Barrel-Riding Test Photos at Aratiatia Rapids - TORn

I don't know if there was any fear that the barrel rides would kill the dwarves; it never even occurred to me. If anything, Bilbo was more in danger of dying than they were (though we know he wouldn't have died either).

He worries that some of the barrels seem to be low in the water, and fears they might be leaking.
Mainly he tries to stay on the barrel- and its his boast about being the 'Barrel-rider' to Smaug that gives the game away to Smaug.

Yeah, now his barrel riding is relegated to almost nothing with all the fighting going on. I suppose now he must also be "Arrow Dodger"

I hope that Bilbo does declare himself to be "Arrow Dodger" to movie!Smaug.

Norc wrote:i am jus gonna say this. I'de rather watch 13 dwarves down a rapid chased by orcs and elves and what not, than a slow river with 13 closed barrels for like five minutes ... srsly. i know it works in the book and all that, but when going to the movie theatre i am expecting more.

I get what you're saying, and it's a good point, but I think a semi-action scene with Bilbo struggling to stay on top of the barrels could work.  I'd even be okay with them making the river a bit faster or curvier or whatever.  Action scenes don't have to involve fighting.

as i have pointed out, the fighting is a bit unnecessary.. but still i'de rather have action than just lame ass barrels floating down a calm river with a miserable bilbo

If they had done the film properly up to that point id be so invested in the character of Bilbo that him being miserable would be affecting.

Yeah, Bilbo slipping and holding on for dear life could be very tense if handled correctly. The fighting bit seems to defeat the point of the barrels. And, unless I'm mistaken, it'd be hard to stay upright in a barrel in rapids in the first place.

Never mind that the whole point of the elves sending the barrels by river is to deliver them- you dont send wooden barrels down a river that consists of nothing but rapids and waterfalls, theyd be smashed to bits so defeating the very purpose of sending them by river in the first place   Its not only an unnecessary action sequence is also stupid and makes no sense within the world portrayed (or any world).

Indeed. Very good point.

erm... u guys know that rivers are very changable? this could be in spring.

Its not its early Autumn- Bilbo's birthday falls when he is Lake Town (but he forgot) so thats sept 22nd.

At the worst, I can't imagine how Bilbo riding on barrels would be any more tedious than the dwarves singing some monotonous dirge.

well, it rains alot in autumn!

I actually thought the Dwarves' Lonely Mountain song was one of the highlights of AUJ.  I loved it ever since we heard it in the first trailer.

agree eldo, it was magical  too bad it kinda went downhill from there.. also the song should've lasted longer..

It was the hilight of the film. It went downhill from there.

Norc, I see what you're saying about how boring (and silly, really) a collection of barrels floating down-stream, with only a single hobbit scrabbling around on one of them might appear on-screen. Bilbo's attempts to stay on top of a barrel in a river could indeed become boring after a while; an unskilled director would most certainly make the sequence boring and repetitive.

However, this is film we're talking about. Long sequences of some movies (the best movies, in my opinion) are simply sequences of shots that build together towards a climax, or endpoint. Film can work very similarly to music in that sense.

Therefore, when music and film are linked together, as they are in movies you can convey some pretty cool ideas. The addition of sound effects makes for an incredibly powerful three-part package in which to convey, basically, anything at all that the film maker wants to present, and in an interesting and captivating way to boot.

The barrels bobbing down the river from Mirkwood and towards Lake-town could actually be an incredibly cool scene if done with the right progression of shots and with the correct music and sound. This is what film-making is. Filmmakers are powerful because they aren't limited as a story-teller is by the everyday realities of what is interesting or not. Vision and sound is their medium, not words written on a page or spoken from a mouth. When it comes to movies, Mundane does not have to mean boring, and the exotic is not necessarily interesting.

Radaghast wrote:
Yeah, Bilbo slipping and holding on for dear life could be very tense if handled correctly. The fighting bit seems to defeat the point of the barrels. And, unless I'm mistaken, it'd be hard to stay upright in a barrel in rapids in the first place.

The point of this sequence is not to promote tension, but to give us a transitory period between the angsty Mirkwood elves and their drunken prison-guards, and Lake-town.
By shifting everything around in this part of the story--making the barrel-sequence into an action-packed chase--PJ and Co. are skipping over any quality storytelling subtleties and just stampeding straight for the ___________!!

Rather un-Tolkien Monty Python reference:

But the point of the barrel sequence is that it doesn't have to be an action packed part. In the book you've just had the fight with the spiders and a dramatic escape for the elves. And Jackson will be cutting away to action packed happenings at Dol Goldur as well. Only a bad B movie need action sequences every couple of minutes, surely.  

Now, how did Peter Jackson get his start in movies again?  

agreed. This section is not about action, its about Bilbo struggling to survive, his poor freezing body on that horrible barrel. It should be about him, not a water park game. Maybe the film could have him muttering to himself while his teeth chatter, he could voice his fears for the hidden silent Dwarves, he doesnt know if they are alive or dead at this point, which adds to the tension.

We got the wrong director & thats that. He is neither sensitive, sympathetic,empathetic,Has clear insight, long reaching insight...in fact what HAS he got   Hes got the "gift of the gab", hes persuasive when hes after something for his own ends, He should have been a politician ! He mucked up "King Kong", he wasnt 100% on LOTRs & as for The Hobbit ???????? I dont want to see it !!!!!!! My son wants to, I promised him Id go with him, but I know Im gonna barf as Im feeling fooking sick about it now !!  

I think at this point even the most ardent PJ apologist has to admit it is a complete rewrite. Even those guys on TORn are admitting as much (no matter what kind of spin they put on it) its a massive wholesale invention. Enjoyable for non book fans, or casual viewers, but anyone else is going to have insurmountable problems with it.
I am just going to have 3 hours of light entertainment, no more, no less. Its totally pointless to do anything else, or expect any more. cos we aint going to get it. I will no doubt enjoy the spectacle and the sillyness.

I always find that the more boring the film, the faster they go. Its like they are trying to trick us into thinking something is interesting by adding speed, as if they think our little brains dont understand we are actually watching something tedious. All action films disguise the shallowness within, unless its an action film and then its what you are paying to see, and thats fair enough. Its as if they are scared to have slow dialogue rich scenes in case we get bored. The irony is we probably would be, because films today dont have the interior richness, they are shallow and hollow when you really look at them. (not all obviously, just the blockbusters). But yesterdays blockbusters had power and depth, like Ben Hur or The Agony and the Ecstasy, Lawrence of Arabia,.etc

He's got hands of ham.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think at this point even the most ardent PJ apologist has to admit it is a complete rewrite.

Did you not see this quote that I lifted from a recent review?

"While Peter Jackson could most definitely be described as a Tolkien purist, he's not above taking a few liberties with the text..."