Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 14:55:36
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Paradigm wrote: Bromsy wrote: Asherian Command wrote:
Actually I liked the bit with the mouth of saruon getting his head chopped off. It reminds me of Game of Thrones in a way.
Why is that a good thing in a series with a tone that is diametrically opposed to Game of Thrones? Not to mention that just before that event the character that does that throws away a world beating advantage in the name of honor.
The thing is, though, The Mouth of Sauron is Evil. One of the most interesting parts of LotR is a very black and white take on Good and Evil, so basically, if the other guy is working for Sauron, then anything goes. You could walk into an orc camp, kill the lot of them, and no one from Bree to Dol Amroth is really going to condemn you. Servants of the Enemy get no representation whatsoever; they are an evil to be destroyed. The one break from this is Faramir's 'I wonder who he was, and where he came from' speech in TTT, which I also like because it sets Faramir apart as far more canny and observant that most. The TT extended edition does wonders for the whole Faramir/Boromir/Denethor relationship, both over the 'normal' version and the book.
But back to the original point, Aragorn just beheading The Mouth is good as a) The MoS is representative of Sauron, so it represents Aragorn triumphing over him, b) it shows that, for the first time in the trilogy, Aragorn actually acts out of pure anger, so the weakness of men is not entirely hidden in him. It's also very cool.
The only change in all 6 films I don't like is the ommission of the Scouring of the Shire, other than that I think every change is either not important or an improvement.
The point why beheading the Mouth of Sauron is bad is because it was under an act of parley; historically, no matter how bad the other dude is, you never do that. It makes you incredibly untrustworthy, treacherous and dishonourable. Coming from the King of Gondor, and especially one who turned away an unkillable army because it would be dishonourable, it's a character-destroying act by Aragorn and completely contradictory to just about everything his character was about the entire story.
As for the Scouring of the Shire, people were criticising how long the ending of RotK was already, how much longer would it have been with that whole fiasco at the end? An hour after the destroying of the ring? It barely adds anything to the story besides letting Tolkien have a thinly-veiled jab at how industrialism is destroying the countryside. Having Saruman be killed by Grima about 3 hours earlier cuts out a solid 30 minute's worth of time in a situation that doesn't do much for story at all other than a sucker-punch for the hobbits at the end (and would also destroy the "yay, everything's looking good, let's all celebrate" vibe that the rest of the ending gives.
|
DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+
JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles.
corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day.
greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 14:59:47
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Compel wrote:Except people had already heard of them, there already was a subplot of 'where are Gondor's armies?' And Aragorn had already been referred to as leader of the rangers.
So that really doesn't hold water with me.
The Rangers of the North, which was the unit Aragorn commanded were the last remnants of the army of Arnor. Not Gondor, most Gondorim wouldn't have heard of them, but they would however know of Arnor from their histories, but Arnor had long fallen.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:00:33
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
I can totally see excluding the Scouring in the theatrical release, but it might have been nice to get it into the Extended Cut. But the expense of filming all the extra scenes might have been a bit much.
Aragorn beheading the Mouth is more egregious to me because it alters the character fundamentally, and doesn't really add anything to the story (in my opinion).
Faramir's change is similar, but worse, because it actually creates plot holes all over the place (like, the scene with Frodo holding the Ring up to a Wraith is good spectacle but terrible storytelling, especially when the whole subplot with Pippin and the march on the Black Gate is meant to fool Sauron into thinking that Aragorn (or someone else) has the Ring. If a Wraith had seen it in the hands of a Halfling at Osgilliath, that entire thing is nullified.
That might not bother lots of people, but I felt it was a change that didn't need to happen and it detracted from the story for me as it made less sense by far than the original presentation.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:02:38
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Hangin' with Gork & Mork
|
shrike wrote:The point why beheading the Mouth of Sauron is bad is because it was under an act of parley; historically, no matter how bad the other dude is, you never do that. It makes you incredibly untrustworthy, treacherous and dishonourable.
Historically how often did we deal with evil angels controlling orcs, dragons, trolls, goblins, et al? I'm also not sure they were actually under an act of parley, but it has been awhile since I have seen that deleted scene.
|
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:06:10
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
shrike wrote: Paradigm wrote: Bromsy wrote: Asherian Command wrote:
Actually I liked the bit with the mouth of saruon getting his head chopped off. It reminds me of Game of Thrones in a way.
