Re: The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer

by BN.filmz Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:22 pm

Sinister71 wrote:
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.

If you read the context, you will see, that I'm not talking about Tolkien's short story "The Quest of Erebor" but just the quest itself aka the plot of the book 'The Hobbit'. ... I just accidentally used a capital 'q' in that sentence. My bad.

But while we are at it: It's true, that Jackson has no rights to 'The Quest of Erebor' ("of", not "for"), but he is free to use anything that we find both in the Appendices of LOTR and 'The Quest of Erebor'. One example of that is this piece of information, which is just worded in two different ways:

"Among many cares he [Gandalf] was troubled in mind by the perilous state of the North; because he knew then already that Sauron was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough, to attack Rivendell. But to resist any attempt from the East to regain the lands of Angmar and the northern passes in the mountains there were now only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills. And beyond them lay the desolation of the Dragon. The Dragon Sauron might use to terrible effect. How then could the end of Smaug be achieved?"

- Appendix A: Durin's Folk

"Time was getting short. I had to be with the White Council in August at the latest, or Saruman would have his way and nothing would be done. And quite apart from greater matters, that might prove fatal to the quest: the power in Dol Guldur would not leave any attempt on Erebor unhindered, unless he had something else to deal with."

- Gandalf in 'The Quest of Erebor'

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

My "Jackson crush"??

And people here say, that I am rude??!

I love the films. I don't love the man. And I don't love all of his movies. ... How would you feel, if I started using expressions like "your Tolkien crush"?

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:26 pm

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.- BN

I have not been dishonest in the slightest- I even put a clip of that very scene up so people could judge for themselves. And I stand by what is in that clip, how it shot and the narrative presented.
Which is that the orc is looking up to address Legolas and looks specifically at Tauriel to speak about the injured dwarf archer. But as I said at the time people can see that for themselves. Nothing dishonest about that, or dont you like people making their own decisions based on evidence?

'you are actually trying to equate an opinion (yours) and a fact here! That's ridiculous'

I am not equating any opinions. I am analysing the evidence in the films themselves in comparison to the source it is (supposedly) adapting. What the characters do, how the story lines effect their actions and perceptions. I dont see anything ridiculous in trying to get to the bare bone facts of the matter.

'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.'

And the reason he abandoned the attempt to bring all this extra stuff into a rewrite of the hobbit? Because it no longer felt like TH. The exact same problem PJ's films have.
PJ thought he could solve a problem the books creator could not, and he couldn't, he ran into the same problem- it no longer feels like TH.

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

Quite a lot for me. I dont think as Figg said that Thorin is Aragorn lite- but I do think it is undeniable he has some of the traits of Aragorn- such as King in exile trying to reunite his people behind a reclaimed throne- that are not from Tolkien and have been added by PJ and co. So to that extent, yes I do think they have made Thorin more like an Aragorn style hero (as well with younger handsome looks), only Thorin is a tragic hero where Aragorn is not (though PJ did try to shoehorn that onto him with all the reluctant, same blood in my veins nonsense).

'Or are you just a bunch of backscratchers?'

See? Again with the unnecessary rudeness. In that one post you have called me dishonest, a liar and a backstratcher. Thats utterly unneeded, unhelpful and adds nothing to the debate. Its just name calling in lieu of a proper debate.
You seem to have a decent brain in there, and you can argue your side when you put your mind to it, but you dont do yourself or your arguments any credit by stooping to name calling and rudeness when you dont like what the other side says.

by bungobaggins Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:27 pm

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

Thanks Eldo. :hug:

by bungobaggins Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:30 pm

Everyday I see people being rude to each other IRL. Why can't we just be nice to everyone we meet? Maybe a little kindness could go a long way?

After all, you all do realize that you're arguing over a couple of stupid movies, right? It's not like any of this matters.

by Eldorion Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:32 pm

While I think that these debates have been able to mostly stay on topic, neither side really has any grounds for claiming to be unprovoked victims of rudeness.

