DoS extended edition recommendations

I don't have time right now to give a really long reply to your post, Forest, but I did want to make just a couple of quick points.

Forest Shepherd wrote:It is dishonest because what it means to adapt from one medium to another (and we're talking about literature to film in this case) is to take the characters and ideas (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, it might be argued, the plot) of a written story and make those same elements work well in a film.

While a film like Adaptation(2002) might adapt its source novel in a self-aware and ironic manner, or a movie like The Scarlet Letter (the 199-something version) might completely turn around the point of the original work, these are not really adaptations but rather interpretations. Take, for example, the massive number of historical revisionist versions of Hercules or Robin Hood or Dracula stories that have come out as films. They are generally not adaptations of the original idea or character, but restructurings fitted to a generic template that has been borrowed from basic screenwriting.

"Entirely missing the point" of the original idea is certainly possible in these types of movies. Dracula in the recent film is not actually evil. Perseus in the recent Clash movies is not a heroic half-god and future ruler of Mycenae whose actions have been foretold by the oracle at Delphi, but is a folk hero who strives to right the wrongs brought about by the foolish gods and overcome monstrous adversity through the power of his humanity.

Back in the day (so, like, 2009 ) I used to get into arguments about the movies where I would quote the dictionary definition of "adaptation" to try to prove that PJ was wrong to make the changes that he did. But my views have evolved over time, and I no longer find that argument convincing. Generally speaking, what people mean when they say that a film is adapted from something else is that there were certain basic ideas carried over from the source material, such that it can't be called an original creation of the screenwriter(s).

I hear what you're saying about "adaptation" vs "interpretation", and it's an interesting idea, but unfortunately it's not one that I've ever heard in other conversations about movies, and I try to use words the way that they are generally meant, for clarity of communication if nothing else. Fans, critics, filmmakers, and the general public tend to refer to films based, however loosely, on some non-film source material as adaptations. And it is far from widely-accepted that one can put value judgements on the closeness of an adaptation. This topic just came up in a thread in the Arts and Entertainment forum, actually.

Now, personally, I do tend to agree that unfaithful adaptations are "bad" ... at least when I care about the source material (although I've always maintained that being a bad adaptation does not necessarily make something a bad film, nor vice versa). But I know from experience that there are a lot of people who feel differently, and I don't think the dictionary definitions of words is strong enough evidence to override their colloquial usage (at least, not in this case). I can't call something dishonest if it boils down to a difference of opinion or subjective judgement, which is what this matter does, in my opinion. Now, if someone claims that PJ was "faithful" to Tolkien's vision, I think that's a falsifiable statement that one can marshal evidence against, but I'd still try to keep personal jabs like "dishonest' out of it.

But others might interpret things differently.

no matter if Middle Earth looks like our own world and is supposed to be a place on earth, it has never existed anywhere but in the minds of the author and his readers- BN

Its supposed to be an adaptation of an authors work. If the authors work is famous for its realism in world building then it is part of the adapters job to try to convey this important aspect.
Many as the problems I have with LotR's are, PJ at the start of making them at least understood and spoke about this very matter and its importance.
He has since abandoned that position in favour of spectacle.
This is not something you can claim is just PJ choosing to interpret differently, as he was clearly aware of the importance of it when making LotR's. It something he has abandoned. And its a large and important part of what makes ME what it is.

'That is true for very many things in Tolkien's books.'

No where near the levels of spectacle versus stupidity PJ presents us with.

So the dwarves get in a huge fight with 3 trolls and are fine despite leaping around like cgi elves. In Goblin Town the amount of places someone should have been hurt or killed, not least when the Great Goblin falls from a great height onto them all, is ridiculous, yet everyone is of course fine. Even Bilbo a hobbit seems capable of plunging down cliffs and sliding down ropes (without rope burns I might add) without so much as a winding (hell the trolls toss him through the air to no effect).
Kili getting injured, another contrivance invented for the Tauriel/Legolamb love thing, because it had to be him who got hurt or Tauriel wouldn't care less) and doesnt happen until half way through DOS, so thats about 4 or 5 hours worth of film in which there is supposed to be constant peril, physical heroics, fights and nothing happens to anyone.
Legolas getting a bloody nose barely counts for anything. The whole scene is very stupid.
How if Laketown is so heavily guarded Beorn needs to sneak the dwarves in does a whole group of orcs just walk in over the walls? How when they start fighting is there no response from the Lake town guards when as soon as they are needed to grab Bard they turn up instantly? Didnt they notice a large group pf orcs having a fight in their town? Were they all off having a roll up?

