battle of five armies STUPID ending...

Why does THORIN DIE? yes I know it happened in the book but they recreated the whole thing so why not let him live? the way he died too was awful and no one seemed to do much
including Bilbo who sat there like a loser...it was horrible...why couldn't Bilbo use the ring to get invisible and kill ozarg? why couldn't he have let thorin use it to get ozarg?? why did thorin fight alone
rather than take his cousin or more people? why did they split up? why did the magical bears take so LONG to come as well as the eagles? why didn't they aid thorin in his fight with ozarg?
why didn't the eagles take ozarg in the first one and get him then?? I mean really...this makes NO sense at all...there were 100 possibilities and they ended up killing thorin and ozarg didn't even exist
in the books...this was just stupid...also they made thorin look like a total idiot as if he really thought ozarg was gone in the frozen water...seriously...thorin isn't that stupid...
the movie was ridiculous it ruined the whole series...THORIN was the whole reason for the entire damn series..with him gone who cares..it's just messed up...

Hi Jenn, welcome to Forumshire!

I haven't watched Bo5A yet [maybe later this week] so I don't know how stupid Thorin's death is, but I'll say for myself that, having loved The Hobbit as a book since I was a kid, it would be really weird for me he lived. His death is too important to the story.

 Still,  I do agree that he shouldn't die stupidly. He should die with all the nobility of a King of his people.  The story deserves that.

yes true...I didn't realize what his death meant in the book..but really what did it mean? some random guy becomes king not him?
his greed wasn't that big of a deal..no one is perfect he was overtaken by something else...he should die just for that? Tolkien had it wrong..

In the book it's not just Thorin's greed; it's that his greed becomes greater than his loyalty to his friends. Bilbo had saved his life several times over, but still Thorin sent him away in disgrace, saying "And may we never meet again!"

It was only when he was dying that sanity returned and Thorin remembered the importance of friendship. "Farewell, good thief. I go now to the halls of waiting to sit beside my fathers, until the world is renewed. Since I leave now all gold and silver, and go where it is of little worth, I wish to part in friendship with you, and I would take back my words and deeds at the gate."

If Thorin hadn't died in the book, he and Bilbo would have never been reconciled, and that would have been a terrible way to end the book, in my opinion.

well I doubt that...I mean once thorin got to his senses...which was why he actually went and fought anyway, he would have become friends with Bilbo again for sure..i guess in the movie they show he kind of had a meltdown or breakdown and decided to then go ahead and fight, otherwise he wasn't. Thorin had come to his senses finally which is why he went and fought and did what he did, in the movie anyway. He made a mistake...its not that people aren't allowed mistakes..and he was taken over by a dark force involving the gold. It wasn't totally his fault...thorin was a really good person so I just don't like Tolkien's ending..he did a bad job. if I was the director of the movie I would have changed it completely..screw being true to the book since all they did was change so much stuff anyway...

its just so sad to see that thorin this really brave and good person never got a chance to rule...which was his rightful place. it's ridiculous that he died, just an insult...at least let him rule then let him go. it's ridiculous and messed up. no one deserved it more than thorin...so he had a bad situation and a lapse..that doesn't mean he deserves to go..

.thorin was a really good person so I just don't like Tolkien's ending..he did a bad job -Jen

As I mentioned elsewhere Jen book Thorin is very different from film Thorin- PJ portrayed Thorin as a heroic and tragic figure (and a dashingly handsome one)- in the book he is much older, prideful, arrogant, self important and shown to be a poor leader over the course of events- which allows Bilbo to grow and develop as the story unfolds until by the time they reach the mountain Bilbo is the defacto head of the company, and the one the other dwarves turn to for ideas and leadership.

Thorin is only finally redeemed in the book upon his deathbed when he realises the futility and error of his ways and repents them to Bilbo and so finds a final honour and peace at the very last- it is crucial to the morality of the story being told. If he survived it would utterly undermine the whole point of the moral themes of the book.

