Re: The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:07 pm

Yes indeed Laughing

welcome to the forum Elendil. pub

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:33 pm

BN.filmz wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:

The film pretty much ignores all of this in favour of Thorin as pseudo-Aragorn.

The movie version of Thorin is very different from Aragorn. Thorin is grumpy, stubborn and greedy, and he isn't willing to share with men and elves. Aragorn isn't like that, neither in PJ's trilogy, nor in the books. So it makes no sense calling him "pseudo-Aragorn". It's an unfounded statement.
.

No its not unfounded. lets get our facts straight here, when we first meet the two characters;

Aragorn. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances. Thorin. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances.

Aragorn. Noble once and future king type. Thorin. Noble once and future king type

Aragorn. On a Quest. Thorin. On a Quest.

Aragorn heartthrob with big famous sword. Thorin. hearthrob with big famous sword.

I rest my case milud.

Oh, I did not know that your opinion was based on such superficial and irrelevant things. I thought, we were talking about character traits. In other words: things that really defines a person.

ooh miow hardly superficial or irrelevent. The Aragorn typecasting leads DIRECTLY into Thorins character trait in the film. ie the neverending moping about his lost homeland, how he has been disenfranchised by a larger foe, a coming reckoning against said foe, tragic hero etc etc. The deliberate and wholesale change from book to film is pretty obvious even to the most blinkered PJ fanboy.

Mind you, that everything (which is not so much, after all ) in your inadequate and rather bland description of Thorin is taken directly from Tolkien's books. So what you really are saying, is that Tolkien created a pseudo-Aragorn! ..... (But since 'The Hobbit' was written first, it's gotta be Aragorn who is a Pseudo-Thorin.)

No if you have actually read the book you will know that Tolkien did not create a pseudo Aragorn but a pretty poor leader who relied totally on a hobbit to get him and his men out of trouble.

Your kind of logic is really strange. Let's try the same thing with Elrond and Thranduil:

Elrond. A leader of elves. His kingdom is set amidst some beautiful natural surroundings. Thranduil. A leader of elves. His kingdom is set amidst some beautiful natural surroundings.

Elrond. A great warrior and commander. Thranduil. A great warrior and commander.

Elrond. He has lived for many, many centuries and has fought side by side with humans. Thranduil. He has lived for centuries and has fought side by side with humans.

Elrond. While he doesn't seem to have a wife anymore, he does have children. Thranduil. While he doesn't seem to have a wife anymore, he does have a child.

So Thranduil is a Pseudo-Elrond.

by Eldorion Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:43 pm

Welcome to Forumshire, Elendil! Would you by any chance be the same ElendilTheShort from the LOTR Plaza and TORn?

by ElendilTheShort Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:38 pm

Eldorion wrote:Welcome to Forumshire, Elendil! Would you by any chance be the same ElendilTheShort from the LOTR Plaza and TORn?

thanks for the greetings all

Eldorion, yes although i haven't really been to the plaza (which i absolutely enjoyed, some very knowledgable people there) in years as the traffic seemed to have dropped off which suprises me you would rememder me from there, and Torn has some good people that really know tolkien in the reading room forum but many times in the other forums any canon/facts are swept aside by pj fandom which is the overwhelming predominant influence on that site as you are all keenly aware of.

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:53 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I did not know that your opinion was based on such superficial and irrelevant things- BN

I dont think there is a need to be rude in order to give a difference of opinion.

You are trying to fob me off with circular reasoning. Do you really think, I would fall for that?

Anyway, there is another and much more simple way of looking at it:

Which scenes don't include Bilbo?

In AUJ there are only 6 scenes without Bilbo: (1) Radagast in Rhosgobel, (2) Radagast in Dol Guldur, (3) the meeting of the white council, (4) Gandalf's conversation with Galadriel, (5) the dwarves and the Goblin King, and (6) Gandalf and the dwarves vs. the goblins.

This already proves beyond any doubt, that the above-mentioned statements are false.

