Waiting for 'The Battle of the Five Armies'...

for me if theres one good thing that came out of this sad débâcle its this video, it makes me happy and the landscape is truly Tolkien.   

Ive seen that before Figgy, & I heartily agree !  

I so fooking hate that Barrel scene ! The bit where Balin, chops that thick, aged, solid log with just ONE swing ??? !!! oh.......................................bugger ! Its utter,utter shat ! oozy, dribbly,............shat !!

THIS is more believable than the shat peejers drolled out. I know its a childrens story primarily but, Get yer balls out of your wifes purse & think will ya peejers !!!

azriel wrote:I so fooking hate that Barrel scene ! The bit where Balin, chops that thick, aged, solid log with just ONE swing ??? !!! oh.......................................bugger ! Its utter,utter shat ! oozy, dribbly,............shat !!

The whole thing plays out like a video game sequence.

Forest Shepherd wrote:I'm confused. You've been reading Tolkien or Martin?
If the first, I understand (tears of rage), but if the second, Dain's pig riding will remind you too much of Penny? I see!   

I've been reading A Dance with Dragons and got to the first chapter with Penny last weekend. It was her (and Oppo's) storyline that was sad. The Dain thing would be tears of rage.

dat barrel song

Reminds me a bit of this:



Edit: just in case embedding doesn't work, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-tjJDFfjQw

I didnt get my youtube vid on ?? Whyz zat ? why, sweety, why ?

done it  

i liked the barrel scene. it had me in giggles. although perhaps for the wrong reason. i liked that it was light-hearetd though, i think the whole movie should have tried to take itself less seriously...

Eldorion wrote: The Dain thing would be tears of rage.

Dain's story has been completely shit upon by Jackson. Ive been saying it for years now! What Tolkien wrote for his character makes it relevant when he becomes king under the mountain after {spoiler} Thorin's death. Personally I find Dain's story killing and beheading Azog just as interesting as the Hobbit tale itself. Its certainly better than two cartoon characters chasing the dwarves across middle earth because of some unknown vendetta, or that Sauron wants them dead because nothing bad in middle earth happens that he isn't directly responsible for. (at least in Jackson's pathetic world anyways) Jackson already blew his chance to make a great film by keeping Azog alive IMHO, had he followed Tolkien a bit more closely and simply had Bolg hunting the dwarfs for revenge I could have bought into it a bit more maybe. at least it would have fit without completely rewriting Tolkien's history.       

ok end of Rant!!! Hi everybody  

Hi Sin.

Hi Sin, missed your honest remarks when on "Bree"  

  hey Sin how you doin?

Sinister71 wrote:

Eldorion wrote: The Dain thing would be tears of rage.

Dain's story has been completely shit upon by Jackson. Ive been saying it for years now! What Tolkien wrote for his character makes it relevant when he becomes king under the mountain after {spoiler} Thorin's death. Personally I find Dain's story killing and beheading Azog just as interesting as the Hobbit tale itself. Its certainly better than two cartoon characters chasing the dwarves across middle earth because of some unknown vendetta, or that Sauron wants them dead because nothing bad in middle earth happens that he isn't directly responsible for. (at least in Jackson's pathetic world anyways) Jackson already blew his chance to make a great film by keeping Azog alive IMHO, had he followed Tolkien a bit more closely and simply had Bolg hunting the dwarfs for revenge I could have bought into it a bit more maybe. at least it would have fit without completely rewriting Tolkien's history.       

  Good to see you Sin!

Sorta agree, I've got to admit, if I had just read The Hobbit, not the appendices, I would be a little surprised by the Dwarfs just handing over the thrown to a random Cousin of Thorin's who turns up out of the blue-yes Dain is described as a grim, wise warrior in the book (and is one of my fave characters in the legendarium)but it does come out of the blue a little (though reading the drafts in The History Of The Hobbit, The Quest For Erebor and some of the myths Tolkien was inspired by it made alot more sense, and only added to my admiration of the Character...of course I doubt Jackson did any of this...) but for many casual fans he probably isn't worth developing much-kinda ironic actually, that's one of the few deviations I would have agreed with-inter spacing flashbacks to Thorin/Dain's youth throughout the film could have been used to ramp of the tragedy at the end, and make their kinship more evident.