The mistakes are not Tolkiens, they are PJ's.

I thought I had responded to this new thread already, but I can't find my response so I guess it never went through.

Anyway, welcome to the forum, as others have said.

The problem lies, I think, in the fact that it really does not make much sense to produce a trilogy of films called "The Hobbit", and then shift the main focus of the story onto a character that dies at the end of the final film.
It's not even the case that his death is satisfying. Presumably, in the movie (I haven't seen it yet), the scene between Thorin and Bilbo in which Thorin, while dying, repents to the hobbit for betraying their friendship never actually takes place. So we are left with a tragic and empty end for the real main character that speaks more to themes of Nihilism than redemption.

For the record though, the only "dark force" involving the gold in the movie was Thorin's own character faults: he was weak-willed and let his greed overcome the love he had for his companions, especially Bilbo. There was no mystical "dragon-sickness" that somehow forced him to behave in a certain way. The treasure-hoard was a test that he failed.

If the directors of the trilogy portrayed his greed and personal failings as a tragic, inescapable heritage then that's their prerogative. However, it leaves us with a character that is doomed to die, and a story that blows, so I'd say that amounts to bad filmmaking.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:.thorin was a really good person so I just don't like Tolkien's ending..he did a bad job -Jen

As I mentioned elsewhere Jen book Thorin is very different from film Thorin- PJ portrayed Thorin as a heroic and tragic figure (and a dashingly handsome one)- in the book he is much older, prideful, arrogant, self important and shown to be a poor leader over the course of events- which allows Bilbo to grow and develop as the story unfolds until by the time they reach the mountain Bilbo is the defacto head of the company, and the one the other dwarves turn to for ideas and leadership.

Thorin is only finally redeemed in the book upon his deathbed when he realises the futility and error of his ways and repents them to Bilbo and so finds a final honour and peace at the very last- it is crucial to the morality of the story being told. If he survived it would utterly undermine the whole point of the moral themes of the book.

The mistakes are not Tolkiens, they are PJ's.

Exactly, if Peter Jackson hadn't altered things, it would be perfectly clear why Thorin dies at the end. He brought about his own end by his actions. Had he seen this earlier instead of being blind, he may have lived. But alas he does not, as it should be.

My problem with BOTFA is they give the impression his actions were more down to 'Dragon Sickness' rather than an inbuilt flaw in his character, it's like they had a lack of faifth in a not 100% perfect hero, Thorin is almost too easy to understand in the films, so it makes his fall for grace easy to anticipate and his moment of realization less powerful.

But as Jackson proved with LOTR he was willing to invent or rewrite character arcs and motivations for characters (Aragorn for instance) in order to make things more 'filmic'.

malickfan wrote:My problem with BOTFA is they give the impression his actions were more down to 'Dragon Sickness' rather than an inbuilt flaw in his character, it's like they had a lack of faifth in a not 100% perfect hero, Thorin is almost too easy to understand in the films, so it makes his fall for grace easy to anticipate and his moment of realization less powerful.

But as Jackson proved with LOTR he was willing to invent or rewrite character arcs and motivations for characters (Aragorn for instance) in order to make things more 'filmic'.

Cough, cough, Faramir , cough, cough

even Faramir looks true to the books in comparison to Thorin. I cant think of one aspect of his character that is close to the book, glowering heroically is supposed to take the place of personality.

What a contrast there Sinister. In the case of Thorin we have his character flaws externalized so that he becomes less flawed. In the case of Faramir we have invented flaws in his character invented so that he appears more torn (heh) and complex.

Not to say that he actually appears more complicated in the films. Faramir in the movies is a reduced character, robbed of his sophistication.

I don't agree with that. I think film Faramir is quite well drawn.