In TDOS there are just about 13 scenes without Bilbo:

(1) The meeting between Gandalf and Thorin in Bree with the inclusion of a flashback in the Extended Edition (though the necessary "burglar" aka Bilbo is introduced in the last part of that scene!), (2) Gandalf's conversation with Beorn just before the company rides off to Mirkwood (Extended Edition), (3) Azog speaking with Sauron in Dol Guldur, (3) Thorin and Thranduil, (4) the conversation between Tauriel and Kili, (5) Gandalf visiting the tombs in the mountains, (6) Thranduil and Legolas interrogating the orc, (7) the master of Laketown speaking with Alfrid, (8 ) Legolas catching up with Tauriel and speaking with her, (9) Bard learning the truth about Thorin (the prophecy), (10) Gandalf and Thrain vs. Azog and Sauron in Dol Guldur (Extended Edition), and (11+12) the fight between dwarves+elves and orcs in Laketown, including (13) Tauriel staying behind to help Kili.

This may seem like a lot, but let's use the chapters 7-13 of Tolkien's book to see, if they forgot Bilbo:

Chapter 7: Beorn's house - Bilbo is there

Chapter 8: Mirkwood - Bilbo is there

Chapter 9: the escape from The Wood elves - Bilbo is there

Chapter 10: Laketown - Bilbo is there

Chapters 11-13: Erebor - Bilbo is there

Besides the changes made to Thorin to make him more sympathetic and heroic are obvious and do make him more Aragorn like than he is in the book.

Even though film Thorin is more sympathetic and heroic than book Thorin, he's not entirely sympathetic and heroic, and that's why he can't be compared to Aragorn. ... Unless you really believe, that Aragorn is grumpy, stubborn, quarrelsome and aggressive and doesn't like elves!!!

Can't you see, that it's too far-teched to call film Thorin "Pseudo-Aragorn"?

Or do you still insist on being unreasonable?

Your comparison with Elrond and Thranduil therefore does not really hold water .....

Of course it doesn't hold water - that's the whole point!

... , as neither of those two characters have enough screen time to have been too seriously rewritten in terms of personality.

I'm not talking about screentime or movies or rewritten characters. I'm talking about superficial similarities between book Thranduil and book Elrond.

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:01 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:

The film pretty much ignores all of this in favour of Thorin as pseudo-Aragorn.

The movie version of Thorin is very different from Aragorn. Thorin is grumpy, stubborn and greedy, and he isn't willing to share with men and elves. Aragorn isn't like that, neither in PJ's trilogy, nor in the books. So it makes no sense calling him "pseudo-Aragorn". It's an unfounded statement.
.

No its not unfounded. lets get our facts straight here, when we first meet the two characters;

Aragorn. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances. Thorin. Wandering warrior in reduced circumstances.

Aragorn. Noble once and future king type. Thorin. Noble once and future king type

Aragorn. On a Quest. Thorin. On a Quest.

Aragorn heartthrob with big famous sword. Thorin. hearthrob with big famous sword.

I rest my case milud.

Oh, I did not know that your opinion was based on such superficial and irrelevant things. I thought, we were talking about character traits. In other words: things that really defines a person.

ooh miow hardly superficial or irrelevent. The Aragorn typecasting leads DIRECTLY into Thorins character trait in the film. ie the neverending moping about his lost homeland, how he has been disenfranchised by a larger foe, a coming reckoning against said foe, tragic hero etc etc. The deliberate and wholesale change from book to film is pretty obvious even to the most blinkered PJ fanboy.

Mind you, that everything (which is not so much, after all ) in your inadequate and rather bland description of Thorin is taken directly from Tolkien's books. So what you really are saying, is that Tolkien created a pseudo-Aragorn! ..... (But since 'The Hobbit' was written first, it's gotta be Aragorn who is a Pseudo-Thorin.)

No if you have actually read the book you will know that Tolkien did not create a pseudo Aragorn but a pretty poor leader who relied totally on a hobbit to get him and his men out of trouble.

