There and Back Again

I don't know. I feel like I'd have to care about more of the dwarves to be okay with more of them dying. Personally I don't care for Thorin, Fili, and Kili, but they all have to die anyway.

I'm betting they'll have Tauriel die alongside Kili as some sort of Romeo and Juliet nonsense. And then we'll all feel bad for Tauriel. Oh, wait, we won't.

bungobaggins wrote:I'm betting they'll have Tauriel die alongside Kili as some sort of Romeo and Juliet nonsense. And then we'll all feel bad for Tauriel. Oh, wait, we won't.

Some idiots will probably cry about it

Out of two films (5.5 hours of film so far), we've only had one emotional moment between Thorin and his nephews (right before they leave Lake-town).

Sure there's that moment when Kili gets shot during the barrel escape, when we have Thorin and Fili reacting. But we've only had one short conversation that barely establishes their relationship.

The entire conversation between Thorin, Fili, and Kili just before they leave Lake-town is exactly one (1) minute in length. One minute. We've had 5.5 hours of film, and only one minute is used to establish their relationship. These are characters we're supposed to care about. Give us a reason to care about them. Note: Their physical/sexual attractiveness is not a reason to care about them. It may be enough for the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't work for me.

That whole minute feels weak, and would have played out stronger if the relationship had been established, and I'm sure the delivery of the actors would have been better if there had been previous scenes between the three.

Radaghast wrote:

bungobaggins wrote:I'm betting they'll have Tauriel die alongside Kili as some sort of Romeo and Juliet nonsense. And then we'll all feel bad for Tauriel. Oh, wait, we won't.

Some idiots will probably cry about it

ELELELELELELELELELELELELELELELELELELE

{{{      }}}

Who says you can't love idiots?

I know. Sauron will have this army of 'bad men' who fight with him, they all get killed and turn into green toilet cleaner bubbles and then they bugger off to the Paths to await Aragorn, *flash* to Estel in Rivendell kicking his heels mooning over Arwen.

please don't give Jackson another needless tie in to LOTR Figgs. I wouldn't put some bullshit like that past him to try and make up some backstory for the paths of the dead sequence in LOTR. I mean in all seriousness ireally don't care about any of the dwarfs thus far in the films. Balin and Bofur are about the only 2 I feel ANY emotional attachment to. The rest could all be roasted by Smaug before he levels Laketown and comes home to the mountain for all I care. Honestly in Jackson's little made up dwarf Smaug confrontation sequence I was rooting for Smaug to just burn them all to a crisp and get it over with. Plus there is the whole issue with Dain Ironfoot coming in and doing whatever he does in the films. I am sure it will be nothing like Tolkien's lore. We the Tolkien fans have already been fucked out of seeing what could have been the baddest ass dwarf in middle earth by Dain's omission from the battle of Moria, from losing his great dialogue to Thrain about Durin's Bane,( Which IMO would have been GREAT foreshadowing of the Balrog in FOTR) to his beheading of Azog and putting his head on a spike, with a bag of coins shoved in his mouth, outside the gates of Moria. Instead we will get Dain showing up just in time to save Thorin from a massive orc invasion. Meanwhile they haven't explained how they are going to get a message to him. Jackson will probably make it all about the Arkenstone and having the 7 dwarf lords coming to Thorin's aid instead. Just more made up crap IMHO.

