Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Doesn't come out here till Boxing Day

Bluebottle wrote:Surprisingly many actually.

I'm kind of surprised too. I'd have thought more people would want to see it so they at least know what they're complaining about.

I understand the school thing though. Hope your exams are going well, Blue.

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:Surprisingly many actually.

I'm kind of surprised too.  I'd have thought more people would want to see it so they at least know what they're complaining about.

I understand the school thing though.  Hope your exams are going well, Blue.

Thank you Eldo.   

There was only really one. Though a rather large one, so that might be more or less daunting.

I will get around to seeing it though. Probably over Christmas.

I did post very occasionally over at the Barrowdowns for a time, and there seems to be quite a lot of disgruntled crabbiters floating around many of whom vowed to boycott DOS, so we aren't alone.

To be frank though...it's not exactly the film in itself that bothers me, it's all the marketing and pop culture who ha surrounding it, I never thought I'd find myself sympathizing with a 90 year old millionaire, but Christopher Tolkien was on to something in that interview he gave last year.

Ooo - a new designation. Which site is the Barrowdowns?

I guess I'm on the other side, Malick. I'm actually encouraged by the marketing. As much as I wish the film were more faithful to the book, I'd much rather see it win in the court of pop culture than see it fail. At least if PJ's interpretation succeeds (as it seems to be doing) there will be more people who go on to read and enjoy the book. If they were to bomb on a grand scale, it would taint the name "Hobbit" for a whole generation.

halfwise wrote:Ooo - a new designation.  Which site is the Barrowdowns?

An unrelated forum that's been kicking around since the year 2000, though I see why you were excited.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/

They may well have the staunchest purist/crabbit community of any Tolkien forum. Maybe.

David H wrote:If they were to bomb on a grand scale, it would taint the name "Hobbit" for a whole generation.

Fair point.

I'm not sure these movies have passed beyond the point where they can do untold damage to the book though.

I'm certainly not sure I would have been in a hurry to pick up the Hobbit after seeing them. They come across as very directed at Jacksons fans to me as well and not necessarily as suited to new viewers.

I don't know how many people the movies are necessarily going to turn away, but the LOTR movies have already muddled millions of peoples mental images of Middle-earth, which can cause extreme confusion when these people try to make sense of the book after having already seen the movie.  This is especially true for people who saw the movie first, but people who had already the book are by no means immune.

I just hope a new readers wont be disappointed theres no Tauriel/Azog in the book.

Eldorion wrote:I don't know how many people the movies are necessarily going to turn away, but the LOTR movies have already muddled millions of peoples mental images of Middle-earth, which can cause extreme confusion when these people try to make sense of the book after having already seen the movie.  This is especially true for people who saw the movie first, but people who had already the book are by no means immune.

Muddled in what way? I never found it too much of a leap between the two. But the Hobbit has a leap thats far to far.

Mrs Figg wrote:I just hope a new readers wont be disappointed theres no Tauriel/Azog in the book.

 

Yeah, not really all that worried by that part.

I kind of get too worked up about this stuff because the movies kind of muddy up my own imagination of these works. But I can ignore the movie if I really wanted to. Tolkien's legendarium happens to a favorite subject, though, and that includes comparing and contrasting the books and movies.

As far as whether the movie produces new readers, I think that anybody who picks up TH after seeing the movies might experience a kind of disconnect. It'd be interesting to see what new readers think of the book after seeing the movie, at any rate.

Mrs Figg wrote:Muddled in what way? I never found it too much of a leap between the two. But the Hobbit has a leap thats far to far.

Largely lore-related stuff. A lot of people get confused by whether Sauron is a disembodied eye, if the Dead Men are an invincible army, if Isildur was the last king of Gondor, whether Saruman was responsible for the attack on Caradhras, Frodo's age and class, and numerous other examples.

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:I just hope a new readers wont be disappointed theres no Tauriel/Azog in the book.

 

Yeah, not really all that worried by that part.

I hope Boyens doesn't write a new book featuring the two    

 she seems to be well on the way to some Twilighty fan fiction as it is.

 

We keep coming back to Twilight in this discussion, don't we.

There's probably a reason for that.  

Putting it on the Bucket list:

One day, if I ever get published for any of writing (all of which have strong female characters), I will publically denounce Boyens's character Tauriel as an example of anti-feminine energy and blame her for the repression of female power.

That or just say I'm better than her (which I hope to be). In fact, if I think what would Boyens do and do the exact opposite, I think I will be   

Mrs Figg wrote: she seems to be well on the way to some Twilighty fan fiction as it is.

The romance between Kili and Tauriel is so bizarre and out of place. I hadn't thought of a Twilight comparison and now I wish I hadn't   .

Tinuviel wrote:I will publically denounce Boyens's character Tauriel as an example of anti-feminine energy and blame her for the repression of female power.

Poetic Justice!!   

Yeah, Tin! Give 'er what for!

Ive been thinking about the morgul arrow that gets Kili in the film. What the buggery is it supposed to be What's it supposed to be doing to Kili?

The only Morgul weapon we have from Tolkien is the Morgul Blade.
And its not for killing with.
Its a magical weapon, any bit that penetrates the body breaks off and begins working its way towards the heart.
In Frodo's case his attempt to stab the Witch-king and putting the Witch-king off his stroke so to speak by invoking Elbereth at him, caused the Witch-King to pierce Frodo's left shoulder. But presumably the idea is to get as close to the heart as possible.

Aragorn describes it to Sam by saying, "..your master has a deadly wound that will subdue him to their will."

In Rivendell Gandalf tells Frodo more explicitly, "You were beginning to fade. The wound was overcoming you at the last....they tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife which remains in the wound. If they had succeeded, you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command. You would have become a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for tying to keep his Ring..."

So the morgul balde specifically wraiths you. And it seems designed to 'remain in the wound' and make for the heart.

So what does a Morgul arrow do?
Following the above it would turn you into a wraith, it would also be designed to break off in the wound (even easier with a naroow) and work its way towards the heart.
So is Kili supposed to be getting wraithed in DOS?

Or is film Frodo not being wraithed and is just poisoned. And so Killi is just poisoned too?   

And if it is wraithing and Tauriel can heal it with a bit of old athelas, does that not make Aragorns claim to be the King with Healing Hands a bit of a joke when any old elf can cure an ailment he cant even identify or cure with freshly picked athelas?