'both you and I also would look straight forward in such a situation,'

Except if you really have watched the clip you will clearly see the orc is not looking straight ahead, he is looking up to talk to Legolas, and only turns to Tauriel, along with the camera Pov, when he speaks of wounding the dwarf. So your point is wrong. He turns to address Tauriel. The camera work could not be clearer he is addressing Tauriel. They are looking right at each other, when previously the orc was not looking at her at all.

There is no reason to single out a 'black haired archer' save to make it clear he is talking about the dwarf Tauriel fancies. It would be more natural for him to just say they shot one of the dwarves. The description is only there so Tauiel knows exactly which one it is. The one, coincidentally she has interacted personally with and formed a bond with. Its the very definition of contrived.

'But must we really conclude, that anything we don't see or hear, doesn't happen ... or couldn't have happened? '

If the viewer is left to guess how something happened, or make their own excuse up for how it happened than its a poor script. It is not the job of the viewer to constantly try to excuse what they are seeing on screen.


'And it doesn't have to.'

No but ideally it should, it is an adaptation. And if a change is to made it should be thought out. PJ's changes are not, he often makes changes after the later footage has been shot for example meaning resolutions cannot be found. The biggest example of this is of course the Thorin Bilbo thing at the end of AUJ, a pick up filmed to accommodate the change to three films. But the change in their relationship is not reflected in their interactions in DOS because the actors filmed those using a script in which the events at the end of AUJ had not happened.

'Does any of the characters in the LOTR movies or The Hobbit movies ever say, that it's the only path that exists?'

I dont think so, not in movieverse. Although there is nothing in movie verse eieher to suggest otherwise. And it is clearly marked as the only pass on the map, a map provided in the official releases on DVD and Bluray as an accompaniment to the films.
Also if there were potentially multiple paths this makes it even less likely Gandalf would know where they had gone as he would not even know which of the multiple routes they had embarked on.

'As far as I know Gandalf has the ability of sensing things'

What are you basing this on?

'he was nearby and therefore was able to hear something in the distance. The goblins weren't exactly quiet'

And they were deep inside a mountain in a range of mountains. Unlikely you could hear them from outside somewhere.

'Or have you considered the possibility, that Gandalf could have witnessed the battle of the Stone Giants from a distance and therefore guessed'

Now you are inventing excuses not given in the film in order to explain an inconsistency that is in the film.
This is exactly what I was saying above, this is the viewer having to excuse the weaknesses in the script. The epitome of poor writing.

David H wrote:I'm afraid this conversation is only reminding me of the problems with the move. Another one that was especially hard to overlook for me:

If you've ever worked with molten metals, you'll know that a river of gold is far, far hotter than your stove top, and that the air around it is hot enough for paper and cloth to spontaneously burst into flame if there's any oxygen left.  Even if dwarves are fireproof and don't need oxygen, their clothes should have burned off them as they boated down the river.

Again I don't expect the animators to know this, but there should have been somebody somewhere in the process that understood basic physical properties if they want it to have any of the charming sense of reality that much of LotR gave us.

As it is, it's just painful to watch.

In all of your posts you are analyzing a fantasy world with reality as a criterion. Well, analyze this part of the book (which is also in the third LOTR movie):

Could Frodo and Sam have survived the intense heat of the vulcano inside Mount Doom? Could they have survived the poisonous gas? You have to remember, that Frodo and Sam hadn't got away, when the volcano exploded. And Tolkien says, that the fire reached the roof.

Is that also "painful to read", or is this the point where you are able to find a lot of excuses.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its supposed to be an adaptation of an authors work.

And "to adapt" means "to adjust or fit" ...

One example from the world of music:

'Hound Dog' was originally a blues song - Elvis presley turned it into a rock'n' roll song. Those two genres are related, but they are not the same.

In Elvis Presley's version some of the words have been changed.

The original song was performed by a woman ("Big Mama" Thornton); the cover version was performed by a man.

The original song was relatively slow. Elvis's cover version was fast.

So some things were changed radically.

I guess, Elvis completely ruined that song, huh? I mean, his version deviates from the original.

'That is true for very many things in Tolkien's books.'

No where near the levels of spectacle versus stupidity PJ presents us with.

