wanting to take over the Lonely Mountain? These people are experts on Tolkien arent they? (note the sarcasm)

I dont see how you can disagree in this case Figg- the evidence is plain as day.
Everything Eowyn and Aragorn say to each other in their parting PJ has used up by the time the story gets that far- thats not a matter of subjective crabbit- its the facts of the matter clear for anyone to see.

Here is the full exchange from the book and where Pj uses the material-

'Aragorn,' she said, why will you go on this deadly road!'
"Because I must," he said, "Only so can I see any hope of doing my part in the war against Sauron. I do not choose paths of peril, Eowyn.
Where i to go where my heart dwells, far in the North I would now be wandering ini the fair valley of Rivendell."

----used by PJ in the stables scene and on the march with the cut to Arwen-----

For a whole she was silent, as if pondering what this might mean. Then suddenly she laid her hand on his arm, "You are a stern lord and resolute," she said,; "and thus to men win renown." She paused. "Lord," she said, "if you must go, then let me ride in your following. For I am weary of skukling in the hills, and wish to face peril and battle."
"Your duty is with your people," he answered.
"Too often have I heard of duty," she cried, "But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?"......But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death."
"What do you fear, lady?" he asked.
"A cage," she said, "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire."

------used by PJ in the night scene where she is sleeping in Meduseld.-----

"Neither have those others who go with thee. They go only because they would not be parted from thee- because they love thee.'

------used by PJ right before Helms Deep-----

So you see its a simple fact that PJ uses the content of their parting conversation, all of it, before their parting- leaving them nothing of substance to say at their parting.
Put simply there are no more words to use, they've shot the lot before getting to the point in the narrative where they have their full power- especially the last one about why the others are following him which has to come at their parting, she is too proud to just have blurted such a thing out, and she only does so now at the crunch and even then couched in double meaning.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont see how you can disagree in this case Figg- the evidence is plain as day.
Everything Eowyn and Aragorn say to each other in their parting PJ has used up by the time the story gets that far- thats not a matter of subjective crabbit- its the facts of the matter clear for anyone to see.

Here is the full exchange from the book and where Pj uses the material-

'Aragorn,' she said, why will you go on this deadly road!'
"Because I must," he said, "Only so can I see any hope of doing my part in the war against Sauron. I do not choose paths of peril, Eowyn.
Where i to go where my heart dwells, far in the North I would now be wandering ini the fair valley of Rivendell."

----used by PJ in the stables scene and on the march with the cut to Arwen-----

For a whole she was silent, as if pondering what this might mean. Then suddenly she laid her hand on his arm, "You are a stern lord and resolute," she said,; "and thus to men win renown." She paused. "Lord," she said, "if you must go, then let me ride in your following. For I am weary of skukling in the hills, and wish to face peril and battle."
"Your duty is with your people," he answered.
"Too often have I heard of duty," she cried, "But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?"......But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death."
"What do you fear, lady?" he asked.
"A cage," she said, "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire."

------used by PJ in the night scene where she is sleeping in Meduseld.-----

"Neither have those others who go with thee. They go only because they would not be parted from thee- because they love thee.'

------used by PJ right before Helms Deep-----

So you see its a simple fact that PJ uses the content of their parting conversation, all of it, before their parting- leaving them nothing of substance to say at their parting.
Put simply there are no more words to use, they've shot the lot before getting to the point in the narrative where they have their full power- especially the last one about why the others are following him which has to come at their parting, she is too proud to just have blurted such a thing out, and she only does so now at the crunch and even then couched in double meaning.

nope. there is no evidence. You have missed the point.

So explain how I am wrong.
Its obvious to anyone who reads the text that PJ has already used all the material up, and its obvious to anyone who watches the film that none of the material from their parting conversation is in the film parting as its already all been used up.

How exactly is it otherwise?

I have already explained fully and ad nauseam. You are determined to see things your way and I am determined to see them as they are. simples.

Its not a matter of seeing it my way- its a matter of acknowledging the evidence which is right there.
This is not a case of if I'm right or wrong as all the facts show I am right.
You are free to contest putting the entire content of their parting conversation earlier in the film is better than Tolkien, but to argue that its not what PJ has done when he clearly has is just stubborn for the sake of being contrary.

there is no evidence to support your theory.

So lets get this straight- you are saying there is no evidence to support my view that PJ used up the content and dialogue in the parting conversation earlier in the film?

Despite all the words being there in the book- and all the bits being clearly moved to earlier in the film- and which can all be pointed out and shown to be there?

Perhaps it would be better if you can show me the evidence that the parting conversation in the film contains the points it does in the book and where?

Because at the moment you are claiming black is white with no proof at all- whereas what I am saying is fully attested to in book and film.

azriel wrote:The 1st few seconds of that Vid are absolute tripe ! That Boyens gets me so ruffled ! Shes not only convinced herself but, anyone else dumb enough to hang off her coat tails, that she actually knows what she is on about ! I was very nearly brought to tears over all the lies & down right deceit. They BOTH said it in such a manner that anyone who has not tread the books would have honestly thought THEY had written The Hobbit AND LOTRs ! They seem to have such an ingrained,laid back attitude of saying whatever they want to say without any fear of reprisals or reprimand. If confronted Im sure they will say they are exercising their artistic bent & merely justifying their cinematic actions. Yet what they say is said with such strong conviction, as tho they feel untouchable ! It truly makes me sick to my stomach that they can both sit there with an air of total conviction whilst at the same time they are burying Tolkien & kicking the dirt over him till he all but disappears ! How fooking dare they do this ! To think they could ever replace the sheer majesty, magic & enduring phenomenon, that WILL out last & certainly out live Jackarse, Bogbrains & Co & ALL their descendants, with this utter deluded, foul TRIPE IL never understand or ever get to grips with ! They have taken a sweet, simplistic young persons dream & turned it into the worst "Nightmare on Elm Street" destruction Ive ever witnessed so far. They are both suffering from some medical condition that in any other person would warrant sectioning & withholding in some Asylum till they both were deemed sane, ( which will be never !) I feel The Hobbit has been snatched by evil hands & ripped & shredded beyond recognition & repair at the hands of these two lunatics ! And that Fran Whiplash isnt let off the hook either ! I cant believe what Ive just heard on that vid !  

That's it! Let it out... it's good for you... it's primal scream time!

I may purposely behorse and just run until my hooves hurt. I'll feel better though.