DoS extended edition recommendations

Golden Shower? I think you were in the wrong film Figgs Must have been Lord of the G-Strings

Makes one wonder what Treebeard really meant by "break the dam"

I rather liked Beorn in the book: gruff exterior but occasionally jolly once he warms up to you. I have no affinity for the Beorn portrayed in any of the filmed sequences. I hope the wargs get him.

The extended edition is great - it was all there; well done to the team on DoS.

The pink sky at the opening is easier to make out without polarised glasses, so it connects well.

halfwise wrote:I rather liked Beorn in the book: gruff exterior but occasionally jolly once he warms up to you.  I have no affinity for the Beorn portrayed in any of the filmed sequences.  I hope the wargs get him.

Yes, indeed. I find it impossible to really enjoy anything with film-Beorn in it, even this new scene with the dwarven introductions.
You cannot, as a director, mangle characters as much as Jackson has, and then cobble them together in a scene that is the drunk uncle of its book counterpart, and expect a viewer to feel the same emotions. Beorn is not friendly, or funny, or amused, or ANYTHING. He's just angry, and threatening, and alert, like an animal, to the possible threat of a few little bearded men showing up unexpectedly.
The dwarves are mostly stupid, and although Bilbo is alright, Gandalf is too afraid. He's a wizard! Sure, Beorn is a big bear-man, but Gandalf has seen some shit and can handle himself!
In the audio-tape you don't hear Gandalf stammering over his lines. I like Ian McKellen's acting, but it's misused in this scene.

The problem with this scene is the same problem the rest of the lighter scenes have in the movie. The humour is almost always bad Jackson-humour, and the characters do not function well comedically because of the disconnect the movies have between the serious scenes and the supposed-to-be-light scenes.

Basically, Beorn falls far short of his book counter-part because the character in the film is an uptight, uncharismatic stone-face.


Dwalin isn't the brightest either:
"I'm not running from anyone: beast or no!"
Yeah, like you haven't been running for the last film and a half. Genius man, genius.
I swear, that character has been given some terrible lines.
I've mentioned this before, but think back to when Gandalf disappears for a moment, having jumped down the hole that is the secret entrance to Rivendell in AUJ.
"Where's Gandalf?" Someone cries.
Dwalin, having seen him about 5 seconds ago, "He's abandoned us!"

Yeah Dwalins dialogue is really bad. They have tried to write him as a sort of Scottish hard man, without really grasping the concept and they are writing it from outwith the culture, so the result is this ridiculous caricature, a laughable Scottish dwarf fighter.
But then whilst I dont mind dwarves who sound Scottish I really dislike that they also import stereotypical Scottish culture tropes into the dwarvish culture too. Its one thing to make them sound Scottish, another to make them act Scottish (Dwalin and Balin meeting in Bag End and giving each other a Glasgow Kiss is a fine example of that sort of misplaced nonsense).

Sinister71 wrote:Golden Shower?  I think you were in the wrong film Figgs Must have been Lord of the G-Strings  

ooh Freudian slip

Forest Shepherd wrote:

halfwise wrote:I rather liked Beorn in the book: gruff exterior but occasionally jolly once he warms up to you.  I have no affinity for the Beorn portrayed in any of the filmed sequences.  I hope the wargs get him.

Yes, indeed. I find it impossible to really enjoy anything with film-Beorn in it, even this new scene with the dwarven introductions.
You cannot, as a director, mangle characters as much as Jackson has, and then cobble them together in a scene that is the drunk uncle of its book counterpart, and expect a viewer to feel the same emotions. Beorn is not friendly, or funny, or amused, or ANYTHING. He's just angry, and threatening, and alert, like an animal, to the possible threat of a few little bearded men showing up unexpectedly.
The dwarves are mostly stupid, and although Bilbo is alright, Gandalf is too afraid. He's a wizard! Sure, Beorn is a big bear-man, but Gandalf has seen some shit and can handle himself!
In the audio-tape you don't hear Gandalf stammering over his lines. I like Ian McKellen's acting, but it's misused in this scene.

The problem with this scene is the same problem the rest of the lighter scenes have in the movie. The humour is almost always bad Jackson-humour, and the characters do not function well comedically because of the disconnect the movies have between the serious scenes and the supposed-to-be-light scenes.