But near enough. In fact so near, that Tolkien's novel and PJ's movies belong to same genre: fantasy

Kili getting injured, another contrivance invented for the Tauriel/Legolamb love thing, because it had to be him who got hurt or Tauriel wouldn't care less) and doesnt happen until half way through DOS, so thats about 4 or 5 hours worth of film in which there is supposed to be constant peril, physical heroics, fights and nothing happens to anyone.
Legolas getting a bloody nose barely counts for anything. The whole scene is very stupid.
How if Laketown is so heavily guarded Beorn needs to sneak the dwarves in does a whole group of orcs just walk in over the walls? How when they start fighting is there no response from the Lake town guards when as soon as they are needed to grab Bard they turn up instantly? Didnt they notice a large group pf orcs having a fight in their town? Were they all off having a roll up?

I doesn't matter if you like these scenes from the movies or not. The point is, that some of our heroes DO get injured and ARE affected in the movies.

Except if you really have watched the clip you will clearly see the orc is not looking straight ahead, he is looking up to talk to Legolas, and only turns to Tauriel, along with the camera Pov, when he speaks of wounding the dwarf. So your point is wrong. He turns to address Tauriel. The camera work could not be clearer he is addressing Tauriel. They are looking right at each other, when previously the orc was not looking at her at all.

He can't look the leader (Thranduil) in the eyes, cause Thranduil is behind him. He has trouble looking Legolas in the eyes because of the sharp blade and Legolas' strong grip. So he looks at Tauriel. And again: he only talks about Kili because of what Legolas said ("13 dwarves").

There is no reason to single out a 'black haired archer' save to make it clear he is talking about the dwarf Tauriel fancies. It would be more natural for him to just say they shot one of the dwarves. The description is only there so Tauiel knows exactly which one it is.

Since he doesn't know the name of the wounded dwarf, he just mentions his looks (black-haired). And you forget, that the orcs probably haven't been counting the dwarves during the battle ("How many are there now") So he doesn't know, if any of the other dwarves were wounded by an arrow or even killed. He had other things to worry about at that time, such as Legolas killing many of the nearest orcs.

If the viewer is left to guess how something happened, or make their own excuse up for how it happened than its a poor script. It is not the job of the viewer to constantly try to excuse what they are seeing on screen.

"Constantly" is a strong exaggeration. ... But in other words: You consider everything that happens off-camera to be plotholes. ... Well, well.

But the change in their relationship is not reflected in their interactions in DOS because the actors filmed those using a script in which the events at the end of AUJ had not happened.

This is one of your worst mistakes so far. The change in their relationship is definitely reflected in DOS: Thorin expresses hope, while he imprisoned, because he knows, that Bilbo is somewhere nearby. There's trust and kindness betwen them now. Thorin tells the others to "do as he says!" when they hesitate to crawl inside the barrels. And he praises Bilbo, when Bilbo joins them in the water: "Well done, Master Baggins". And when Bilbo finds the stairs (when they're just outside erebor), Thorin says: "You have keen eyes Master Baggins"

[quote]'As far as I know Gandalf has the ability of sensing things'

What are you basing this on?

First: Bear in mind that we're talking about consistency within all of PJ's movies. ... So my answer is: From the ROTK scene, where Gandalf asks Aragorn: "Have do we know, that Frodo is alive?" - Aragorn replies: "What does your heart tell you?" - Gandalf: "That Frodo is alive. Yes, he's alive." ... In another scene Gandalf says: "Frodo has passed beyond my sight."

'he was nearby and therefore was able to hear something in the distance. The goblins weren't exactly quiet'

And they were deep inside a mountain in a range of mountains. Unlikely you could hear them from outside somewhere.

He could already have been inside the mountain, when all of that terrible noise occured. If a mountain has very big caves, it's more than likely than it also has several entrances. It's not like the mountain was built by the goblins, you know.

'Or have you considered the possibility, that Gandalf could have witnessed the battle of the Stone Giants from a distance and therefore guessed'

Now you are inventing excuses not given in the film in order to explain an inconsistency that is in the film.
This is exactly what I was saying above, this is the viewer having to excuse the weaknesses in the script. The epitome of poor writing.

The keyword here is: imagination

Everything doesn't have to be spelled out. Things happening off-camera are NOT automatically plotholes.

You're still being quite unreasonable ... and just for the sake of the argument.

