|
A larger projectile scrapes off a scale over the heart, that the arrow flies into. Easy. Possibly the initial injury predates the story.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
feedmyleg posted:It was forged by master smiths Under the Mountain. It doesn't have to be magical to be a drat well crafted arrow. In Tolkien, there's no hard distinction between being well-crafted and being magic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:That seems implausibly big. Like, wouldn't something that big exert its own gravity? What could possibly keep it fed? The dark will of Morgoth alone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
kiimo posted:It really is funny how people who see allegories in LOTR see the allegory they want to see. Try to guess what my history major/WW2 fanatic roommate thinks it is about. Hint: Gandalf is McArthur and Saruman is Rommel. The best thing in those cases is to direct them to the foreword of the book, where Tolkien has commented on this precise phenomenon. Not only does he say that's wrong, but he gives a very good and general reason why they see it anyway. I believe the operative term was "applicability" (just don't ask TV Tropes what they think about it).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
For a work to contain elements comparable (or "applicable") to elements of other works or of history doesn't make the work an allegory, which is what started this tangent in the first place. Yes, yes, we all know about Death of the Author, but allegory of the type in question is a specific feature of auctorial intent, which in Tolkien's case is quite clear. It is funny how the man himself anticipated and specifically rebutted this sort of interpretation, which still keeps coming up. I find myself writing a lot about literary criticism lately. That's weird too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
Elves who die spend some time in Mandos, then get reincarnated in Valinor in exact copies of their old bodies, and some few then return to Middle-Earth; they don't get to leave the world until it's over. Men, on the other hand, leave the world immediately upon death. Hobbits are basically short Men. Dwarves do age and die naturally but I don't recall that Tolkien ever decided what kind of afterlife they get. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 09:45
|
|
|
Viridiant posted:I don't think we have any idea what happens to dwarves and hobbits. Hobbits are related to Big People in some way, though no specific genealogical connection was made. They're Men, for all intents and purposes. Edit: Dwarves believe that Aule takes their souls upon death and holds them in a place set aside until the end of the world, so they'll have a similar fate to the Elves. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Sauron was similar to Melkor/Morgoth that he was the most powerful of the Maiar. So he also allied himself with the most power Valar, and there you go. Well, not the most powerful, but one of the most powerful. He was originally under Aule, who had some other similarities to Melkor, in that he was concerned with creating things and attempted to imitate Iluvatar by creating Life. The difference was that Melkor did so out of pride whereas Aule did so with humility. Tolkien wrote that Sauron allied himself with Morgoth because Morgoth's goal was to dominate Ea, and Sauron was inclined to view such a goal as desirable because he himself was fond of orderliness. Such was the corrupting nature of evil that it caused Sauron to change from being kind of OCD to an entity of pure malice. When the Second Age ended in disaster, the Valar decided that they should stop being quite so overtly meddlesome in the affairs of Middle-Earth. They chose five powerful Maiar, called the Istari, and sent them into Middle-Earth with explicit instructions to help the Children of Iluvatar by guiding them subtly. These five were Saruman the White, Gandalf the Grey, and Radagast the Brown, who were seen in the books, and Alatar the Blue and Pallando the Blue, who were not. Radagast was not in the previous movies, but he will appear in The Hobbit, apparently. Tolkien never got around to writing what Alatar and Pallando did in greater detail than that they immediately went to the East and at least attempted to interfere with Sauron's plans to recruit Easterlings. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Most of the stories in The Silmarillion have been expanded into other publications. The History of Middle-Earth was a series of twelve volumes that includes a retelling of The Lord of the Rings from a broader perspective. Additionally, The Children of Húrin is a novel in its own right, and some critics have called it the best of the Middle-Earth books.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Tulkas is basically the living embodiment of strength. His existence is defined by being the best at fighting and loving to fight.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Effingham posted:Exactly. Which is why I >boggle< every time someone says that the Silmarillion would be a poo poo film. There are TONS of great things in there. There's too much in it to make a single good movie. Too many different stories. A movie needs focus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
The sad part is that he is without an Asterix-resembling counterpart.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Bombadil is controversial. You should at least read it to see what the fuss is about, so you're equipped to draw your own conclusions. But yeah, skip the poetry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
Lower fidelity has its own charms in any medium, but knowing what I know about the level of detail that went into this production, I don't expect a mere framerate increase to be enough to expose the seams.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Inventing a romance for the movie is a solution - not necessarily the best one - to a very real problem, which can be best summarized by asking somebody to describe Kili as he was portrayed in the source material. Considering that maybe ten of the dwarves have the exact same problem, throwing in a romance subplot to distinguish him might be less a matter of "How can we make this character more interesting?" and more "How can we make this character more interesting with a trick we haven't already used on one of the others?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
If there's to be more Jackson-produced Tolkien movies, you'd think they'd have better luck with trying to increase the exposure of lesser-known works like Beren and Luthien, the War of Wrath, or the Fall of Numenor. The Children of Hurin was successful as a novel but I don't know if it'd work well as a Major Motion Picture Event, considering some of the skullduggery that happens in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