MAN I REALLY WISH SOMEONE HAD HAD SOME BALLS TO STAND UP TO JACKSON ABOUT HIS BULLSHIT CHOICES IN THE HOBBIT FILMS

As I was at a loose end today, I thought I'd numb my nerve endings by bravely watching "AUJ" again. I cannot sit thru that fook awful film without cataloging all the God awful foul ups, I just cant switch off. One thing, ( out of so many) stuck out ? Fili & Kili are meant to be looking after the ponies, they realise 2 are now missing. "Daisy & Bungle(?)" A couple of steps into the wood & NOW they hear voices, immediately Fili (?) knows its a Troll & says so in the same stern, decisive way as Leggy did when he said "Orcs!!" in LOTRs. Now its, "He's got Myrtle & Minty". ?? 16 ponies, 2 missing, 14 back at 'home', yet, when we see the Trolls there's 4 ponies tied up ??
We've all agreed the ridiculous "falling without a scratch when you should be dead" scenes, but, how the fook can you possibly keep your balance when the mountains are doing the Tango & hurling rocks at each other ?? Ie, the Stone giants.  Ive paused this film practically dozens of times, noting so many flaws ! Seeing it again & hearing the re-hashing of lines used nearly verbatim from LOTrs, the similar set pieces & scenes, the ENDLESS referring to "a dark power" or "Evil", the same bloody music used at certain points in LOTRs being used in The Hobbit, is just nauseating. The entire first half while Bilbo is at Bag End is so arse about face ! it just doesnt connect or add up. Peejers just couldnt make his mind up who or what this story is about for practically the whole length of the film. I think he only put in Smaugs eye at the very end to remind himself which track to go down as he is clearly more lost than Bilbo ! the best of it all for me was the Riddles part. Gollums facial expressions are brilliant ! the lighting on his face made him look sinister enough & creepy, & Bilbo did look scared at this point. But here am I extolling a bloody CGI !! Oh & the Eagles, just love the eagles. But why the bloody moth again ? I might have got it wrong but ? I dont recall a moth at that point ? Bloody Orthanc all over again. Thorin is peeing me off even more now. If he's not looking all moody, he's charging like a rampant bull elephant & showing himself up for it as well. If peejers thought that by making Thorin LOOK like he was trying, yet failing, it will make a under dog hero of him, NOT ! its just made Thorin look arrogantly stupid ! But, not to worry cos, like Frodo & his never ending 'falling', we have Thorin, & his never ending 'fainting'. There's to much bad that outweighs the good, for me in this film alone. And as for the Troll scene ?? I had to fast forward it, I just COULD'NT sit thru that shat again !.

azriel wrote:As I was at a loose end today, I thought I'd numb my nerve endings by bravely watching "AUJ" again. I cannot sit thru that fook awful film without cataloging all the God awful foul ups, I just cant switch off. One thing, ( out of so many) stuck out ? Fili & Kili are meant to be looking after the ponies, they realise 2 are now missing. "Daisy & Bungle(?)" A couple of steps into the wood & NOW they hear voices, immediately Fili (?) knows its a Troll & says so in the same stern, decisive way as Leggy did when he said "Orcs!!" in LOTRs. Now its, "He's got Myrtle & Minty". ?? 16 ponies, 2 missing, 14 back at 'home', yet, when we see the Trolls there's 4 ponies tied up ??
We've all agreed the ridiculous "falling without a scratch when you should be dead" scenes, but, how the fook can you possibly keep your balance when the mountains are doing the Tango & hurling rocks at each other ?? Ie, the Stone giants.  Ive paused this film practically dozens of times, noting so many flaws ! Seeing it again & hearing the re-hashing of lines used nearly verbatim from LOTrs, the similar set pieces & scenes, the ENDLESS referring to "a dark power" or "Evil", the same bloody music used at certain points in LOTRs being used in The Hobbit, is just nauseating. The entire first half while Bilbo is at Bag End is so arse about face ! it just doesnt connect or add up. Peejers just couldnt make his mind up who or what this story is about for practically the whole length of the film. I think he only put in Smaugs eye at the very end to remind himself which track to go down as he is clearly more lost than Bilbo ! the best of it all for me was the Riddles part. Gollums facial expressions are brilliant ! the lighting on his face made him look sinister enough & creepy, & Bilbo did look scared at this point. But here am I extolling a bloody CGI !! Oh & the Eagles, just love the eagles. But why the bloody moth again ? I might have got it wrong but ? I dont recall a moth at that point ? Bloody Orthanc all over again. Thorin is peeing me off even more now. If he's not looking all moody, he's charging like a rampant bull elephant & showing himself up for it as well. If peejers thought that by making Thorin LOOK like he was trying, yet failing, it will make a under dog hero of him, NOT ! its just made Thorin look arrogantly stupid ! But, not to worry cos, like Frodo & his never ending 'falling', we have Thorin, & his never ending 'fainting'. There's to much bad that outweighs the good, for me in this film alone. And as for the Troll scene ?? I had to fast forward it, I just COULD'NT sit thru that shat again !.