Mrs Figg wrote:''In my opinion you and the others in this forum are INVENTING or creating problems just for the sake of argument''. BN

Dont need invention, unfortunately the truth is too hard to ignore.

((((( )))))

There is no universal truth here, when it comes to what works and what doesn't work in the movies. But some people insist on being unreasonable. They are displeased with the movies ... and that's okay with me. But they are exaggerating, they are taking their critique much too far.

well, If you had the job of being a very informative & observant film critic for a leading & universally known magazine or a highly rated & trusted newspaper could you give a completely unbiased review of The Hobbit & what do you think you would say in your review ? Remembering that not only are you representing a global media but, there are people out there who read & respect & value a well documented review of a film they may want to see & just cant quite make their mind up ? One may have to cater for both parties, those that know their Tolkien & those that dont. Those who may have initially read the book & those who havent.

To adjust or fit does not mean to abandon the original entirely and invent your own story.
Which is what has happened with these films.

That a song can change the style in which it is sung has no bearing on adapting a book to the screen.
Its is the responsibility of such an adaptation to try to capture the essence of the original work and then adjust or fit that to the new medium.
It is not a license for pure invention and an abandonment of the very tenets with which the original work is associated.

'But near enough.'

No, its nowhere near. Its not even playing the same game in the same ball park.

'The point is, that some of our heroes DO get injured and ARE affected in the movies.'

No two people are, one of them who shouldnt even be there. And we have to wait 5 hours of more of ludicrous over the top action for it to happen.
I watched the entire troll and goblin sections with a detached disbelief that I was seeing videogame effects and peril tension free acrobatics in this film. Especially in a part of the book where it is for the first time particularly dark and dangerous.


'He has trouble looking Legolas in the eyes because of the sharp blade and Legolas' strong grip. So he looks at Tauriel.'

Have you even watched the clip? He clearly has his head turned upwards as far as he can move it to address Legolas and then turns his head down and to the side to speak to Tauriel about injuring the dwarf.

'Since he doesn't know the name of the wounded dwarf, he just mentions his looks (black-haired).'

For what purpose ? Just saying they shot a dwarf would have conveyed the same, why feel the need to physically describe which dwarf if not because it lets Tauriel know its the particular dwarf she cares about. Something the orc cannot possibly know. Had the goblin said the more natural "We shot a dwarf, or even a dwarf archer' Tauriel would not have known who it was and her plot would not have moved along as it did. That is the very essence of contriving something in a script.

'There's trust and kindness betwen them now.'

I hardly think it is trust and kindness. In the barrel situation there is no other choice but to abandon Bilbos plan and try t get back out the way they have come in through the Halls, which is even more dangerous and likely to failure. Thorin is practical here not kind.
If it had followed any of the book development of course the other dwarves would be turning to Bilbo at this point anyway instead of Thorin.
By having the dwarves await Thorins word PJ further undermines the books character development for Bilbo and Thorin. But thats hardly surprising as they destroyed it already in AUJ.
Telling him he has keen eyes for spotting something is again hardly a sign of them being best buddies. Especially as shortly afterwards he cant even say his name and calls him the burglar.
The section of the book from Mirkwood to Dale is one in which Bilbo takes on the role of leader at Thorin's expense. Thats is the character development and arc they should be portraying and trying to adapt. What we get instead is their own invention divorced from the book entirely and as weak as ten day old tea, without a teabag in it.

I think Gandalf trying to judge what 'his heart' tells him and saying Frodo has passed beyond his sight is different from Gandalf having a radar equipped where he can locate missing people. If this were the case he would not have needed Faramir to tell him that Frodo had gone to Shelobs Lair for example.
You are advocating here not that Gandalf might have a feeling or hunch that they might be alive or dead but that he knows precisely where they are.

'Things happening off-camera are NOT automatically plotholes.'

No but things that happen onscreen and dont make sense are. We see that Gandalf stays behind. We see the dwarves encounter the giants. We see the path to the cave they enter destroyed. We see them enter the cave. We see them captured through a hidden floor and taken deep into the mountain.
These things are on screen.

For Gandalf to just reappear somewhere there is no logical way for him to either know that is where they are, or physical means left to get there, is a plothole.

Lucky for you I have to wait an hour to watch Who or you wouldnt have the benefit of my crabbit wisdom to put you straight.