Edit: I agree with what bungo said, though I recognize that in the heat of the moment I'm sometimes rude to people on forums as well, and I don't want to pretend that that isn't the case.

by bungobaggins Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:42 pm

Eldorion wrote:

Edit: I agree with what bungo said, though I recognize that in the heat of the moment I'm sometimes rude to people on forums as well, and I don't want to pretend that that isn't the case.

I'm guilty of it, too (especially on torn, which I've pretty much banned myself from at this point). I'm not trying to say I'm perfect, I just wish things wouldn't get so border-line toxic over a few stupid Popcorn B-movies.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:49 pm

I have always been of the opinion there is nothing wrong with strong, passionate, serious debate over something you find important to your life, regardless of how trivial it may seem to others.
But on the otherhand perspective has to be maintained, they are only films at the end of the day and should be seen outwith debating in that light.
That is why I choose the username I have, a reminder not just to others but to myself of the required perspective and that no matter how serious we might argue a point, its all in the grand scheme of things petty indeed.
I value the friendships made here a lot higher than I do any consideration of the qualities or lack thereof of the films.

by Ringdrotten Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:24 pm

Not the worst trailer, but still looks like a trailer for World of Warcraft, not TH Sad

by BN.filmz Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:29 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have not been dishonest in the slightest ..... Nothing dishonest about that, or dont you like people making their own decisions based on evidence?

Let's put it to a test:

Is Legolas keeping the orc at bay with a sharp, dangerous blade? ... Yes or no?

Is the orc mocking the elves and boasting about what will happen to the elves and the dwarves, even after Tauriel has left? (He says to Thranduil: "Your world will burn.") ... Yes or no?

How come the orc suddenly can see Thranduil, when he (the orc) says that line ("Your world will burn.") and laughs? Isn't it because Thranduil now is standing on the same side of him as Tauriel did just before? ... Yes or no?

And the reason he abandoned the attempt to bring all this extra stuff into a rewrite of the hobbit? Because it no longer felt like TH. The exact same problem PJ's films have.
PJ thought he could solve a problem the books creator could not, and he couldn't, he ran into the same problem- it no longer feels like TH.

That's just YOUR opinion - not a fact. Many people think, that Peter Jackson and his co-writers DID in fact solve this so-called "problem" ... or rather: they succeeded in telling the WHOLE story of what happened at the time of the quest of Erebor. ... (And YES, they did compress the chronology and add other stuff - after all, it's just fiction, not historiography.)

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

Quite a lot for me. I dont think as Figg said that Thorin is Aragorn lite - but I do think it is undeniable he has some of the traits of Aragorn- such as King in exile trying to reunite his people behind a reclaimed throne- that are not from Tolkien and have been added by PJ and co. So to that extent, yes I do think they have made Thorin more like an Aragorn style hero (as well with younger handsome looks), only Thorin is a tragic hero where Aragorn is not (though PJ did try to shoehorn that onto him with all the reluctant, same blood in my veins nonsense).

"traits of Aragorn" + "more like an Aragorn style hero" + "Aragorn like"

That's not my idea of "a lot" of difference. But never mind.

The things you're mentioning, are only superficial stuff. It's just about their circumstances. When I compare them, I compare their personalities. And film Thorin is not at all like Aragorn. Unless you think, that Aragorn is grumpy, stubborn and aggressive, and that he's disrespectful to Gandalf and doesn't like elves.

'Or are you just a bunch of backscratchers?'

See? Again with the unnecessary rudeness. In that one post you have called me dishonest, a liar and a backstratcher. Thats utterly unneeded, unhelpful and adds nothing to the debate. Its just name calling in lieu of a proper debate. You seem to have a decent brain in there, and you can argue your side when you put your mind to it, but you dont do yourself or your arguments any credit by stooping to name calling and rudeness when you dont like what the other side says.

