Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

"Film Frodo- is still capable of a vigorous physical confrontation with Gollum" - Petty

This isn't any different from the book - I don't remember the exact words, but the book describes how Frodo gets some sort of kick-start when Gollum attacks him on the slope of the mountain. Without Gollum's attempt at taking the ring from him he would never have reached the fires (both in the book and in the film). I agree Frodo's part in destroying the film is wrong, but he suddenly becomes capable of great physical efforts in the book too because Gollum tries to take the ring from him.

Sure they fight over the ring but, after Gollum bites off Frodo's finger, the fight goes out of him.

"the book describes how Frodo gets some sort of kick-start when Gollum attacks him on the slope of the mountain. Without Gollum's attempt at taking the ring from him he would never have reached the fires"- Ringdrotten

This sort of true, its not so much as in the film.

'Gollum was tearing at his master, trying to get at the chain and the Ring. This was probably the only thing that could have roused the dying embers of Frodo's heart and will: an attack, an attempt to wrest his treasure from him by force. He fought back with a sudden fury that amazed Sam, and Gollum also. Even so things might have gone far otherwise, if Gollum himself had remained unchanged, but whatever paths, lonely and hungry and waterless, he had trodden, driven by a devouring desire and a terrible fear, they had left grievous marks on him.........then the vision passed and Sam saw Frodo standing, han on breast, his breath coming in great gasps....He turned and went on, walking slowly, but erect, up the climbing path.'

He hardly goes running off up the slope as he does in the film.

The important time is when he claims he Ring and then loses it in quick succession- those acts finally break him.

Tolkien says in Letters- 'Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved.'

And he says of Frodo subsequent view of himself- ' he saw himself and all that he had done as a broken failure...(he had) a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned a hero, not a mere instrument of good.'

there is absolutely no difference between book and film.

I give up! I am saving my crabbit for DOS- I stand by my argument and the case Ive laid out.

Now do you mind?!    I have so much buckie to drink in preparation for seeing this DOS drivel!    

Mrs Figg wrote:there is absolutely no difference between book and film.

Demonstrably untrue. Even if you disagree with PT's philosophical argument, the sequence of events is not the same. Frodo doesn't dangle over a cliff in the book, for one thing. For another, Sam doesn't tell Frodo to throw the ring in the fire in the book; he's out cold. In the book Frodo doesn't actually walk to the edge of the cliff after putting on the ring (which is incredibly stupid).

You WILL never convince Petty of anything else other than his own opinions, nor should you, this place would be much less interesting without them.

And there is a difference between the two-Book Frodo is a bit of a boring stiff with moments of outstanding wisdom and courage.

Film Frodo is a whiny Teenage drug addict with little to no redeeming features, strongly deserving of a sharp kick in the nuts.

Just my opinions of course.

malickfan wrote:You WILL never convince Petty of anything else other than his own opinions..

Also the other way around.

What opinions!! I have facts, crabbit facts!!!   

malickfan wrote:You WILL never convince Petty of anything else other than his own opinions, nor should you, this place would be much less interesting without them.

And there is a difference between the two-Book Frodo is a bit of a boring stiff with moments of outstanding wisdom and courage.

Film Frodo is a whiny Teenage drug addict with little to no redeeming features, strongly deserving of a sharp kick in the nuts.

Just my opinions of course.

you will never convince me of anything other than my opinions either, thats why we fight like cat and dog. ALL the time.   

 {{And of course, but dont tell her this, but I do have to admire and respect anyone as stubborn in their convictions of PJ's films as I am, even when I dont agree }}}}

Don't go soft on us Petty!

Oh it wont stop me arguing with her Malick   {{Or her with me!   }}

 

 

 

This paragraph pretty much says it all:

...I’m well aware that this meeting [in Bree] is cited in The Hobbit, and that many of Jackson’s other additions and digressions are part of the larger Middle Earth canon. But despite the fact the Tolkien went back to amend The Hobbit more than once, he never chose to cram in all this supplemental material, because the book was not intended as a sweeping, multifaceted epic, but rather as a more personal, hobbit’s-eye-view adventure story.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/-em-the-hobbit-2-em-is-bad-fan-fiction/282316/

The reviewer does get a thing or two wrong, though.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Tolkien says in Letters- 'Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved.'

And he says of Frodo subsequent view of himself- ' he saw himself and all that he had done as a broken failure...(he had) a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned a hero, not a mere instrument of good.'

Re: the argument of whether the movie version is different from the book, I saw this comment on a blog I visit, which I think make an interesting point:

... at the end, Gollum falls in BECAUSE Frodo tried to take the Ring back; so doesn't that mean it's GOOD to be evil?

http://entropy2.com/2013/03/fuck-you-peter-jackson/#comment-1163393902

I was gonna say you've discovered another Petty, but this guy doesn't go as deep.

halfwise wrote:I was gonna say you've discovered another Petty, but this guy doesn't go as deep.

He'd have to be longer for that. *badumtish*

[quote="Radaghast"]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

... at the end, Gollum falls in BECAUSE Frodo tried to take the Ring back; so doesn't that mean it's GOOD to be evil?

http://entropy2.com/2013/03/fuck-you-peter-jackson/#comment-1163393902

I see it as evil destroying itself as it so often does. The sheer passion it inflamed in its suitors eventually became its downfall.

I don't find that evil destroys itself (if only). Rather, I think evil is often usurped by another evil.

Smaug gets killed because of his own arrogance and cruelty. He had no real reason to attack Lake Town other than to inflict death.

Gollum dances around celebrating getting his beloved precious back and that glee destroyed both Gollum and Sauron (to the extent that he can be destroyed, anyway).

Saruman heartlessly attacked the forest and that provoked a wild reaction that brought about his downfall.

I find there are very few cases of an evil entities end not being brought about by itself in some way. Even if that way is evil acts inspiring noble deeds.

Tinuviel wrote:

Elthir wrote:By the way, for those who have seen the second film...

... who is Elros in it? What does he do? Although I assume it's a minor part.

He's the guard with the keys. He gets drunk. That's pretty much it.

Thanks Tinuviel! Sounds like they just borrowed the name then.

I honestly didn't catch the name "Elros" during the movie, though I recall it being on a casting sheet. They also borrowed "Itaril" for Tauriel in the beginning.