<deleted>

I hope BN is not feeling ganged up on. Granted supporters of TH films are pretty thin on the ground here (and most places to be honest) and some of your replies BN, such as the above to Forest I have taken to be gestures of humour rather than any other intent. In that I do hope I am not mistaken as I have been thoroughly enjoying our debate and hope you are too.

<deleted>

Forest Shepherd wrote:I'm not going to keep personal jabs out of this conversation. I am done being nice as long a we continue this line of debate. If we can move on to other subjects, or aspects of the movies, then I will try and be calm and collected.

We've always acknowledged that debate will get prickly when it's about topics where people feel strongly, and I think most of us feel strongly about Tolkien stuff, I think.  But deliberately being an asshole to someone because you disagree with them is not acceptable.  So I'm going to put on my mod hat for a moment and say -- to everyone -- that I will not let this thread (or any other) degenerate into that.  Thanks in advance.

BN.filmz wrote:

In all of your posts you are analyzing a fantasy world with reality as a criterion. Well, analyze this part of the book (which is also in the third LOTR movie):

Could Frodo and Sam have survived the intense heat of the vulcano inside Mount Doom? Could they have survived the poisonous gas? You have to remember, that Frodo and Sam hadn't got away, when the volcano exploded. And Tolkien says, that the fire reached the roof.

Is that also "painful to read", or is this the point where you are able to find a lot of excuses.  

First I'd like to say that I admire your spirit, BN. Watching you defend the Hobbit movies in Forumshire is like watching Boromir fighting orcs against impossible odds. Your defense is heroic!

Now to answer your questions regarding Mount Doom, I've always read that in the book as a symbolic death. Peter Jackson seems to see it the same way. The eagle rescue and fade to white, to wake up in a clean white bed, is easy to interpret as a symbolic resurrection. It's a beautiful scene, don't you think? But I don't see the point at all of the gold river, other than just more CGI filler.

I have a small smelter for casting aluminum for parts around the farm. It takes at least an hour to get half a liter of aluminum up to a molten casting temperature (about 500 C). At that temperature, even a drop of water becomes an explosive, so a lot of cation is necessary. Brass and gold take almost twice the energy, about 1000 C, and would take our machine 4 or 5 hours to heat, but it's just too dangerous for us to mess with. That's a lot hotter than the lava I've seen.

To be honest Dave that yeeha gold mine rapids rush seemed dam silly to me, It was far to instantaneous, the amount of gold, it being liquid enough, the actual dynamics for the run of flowing gold etc, & no one showed any signs of heat ? no sweaty brows ? ( no Lynx deodorant ?) And Thorin was willing to ride the rapids without one jot of fear or worry, didnt protect himself or take precautions tho the heat from the melted gold must have been astonishingly high ? This isnt an advert for a new chocolate bar, whooshing down towards its wrapper, in shops now,The other silly piece I feel is at the ending of RoTK, where Frodo & Sam suddenly develop super lungs, able to with stand sulphur ? and the calm meditative way they just sit on a itty bitty rock while the most extreme heat, & lets face it, fear, is gliding past them ? That didnt gel for me. Im tired, I should nip off to beddy byes

BN.filmz wrote:In all of your posts you are analyzing a fantasy world with reality as a criterion. Well, analyze this part of the book (which is also in the third LOTR movie):

Could Frodo and Sam have survived the intense heat of the vulcano inside Mount Doom? Could they have survived the poisonous gas? You have to remember, that Frodo and Sam hadn't got away, when the volcano exploded. And Tolkien says, that the fire reached the roof.

Frodo and Sam also weren't inside a magma chamber, but were in a hallway off to the side (the Sammath Naur), where they were sheltered from the main force of the eruption and were able to outrun the lava flows.  The actual "Crack of Doom" that Gollum and the Ring fell into was not the main vent either, but part of a side vent.  The movie's depiction of the interior of Mount Doom is rather different, though much more dramatic.

In my opinion you and the others in this forum are INVENTING or creating problems just for the sake of argument

Not sure how we are inventing anything. We are pointing out facts not opinion about the Hobbit films. I know if I point out something from Jackson's "adaptation" I can back it up by finding the source in the film. and the source from Tolkien. Which for me is not open to interpretation if Tolkien describes it. If the Professor was clear on something in the book there is noopinion about it thats the way it should be.

I agree certain things would not work in a live version of the Hobbit like the talking purse, which are in the more fantastical side of the story. But I have no issue with that being left out. Additions like Troll snot, rock em sock em stone giants, Bilbo doing stupid things like following a path of destruction following trolls to get ponies back,  or the change Jackson made by Gandalf not forcing Bilbo out the door, or forcing a sword upon him. stuff that compared to the actual story makes no sense.