If you don't want to be called "dishonest", you should STAY honest. If you don't want to be called "a liar", you shouldn't make up stories about me (like for instance that my only proof that Bilbo is the main character is the fact, that he's the title character) ... which isn't true at all, and you KNOW it isn't. ... Concerning "backscratchers": isn't it true, that everyone here dislike the Hobbit films? How much disagreement is there among you? How many times have any of you people contradicted each other in terms of the Hobbit movies, before I made my entrance? ... One of you wrote, that it had been a long time since any fan of the movies had visited this forum ... and it is called "hobbitmovieforum.com", isn't it?

It's not just a matter of not liking "what the other side says". It's the subject - the adaptation of 'The Hobbit' - that I'm interested in. Whether you people in this forum like Peter Jackson's adaptation or not, is not important to me. I like to discuss the adaptation, and I have chosen to do so because I think, that most of the statements coming from the nay-sayers are really weak and unfounded - especially the ones, that I've read here at hobbitmovieforum. Your criticism boils down to: "It's not in the book." I've not seen many posts here - if any at all - that doesn't use that creed one way or the other.

by halfwise Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:35 pm

I was about to post something chastising Eldo for being the voice of maturity and calming things down, when I come here for entertainment dagnammit. But I see you have things well in hand, B.N. Twisted Evil

by Sinister71 Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:12 pm

That's just YOUR opinion - not a fact. Many people think, that Peter Jackson and his co-writers DID in fact solve this so-called "problem" ... or rather: they succeeded in telling the WHOLE story if what happened at the time of the quest of Erebor. ... (And YES, they did compress the chronology and add other stuff - after all, it's just fiction, not historiography.)

which is where Jackson fails this time around in comparison which is the opinion of many. Tolkien himself treated the material in a historical manor, writing the story as if it were from a historical stand point. Jackson himself on LOTR treated the material as if it were historical. (Which is well documented in the bonus material of LOTR) The Hobbit however just goes for generic fantasy fiction, nothing historical about it just as much shiny objects as Jackson can cram into it. The main thing where the LOTR films and the Hobbit films differ. Something more people wish to see was the historical realism that was felt in LOTR. Since the Hobbit has none of that, yes it has the detail but not that historical realism present in LOTR. There is a HUGE difference between them. Many fans of LOTR are left feeling lacking because of that difference. Also it's not hard to see that where Jackson does stick to Tolkien, the scenes are much more grounded in that realism, but he deviates so far from that this time around that the whole of the film can't be saved by the brief glimpses of Tolkien that outshine the rest of Jackson's made up nonsense.

I get you like the films, but they are Peter jackson's Hobbit not Tolkien's at least with LOTR for the most part they felt like Tolkien's story brought to life. The Hobbit just doesn't feel like that for me it feels like Jackson was happy to make up his own version of it out of information he really couldn't fit together in a cohesive story. Hence Azog the fork monster, 2 different actors playing Thrain which do not look the same from film to film.(AUJ missing an eye and has facial scarring,

The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer - Page 6 <a href=

The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer - Page 6 <a href=

The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer - Page 6 Bxxbut10

" />

DOS EE he does not. Just pointing out the lack of continuity that would have never slipped through in LOTR. were there things yes but not on a scale like this. At least the characters on screen weren't changed for a completely different actor and look. Why because of the thought of keeping things historical and keeping the continuity was important in LOTR. But the Hobbit films are too big for that. Yeah a 309 page book deserves 3 movies with at least more than one films worth of material completely made up, with no real basis in Tolkien. (cough) Tauriel,(cough,cough) romance with a dwarf (cough)...That's not adaptation its abomination.

by azriel Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:26 pm

""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.""

Well, sorry, but I feel Tolkiens book IS best, it came first, its the originator, films of any sort came 2nd. The Hobbit spawned ideas, good, bad or indifferent. But whether you like or dislike the media produced, ie: radio, film, cartoon etc, The book remains dominant. It heralds peoples views. I myself am not happy with that which peejers has given ME, I dont like it, but, there are others that do. I will not, never have & never will thump anyone on the head with a verbal hammer as to why they should or should not like or dislike book or film. It IS personal choice.Restraint & respect should be upheld I believe. Not butting rams horns over it. Aggression never solved wars, it creates them.

by Sinister71 Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:43 pm

azriel wrote:""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.""