I'm almost tempted to watch it again, I haven't got anchorman 2 yet and could do with a laugh...

I remember noticing the rehashing of the music straight away but I've heard that Howard Shore actually released an entire soundtrack last year.

See Thorin was a arrogant dick in the book, but he was also enadearing to me-the grumpy old uncle with a soft heart (how could they miss out the harp playing???) and EVERY right to act the way he did. I have always envisioned Dwarves being like that, PJ's attempts to make them more likeable only ended up annoying me! I don't for one second buy Armitage's spoilt brat with suspiciously well groomed hair for a vagrant take on the character-Thorin in the book would never charge needlessly into a fight-he's not an idiot!

Don't TELL me how to feel PJ, let me think for myself! Thorin IS NOT a clear cut hero, making him look like a savior only to see him fall so far at the end is too obvious and insulting to both the character and audience. Thorin pays for his sins, he dosen't die for his heroism.

I agree on you other points, Bag End felt longer than it should have been and kinda messy, It didn't quite have the joyful magic of the book to me, though I suppose it was better than another 'epic' action scene. I did like the troll scene, though once again Jackson makes things longer and sillier for no reason.

Riddles remains great, the gaints remain stupid, and the eagles just plain annoy me (Gandalf seems to have a knack for attracting moths, maybe he should wash his cloak)

''Thorin in the book would never charge needlessly into a fight-he's not an idiot!'' Malick

you are right, he wouldnt. He would have sent Bilbo first    he wasnt exactly brave until the very end. But thats why I like him, he was flawed, a bit of a tit sometimes but underneath the gold lust, in the end, was a decent enough chap. Tolkien explains that you cant expect too much from Dwarves, you need to take them as they are, and they arent heros. or pseudo-Aragorns.   

azriel wrote:Peejers just couldnt make his mind up who or what this story is about for practically the whole length of the film.

This was one of my biggest problems with AUJ: the film seemed to have barely any interest in its supposed main narrative.  They begin with not one but two different prologues to, I suppose, get people's attention before moving on to the famous opening scene.  To be fair, they stick with Bilbo and do linger on the party (some would say they linger far too long, I'm of two minds about this).  Once they leave Bag End, however, the film is constantly cutting away to Radagast doing something, or a flashback to Thorin's backstory, or Azog and company dicking around.  There's very little about Bilbo or the Quest, and very little sense that they're actually travelling over great distances.  This last problem was present in DOS too, mainly with Mirkwood.  The narrative did get a bit more focused, but mostly at Bilbo's expense.

Mrs Figg wrote:you are right, he wouldnt. He would have sent Bilbo first    he wasnt exactly brave until the very end. But thats why I like him, he was flawed, a bit of a tit sometimes but underneath the gold lust, in the end, was a decent enough chap. Tolkien explains that you cant expect too much from Dwarves, you need to take them as they are, and they arent heros. or pseudo-Aragorns.   

Yeah, The Hobbit has very unconventional characters for a big fantasy story (which is undoubtedly in part because it's not really a "big fantasy story" in the way we often think of that term).  Bilbo is a stuffy, middle-aged, and privileged on account of his parents wealth.  Notably, he doesn't have a tragic backstory like Frodo or a great destiny looming over him.  He falls into the Quest as a result of Gandalf's machinations, but he was hardly central to the plan's conception and one gets the feeling that Bilbo could have very easily missed out on the Quest and kept going about his normal life in only slightly different circumstances.  Of course, he's changed by his experiences, but in the end he goes back to his old life to settle down to a comfortable retirement, rather than transforming his home or whatever the Hero's Journey template calls for.  While LOTR consciously followed The Hobbit's lead in terms of story structure, it was much more conventional in following mythic archetypes (which became fantasy archetypes largely on account of LOTR).  I don't mean this as a criticism, but I think it's an important part of what gives The Hobbit it's own identity, and it's been almost completely lost by making Bilbo a fighting action hero (and also younger and less sheltered/stuffy). I think making Thorin a brooding antihero and sex symbol (and, again, significantly younger than he was in the book) is a similar example of not just LOTRizing the story but making it more conventional in fitting standard fantasy tropes and expectations.