Basically, Beorn falls far short of his book counter-part because the character in the film is an uptight, uncharismatic stone-face.


Dwalin isn't the brightest either:
"I'm not running from anyone: beast or no!"
Yeah, like you haven't been running for the last film and a half. Genius man, genius.
I swear, that character has been given some terrible lines.
I've mentioned this before, but think back to when Gandalf disappears for a moment, having jumped down the hole that is the secret entrance to Rivendell in AUJ.
"Where's Gandalf?" Someone cries.
Dwalin, having seen him about 5 seconds ago, "He's abandoned us!"

yeah totally agree about Beorn, book Beorn is Bearlike, one minute grumpy and suspicious, then jovial and playful, then rip-your-head off scaryfying, bit like a real bear probably is, and unpredictable which one you are getting if you come across him unexpected in the Wild or in his home. film Beorn is just animalistic without the twinkle in the eye, film Beorn doesnt show the hospitable human side, the love he has for his animal friends, how he can switcheroo from gentle to wild in the blink of an eye. film beorn was one note sullen with no charisma, and nobody would like to get to know him or be his friend. Book Beorn is someone that anyone would like to know and call friend as he is a pretty cool character, handy in a pinch, and underneath the ferocious wildness you know he is a good soul.

Agreed. Film version is one note and bland.

One thing I missed from the book was Beorn checking out Gandalf's tale and killing the Goblin and hanging the warg skin by his gate. Something like that could have showed that the dwarfs stayed with Beorn for a short while instead of just overnight. Which is how Jackson's take on it feels. The whole adventure in Jackson's films feels rushed. Rivendell seems like an overnight stay, The dungeon's of Thranduil don't feel very long at all, maybe a 3 or 4 days at most. Laketown feels like maybe 2 or 3 days. But yet we get 20 and 30 minute action sequences that move us nowhere.

I agree with Beorn about them just making him angry and animalistic. Something that destroys the fun, jovial, attitude where he refers to Bilbo as a bunny (maybe thats where Jackson drew his insperation for the bunny sled ) and commenting on how fat the little bunny was getting.

I seem to recall the actor who plays Beorn saying the first thing he filmed was a scene where he tortures an orc, which hints that originally something along the lines of the book was in there, but for some reason they dumped it, even for the EE.

'The dungeon's of Thranduil don't feel very long at all, maybe a 3 or 4 days at most.'


Its seems to be just overnight in the film, as when they are captured and put in the cells they go on about how they will never make it in time for Durins Day, and then we see Bilbo overhearring Tauriel ect and stealing the keys from the cellar and just before Bilbo rescues them Bofur says "It must be dawn by now."

Loved the 10 hrs of extras, was interesting that it was Allen Lee's idea about drowning Smaug in molten gold.
I thought he would have bean one of the purists.

Still funny how half say Smorg and half say Smawg.
I'v always said Smorg myself, like in sm………august.

Mrs Figg wrote:
yeah totally agree about Beorn, book Beorn is Bearlike, one minute grumpy and suspicious, then jovial and playful, then rip-your-head off scaryfying, bit like a real bear probably is, and unpredictable which one you are getting if you come across him unexpected in the Wild or in his home. film Beorn is just animalistic without the twinkle in the eye, film Beorn doesnt show the hospitable human side, the love he has for his animal friends, how he can switcheroo from gentle to wild in the blink of an eye. film beorn was one note sullen with no charisma, and nobody would like to get to know him or be his friend. Book Beorn is someone that anyone would like to know and call friend as he is a pretty cool character, handy in a pinch, and underneath the ferocious wildness you know he is a good soul.

I have mixed reactions to that Mrs. Figg!
One the one hand, I like the word "animalistic." This reminds me of a factor that was missing from the film, and that is the animal servants that Beorn had. The animals Beorn kept were extra-ordinary (in the literal sense of the word): the bees were huge, the horses were especially intelligent, the smaller beasts could balance on their hind-legs and brought food to the table (something I would not want Jackson to ever show (because it would be CGI and done for comedy)). These things were an elevation of the ordinary creature to something more human-like in intelligence and form.
In the film, Beorn's "animalism" has the reverse effect: it lowers his character towards that of an animal.
Of course, some would argue that film-Beorn shows kindness to the helpless when he picks up the mouse off the table. I would counter that thinking with the fact that when I saw the film, I expected Beorn to eat said mouse, going off of his characteristics so far.