Why is that a good thing in a series with a tone that is diametrically opposed to Game of Thrones? Not to mention that just before that event the character that does that throws away a world beating advantage in the name of honor.
The thing is, though, The Mouth of Sauron is Evil. One of the most interesting parts of LotR is a very black and white take on Good and Evil, so basically, if the other guy is working for Sauron, then anything goes. You could walk into an orc camp, kill the lot of them, and no one from Bree to Dol Amroth is really going to condemn you. Servants of the Enemy get no representation whatsoever; they are an evil to be destroyed. The one break from this is Faramir's 'I wonder who he was, and where he came from' speech in TTT, which I also like because it sets Faramir apart as far more canny and observant that most. The TT extended edition does wonders for the whole Faramir/Boromir/Denethor relationship, both over the 'normal' version and the book.
But back to the original point, Aragorn just beheading The Mouth is good as a) The MoS is representative of Sauron, so it represents Aragorn triumphing over him, b) it shows that, for the first time in the trilogy, Aragorn actually acts out of pure anger, so the weakness of men is not entirely hidden in him. It's also very cool.
The only change in all 6 films I don't like is the ommission of the Scouring of the Shire, other than that I think every change is either not important or an improvement.
The point why beheading the Mouth of Sauron is bad is because it was under an act of parley; historically, no matter how bad the other dude is, you never do that. It makes you incredibly untrustworthy, treacherous and dishonourable. Coming from the King of Gondor, and especially one who turned away an unkillable army because it would be dishonourable, it's a character-destroying act by Aragorn and completely contradictory to just about everything his character was about the entire story.
.
Fully greed with Shrike, Aragorn would never break parley. So those who think the beheading 'cool' are just reinforcing ignorance. The irony is, Game of Thrones fans mostly understand the safety rights from the Red Wedding. Killing an ambassador is no better than what Waldor Frey did.
Historically this did play out also. King Henry I was well known for threatening nobles at council, but he oftimes made mention that the errant noble would no be arrested because he came to council, he was about as bad as it normally got, because most kings knew this was something you NEVER do, unless the noble committed treachery, at the council itself. What pissed people off about King John was that he ignored these rights and would arrest nobles at council, where they were by custom safe, it was one of the key mistakes that cost hom the security of his kingdom.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:07:26
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Orlanth wrote:
The Rangers of the North, which was the unit Aragorn commanded were the last remnants of the army of Arnor. Not Gondor, most Gondorim wouldn't have heard of them, but they would however know of Arnor from their histories, but Arnor had long fallen.
You're conflating the two points I was making into one.
The first point was:
"Oh, we don't need to have EVEN MORE characters and armies and factions and things, it's already way too complicated to start adding in Dol Amroth and the other Gondor forces instead of ghost-tidal-wave-of-doom"
And similarly:
"Oh, we don't need to have EVEN MORE characters and armies and factions and things, it's already way too complicated to start adding in Halbarad, The Rangers, Elladan and Elrohir too."
I wrote a rather long post earlier illustrating why, in my opinion, it's not too complicated as, I've shown in that comment there. Aragorn is already established as leading 'Them Rangers.' And, also, seperately. There was already a whole subplot with Denethor sending away Gondors armies. One doesn't need to go into the entire history of Dol Amroth, all that's ultimately needed, is a banner design.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 15:07:40
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:13:04
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Ahtman wrote: shrike wrote:The point why beheading the Mouth of Sauron is bad is because it was under an act of parley; historically, no matter how bad the other dude is, you never do that. It makes you incredibly untrustworthy, treacherous and dishonourable.
Historically how often did we deal with evil angels controlling orcs, dragons, trolls, goblins, et al?....
Jude 1:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
In the Bible Michael meets Lucifer and treats him with the respect due to his station. As a well known Biblical reference the medieval cultural parallels are undeniable: i.e even Satan is entitled to honourable conduct under parley, though refusing parley is considered wiser and the standard response for humans. Michael however can withstand Lucifer and therefore can parley with him, so long as he does so with proper respect.
Ahtman wrote:
I'm also not sure they were actually under an act of parley, but it has been awhile since I have seen that deleted scene.