Your kind of logic is really strange. Let's try the same thing with Elrond and Thranduil:

Elrond. A leader of elves. His kingdom is set amidst some beautiful natural surroundings. Thranduil. A leader of elves. His kingdom is set amidst some beautiful natural surroundings.

Elrond. A great warrior and commander. Thranduil. A great warrior and commander.

Elrond. He has lived for many, many centuries and has fought side by side with humans. Thranduil. He has lived for centuries and has fought side by side with humans.

Elrond. While he doesn't seem to have a wife anymore, he does have children. Thranduil. While he doesn't seem to have a wife anymore, he does have a child.

So Thranduil is a Pseudo-Elrond.

Read my latest reply to Pettytyrant and you'll see how wrong you are ....... but I doubt that you will ever admit it.

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:14 pm

if I have to wade through your disparaging personal comments to find out, I would rather not thanks. Rolling Eyes

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:20 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:if I have to wade through your disparaging personal comments to find out, I would rather not thanks.

Lies don't suit you. I've not been personal to anyone. I've just pointed out that Pettytyrant was using circle reasoning.

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:28 pm

BN.filmz wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:
Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ithe point being made- that over half the films running time does not concern or effect or alter the supposed main character, or even involve them at all.

That's just an opinion (your opinion) - not a fact. And using yourself and your edit as an expert opinion still doesn't make it a fact.

thats quite a rude and incorrect statement.

Oh, really?

No, it's the truth.

Pettytyrant101 claims: "I dont see how a character [Bilbo] who is only directly involved in less than half the films can justifiably be the main character."

To prove this claim, he says: "Whilst doing the purist edits I have taken from a running time of just over 6 hours, 3 and half hours of material which has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development. Thats more than half the entire running time."

But exactly WHO says, that the removal of 3 and a half hour "has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no affect on Bilbo, has no effect on Bilbo's story, or on his character development"??

That's just something that Pettytyrant101 himself claims. So he is proving his own claim with another of his claims! .... as if the other claim was a fact, which it isn't. It's just an opinion.

er.. lets hazard a guess.. does Azog chasing them about like Benny Hanibal Lector Hill have anything to do with Bilbo? answer. NO. Azog is there as the arch nemesis of Thorin, Azog has no idea who or what a hobbit is, he is after Dwarves in particular Thorin Oakenshield, this is made up fanfiction that can be happily cut out without anything detrimental to Bilbos character arc as its GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH BILBO. Radagast stuff? this also has NOTHING TO DO WITH BILBO, as it is there as FILLER. Rock em sock em Stone Giants? nope, again this is just spectacle for the sake of it, and has no effect on Bilbo other than the obligatory false threat, dangling off a Cliff scene, this also can be cut without effecting Bilbo. As for the WC, thats more achingly boring filler that can be cut to the minimum, idem Dwarven antics in Rivendell, actually cutting all that puts the emphasis back where it should be, Bilbos discovery of Rivendell being of first importance. So cutting all this stuff is not just an opinion its demonstrably true.

As for DOS most of it can be cut without detriment to Bilbo, cut Tauriel, Legolas, doesnt effect Bilbo in the slightest.

by **Amarië** Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:38 pm

BN.filmz wrote:
azriel wrote:and then we all go home to tea & scones jam anyone ?

That will be a bit difficult, since I'm in Denmark. ... But I do like scones with small pieces of chocolate. I usually eat them and drink Red Bull, while I watch haters of PJ's movies getting burned to death in my backyard.

I am shocked and baffled. Why would anyone who live in Faxe Kondi land choose Red Bull? Shocked

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:43 pm

Amarië wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:
azriel wrote:and then we all go home to tea & scones jam anyone ?

That will be a bit difficult, since I'm in Denmark. ... But I do like scones with small pieces of chocolate. I usually eat them and drink Red Bull, while I watch haters of PJ's movies getting burned to death in my backyard.

I am shocked and baffled. Why would anyone who live in Faxe Kondi land choose Red Bull?