I also didnt like that from the word GO, there was a reference to LOTRs all the way thru. It hits hard when we see Bilbo smoke his first smoke ring which, just had to be a "Ring" with the title firmly embedded in it.It could have been any other shape, OR just whisps but, no, it had to be a Ring.  Bag End was pleasant as it was set IN Bag End but, it was to messy. If we are to accept in LOTRs Bilbo is writting HIS story for future Hobbits to read ? then why the "Hole in the ground" sequence ? unless you give us that line in FOTR ? then it will connect.But then, its for us, the audience, letting us know a bit about Hobbits. Seems a bit strange telling Hobbits how they live when they already know.  In FOTR Frodo is unaware of Bilbo's plans to bugger off, no clues, no hints only that Bilbo's been acting odd lately ? but then Bilbo often did act odd but, nothing came of it, until the Birthday party. And to have Bilbo look dazed & ask if today was the party only made him come across as senile. If its been 60yrs since Smaug got his grubby little claws on Erebor, how come Balin is the only one thats aged ? What, so the others were charging about in Iron clad nappies, attacking Orcs & such like with metal rattles & wooden dummies ?? "Miss Lady Lovely locks" still remains in his prime. Balin was the only believeable Dwarf in it, for me. Tho I found his glorioso speeches of his adulation of Thorin a bit choking. Re-hash number ? gawd, I dont know, there are to many ! Gandalf, In Bag End. He just HAD to hit the light fitting in just the same manner, he even added the same "oh" as he did in FOTR . Im thinking a lot of this film could have scrapped together with shots taken from LOTRs & saved the actors bothering to get up in the morning !  With ALL the hints to evil   the necromancer, , the same fooking LOTRs music AND chants, Smoke rings, uncle Tom Cobbly & all, I got bored more sooner than I might have done. IF it was original, fresh music, NO hint of a fooking ring, draw back on the "oooooooooh, evil !" I MIGHT have liked it a tad, but only a tad, bit better ? If ever there was a film were I needed SOMETHING to keep me awake & alert, these fook ups are it !

yep I agree, it was stale. All of it.

''I agree on you other points, Bag End felt longer than it should have been and kinda messy, It didn't quite have the joyful magic of the book to me,'' Malick

Maybe I was expecting to feel the magic, or maybe I had psyched myself up waiting so long for TH that it was bound to be a letdown, or maybe I just shouldnt go back in nostalgia to places I once knew, I dunno, but this time the magic wasnt there like you said. and magic cant be forced, its mercurial and slips through the fingers like smoke or fairy dust. It cant be manufactured at any rate. That why LOTR was such a one off. It had magic coming out its ears.

You could always try the purist edit next time you get the urge to watch the films Azriel- no Necromancer, no constant LotR's references and Bilbo back as the main character.

Sadly the upload I made for Figg has been pulled by Warner Bros.   

no neeps   

My neeps have not only been plucked Figg, Warner Bros have mashed them.   

 

The LotR's edits are still there- I always liked New Line more than Warner Bros   

I know Petty   And I have seen your edits, thankgod for them really ! But, I thought, if one is to continue to pick holes in Peejers ( as I admit, I love to do) then one must know what one is fooking talking about ? Peejers had high ideas that he could emulate the great Directors of yesteryear. In his mind he thought he could climb the golden ladder of eternal stardom & be praised as one of the truly illustrious, to sit, side by side, with names we now know by surname alone..........hee hee hee......wrongo Peejers ! keep trying...

He can sit side by side Michael Bay.   

Another thread left redundant thanks to the change in film title!   

The thing is...do any of us even care what its called anymore?

  nope

Sorry Azriel, my drunken memory!   You not only watched them you gave a very good review and post of your thoughts now I stop to think about it. Its this sort of buckie memory of mine I suspect annoys Figg so much too!