The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies Grade/Discuss (Spoilers)
- Thread starter DimesDan
- Start date
Perhaps, and my point of view may be colored by not being as frequent to LOTR boards as I am here, so the perception is not known among casual fans.
I just think that the idea that money will somehow get the Tolkien estate to move is misinformed, at best.
Just one boob, though. Let's not push it here.
Multiple boobs would be overwhelming.
On that we agree.
Teenage Frodo, idiot Treebeard, Arwen showing up at Helm's Deep, and Denethor doing a header off Minas Tirith probably confirmed his bias against the film industry.
Yes, I know #3 didn't make it to theaters, but the fact that it was filmed at all....
I think it goes back further than that, but all fair points.
Not to say I have a problem with teenage Frodo or rock-star Aragorn. But I can see why the Tolkiens would.
The other three items, now ....
The other three items, now ....
Eh, all artistic choices that happen as part of the adaptation process.
Some were great in LOTR and others, not so much.
But yeah, Denethor's sprint was a bit ridiculous.
Some were great in LOTR and others, not so much.
But yeah, Denethor's sprint was a bit ridiculous.
And to think they even planned a showdown between Aragorn and Sauron at Minas Tirith!
Planned? No.
Supposedly they had even starting filming it before replacing it with the cave troll. Same with Arwen in TTT.
Supposedly they had even starting filming it before replacing it with the cave troll. Same with Arwen in TTT.
That's been the MPAA's rule for some time, it's applied consistently to my knowledge. You can get away with one f-bomb and keep your PG-13 rating, but two or more and you get an R. That's why you sometimes see extra f-bombs in extended cuts on home video.
Sure, theirs is a consistent rule, but that doesn't mean it isn't f****** asinine. An R for The King's Speech, but a PG-13 for The Expendables 3?!
TBH I wouldn't have minded Arwen showing up at Helm's deep; it would have made more sense to the narrative (her being an established character with understood motivations) than a bunch of wandering NPC elves whose sole job was to die by the end of the battle.
The trouble with just cutting out the PJ stuff and sticking religiously to the book is that a lot of the background and character material is embedded in that PJ material - in other words, adapted for the screen. The fan-edits I've seen that attempt this often lead to characters appearing with no introduction and major plot elements not being properly established. As a result, some PJ stuff has to stay - this is his adaptation, after all and we have to work with the footage he's given us.
Last edited:
I absolutely think Arwen should have joined Helm's Deep, and then continued forward with Aragorn for the rest of the story. After all, Elrond's sons hook up with Aragon and go on the Paths of the Dead with him. God forbid we have a female character actually participate in the story. ;-)
***And I say this as a huge Tolkein purist who's read the novels like twenty times.
***And I say this as a huge Tolkein purist who's read the novels like twenty times.
I'm a huge Tolkien purist as well, but I have no problem with the adaptation process when it serves the larger narrative of the original material.
I would not have minded Arwen being there because I would see it as her being more proactive in terms of being with Aragorn rather than being relegated to the sidelines. There is a mirror of the Eowyn arc as well.
The Hobbit suffers from adding too much material that detracts from the larger narrative. There is so much that I, as someone who knows Tolkien lore and a detail nut, cannot keep up with all the characters, subplots and meandering threads.
Bard having three kids-adds to the narrative. Tauriel randomly threatening an Orc being interrogated does not.
And you can select a huge variety of parts from the Hobbit films that were added to the adaptation for no reason than to make it more LOTR. Sorry, the Hobbit was not LOTR, and was never meant to be.
In general I agree with that last, but I have to disagree with those who complain about the Dol Guldur plot. Like Arwen in LOTR, it's a plotline that actually is in the novel but is woefully neglected. Basically it's an excuse for Gandalf to disappear halfway through the book. Developing it in the movie is one of the very few good excuses for padding the story. I don't have a problem with the Council of the Wise showing up for that reason.
Anyone think the story about Dol Guldur, Thrain, and Gandalf should have been retained? It wouldn't work in the current version because Dol Guldur wasn't even known to be inhabited. And for Thrain to hang onto the key and map under those conditions seems a little unlikely. But still.
Now I don't remember what the movie said happened to Thrain other than losing his marbles at Moria. Did I miss something?
Anyone think the story about Dol Guldur, Thrain, and Gandalf should have been retained? It wouldn't work in the current version because Dol Guldur wasn't even known to be inhabited. And for Thrain to hang onto the key and map under those conditions seems a little unlikely. But still.
Now I don't remember what the movie said happened to Thrain other than losing his marbles at Moria. Did I miss something?
Gandalf finds Thrain imprisoned in Dol Guldur in the Extended Edition. I don't recall them ever explaining how or when Thrain gave Gandalf the map and key to pass on to Thorin, though.
Must see!
The addition of Thrain to DOS was an unnecessary one, IMO and led to some frankly bizarre scenes! I was quite happy for Thrain to have given Gandalf the map & key at some point in the 60 years interim (hinting at a family connection prior to the "chance meeting" at Bree)
These are the films in a nutshell - for every piece of narratively useful new material there's a corresponding lump of disposable one (of all the roles to give a great character like Tauriel, love interest is the best they could come up with?)
We do, just not in the same role as Aragorn. The Paths of the Dead were butchered in the movie anyway. So much of the story comes from Tolkien's experiences in the trenches - leaving family behind to fight in a foreign land, beside men who start out as strangers or even enemies but through the crucible of battle become lifelong friends. Having Arwen at Aragorn's side changes the entire dynamic of the story.
A purist who wants Arwen At Helms Deep? Sounds like a steak-eating vegan to me...