But on the other hand, Beorn in the book doesn't really transition between his different states so quickly as your comment would suggest. I mean, he's not bipolar! Well.. actually I guess he is a bit bipolar, technically speaking... Well whatever, he's grumpy and pretends to be irritable, but is really kind and warm-hearted underneath if he gets to know you (and likes what he finds out about you).
It is really only in his bear-form that we ever see the potential for violence and rage in his persona.

Still, I don't think Beorn ever really does switch back-and-forth suddenly. As Gandalf feared, he probably would have driven off the dwarves if he was introduced to them all at once, but once he did meet them all and get to know them a little he never really showed that surliness again.

A far removal from the film!
The Hobbit Trilogy: More Racist, Crueler, and Ruder than you Remember from the Children's Story!


P.S.
Really, the loss of manners found in Peter Jackson's films is abominable! Think of how much politer pretty much everyone is in the books. And the reason for doing away with politeness? The same reason less people practice it in real life: it takes more time!

I prefer the book Beorn, I felt he was a man of his own mind, separate from all the woes & problems of the world outside his own little haven. A bear by night, a giant of a man by day. I felt he was practically the last of his line, & that any others were probably so far away now & that he was so settled in his own world that it didnt matter anymore. I felt he was a bit enigmatic, much like Tom Bombadil. He laughed & loved a good story, didnt take fools lightly, honest & steadfast, thats how I felt anyway.
Film Beorn.........He came across as a grumpy,unreliable, cold, distant, oddity. I liked the look of him as a bear, that was good, but what I cant get over is that God awful Sonic the Hedgehog hairdo ! WTF ? ! I also thought he would actually squeeze that little mouse to mush in that scene at the table, I started to look away, only cuz of the bollards peejers has done with the story/characters so far ! Book Beorn LOVED his animals, I felt that. Film Beorn didnt give me that. I dont know WHAT he gave me actually ? Praps he might redeem himself in The Battle ?
And I dont think the sizes worked, Beorn looking so big, the mugs ginormous, it all felt out of wack !! the proportions werent right. Im aware there has to be differences in size but, it didnt gel somehow ?

yes I agree about the sizing, it didnt work for me either, but as you said, I dont know quite why. Beorn never felt like a huge man, more a very tall sullen Sonic the hedgegog with obvious contact lenses.
I also detested the handcuffs.

I got the size he's described by Tolkien I believe as 9 feet tall or something like that. So I understand why they made him so big. But did anyone else notice the mouse didn't change scale from by the dwarfs hand to Beorn's. He was the same size in comparison to the dwarfs hand as it was Beorn's hand. guess its size adjusted with whoever picked it up like the ring did.

'Twas a magical mouse,
all furred and fluffy.
His eyes were bright,
his whiskers a tad scruffy.

He searched amongst the dishes,
for bits of cheese or a fallen oat.
Until Bombur mistook him for a fig.
And popped him down his throat.

What ? NO !

Sinister71 wrote:I got the size he's described by Tolkien I believe as 9 feet tall or something like that. So I understand why they made him so big. But did anyone else notice the mouse didn't change scale from by the dwarfs hand to Beorn's. He was the same size in comparison to the dwarfs hand as it was Beorn's hand. guess its size adjusted with whoever picked it up like the ring did.

Kili's hand was twice the size of the she elfs hand as well.

chris63 wrote:

Sinister71 wrote:I got the size he's described by Tolkien I believe as 9 feet tall or something like that. So I understand why they made him so big. But did anyone else notice the mouse didn't change scale from by the dwarfs hand to Beorn's. He was the same size in comparison to the dwarfs hand as it was Beorn's hand. guess its size adjusted with whoever picked it up like the ring did.

Kili's hand was twice the size of the she elfs hand as well.

No wonder she's attracted to Kili, you know what they say about the size of a dwarfs hand in relation to his ... well you know.



Tauriel is a size queen I guess...