foodfight posted:If the orig. trilogy was being made today they would've made it six movies. Well, The Lord of the Rings was technically six books, namely The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes South, The Treason of Isengard, The Ring Goes East, The War of the Ring, and The Return of the King. It was published in three volumes at the advice of the publisher. The divisions in the story, whether in the original books, the films, the background notes, or anywhere else, have little to do with the ability of this group to turn a good book of any size into a good movie of any multiplicity. They've proven their talent to my satisfaction.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
kiimo posted:No I think it was one book made into three, not 6 made into three. It was also that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
I'm going to try to see it in 48fps just so I can judge for myself rather than trying to overthink it. And in 2D because I hate 3D; it's always just a tiny bit out of focus and also too dark.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
In recent cinema, defying that cliche has become as cliched as the cliche itself. If the scene's first priority is to make sense for the character, it'll be good no matter which stereotype it conforms to or avoids, and if the scene's first priority is to conform to or avoid a stereotype, it'll be bad no matter how much sense it makes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
There are extensive influences from earth cultures to Middle-Earth ones, but Tolkien vociferously denied any intentional allegory in his works.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
The situation is rather less clear in the case of an adaptation, however. E: The character does in this case exist prior to and independently of the work. Making a character who averts a cliche is laudable and all, but if the presentation of the character is driven by the specific goal of averting the cliche, that's often a case of misplaced priorities typical of inferior writing, whose negative effects will be felt elsewhere. As with everything, context is necessary for understanding, and the total content of the work is a far a better indication of how well it handles its potentially problematic elements than a checklist of stereotypes. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Aug 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
"The fat one" is pretty much all he was in the book, frankly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Is there any indication that any elements of The Silmarillion will be incorporated into these movies? Only those parts of it which were also featured in the appendices to Lord of the Rings proper.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
I hope to see it in HFR and 2D, because I have tried and decided I hate watching movies in 3D, but I haven't tried watching movies in HFR and this will be the best chance to find out if I hate it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Yes, that's the only issue I have right now with the film - it feels awfully contrived to shoehorn the Frodo stuff in. The Hobbit should be able to stand alone without forcing pointless LotR cameos into it. Isn't that all just promotional stuff? It makes sense to have some footage whose point is to make it obvious that "HEY REMEMBER WHEN YOU LIKED LORD OF THE RINGS? THIS IS MORE OF IT" because marketing does still have to reach that portion of the audience who won't make the connection.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
teacup posted:Is HFR the 48fps? Yes, HFR, or High Frame Rate, does refer to the 48fps version.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
I hadn't realized that there are no HFR 2D showings. Now I'm conflicted. I hate 3D but I really want to see if HFR is any good. Why must you make me choose?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If the reason you hate 3D is the eyestrain, this is supposed to fix that. I just don't like how it makes everything look dark and very slightly misaligned.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Well, if it's just the projectionist's fault, then I guess I can see if it's also a problem at a different theater. Good to know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Anybody who wants to get a good feel for what its going to look like should check this out. This is very interesting. I can sort of see why people think it looks "too real" compared to 24fps - it sort of creates the illusion that the events are happening faster, giving them the impression of being somehow less weighty. That being said, I like it, so this has cemented my decision to see it in HFR, even if it does mean having to put up with stereoscopy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Saruman believed that with the Ring he could supplant Sauron. After he had been using the Palantir a lot, though, that belief gave way to despairing certainty that Sauron could only be beaten by using the Ring to supplant him. So his plan became: curry favor with the Enemy so that he could survive long enough to scheme against him as an ally. Which of course in practice just meant aiding Sauron. Sauron, of course, doesn't tolerate allies, only servants, and if Saruman managed to convince himself that he had signed up for anything but servitude, Gandalf didn't buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:He manages to rally a lot of forces through charisma. And I'm not suggesting he use mind control, just the odd lightning bolt now and then. Well, he does repel the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Rime posted:This film is so stuffed with extraneous faff and flummery that it often barely feels like Tolkien at all – more a dire, fan-written internet tribute. The book begins with the unimprovable ten-word opening sentence: “In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.” Jackson, by contrast, starts with an interminable narrative detour about a mining operation run by a team of dwarves, involving magic crystals, orc armies and details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody. This whole thing was always part of the story; it's plain as day at the back of Return of the King. The story of the quest to reclaim Erebor necessarily includes the story of how the dwarves were forced out of Erebor in the first place, which from your description, sounds like exactly what Tolkien wrote. And since Thorin is a more prominent character in the movie than in the book, it stands to reason his motivation requires more establishment in the movie than in the book. He's fighting to reclaim his homeland, win his birthright, and avenge his forefathers, when after a thousand years of calamitous defeats and costly empty victories, the only support he can find among his people are his own kinsmen, so he's forced to turn to a mad old wizard who's only using him as part of some larger scheme. That is literally the story of The Hobbit from the perspective of every participant in the quest except for Bilbo, exactly as Tolkien wrote it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