Actually I love Faxe Kondi Booster more than Red Bull, when it comes to the taste. But when it comes to the need for energy, nothing beats Red Bull. Smile

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:07 pm

BN.filmz wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:if I have to wade through your disparaging personal comments to find out, I would rather not thanks.

Lies don't suit you. I've not been personal to anyone. I've just pointed out that Pettytyrant was using circle reasoning.

if you cut out the snark and stick to the debate it will be more pleasant for everyone. Shrugging

(((obviously being snarky about Amy Pond is allowed and frankly, welcomed. Twisted Evil

))))

by BN.filmz Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:27 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:41 pm

Ill be back to be crabbit and refute all later- after Who, and a lot of buckie and once I get rid of my company Mad

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:43 pm

and I will be crabbit about Who Mad

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:53 pm

bungobaggins wrote:Watched the trailer on my laptop. I guess it looked better on my phone. The screen was smaller but the possibilities were bigger. I still think the movie looks like it could be pretty good if they stick with a serious tone the whole way through. No dwarf dick jokes, testicle eating, or tales of loose wives, please. PJ, for just once, can you not?!

I'm trying to be positive, because I've had a terrible past couple weeks.

sorry to hear that Bungo. hope you are ok.

by Sinister71 Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:16 am

I think you know perfectly well, what I meant. I was referring to the Quest of Erebor, and that is not Bilbo's quest.

well hate to mention this but Jackson has no rights to the Quest for Erebor or the story contained within it. So it is the Hobbit taken from Bilbo's tale not the other source material from Thorin's perspective.

Glad to see your Jackson crush is still intact BN since most people here think the films are utter trash.

As for the trailer itself not bad wasn't great didn't make me care any more about the film than I did before seeing it. More made up drama with whats her tits, this time getting the stone Kili shows her in the dungeons of the woodland realm, and Thranduil breaking her bow big whoop. The action looks like its gonna make every other battle in Middle earth look like a skirmish when it was the complete opposite.Biggest battle of the third age must have been TBO5A. How could Tolkien have not given us all the great information Peter Jackson wrote for it

by Sinister71 Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:22 am

That's just something that Pettytyrant101 himself claims. So he is proving his own claim with another of his claims! slap laugh .... as if the other claim was a fact, which it isn't. It's just an opinion.

well as someone who has seen Petty's edits they are much more in line with the source than Jackson's films. AND to be honest rather good. Esp for those who prefer the source material to Over the top cartoon like antics, made up love triangles, and completely rewritten canon of material Jackson "claims " to be using. Of course you like Jackson's made up drivel so its a matter of opinion in that case because I don't believe you would give anything but Jackson's version a chance Suspect

I guess using the appendices material means, using the characters names and making up his own story for them Shrugging

by halfwise Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:31 am

Amarië wrote:
BN.filmz wrote:
azriel wrote:and then we all go home to tea & scones jam anyone ?

That will be a bit difficult, since I'm in Denmark. ... But I do like scones with small pieces of chocolate. I usually eat them and drink Red Bull, while I watch haters of PJ's movies getting burned to death in my backyard.

I am shocked and baffled. Why would anyone who live in Faxe Kondi land choose Red Bull?

I have to say I had been rather impressed with your detailed integrity in defending PJ, which was brought to a sudden screeching halt at your mentioned fondness for Red Bull. One unfortunate slip, and a whole reputation shot...

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:58 am

You are trying to fob me off with circular reasoning- BN

Is that like circular dancing, cause I can kick up a storm in a circle with a kilt Twisted Evil

But no I wasnt using circular argument, I was just presenting information.

'Do you really think, I would fall for that? '

Thats a terrible way to think as it presumes someone is trying to trap you in the first place or trick you in some fashion. I just enjoy the cut and thrust of the debate. But of you approach with the attitude the other person is out to get you in some fashion your side of the argument becomes unnecessarily suspicious and defensive. Which might explain the occasional rudeness to folk.

