Printable View
Admittedly, however, Saruman showed his hand as an adversary when he tried to fling Gandalf off his tower. So, it's not really the same situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
But your statement about the Uruk-hai holds a bit more merit. We were introduced to him much earlier and knew he'd be trouble for the group. The Goblin king was introduced mere minutes before he was eventually killed. Meh
It was actually one of the many musical continuity bits which Howard Shore (the composer) used to bridge the score material in Hobbit with his work in LotR trilogy. The music heard in that burning tree scene is based on the Ring/Mordor themes in LotR (with slight variations), and I think it's interesting that Shore used such an ominous theme for such a seemingly heroic moment. I was overall very happy to hear bits and pieces of LotR's themes and variations of those throughout the film. I was glad that Gollum's material received some nice development too, and I can't wait to hear more of the Erebor theme in future Hobbit films as that place gains more prominence in the story. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
(SPOILER)I believe the use of Mordor material in the burning tree scene is likely musically foreshadowing some Ring/Thorin connection in the next film and how this noble character is twisted over the course of the story as we learn of his darker, greedy side (assuming they're bold enough to use the Ring instead of sticking to the canon material; then again, they already changed the dwarves' original motivations from the book, so everything's free game now). Considering that Tolkien didn't even think of the Ring as evil when he was writing the Hobbit, I wonder how Jackson is going to portray the events now that we do have the knowledge that the Ring is very much evil. Maybe we'll see it trying to corrupt Thorin, Bilbo or others. Or perhaps Jackson will be careful and not go over the line with it because the fan outrage might be too much to bear. Personally I'd be happy to see such scenes to establish the Ring's power; after all, one of the changes in LotR's film version that I liked over the book was Jackson making Faramir struggle with the Ring instead of him being an "incorruptible" person and how that helped show that not even the noble ones are beyond the Ring's power whether it's humans like Faramir or elves like Galadriel.
Lord of the Rings vs. Hobbit spoilersI don't recall the Ring giving Bilbo any trouble when he was in the Shire. It was not until they finally caught Gollum that Sauron even knew where to look for the Ring. Wearing it does draw his general attention, but I don't believe that it means that he literally sees exactly where you are (unless you're much closer). Bilbo himself was far more resistant to any feeling from Sauron, who was perhaps very weak during the times of the Hobbit. It should be remembered, The Hobbit was some 60 years before Sauron actually located the Ring in the Shire (through Gollum's information) and Bilbo did not get seen by Sauron even during the moments of his 111th birthday at the beginning of LotR. My thoughts are that Sauron, in those early times, was simply incapable of locating the Ring through the wearing of the Ring alone. At the time of the Hobbit it would not corrupt so easily, but as Sauron's strength grew through to the time of LotR, he gained the power to see through into obvious, visible areas (if I recall, Bilbo only ever wore the ring in places that would be either deep in mountains, far from Mordor or perhaps simply in places where there could be magical defences set up to avert Sauron's gaze). EDIT: Confirming my suspicions just now, Sauron gained the ability to see the ring when the Eye of Sauron was on top of Barad-dûr - which had not been rebuilt at the time of The Hobbit, thus Sauron could not see Bilbo. Sauron could still not see the Ring when it was in the Shire due to it being hidden from view even of Barad-dûr, due to being beyond the Misty Mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kossage
I thought what they did with Faramir was a massive slap in the face to Faramir. He was one of the best characters in the books and deserved to show that the best of men would not be corrupted so easily. To say that only Aragorn would not be corrupted is unrealistic. There were many men who were corrupted by the idea of the Ring and Faramir was every bit as noble and strong in willpower as Aragorn. Such men deserve to be praised. Faramir in the movies was an ugly individual (I'm not talking about how he looked, but how he acted) and it left a very sour taste in my mouth. I like some changes in the films but this was one of my most hated, because Faramir was one of my favourites in the literature.
I really enjoyed what they did with Faramir in the extended versions, he became someone desperate to win the approval of his father and he was treated rather sympathetically. In the theatrical versions that wasn't so apparent so it didn't work as well.
I'm with BoB on the Faramir issue. He's one of my favourite characters in the book, and a perfect contrast to his brother. He was very Ranger-y, in every way, and I thought he was quite poorly handled in the films. If I remember rightly - which, after not having read the books for over a decade, I probably don't - Faramir gave even less of a toss about the ring than Aragorn! He was a great symbol in the books, essentially saying "these are the leaders of the new age" and showing that there's always hope. Good old Faramir.