Book Stone Giants... great just in the background, adds a element of danger gives them reason to seek shelter other than from the storm
Jackson's version the stone giants become an amusement park ride, All that movement and not one of them falls off the edge to not be saved? and why weren't they crushed when the Stone giant lands on top of them. any danger seems false and there really isn't anything left from the book other than the storm which they are obviously trying to carry on all night instead of seeking shelter for the night which is what they were doing when they saw the Stone giants in the first place
Book Bilbo's leaving the shire, great when Gandalf forces him out the door, he never really wanted to be on the journey to begin with all part of his character arc in the real story, he forgets many things, he complains constantly about missing Bagend (kind of a running theme through the beginning)
Jackson's version Bilbo goes running off to join Thorin on his quest on his own, he obviously had time to pack a bag, He seems anxious to be on the journey. Bilbo being who he is would not have just walked off without things pocket handkerchiefs included, never once really complains about missing his Hobbit hole, unless its in some made up scene with Thorin about getting the dwarves home back and that he loves his home. and he announces to all of Hobbiton as he's running through it that he is "going on an adventure"... why didi they not tell the Sackville-Bagginses that Bilbo was on this adventure
Book Bilbo sneeks upon a fire in the distance to investigate what it is at the request of Thorin and the rest of the company. He then discovers the Stone Trolls He is caught trying to steal a talking purse (something I don't miss being left out ) he could have been caught trying to steal food if they had left the storm in the scene because the dwarfs were wet and hungry.
Jackson's version Bilbo follows a path of destruction chasing 2 ponies that have been taken, he knows rather early in the scene they are trolls and still follows them, then he gets caught trying to get a knife to free the ponies, by getting picked up by accident and getting snot blown all over him, Here is the only change of Jackson's I agree with so far the dwarfs all coming to Bilbo's aid together, then we get him stalling the trolls by talking about parasites and other nonsense just to try and make it humorous.

That's just a few things from the beginning of the first film that are completely different from the source when the original version is  better and flows with the actual story better IMHO. Don't get me started on all the dialogue changes, NONE and I mean NONE of Tolkien's dialogue remains intact without some change or another in every bit of the film.

Did I invent anything in here ?  all of it is in the film and comparable to the book.
People for some reason just want to kiss PJ's ass cause he made these films and they get to go back to middle earth. Personally I could have waited much longer to go back, if someone else had directed these films and maybe showed a bit more respect to the source material instead of thinking what can I change to make these films about Sauron and the ring all over again instead of telling the Hobbit the way people know it

Agreed Eldo, peejers tho made it seem as tho Frodo & Sam are in amongst the raw horror of an exploding volcano & there they are just sitting there as tho they are feeding the ducks in a bloody park ?? Is this peejers idea of tension or giving in to giving up ?

We've always acknowledged that debate will get prickly when it's about topics where people feel strongly, and I think most of us feel strongly about Tolkien stuff, I think. But deliberately being an asshole to someone because you disagree with them is not acceptable.- Eldorion

Now Ive found my mod hat from down the back of the sofa and behind half a pizza I could have sworn I'd eaten, I have to agree with Eldo here, if not necessarily with his youthful wording.

We can argue the details of the debate till we are blue and red in the face and thats the fun of it. But never attack each other, nothing personal, nothing designed to be hurtful or malicous. And that of course goes for all of us myself included.

David H wrote:
I've always read that in the book as a symbolic death.  Peter Jackson seems to see it the same way. The eagle rescue and fade to white, to wake up in a  clean white bed, is easy to interpret as a symbolic resurrection.  It's a beautiful scene, don't you think?  But I don't see the point at all of the gold river, other than just more CGI filler.  

You summed it up perfectly Dave. That scene looked between the lines of the book. Tolkien didnt mention the fade to White, that was a beautiful poetic visual transition between hell and heaven with the winged saving angels (Eagles) carrying Frodo and Sam off to safety and the clean White bed. Why oh why couldnt Jackson have kept that capacity for sublime moments like that. The only tiny moment like that was in AUJ with the sparks Flying out of the chimney, literally thats the only moment in the entire 2 films I loved.

I also would gladly have waited another 10 yrs if need be to get a more truthful account of The Hobbit. I was excited when I heard it was in the making !..... I was.......bloody well aint now !