'there is another and much more simple way of looking at it:'

Yes that is much simpler, but only because it leaves out all the details and facts. Its not just a matter of comparing chapters and seeing who is in them, its how much screen time they get, how much the story is seen from their perspective, how much of it relates to their character ect.
Your defense amounts to saying of course he is the main character its called TH. But that tells you nothing about content (especially not if you've read the book! Mad

)

'Can't you see, that it's too far-teched to call film Thorin "Pseudo-Aragorn"?'

No I cant, because I made no such claim in the first place.

by Ringdrotten Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:26 am

Mrs Figg wrote:does Azog chasing them about like Benny Hanibal Lector Hill have anything to do with Bilbo?

by bungobaggins Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:18 am

Mrs Figg wrote:

sorry to hear that Bungo. hope you are ok.

Aww thanks Figgy. :hug:

I'm starting to feel better, posting here helps.

I'm cautiously optimistic for the film, and I feel like now I know what to expect having seen the previous two films.

by Eldorion Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:14 am

I'm really glad to hear that you're feeling a bit better, bungo. Smile

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:36 pm

Bungo

by BN.filmz Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:51 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Which might explain the occasional rudeness to folk.

When I say, that Peter Jackson's version of the Hobbit story is better than Tolkien's own version, some of you react by using this Emoticon: slap laugh

I have not once responded in the same way, when some of you have written that Tolkien's book is best.

Besides that, you, Pettytyrant101, keep being unreasonable in your posts. And you're not always honest, for example with your false statement, that the orc had no reason at all for addressing Tauriel - although the orc is mocking ALL OF the elves (not just Thranduil) and boasting about the only thing they achieved during the battle (namely hitting Kili with an arrow). You even don't want to admit that Legolas keeps him at bay with a blade, and that this makes it difficult and uncomfortable, yes, in fact dangerous to turn his head in any other direction than Tauriel's. ... Your denial is completely absurd.

Yes that is much simpler, but only because it leaves out all the details and facts. Its not just a matter of comparing chapters and seeing who is in them, its how much screen time they get, how much the story is seen from their perspective, how much of it relates to their character ect.
Your defense amounts to saying of course he is the main character its called TH. But that tells you nothing about content (especially not if you've read the book! )

You're being foolish now. If I felt, that Bilbo wasn't quite the main character of the films, I would tell you, wouldn't I? ... You are actually trying to equate an opinion (yours) and a fact here! That's ridiculous. And it's even more ridiculous to claim, that MY "defense amounts to saying of course he is the main character its called TH." ... By saying that, you're making yourself a liar.

The way I look at it does NOT "leave out all the details and facts". In 'The Desolation of Smaug' it's Bilbo who saves the dwarves from the spiders, he's the ones who helps them escape from the dungeons and get to Lake Town, and he's the one who goes into Smaugs' lair. We see things from Bilbo's perspective, when the company meets Beorn (especially in the Extended Edition), we follow Bilbo when he's invisible outside and inside the Woodland Realm. We follow him when he helps the dwarves escape in barrels, and we also follow him in the first half of the river scene - of course we also see the dwarves defending themselves. We follow him and see things from his perspective, when they meet Bard and sail to Lake Town, and also during their stay in Lake Town and in all of the scenes outside and inside Erebor.

Most of the events in the film is in fact seen from Bilbo's perspective, but not all of it - that's also the case with the book, when Tolkien use one chapter to tell about Smaug's attack on Lake Town. You seem to forget, that Tolkien also liked the idea of focusing on the other characters and see things from THEIR perspective - that's why he started writing 'The Quest of Erebor', and that's also why he wrote "Durin's Folk". Both short stories are told from other point of views.

'Can't you see, that it's too far-teched to call film Thorin "Pseudo-Aragorn"?'

No I cant, because I made no such claim in the first place.

I've got two things to say to that:

(1)

by Pettytyrant101 Yesterday at 9:35 am

the changes made to Thorin ....... do make him more Aragorn like than he is in the book.

What's the difference between "Psedo-Aragorn" and "Aragorn like"?

(2) You have not said that you disagree with Mrs. Figg (who was the one who used the term "Pseudo-Aragorn"). I can only assume, that it's because you agree with her. ... Or are you just a bunch of backscratchers?