Well, sorry, but I feel Tolkiens book IS best, it came first, its the originator, films of any sort came 2nd. The Hobbit spawned ideas, good, bad or indifferent. But whether you like or dislike the media produced, ie: radio, film, cartoon etc, The book remains dominant. It heralds peoples views. I myself am not happy with that which peejers has given ME, I dont like it, but, there are others that do. I will not, never have & never will thump anyone on the head with a verbal hammer as to why they should or should not like or dislike book or film. It IS personal choice.Restraint & respect should be upheld I believe. Not butting rams horns over it. Aggression never solved wars, it creates them.

It all comes back to personal perspective. I find the books and the imagery in my head much better than bunny sleds, bird crap covered wizards, made up characters not in any of the authors works EVER and computer generated characters running around on screen that just don't look real. The dialog in the book was written for a reason to help tell the story. Which in Tolkien it does perfectly. So many things for me that are better with the source material. So many things better about the book and the story contained within for me.

I know for me when I see a real live film, I want to see real characters on the screen. Not a cartoon superimposed over the action on the screen. When I know the story I want to hear that dialog from the characters. I don't need the cliff notes version that isn't as well written. That's why the books will always be better than the film versions, ALL of them. IMHO nobody can improve on the original story written by Tolkien unless it were Tolkien himself.(which is impossible now) Only he knows these characters inside and out, only he knows where they are going or have come from, only Tolkien knows what is best for his characters. I can't say that a lot of care and love went into making Jackson's films cause it did but its not Tolkien or an improvement on Tolkien in any way. The books will remain forever which makes me smile Smile

by Eldorion Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:52 pm

BN.filmz wrote:If you don't want to be called "dishonest", you should STAY honest. If you don't want to be called "a liar", you shouldn't make up stories about me (like for instance that my only proof that Bilbo is the main character is the fact, that he's the title character) ... which isn't true at all, and you KNOW it isn't. ... Concerning "backscratchers": isn't it true, that everyone here dislike the Hobbit films? How much disagreement is there among you? How many times have any of you people contradicted each other in terms of the Hobbit movies, before I made my entrance? ... One of you wrote, that it had been a long time since any fan of the movies had visited this forum ... and it is called "hobbitmovieforum.com", isn't it?

The preponderance of anti-PJ sentiment on here is a pretty recent phenomenon, actually. And as you may have noticed, there is a fair amount of disagreement on the particulars. I myself have engaged with Forest, Sinister, and Petty from a relatively pro-movie position since you joined. If you read through any of the LOTR threads, you'll see much greater diversity of opinions. You may also have noticed several people, myself included, pointing out the risks of group think, which is somewhat inconvenient to the narrative of the whole forum being dishonest trolls who are out to get you.

It's not just a matter of not liking "what the other side says". It's the subject - the adaptation of 'The Hobbit' - that I'm interested in. Whether you people in this forum like Peter Jackson's adaptation or not, is not important to me. I like to discuss the adaptation, and I have chosen to do so because I think, that most of the statements coming from the nay-sayers are really weak and unfounded - especially the ones, that I've read here at hobbitmovieforum. Your criticism boils down to: "It's not in the book." I've not seen many posts here - if any at all - that doesn't use that creed one way or the other.

A lot of these debates have been about whether PJ was faithful to the book, so criticizing people for making book comparisons makes no sense.

by halfwise Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:24 pm

B.N. - you haven't been around here long enough to see, but before the Hobbit movies came out, I'd say opinion was close to evenly split on Jackson's movies. Many of us had some problems with LotR, but on the whole appreciated what Jackson had done.

Then the Hobbit movies came out, and many of his staunchist defenders changed opinion - but only for the Hobbit movies. The fact that the same group can appreciate the LotR but almost uniformly detest the Hobbit says that this is NOT a knee-jerk Jackson hating community.

