Why God, Why?


 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 The Hobbit part 2: good or no?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Cunovendus
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-01-11

PostSubject: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:43 am

Let me start by saying that I love Tauriel. Seriously, I know she's an original character that has nothing to do with Tolkien's works, but that elf girl is awesome, and I want to marry her! In fact, I'm even considering adding a Mirkwood contingent to my Lord of the Rings army, even though it makes no logical sense whatsoever for Mirkwood elves to fight alongside Gondorian humans, just so that I can have Tauriel in my army! (actually it'd make more sense to start a new elf army so I might do that instead) As to whether having a hot fighting female character is out of place...hardly. Tolkien created Eowyn long before the action chick trope became popular, and she took out one of the main bad guys, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there are elf women who can fight. So, although I'm not sure how they can justify giving an original creation such a big role in the story, I have no problem with her being there. (now begins the debate as to whether she's a Mary Sue or not! Wink )

But...I do have one problem with her role in the film: her being there as a love interest for Kili. WHY??? Just why?? Can't a female character just exist, and NOT be a love interest for someone else? Can't a female character decide to risk her life going out on an orc hunt simply because they're evil and must be put down, or because she believes in their quest, and not because "OMG my dwarf love took a Morgul arrow to his leg! Nooooo!" Also, what is it with films and love stories developing out of practically nothing? I just can't buy the idea of an elf - even a relatively young elf (because the youngest adult elf is still older than the oldest human!!) throwing everything away for someone whom she's known for all of two minutes - and for a dwarf, no less!! This seems to be a very common trope in films. Yes, you can fancy someone in that time, but full blown "I will give up everything for him/her" style love? Surely that takes longer to develop! Is Kili even that attractive? I also object to this idea that there must be a love interest in every single film ever made - apparently they need "something for the girls" - sorry but that's bollocks. Firstly, it assumes girls can't possibly enjoy a film without an underdeveloped romance subplot (not to mention that two minutes of "Hello! I love you! *smooch smooch*" will make someone watch a film that they wouldn't normally be interested in), and secondly, that's like saying every romance film must have a fight scene in it, because we need "something for the guys". Can't we keep love stories to romance films, for people who want to watch them, and let the people who don't want to watch them enjoy their action/explosions/whatever?

Anyway...apologies, that turned into a bit of a rant.  The rest of the film was...similar to the first one, actually, though the pacing was a bit better. Most Tolkien purists will hate it. They left out a lot of stuff from the books, so that they could stretch out the silly chase scenes for far longer than they needed to be. Beorn got a whole 5 minutes of screen time, and didn't do much other than "I'm a bear! Now I'm serving you milk! Now I hate dwarves! Now I'm sending you on your way with my horses! Goodbye!" Then there's the fact that the wood elves didn't behave like they did in the book...IIRC, they were more like "Noooo they must not find us! Oh well, now they found us, so let's keep them prisoner so they don't tell anyone else about us." Here, they were all "Let's go out and capture these dwarves for no reason at all!!"

Some bits were good...the spiders were good, the dragon was awesome (even if the bit at the end was stupid - why add a ridiculous fight/chase scene that wasn't in the book just so that the dragon has an excuse to go on a rampage?), the necromancer/Sauron bit was good, and the opening of the door to Erebor was good. I actually quite liked the Laketown bits too (their king was a bit typical "I am the comically evil ruler who only cares about money!!" for me, but again, I have to remind myself that I am watching an adaptation of a child's book). I even quite liked their portrayal of Thranduil. Oh, and Tauriel, in case I haven't already mentioned her!

Overall, as a movie, it was...okay. I enjoyed it more than the first one. As a Tolkien adaptation, however, it falls short. Much as I like her, it'd be better if Tauriel and Legolas weren't seen again after the dwarves left Mirkwood. I also think it'd be better if Legolas and Tauriel were lovers...that way, it'd kill the Legomancers!  Twisted Evil  Damn you Peter Jackson, you missed a trick!!
Back to top Go down
Knorg
Behind Blue Eyes
Behind Blue Eyes
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-06
Age : 34
Location : The Forest

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:02 am

*avoids eye contact, backs away slowly*
Back to top Go down
Lady Anne
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-12
Age : 40
Location : The land of the fruits and nuts

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:08 am

I have to wonder if Tauriel was created in response to all the Mary Sues the fanfic writers have paired with Legolas.
Back to top Go down
http://www.angelfire.com/yt/anneblair/index.html
Ghost in the Machine
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2010-01-03
Age : 50
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:18 am

Lady Anne wrote:
I have to wonder if Tauriel was created in response to all the Mary Sues the fanfic writers have paired with Legolas.

From what I understand, it was a desire to have a strong female character in the film. Why said strong female character falls instantly in love with a dwarf? No clue.
Back to top Go down
Cunovendus
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-01-11

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:31 am

Ghost in the Machine wrote:
Lady Anne wrote:
I have to wonder if Tauriel was created in response to all the Mary Sues the fanfic writers have paired with Legolas.

From what I understand, it was a desire to have a strong female character in the film.  Why said strong female character falls instantly in love with a dwarf?  No clue.