In the film the Mouth of Sauron approaches the fellowship, alone, and starts talking. Initiating the conversation with a welcome on behalf of Sauron and a 'diplomatic' smile.
It was clearly a parley.
In the books it is eve more clear. The Mouth of Sauron found Aragorn's presence very intimidating and claimed his right to safe conduct, and is given assurances of such by both Gandalf and Aragorn, though with mentiion that the parley will not last long. When the parley does end the Mouth of Sauron hurries away back to the gate, Sauron attacks the West as he arrives.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 15:28:14
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:14:04
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
They could have done it, but I think it would have been difficult to do with their focus on the madness of Denethor. In the book, the whole thing is much more sedate really, but on screen it feels a lot more pressurised.
If Aragorn had got his Ghost Army and driven off some pirates and then shown up with an army of other people, that would have confused the casual viewer unless some screentime was given to saying who they are, and why they couldn't come, building the corsairs into a greater threat and so on. I figure that might be 15-20 minutes extra screen time, and the movie was already pretty bloated.
I'm not a huge fan of the army of ghosts, but the battle was going to be pretty hard to direct no matter what.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:22:09
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Hangin' with Gork & Mork
|
Orlanth wrote: Ahtman wrote: shrike wrote:The point why beheading the Mouth of Sauron is bad is because it was under an act of parley; historically, no matter how bad the other dude is, you never do that. It makes you incredibly untrustworthy, treacherous and dishonourable.
Historically how often did we deal with evil angels controlling orcs, dragons, trolls, goblins, et al? I'm also not sure they were actually under an act of parley, but it has been awhile since I have seen that deleted scene.
Jude 1:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
In the Bible Michael meets Lucifer and treats him with the respect due to his station. As a well known Biblical reference the medieval cultural parallels are undeniable: i.e even Satan is entitled to honourable conduct under parley, though refusing parley is considered wiser and the standard response for humans. Michael however can withstand Lucifer and therefore can parley with him, so long as he does so with proper respect.
I ask for history and I get more fiction.
|
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:31:13
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
Don't be a knob, Ahtman.
Can you give me a decent justification for altering the character of Aragorn from the books (who conducted the parley peacefully, though he was angry as hell) to the sudden beheading in the film? What did it add to the story, and how did it make the film better, than if he had acted peacefully?
I would say that at best it is a neutral change which merely changes the character into something else to make him more understandable to the lowest common denominator. I don't think changes like that are a good idea, personally.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 15:32:32
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Ahtman wrote: Orlanth wrote: Ahtman wrote: shrike wrote:The point why beheading the Mouth of Sauron is bad is because it was under an act of parley; historically, no matter how bad the other dude is, you never do that. It makes you incredibly untrustworthy, treacherous and dishonourable.
Historically how often did we deal with evil angels controlling orcs, dragons, trolls, goblins, et al? I'm also not sure they were actually under an act of parley, but it has been awhile since I have seen that deleted scene.
Jude 1:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
In the Bible Michael meets Lucifer and treats him with the respect due to his station. As a well known Biblical reference the medieval cultural parallels are undeniable: i.e even Satan is entitled to honourable conduct under parley, though refusing parley is considered wiser and the standard response for humans. Michael however can withstand Lucifer and therefore can parley with him, so long as he does so with proper respect.
I ask for history and I get more fiction.
Ahtman, give your brain a chance. Bible stories are intertwined with medieval culture through and through, I even made mention of such in the reply you quoted to hedge off comments like that. The passage from Jude was used by countless rebel knights and lords at parley over hundred of years, and was of course backed up by the church.
Next time dont let your atheism stand in the way of thinking things through. Aren't atheists supposed to be rational?
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:00:05
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Paradigm wrote:One of the most interesting parts of LotR is a very black and white take on Good and Evil, so basically, if the other guy is working for Sauron, then anything goes.
You are not just wrong, you are the most wrong anyone could possibly be on this subject. If you are Good and you do not trust the individual offering you parley enough to accept, you do not accept. There are circumstances in which one might reject a truce knowing it is not being offered in good faith, but that does not mean that you can break it just because the person offering it is "Evil".
|
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:26:59
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
AlexHolker wrote: Paradigm wrote:One of the most interesting parts of LotR is a very black and white take on Good and Evil, so basically, if the other guy is working for Sauron, then anything goes.