Sadly the filmmakers seemed more interested in making Bilbo sideline himself as much as possible in favour of Thorin's cliched longwinded 'epic' storyline, for all their talk about making this a story of the friendship of Thorin and Bilbo, and 'the quest to reclaim a homeland' it's proved a rather overblown padded affair so far IMO, I'm still not entirely certain what the main storyline of DOS was supposed to be.

Bilbo is pretty much eclipsed and forgotten by the Thorin/Azog feud and the Kili/Tauriel romance,   He is just a boggle eyed bystander in his own story.   

Martin Freeman never looks settled or comfortable to me, He looks like he just cant get "into" Bilbo ? And he looks as tho he's waiting for someone to run on set with a fresh script, cos he's fooked if he knows whats coming next !

I agree Az, he looks annoyed that he isn't able to develop as a character, it kind of comes out in the films. At least he has the best lines out of everyone though, I plug my ears and hum whenever Tauriel speaks    

At work today I saw a copy of the official guide to DOS (written by Brian Sibley, who in addition to writing similar books for the preceding four films also masterminded the 1981 radio serial version of LOTR).  I turned it over to scan it and when I did happened to glance at the blurb on the back.  Here's what it said (image taken from Amazon):

Peter Jackson wrote:In our adaptation of The Hobbit we have done something that Tolkien didn't succeed in doing in print and, hopefully, this will come fresh to people who will have never seen the full story playing out in chronological order.

I guess that his conversation with Stephen Colbert didn't make that much of a difference in the long run.

Yes peejers, you certainly HAVE succeeded in doing something Tolkien didnt in print, you made a right fooking fook up !! And dur   why didnt I think to read it in chronological order ? I often start at the back & read to the beginning,

Jackson succeeded where Tolkien didn't? In what regard? Making an overbloated action flick that's a dime a dozen? Well congrats Jackson, you've completely missed the point. The sad thing is many a fanboy will read that and bring back the appendices argument that we all love to see.

Really the fame and yes-men went to his head; in the ten years since the last trilogy he became complacent. These new films are a self parody and the fact that it's trying to be serious and epic is too rich. I can't even get that mad about it anymore. I said a long while back in Bree that if these movies strayed really far from the source material that they'd become like the later Narnia movies for me: they exist and they're available, but I have to remind myself of that fact. They're so far removed from the source material in mind that they're almost completely irrelevant. They can scream for attention, but I'm numb to it.

The Hobbit movies just look like generic Hollywood action trash; it's a shame because the source material is worth more than that, but Jackson and co have shown that they're massive fans of that sort of convention. It's a good thing they can't touch the Silmarillion or any of Tolkien's other works. Once this movie series is over, I don't doubt that Warner Brothers would love Thorin to stay alive so they could make some sort of spin off. They'll probably do that regardless though. In any case, the series at that point is Lord of the Rings in name only which is more than reason enough to milk that cash cow until no one cares anymore.

 

I wonder if the cover editor didn't choose that quote precisely because if the irony. I'd like to think so!  

"In our adaptation of The Hobbit we have done something that Tolkien didn't succeed in doing in print"

Oh, yeah? And what's that? Bore the audience to tears?

Jesus Christ. What an arrogant fuck-face! Fuck you Peter Jackoff!

  

"In our adaptation of The Hobbit we have done something that Tolkien didn't succeed in doing in print''

yup totally fuck up the source material, use it for half baked advances in technology that nobody cares about, destroy the legacy of decades of someones painstaking work, cheapening and bastardizing it. yep good one Jacko you have succeeded in doing something Tolkien didnt succeed in doing. Turning the Hobbit into a dumbass parody thats ready for the bargain bucket.