Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

He doesnt get to the point where he is broken either - which he is in the book and which Tolkien reiterates very clearly in Letters is the whole point.

Frodo has pushed himself as far as he can, as far as any mortal being could- and its still not enough. But crucially he has no more to give, in Letters tells us he is both physically and more importantly spiritually exhausted at the final moment.


And its crucial to Frodos subsequent actions and to him taking ship that he believes he has failed- that  is ruined by him being proactive, and in particular by the choice he makes not to just let go when Pj dangles him off a cliff.
He makes a positive choice- to take Sams hand and go on- book Frodo makes no such choice- the Ring goes in not through any action on his part but in spite of him and against his desire- which is why he is maimed and haunted by it the rest of his life and gets to go on the ship.

Change the Mt Doom scene as PJ did and all that is out the window and no longer makes any sense.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The point in Tolkien is that Frodo fails in the task because the task is impossible- in the book Frodo is incapable of any action whatsoever at that point let alone a rage induced assault on Gollum.

Ah, okay. Interesting.

The not paying regard to the ramifications of the changes they make to the overall story has certainly been a staple of the Jackson adaptations.

Though I always feel a bit uncertian as to how much is down to Jacksons "making it up as you go along" modus operandi and how much is down to Boyens and Walsh actively getting Tolkien wrong.

Hard to tell how much he alters on the day- quite a bit by the sounds of it.

There are people sitting in front of me trying to describe auj to their friends and are utterly failing because... Well you know why.

Reviewer from NPR knows his shit!

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/12/249759042/bilbos-back-with-more-baggage-than-ever?ft=1&f=1045

The second installment, The Desolation of Smaug, makes it clear that the three-chapter treatment has little to do with making adequate room to fully adapt Tolkien's story — or even, as some have argued, to include material from the original trilogy's considerable appendices. The extra time, it becomes increasingly clear, is primarily about the considerable embellishments devised by Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

I found this snippet in the "Sydney Morning herald" (Entertainments)

"No matter how the movie ultimately fares, Jackson said he's pleased that his films have helped bring Tolkien's magic to new generations of readers.

"The great thing about the movies is that they have increased the book sales enormously," Jackson said. "Huge numbers of people are reading Tolkien now, and I'm happy to claim some credit for that.

"Any of the liberties that we take in adapting, any of the changes we make, any of the things that might have upset Professor Tolkien ... it's not all take. We do give something back."
    And this was dropped in also..
"For some reason that I don't quite understand, a lot of women love these stories more than other types of fantasy," Jackson said. "We just felt it was a bit male-heavy and we could do something about it."
........?????.......   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:He doesnt get to the point where he is broken either - which he is in the book and which Tolkien reiterates very clearly in Letters is the whole point.

Frodo has pushed himself as far as he can, as far as any mortal being could- and its still not enough. But crucially he has no more to give, in Letters tells us he is both physically and more importantly spiritually exhausted at the final moment.


And its crucial to Frodos subsequent actions and to him taking ship that he believes he has failed- that  is ruined by him being proactive, and in particular by the choice he makes not to just let go when Pj dangles him off a cliff.
He makes a positive choice- to take Sams hand and go on- book Frodo makes no such choice- the Ring goes in not through any action on his part but in spite of him and against his desire- which is why he is maimed and haunted by it the rest of his life and gets to go on the ship.

Change the Mt Doom scene as PJ did and all that is out the window and no longer makes any sense.

I dont agree. The end result is the same, the book and the film just go about it in slightly different ways. They have to because of the film medium.

That says everything, describing TH book is easy and doesnt take long.

Describing PJ's mess of a set of films, hell why even bother trying?   

That's also one area where I feel Tolkien is undervalued.   

The world he created is so large lush and varied but still follows an internal logic, just like his stories follows and internal logic and structure that makes sense. When you make changes for the sake of it without taking care for that inner logic and structure your story turns out like AUJ did, and like DoS sounds like it has.

I came across this on another site:

Weinsteins sue Warner over Hobbit film

Bob and Harvey Weinstein are suing Warner Bros over its decision to divide The Hobbit into three films, which will mean they receive no payment from the second and third instalments.

Interesting, if true, though, if so, I'd still expect it would be only one reason.

The end result is the same, the book and the film just go about it in slightly different ways.- Mrs Figg

I dont see how the end result can be the same.

Book Frodo- unable to act any further, watches the Ring go into the fire without any rejection of it and still desiring it but too overcome with pain and suffering to do anything about it.
Consequently he suffers from still desiring the Ring and a crushing sense of loss for it.
Arwen, to ease him when this pain is at its worse, gives him the jewel on the necklace to wear where the Ring once hung.
He never recovers however and finally he takes ship in the hope he can be healed.