I do not understand the complaints about HFR. Maybe it's because I had seem well-shot HFR footage before (not lousy interpolation, nor a video game running at 60Hz, but actually shot on a 48fps camera), but I didn't even have the "adjustment" period that many viewers report. I don't think I particularly noticed props looking like props or makeup looking like makeup either. It did give the illusion of being faster than the 24fps previews, but that was gone before they'd finished the studio titles. Do wish I could've seen it in 2D though. Stereoscopic projectors always seem ever so slightly misaligned to me. Anyway, on to the movie itself. It was inevitable that this would be the least morally complicated of the whole hexalogy, considering there it has no really great antagonists. Now, let me qualify that. The Great Goblin was amazing to watch, but in the end he was nothing more than a face for the otherwise faceless horde of goblin town. Azog being alive (rather than being avenged by Bolg) and having a more active role was absolutely necessary or else the movie would barely have had a villain at all, and the fact that Thorin has a past with him is more than enough to make up for falling second in personality to the orc captain in Return of the King. However, despite being cunning, well-informed, resourceful, and eventually crashing the Battle of Five Armies, nothing about him says that he's really the equal of Thorin Oakenshield. (Maybe things would've been different had they kept the scene where he brands his name on Thror's face to play up his "Defiler" aspect, or replaced him with his son Bolg to drive home the point that Thorin isn't the only one out for revenge, but the former would've extended an already fairly long expository dump, and the latter can't even come to a head until the third movie anyway.) Fellowship of the Ring had the Nazgul and the Balrog, The Two Towers had Saruman and Faramir, and Return of the King had Denethor and the Witch King; meanwhile, The Hobbit has the Great Goblin, the Necromancer, Thorongil, and Smaug, and even with Azog showing up early, only the least intelligent of those characters show up in the first third of the story. As well-done as those two orcs were - and they really were - they didn't have what it takes to push the protagonists to the heights of courage or depths of despair. As an adaptation, it can only use the source material, and as the first in a trilogy, it must defer the ultimate climax. But that's enough about what it couldn't do; let's talk about what it did. The Tolkien nerd in me noticed that they shuffled around the chronology of the backstory in order to make it more dramatic and make the Necromancer play a bigger role, but, frankly, it works. It does make me curious how they're going to handle Gandalf's encounter with Thrain, but I will admit that White Council politics showing Saruman repeatedly vetoing specific action against the Enemy would not exactly make for gripping cinema in an adventure movie called "The Hobbit." And what an adventure move it is! It flows from one encounter to the next with such a rhythm that I felt by the end that I would gladly immediately start the next one, if it existed, which is something I wouldn't say about any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, much as I liked them. Because it lacks the emotional resonance of its sequel, it has to rely on the quality of individual scenes to maintain interest, and that it does excellently. I'll echo the gripe that the prologue narrated by Bilbo was pretty weak (I'd have to see it again to be sure, but I think that the movie would lose nothing if you just skipped right to the first shot of young Bilbo), but after that I'm struggling to think of a concrete complaint. The dwarves' party at Bag End, the encounter with the trolls, the introduction of Radagast, the escape to Rivendell, the aside with the White Council, the stone giants, Goblin Town's front porch, Riddles in the Dark, the escape from Goblin Town, and the rescue from the trees - they're all done quite well (the important ones excellently), and differently enough from each other that the dynamic doesn't start to get old. I think perhaps the scene with the giants wasn't terribly convincing as a source of danger, but it was kind of pointless in the book as well; the scene with the wargs chasing Radagast was the only one that felt to me like it went on too long; and Elrond's lines aren't exactly as majestic as you'd expect from that guy. So that was a lot of words to say I really liked it. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:and you often felt like you were watching actors run around on a set. Well, yeah, it's a non-animated movie. What else would you be watching?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
qbert posted:It's been a long time since I read The Hobbit, but I saw it last night with a friend who hadn't read the books. The first thing he asked me when we walked out was, "So...why are they going to the mountain? The movie never explained what they're going to do when they get there." The first part of the quest is simply "Go to Erebor."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Petr posted:Firelight didn't flicker, night scenes switched randomly between real-looking darkness and day-for-night so bright that I could make out the audience in the front row, and some of the daytime outdoor scenes (like Lake-Town) almost looked lit with fluorescents. I dunno, I just spent most of the movie noticing the lighting. Did you by chance see it in 2D? Using higher brightness levels to compensate for the way stereoscopic projection practically halves the value of every shot is a thing, and I'm not sure I believe anybody knows how to do it well yet. I'd rather they err on the sight of visibility, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Audiences were confused in 1954 when The Fellowship of the Ring was way darker and huger and slower than The Hobbit. The reverse problem would certainly have been observed in the films had the earlier novel been adapted more directly. I'm all for there being more light, breezy fantasy adventure cinema, but everything Tolkien wrote (that doesn't have Tom Bombadil in it) is compatible with the heavy, epic style - which his most famous work practically defined. I think there's nothing wrong with "more of the same" when the same is good, so stylistic conformity between both trilogies suits me just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Barrels full of dwarves being smuggled past drunken sentries and floating away down the river is pretty looney tunes in its own right. Making a zany plot point into a zany scene - even a slightly differently zany one - doesn't seem too out of line.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 04:32
|
|