You are not just wrong, you are the most wrong anyone could possibly be on this subject. If you are Good and you do not trust the individual offering you parley enough to accept, you do not accept. There are circumstances in which one might reject a truce knowing it is not being offered in good faith, but that does not mean that you can break it just because the person offering it is "Evil".
In reality, I agree. But this is Middle Earth, where Evil is not nebulous but a defined and certain force, at least from the perspective being written from. The forces of Sauron, and so chiefest of all his actual representation, are regarded by the Men of the West as less than human, utterly unredeemable and ultimately worthless. The whole point of the parley at the Black Gate is a ruse anyway, they were going for a fight whatever came, so I'm not sure honour comes into it; not only would Aragorn not consider the honour when dealing with the MoS, but the whole proceeding was based on deception and betrayal.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:32:48
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Paradigm wrote: AlexHolker wrote: Paradigm wrote:One of the most interesting parts of LotR is a very black and white take on Good and Evil, so basically, if the other guy is working for Sauron, then anything goes.
You are not just wrong, you are the most wrong anyone could possibly be on this subject. If you are Good and you do not trust the individual offering you parley enough to accept, you do not accept. There are circumstances in which one might reject a truce knowing it is not being offered in good faith, but that does not mean that you can break it just because the person offering it is "Evil".
In reality, I agree. But this is Middle Earth, where Evil is not nebulous but a defined and certain force, at least from the perspective being written from. The forces of Sauron, and so chiefest of all his actual representation, are regarded by the Men of the West as less than human, utterly unredeemable and ultimately worthless. The whole point of the parley at the Black Gate is a ruse anyway, they were going for a fight whatever came, so I'm not sure honour comes into it; not only would Aragorn not consider the honour when dealing with the MoS, but the whole proceeding was based on deception and betrayal.
Gandalf even explicitly calls out that they're not donkey-caves as rationale for allowing the Mouth of Sauron to leave in the books, I'm not sure how much more explicit it can get than that TBH.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:32:49
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Da Boss wrote:Don't be a knob, Ahtman.
Can you give me a decent justification for altering the character of Aragorn from the books (who conducted the parley peacefully, though he was angry as hell) to the sudden beheading in the film? What did it add to the story, and how did it make the film better, than if he had acted peacefully?
I would say that at best it is a neutral change which merely changes the character into something else to make him more understandable to the lowest common denominator. I don't think changes like that are a good idea, personally.
That makes him human. Him suddenly beheading the guy shows that Aragon can be rash sometimes. Aragorn should still make mistakes.
|
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:38:25
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
I'm pretty tired of characters having to be artificially and clumsily "flawed" to show their humanity.
I mean, is it really needed? It's such a trope at this stage it's actually more refreshing to see a totally honorable bad ass.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:54:18
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Da Boss wrote:I'm pretty tired of characters having to be artificially and clumsily "flawed" to show their humanity.
I mean, is it really needed? It's such a trope at this stage it's actually more refreshing to see a totally honorable bad ass.
Take it from someone who writes short stories all the time....
perfect characters who have no flaws are inherently boring. A deeply flawed character is not only more interesting but more entertaining than one that is completely perfect and does no wrong.
|
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:58:43
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
Well, I think I'll accept your POV, but you should also consider that I know my own tastes well enough to know what I consider boring and what I consider interesting.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 16:59:32
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Da Boss is not arguing against characters being interesting, he is arguing against hamfisted characterization.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 17:02:09
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Manchu wrote:Da Boss is not arguing against characters being interesting, he is arguing against hamfisted characterization.
well to be honest Aragorn is for a lack of a better term too perfect.
Too all mighty and too little flaws to really count.
|
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 17:05:47
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Hangin' with Gork & Mork
|
I don't disagree with whether it changes the character or not, just that trying to equate it to actual history is a poor argument for that. I keep checking my history books for when a supernatural human went to parley with a dwarf, elf, and a wizard, and come up strangely short in that area. Going against elements of the character shown up to that point makes for a better argument. Of course it was left out of the definitive, ie theatrical, version for a reason and my guess is some of the reasons listed, but not following actual human history isn't one of them.
|
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 17:07:32
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Tolkien's charcters seem to want comparison with one another rather than being considered in and of themselves. I think this is because they are (mostly) not so much people as concepts. For example, Aragorn is the true king who broods in self-doubt while Boromir is the over confident son of the steward.