Though it is refreshing to see somebody stand by their guns and go into detail in defence of the Hobbit movies (something people on TORN are usually unable to do), saying that the arguments against your point of view are simply PJ bashing is unsupported by the level of detail that matches your own arguments.

Think about it: until we saw the movies, this group was largely excited by the idea of the upcoming Hobbit movies. And that excitement was based on what we had seen of PJ's work in the past. It all came tumbling down once we saw them. Doesn't that tell you something?

by Sinister71 Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:37 pm

Many of us had some problems with LotR, but on the whole appreciated what Jackson had done.

Then the Hobbit movies came out, and many of his staunchist defenders changed opinion - but only for the Hobbit movies. The fact that the same group can appreciate the LotR but almost uniformly detest the Hobbit says that this is NOT a knee-jerk Jackson hating community.

AMEN halfy

I love LOTR I think they are great films done with style and taste. (though Petty will disagree Twisted Evil

) The Hobbit however would be great films too if Tolkien's story NEVER existed. I like the parts that stuck as close to the book as Peter Jackson knows how to. As far as the film compared to the book I prefer the book but that's just personal preference

Think about it: until we saw the movies, this group was largely excited by the idea of the upcoming Hobbit movies. And that excitement was based on what we had seen of PJ's work in the past. It all came tumbling down once we saw them.

So True

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:30 pm

Let's put it to a test- BN

Let not. All people have to do is watch the scene which was linked to, and make their own minds up over whose interpretation of that scene is accurate )or if hey think another interpretation is for that matter). Why are you so opposed to people deciding for themselves?

'That's just YOUR opinion - not a fact.'

Isnt everything? But I do believe that anyone agruing that reading TH book and watching the film will give the same feel, have the same tone, and the same focus is in for a tough argument.

'they succeeded in telling the WHOLE story of what happened at the time of the quest of Erebor.'

And that would be only your opinion. One I happen to completely disagree with- they told their own whole story, not Tolkiens.

'The things you're mentioning, are only superficial stuff.'

I dont see how altering Thorins motivation, reason for the quest, personality, character, age and appearance combined is superficial.
And indeed the argument they are superficial changes cannot be sustained by the films as the changes they make drive much of their own invented and added narrative. So it simply cant be superficial.

'If you don't want to be called "a liar", you shouldn't make up stories about me (like for instance that my only proof that Bilbo is the main character is the fact, that he's the title character) ... which isn't true at all, and you KNOW it isn't'

A liar is someone who deliberately seeks to deceive, and is a serious charge in my book. One you band about with gay abandon it seems. Nor have I done so. You are misrepresenting the point I was actually making which I quote here- 'Your defense amounts to saying of course he is the main character its called TH.'

The point being that listing chapter headings and who is in them as a comparison to screen time and character relevance in the film is equal to saying something as silly as just because the title is TH that explains it all. I never said you said it, I said I found the argument you presented as silly as if you had presented that as an argument.

'One of you wrote, that it had been a long time since any fan of the movies had visited this forum'

TH films yes. LotR's no as others have pointed out. I happen to think both sets of films are poor adaptations, but only TH films are inherently badly made films as well.

And prior to PJ making LotR's I was one of his biggest fans, going all the way back to when he was winning obscure gore mag awards for his comedic splatter films. I just think the scripts in particular for all his Tolkien films are largely awful )particularity in light of the quality of the source material they had to draw on), but TH is on a level of horribleness all on its own.

'Your criticism boils down to: "It's not in the book."'

You should take a glance through my comedic version of the film where you will find I have plenty to say on everything from the foley to the scripting, I have criticized many apsects of these films beyond their adherence to the book as I honestly feel they are poorly written, rushed, full of last minute changes that are to the detriment of the whole, and lacking any clear vision of the story they wanted to tell, to the point where PJ is making it up as he goes along and winging it (see the dragon/dwarves scene on the EE docs) and that all these things can be seen in the quality of the finished product.

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:40 pm

BN.filmz wrote:
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:

this is not being rude TO YOU personally is it? this is being rude to Jackson.