He does indeed have a good face for the role, and his temperament has the appropriate air.
However, look at this from the angle of adaptation.
In the case of Thorin, his internal flaws are externalized to an extent. It is the curse of the gold that corrupts him.
In the case of Faramir, his internal standards of bravery, honesty, and love of fair and good things is brushed over for the sake of the heightened drama that occurs because of his failure to resist the ring's temptation until the very last.

That is belittling to his character, no? He still has that baseline of good-will and honesty, but it is clouded over by his initial betrayal of Frodo and Sam. In the book he is an idealized version of himself. In the book he's like a fine glass, and in the movie that glass has a grimy patina over the surface of it.

hmmm interesting. some would say that patina adds value to a painting, but I understand what you mean. I think I understand why they decided to make Faramir a bit less noble in the film. I think they were trying to avoid another perfect man, because that role was going to Aragorn, I think they were trying to make him seem like a slightly wiser more vulnerable version of Boromir, they were almost identical in looks, so it followed that they tried to make him fall under the spell of the Ring for a short while. The book version could have come over as too similar to Aragorn, even though in the book they are very similar being like the (Numenorians?) and that why Denethor disliked him and favoured his brother. I think they played it in such a way that in my opinion even though he had a wobble Faramir still came over as noble and less under the power of the Ring than Boromir. I prefer the book version but I know why they decided to 'lessen' him in the film. The important thing is in the end he didn't try to take the Ring and let them go, he wanted to do what Boromir was planning to do before he got too obsessed, ie take the Ring to Minas Tirith, but unlike Boromir he understood

Good points Figgysticks,
I think you might have gotten cut off there at the end though.
I agree that Faramir does come across as more noble than Boromir. Not to a great extent, because he was willing to betray Frodo's quest even after he discovered what it was, but I don't necessarily see him breaking down and giving in to the ring as Boromir eventually did.
(Because we don't need to repeat Petty's arguments, (he does that enough himself!) I'm not going to go into the weirdness of the scene in Osgiliath with Frodo and the Nazgul.)

But anyway, Aragorn in the film is only "perfect" in his stalwart refusal of the One Ring's power. He has his flaws, some of which are magnified or invented for the film. That being said, it might have struck general audiences as a bit strange how Faramir is able to so easily throw off the ring's influence as he does in the book. Therefore, for the sake of emphasizing the power of the ring the filmmakers take away Faramir's resilience and honesty.
It's a cheap change; I don't like it much.

Was nobody else upset about how pointlessly

Spoiler:

Spoilers!!!
Ugh, I need to go watch the film already.

Sorry Forest.
Fixed.

jenn9922 wrote:yes true...I didn't realize what his death meant in the book..but really what did it mean? some random guy becomes king not him?
his greed wasn't that big of a deal..no one is perfect he was overtaken by something else...he should die just for that? Tolkien had it wrong..

Part of what elevates The Hobbit above other children's books is that it is a tragedy - not for the main character, but as seen through the main character (*cough* Bilbo, not Thorin). You may think it's a senseless waste of a great character, but in the end, it's why you remember the book.

I'm just glad this stupid franchise is over honestly.

Good to see you again, RA!

Have you seen BOFA yet or are you still running on residual crabbit from last year?

Hello RA
This is a monumentus occasion, the BOT5A, Its the surety that peejers wont be back to ruin anymore Tolkien stories Hopefully he'l have nothing left to access & we can all sleep peacefully in our beds, no more nightmares. I still havent been to see this & I swear I bloody wont ! This will be roaming the interwundawebz soon enough & IL catch it then. I dont even feel bothered that you lot have seen it & I havent, not one drop of envy ! Ive also found it dead easy to forget about to, not because its Christmas & that has taken my mind of the film but, because, Ive disliked this Bileology SO much that I couldnt give a dam ! LOTRs I DID look forward to, flaws & all, it had a better flavour, but this !! ?? .....................

I'm not sure most people on the forum have seen the movie by now, but then again I'm missing the reactions thread on purpose until I see it myself.
That is where people are posting their responses, right Eldo?