Film Frodo- is still capable of a vigorous physical confrontation with Gollum and is equal responsible for it going over the edge and into the fire.
He then hangs off the cliff whilst the Ring sits on top of the lava undestroyed.
Sam warns him not to let go and Frodo then chooses to take Sam's hand and only after he makes that choice do we see the Ring finally sink to be destroyed.
In the medium of film the link is quite clear, and Frodo's decision is met with the suitable triumphant music.
Film Frodo therefore not only takes part in the Ring going in, he also makes a choice to not follow it and to go on living.
That Frodo therefore has no reason to take the ship in the film, and the most he seems to suffer in the film is feeling that he cant fit back in again after all he has seen and the occasional twang in his shoulder.

That two versions are fundamentally different in every way. I dont see how the end result can be the same.

Radaghast wrote:I came across this on another site:

Weinsteins sue Warner over Hobbit film

Bob and Harvey Weinstein are suing Warner Bros over its decision to divide The Hobbit into three films, which will mean they receive no payment from the second and third instalments.

Interesting, if true, though, if so, I'd still expect it would be only one reason.

I don't think they have much of a legal leg to stand on, but it really depends on the wording of the contract in the end.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Film Frodo- is still capable of a vigorous physical confrontation with Gollum and is equal responsible for it going over the edge and into the fire.
He then hangs off the cliff whilst the Ring sits on top of the lava undestroyed.
Sam warns him not to let go and Frodo then chooses to take Sam's hand and only after he makes that choice do we see the Ring finally sink to be destroyed.

Hah. I don't remember that, but it's typical PJ

Bluebottle wrote:

Radaghast wrote:I came across this on another site:

Weinsteins sue Warner over Hobbit film

Bob and Harvey Weinstein are suing Warner Bros over its decision to divide The Hobbit into three films, which will mean they receive no payment from the second and third instalments.

Interesting, if true, though, if so, I'd still expect it would be only one reason.

I don't think they have much of a legal leg to stand on, but it really depends on the wording of the contract in the end.

Yeah, they're going to be thought of as crackpots, probably, even if they're in the right.

I remember that scene, I remember the uplifting "we beat it" music, I remember Frodo with the "oh well,its gone,lets go home" attitude as he & Sam wait 5yrds away from noxious fumes & lava, reminiscing over old times.

Hah. I don't remember that, but it's typical PJ- Radaghast



They've redone the music in this version (probably the only reason is not been taken down- but its the whole scene)

As you see Frodo is very physically active and hardly utterly crushed in spirit and will beyond the point of endurance (which was Tolkiens whole point- some things no physical or spiritual strength can endure when its got a physical being- in Letters Tolkien comments he sees Frodo's failure at this point as no different than if a boulder had crushed him- its something nobody can endure) and he makes a clear choice in Pj's, especially after the first slip when he looks down at the Ring on the lava and then a long sad look up at Sam, and Sam responds "Dont you let go"
Frodo clearly makes a choice to go on, to take Sams hand and to live on- and its this choice which is also a rejection of the Ring which seems to be the final thing in its destruction, as only then does it finally sink and be destroyed.

Yeah, it's often those changes for "filmatic" reasons I struggle with with the LotRs movies.

As Petty has exeplified several times they end up making no logic snse in relation to the original story. And I not at all sure that Boyens and Walsh are aware.

Oscar winning screenwriters.

Now, Blue, thats the FIRST thing you MUST get out of your head ! Boyens & Walsh KNOW NOTHING so, they cant produce, write, create, dream, read, explain or DO anything   

An Oscar is just a tool to judge how well (financially) a film grossed. And if it passed anything potentially politically embarrassing.

Blue I have never been able to work out if they knew fine well changes like this fundamentally undermined two of the central, arguably the central themes of the book- death and the spiritual idea that acts done purely in the spirit of God, no matter how seemingly small, such as Frodo's pity of Gollum, can lead to unseen redemption when all else is lost and has seemingly failed, or if they really were just ignorant.

Wow, that scene is excruciating in nearly every possible way: the pacing, the music, the logic. What doesn't not work in this scene?

Where is Frodo going after he puts the ring on? Why does he walk to the edge? Why do they show the ring unmelted on the lava? How could Frodo even see it when he's even looking? Why doesn't Gollum scream when he falls? And then why doesn't he burn (and also scream) when he falls into the lava?

My goodness

I would put a bet on the latter, Petty.

Somehow the line "This will work better on screen." comes to mind.

I think Pj suffers from a rare brain disease where he cant have a scene involving a ledge or cliff, and especially not one with lava below it, and not dangle people off it. Its like a weird form of tourettes where he cant help himself.

He's a slave to tradition, I guess