The conceptual nature of the characters is exactly why murdering the MoS is so un-Aragorn and ... ugh, just a gauche moment of audience pandering.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 17:09:28
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
Asherian Command wrote: Manchu wrote:Da Boss is not arguing against characters being interesting, he is arguing against hamfisted characterization.
well to be honest Aragorn is for a lack of a better term too perfect.
Too all mighty and too little flaws to really count.
Although that is, in many ways, the point of his character. Aragorn is the first King of Men to overcome the inherent weakness of his race to temptation, the same weakness that led Isildur to his death, and to unite the Kingdoms of Men under one banner. He is meant to represent Men taking their place in Middle Earth and reclaiming the greatness of Numenor. So I don't think he suffers from being 'too good'.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 17:09:36
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Plus, why would anyone introduce a new character flaw to a major character in, if my memory serves correctly...
His penultimate dialogue scene in a 11 hour film series.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 17:15:54
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Hangin' with Gork & Mork
|
Compel wrote:His penultimate dialogue scene in a 11 hour film series.
Well the theatrical version wouldn't have the beheading anyway, and the Extended Edition is a bit over 12 hours iirc.
|
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 18:46:45
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
Indeed.
What we're just trying to point out is that Jackson was not infallible even though his original films are really very good. His screenwriters and he himself made poor decisions at times. You can see those poor decisions magnified a lot in the Hobbit.
I am re-watching the Two Towers at the moment btw and was struck by the part where Aragorn prevents Theoden from killing Wormtongue because "enough blood has been spill on his part".
I am also struck by just how much better these movies are in terms of pacing and direction than the Hobbit ones.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 18:55:25
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
Asherian Command wrote: Manchu wrote:Da Boss is not arguing against characters being interesting, he is arguing against hamfisted characterization.
well to be honest Aragorn is for a lack of a better term too perfect.
Too all mighty and too little flaws to really count.
Tell that to Elrond - he is def not good enough for his daughter - dooming her to mortality and all
Given that Tolkein was heavily influenced by Norse Saga's etc which are by no means black and white - there is plenty of betrayal and honour breaking as much as those who do hold true to their oaths - and this is quite true of the Silmarilion - even the Elves do it - including kinslaying much like something out of Game of Thrones or ( IMO the superior) Vikings TV show's.............
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 19:15:07
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Da Boss wrote:Indeed.
What we're just trying to point out is that Jackson was not infallible even though his original films are really very good. His screenwriters and he himself made poor decisions at times. You can see those poor decisions magnified a lot in the Hobbit.
I am re-watching the Two Towers at the moment btw and was struck by the part where Aragorn prevents Theoden from killing Wormtongue because "enough blood has been spill on his part".
I am also struck by just how much better these movies are in terms of pacing and direction than the Hobbit ones.
I agree. They are not perfect. Infact there are very few good fantasy films.
|
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/03 19:30:59
Subject: Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Mr Morden wrote: Asherian Command wrote: Manchu wrote:Da Boss is not arguing against characters being interesting, he is arguing against hamfisted characterization.
well to be honest Aragorn is for a lack of a better term too perfect.
Too all mighty and too little flaws to really count.
Tell that to Elrond - he is def not good enough for his daughter - dooming her to mortality and all 
The relationship between Arwen, Elrond and Aragorn in the books is again different. Elrond is long reconciled to Arwen's choice and sacrifice. In fact he more than anyone knows what is involved having memories of his father and brother.
As for Aragorn's perceived perfection, he is polarised but not unreasonably so, selfless people do exist, they just have to have a realistic motive. Aragorn's is atonement, not for himself but for the faults of his ancestor Isildur; in a hereditary society this makes sense.
Mr Morden wrote:
Given that Tolkein was heavily influenced by Norse Saga's etc which are by no means black and white - there is plenty of betrayal and honour breaking as much as those who do hold true to their oaths - and this is quite true of the Silmarilion - even the Elves do it - including kinslaying much like something out of Game of Thrones or ( IMO the superior) Vikings TV show's.............
Yes Middle Earth has its share of betrayers, but kinslayings are rare and memorable. Factions are highly polarised so most disagreements are along the line of those who actively fight the dark lord and those who wish the problem would go away. Unless Silmarils are involved, then you get a free for all.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
|