Mrs Figg wrote:

David H wrote:
I've always read that in the book as a symbolic death.  Peter Jackson seems to see it the same way. The eagle rescue and fade to white, to wake up in a  clean white bed, is easy to interpret as a symbolic resurrection.  It's a beautiful scene, don't you think?  But I don't see the point at all of the gold river, other than just more CGI filler.  

You summed it up perfectly Dave. That scene looked between the lines of the book. Tolkien didnt mention the fade to White, that was a beautiful poetic visual transition between hell and heaven with the winged saving angels (Eagles) carrying Frodo and Sam off to safety and the clean White bed. Why oh why couldnt Jackson have kept that capacity for sublime moments like that. The only tiny moment like that was in AUJ with the sparks Flying out of the chimney, literally thats the only moment in the entire 2 films I loved.

decent scene but how about Thorin riding a wheel barrel on molten gold? Why didn't the wheel barrel get hot and melt as well? dwarfs must be heat resistant. and whats up with 9 dwarfs trying to fight the dragon how stupid is that. with tiny pots of gunpowder. ESPECIALLY since the whole dwarven realm of Erebor got wiped out by Smaug. But hey Jackson got to go apeshit on the CGI didn't he so I guess we should all forgive him for adding garbage like that into the film.  Yeah right

Sinister71 wrote:

decent scene but how about Thorin riding a wheel barrel on molten gold? Why didn't the wheel barrel get hot and melt as well? dwarfs must be heat resistant. and whats up with 9 dwarfs trying to fight the dragon how stupid is that. with tiny pots of gunpowder. But hey Jackson got to go apeshit on the CGI didn't he so I guess we should all forgive him for adding garbage like that into the film.  Yeah right

Well in fairness, The Dwarves didn't have a plan in the book to deal with the Dragon (though I think that worked in the book), so Jackson was left entirely to his own devices on this one, I don't think any casual audience member would pay to see Smaug breath a little fire at the Dwarves before scarping off whilst they twiddled their thumbs in a tunnel, given Jackson had spent AUJ setting them up as warriors (or bouncing ninjas given the hijnks in the goblin tunnels) it would be a bit of a cop out ending in what has been built up as Thorin's epic confrontation with Smaug. That said he could probably have done better with this scene...

malickfan wrote:

Sinister71 wrote:

decent scene but how about Thorin riding a wheel barrel on molten gold? Why didn't the wheel barrel get hot and melt as well? dwarfs must be heat resistant. and whats up with 9 dwarfs trying to fight the dragon how stupid is that. with tiny pots of gunpowder. But hey Jackson got to go apeshit on the CGI didn't he so I guess we should all forgive him for adding garbage like that into the film.  Yeah right

Well in fairness, The Dwarves didn't have a plan in the book to deal with the Dragon (though I think that worked in the book), so Jackson was left entirely to his own devices on this one, I don't think any  casual audience member would pay to see Smaug breath a little fire at the Dwarves before scarping off whilst they twiddled their thumbs in a tunnel, given Jackson had spent AUJ setting them up as warriors (or bouncing ninjas given the hijnks in the goblin tunnels) it would be a bit of a cop out ending in what has been built up as Thorin's epic confrontation with Smaug. That said he could probably have done better with this scene...

That was in UT the quest for Erebor if memory serves which Jackson has no rights to (THANK    GOD) so personally I think he should have just left it alone

<deleted>

The irony is that the Lonely Mountain scenes in the film is full of so called high pitched dramatic action and 'thrills' but the book is 100% more tense and really gives the impression of lurking doom. compare the ludicrous scene with Thorin standing on Smaugs nose, Smaug somehow fails to incinerate him to toast, compared to the brooding goose-bumps you feel in the book at the thought of Smaug silently Flying round the mountain hunting them while the Dwarves are still out on the path, then Bilbo insisting they close the door, just in time, or the prickling feeling something is watching them as they leave through the great door and walk through the Desolation. i know which I find more thrilling and it aint Teflon Thorin.

I think if peejers had done so that we see Bilbo get pushed forward, on his own, to grope around in the dark down the tunnel towards Smaug, him grab an item to prove he'd been down there it would have been more exciting! then, we have him do it again but, with the ring on & have that discussion with Smaug, well, it would have made my tummy tingle but the fook awful Bouncy Castle scene just made me feel deflated