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

oh yes you have responded this way, you have continually called people liars, dishonest, backscratchers, foolish, etc etc etc......

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, actually its Legolas and Tauriel
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,

not really, I think you are equating camera angles with Bilbos perspective here, the camera may follow Bilbo and rest occasionally on his gormless face, but we dont KNOW what on earth he is thinking or feeling, as he rarely says anything, and has only once in 6 hours of film said how he feels, this is during the help to find a homeland speech to Thorin, and THIS is ALL about Thorin, and NOTHING about his personal journey.

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.

yeah we do a LOT of following but absolutely no understanding of what Bilbo is thinking or how he is coping.

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?

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:43 pm

I can only assume, that it's because you agree with her. ... Or are you just a bunch of backscratchers?- BN

Shocked

- Figg

Well maybe if you were scratching my back with a cleaver that might happen Laughing

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:58 pm

halfwise wrote:B.N. - you haven't been around here long enough to see, but before the Hobbit movies came out, I'd say opinion was close to evenly split on Jackson's movies. Many of us had some problems with LotR, but on the whole appreciated what Jackson had done.

Then the Hobbit movies came out, and many of his staunchist defenders changed opinion - but only for the Hobbit movies. The fact that the same group can appreciate the LotR but almost uniformly detest the Hobbit says that this is NOT a knee-jerk Jackson hating community.

Though it is refreshing to see somebody stand by their guns and go into detail in defence of the Hobbit movies (something people on TORN are usually unable to do), saying that the arguments against your point of view are simply PJ bashing is unsupported by the level of detail that matches your own arguments.

Think about it: until we saw the movies, this group was largely excited by the idea of the upcoming Hobbit movies. And that excitement was based on what we had seen of PJ's work in the past. It all came tumbling down once we saw them. Doesn't that tell you something?

yep I totally agree Halfy. I love and adore LOTR and have had some epic fallings out with Petty over many many things in those films, I was one of Jacksons most staunch defenders because I still genuinely believe LOTR is a masterpiece. Debate is Always welcome, its interesting its enlivening and it makes you think more deeply about other peoples pov. I have Petty to thank for engaging in detailed and well thought out arguments that have remained in my imagination as some of the hilights of being a member of this forum. Who could forget the tussles over grass length and Southern hemisphere flora, But seriously, its been good fun, we have sometimes got heated and argumentative, and have temporarily fallen out over Faramir Shocked

but it hones your debating skills and no matter how passionate the debate, its because we all love Tolkien. i was so happy waiting for TH but unfortunately its turned to ashes in my mouth.

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:03 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I can only assume, that it's because you agree with her. ... Or are you just a bunch of backscratchers?- BN

- Figg

Well maybe if you were scratching my back with a cleaver that might happen

only if you asked nicely.

by halfwise Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:07 pm

Yes, because we love Tolkien we get upset to see things done that Tolkien would never countenance.

But some changes PJ made have passed muster here. Swapping Glorfindel for Arwen was okay, and everyone likes Gandalf's words of comfort to Pippin in Minas Tirith. Some of us think the Arwen dream sequences added rather than detracted from the story.

Notice all the examples are from LotR. A few things were cute in the Hobbit, like the money bags flying around following the bet on whether Bilbo would show or not I thought was cute. Some people hated it, but hey. Most changes in the Hobbit however, were just not acceptable in the way many of the changes in LotR were.

by Bluebottle Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:14 pm

Hm, that's actually quite an interesting question. Which of the changes in the Hobbit movies did I like.. Hm.. scratch

by Eldorion Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:17 pm

I've said it before, but I thought that making Bilbo only able to understand the spiders when he was wearing the Ring was an effective change that allowed PJ to preserve a famous moment from the book without greatly diverging from the otherwise established tone of the movie series.

by Eldorion Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:22 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:TH films yes. LotR's no as others have pointed out. I happen to think both sets of films are poor adaptations, but only TH films are inherently badly made films as well.

Congratulations, BN. You've wrangled a concession out of Petty that I've been trying to get for years. Shocked