I also disliked that the Rangers weren't even in the films. Their badassery in the big battle was one of the most memorable parts of the book. :(
Seriously, no mention of Rangers = what. :(
Also,
So basically making Faramir a more damaged, broken character is a slap in the face of the great author himself. D=Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
NEWSFLASH: There are more people out there with a driving opinion other than 'simple America'. Why have you even brought America up? The book and author was English (part of Europe) and Peter Jackson is from New Zealand. Also, your opinion is completely invalid. 'A single book is any one draft you can read cover to cover.' The entirety of Lord of the Rings was written as a single book that was split into 6 six volumes, so by your logic The Lord of the Rings should only be one film, due to it only being one book. It was split into 3 books due to paper shortages from the war and keeping the cost down on the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercen-X
Another comment that makes very little sense.. Introduced to 3 antagonists and none of them are dealt with? So like how Saruman and Sauron weren't dealt with until the final film in Lord of the Rings? If you start dealing with everything in a '1 every film' basis then you may as well make it into a bleeding weekly serial TV Series. We're introduced to 3 antagonists: Smaug (who obviously isn't gonna get dealt with, seeing as they aren't at Erebor yet), The Necromancer (who is only a detached subplot for the fans in these films) and Azog. If you're going by the book then Azog should already be dead. I reckon they've only kept him alive and keep bringing him up so that they could have a coherent antagonist for this film to keep some kind of danger present. As for an 'antagonist we've never met, heard of, and never seen until this second in the film.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercen-X
EDIT: Having reread your post then I realise that BoB is right and that you were referring to The Goblin King. The original novel was a children's novel and far from the likes of Lord of the Rings. Just like all children's books antagonists come and go in a very rapid pace. The book is mainly split up into many antagonists (Trolls, Goblin King, Spiders, Smaug and Bolg to name the major 5).
I think he was referring to the goblin king. Could be wrong, though. Try to avoid making personally targeted remarks, IDNAN. ;)
But if he was referring to the Goblin King then he should take up his remarks with the source material, and not the film, because that's how it was written. It is a children's novel after all
On a sidenote, I totally remember when I first read the book that a Charlie-Chaplin-esque music was running in my head when I read about the Dwarves escaping the goblins through the tunnels and whatnot. I couldn't help but want for the entire thing to be done with no dramatic music and just some slapstick going on all over the place instead. And then at the end, Azog would shout out something like "You haven't seen the last of me, you rascally Dwarves!" or something while shaking a fist and stomping his feet.
Well that was effectively done in the films with the amount of slapstick involved in how the dwarves fight (especially with Bombur using his weight to break the floor) :jess:
I'm sorry, but there is no part of LOTR that is a 'slap in the face' to the books and/or the author, you may not like aspects of the films, you may not like the reasoning behind things that were changed for the films, but I cannot see any time where the script writers had anything but utmost respect for the source text. And Faramir isn't damaged or broken (his father certainly is), he's just human.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
Bob and Quin, like charliepanayi says, you both need to watch the extended editions of LOTR. I honestly can't watch the theatrical versions now as they miss out ridiculous amounts. I agree, Faramir was not well represented in the original films but in the extended edition, he has a lot of big extra scenes...
- Him letting Frodo and Sam go (his life is declared forfeit), helping them out of Osgiliath and threatening Gollum for taking them to the stairs of Cirith Ungol. He knew Frodo held the ring of power at this point.
- A flashback scene to when he and Boromir reclaimed Osgiliath from orcs. Plus, the subsequent meeting with their father to discuss Boromir leaving to attend the council of Elrond. Faramir offers to go in his stead.
- The scene in the houses of healing after the Battle of Minas Tirith
All in all, the extended editions portray Faramir as the perfect contrast to his brother. He chose to allow Frodo to leave with the ring as opposed to take the ring back to his father in Minas Tirith. In essence, he did what Boromir could not.
The LOTR extended editions is not just the "director's cut" that you may expect. It is literally the essential version of the films that you must watch. The only reason you didn't see these scenes at the cinema is that theatres won't let you sit watching a film that is nearly four hours long.
I've seen them. :p It doesn't change the fact that the actual film itself (the one that many millions of people have seen) protrays Faramir as a bit of a dick. And to be fair, there is a large amount of variation even when you have the extended version. Faramir was a great, noble man from the start, a young man too with no beard on his face. He treated his hostages - such as Gollum - very fairly and demanded his troops treat him the same way. I'll actually stop now before I start reading up even more on the differences. I did like that some fans have nicknamed the film variant of Faramir 'Farfromthebookamir'. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
If you're referring to the original theatrical releases then I absolutely agree with you on this. Though, the extended editions clearly address all the issues that you've mentioned above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I also agree that neither version of the film accurately shows how Faramir is in the books. I still feel it shows all his redeeming qualities though.