Because we can't possibly have a female character in a film and not have her be a love interest for someone, apparently. That would break the Filmmakers' Code.  Rolling Eyes 

Much as I like the character, this stupid romance spoilt the film for me. Have her there, sure. Have her committing über-arsekickery on the bad guys, definitely. But the dwarf romance? No. Just no.
Back to top Go down
Mikey Go WOOGA
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-16
Age : 27
Location : In desperate pursuit of lulz.

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:19 pm

Holy shit!!!

Use fewer fucking exclamation points.
Back to top Go down
Mr.Doobie
Knight of the Bleach
Knight of the Bleach
avatar

Join date : 2009-10-23
Location : under the sink

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:59 am

..... you uh........ really like Tauriel.........

But yeah this movie was pretty cool. It's just every time I see elves in action it always makes me wonder why anyone's even afraid of Sauron coming back and gathering his army of clumsy and easily disposable neanderthals. Because each and every elf shown in LotR is a total badass that can kill hundreds of men by themselves without breaking a sweat. And there are entire countries of these guys.......

....... And they also hate Sauron.......


........... Yeah why are we afraid of fucking orcs again?
Back to top Go down
Happyhooligan2001

avatar

Join date : 2013-08-09
Age : 56
Location : Western Oklahoma

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:18 am

Ghost In the Machine wrote:
From what I understand, it was a desire to have a strong female character in the film. Why said strong female character falls instantly in love with a dwarf? No clue.

I guess it's because having a beautiful, slim, heroic woman falling in love with the dumpy, hairy guy is a pretty common fantasy among nerd boys. I know I've had it for years.
Back to top Go down
http://www.fanfiction.net/~happyhooligan2001
Cunovendus
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-01-11

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:04 am

Happyhooligan2001 wrote:


I guess it's because having a beautiful, slim, heroic woman falling in love with the dumpy, hairy guy is a pretty common fantasy among nerd boys. I know I've had it for years.

True, except Kili is the conventionally attractive (and totally non-dwarf looking) one out of the group...

But it's more the fact that it springs out of absolutely nothing that I have a problem with. "Oh, you're tall for a dwarf...suddenly I love you, and am prepared to give up everything for you after speaking to you for about 2 minutes!"

Quote :
It's just every time I see elves in action it always makes me wonder why anyone's even afraid of Sauron coming back and gathering his army of clumsy and easily disposable neanderthals.

Actually, that's true, and even the original films were guilty of this. I guess I've just come to accept it as a standard cinematic trope...if one group is a bit better than another group, they can't just have the upper hand in a fight, they have to completely dominate the fight and make it look ridiculously easy, then have someone saying "Oh my god, these orcs are so scary! We are only just holding them back!" Films always do things like this.
Back to top Go down
Mr.Doobie
Knight of the Bleach
Knight of the Bleach
avatar

Join date : 2009-10-23
Location : under the sink

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:45 am

Happyhooligan2001 wrote:
Ghost In the Machine wrote:
From what I understand, it was a desire to have a strong female character in the film. Why said strong female character falls instantly in love with a dwarf? No clue.

I guess it's because having a beautiful, slim, heroic woman falling in love with the dumpy, hairy guy is a pretty common fantasy among nerd boys. I know I've had it for years.

Oh c'mon that dwarf is cute and you know it. He's not even really hairy.

Also if I was Bilbo I'd be pissed as Hell at Gandalf. He brings me on this adventure and his dwarf friends fuck my pantry up and eat all my food and shit and the dude's not even around when we actually need him. He always dips right before shit gets hot and I would start to wonder if he knows stuff we don't...
Back to top Go down
Summercorn
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-08-18
Location : The Garden of England.

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:52 am

I suspect the relationship is meant to make Kili's story more 'poignant' in the last film.

Reviewer in the Times Magazine was pissed off because the film is subtitled: 'The Desolation of Smaug' and we don't see the dragon get killed, so there is no desolation of Smaug.

So she's not actually read the book, or if she has, she completely missed what the desolation of Smaug means.
Back to top Go down
Aggie
Armbiter of Good Fanfiction
Armbiter of Good Fanfiction
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-11

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:15 am

Mr.Doobie wrote:
..... you uh........ really like Tauriel.........

But yeah this movie was pretty cool. It's just every time I see elves in action it always makes me wonder why anyone's even afraid of Sauron coming back and gathering his army of clumsy and easily disposable neanderthals. Because each and every elf shown in LotR is a total badass that can kill hundreds of men by themselves without breaking a sweat. And there are entire countries of these guys.......

....... And they also hate Sauron.......


........... Yeah why are we afraid of fucking orcs again?

Probably because the elves are still pissed about Isildur and are likely to tell the realm of men to handle it themselves.
Back to top Go down
Cunovendus
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-01-11

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:06 am

Summercorn wrote:

Reviewer in the Times Magazine was pissed off because the film is subtitled: 'The Desolation of Smaug' and we don't see the dragon get killed, so there is no desolation of Smaug.

Oh dear.

That reminds me, actually...since when is it a ballista that's used to kill Smaug? I seem to remember Bard being "Bard the Bowman", when did he become "Bard the Siege Engineer"?

Quote :
Probably because the elves are still pissed about Isildur and are likely to tell the realm of men to handle it themselves.

That would be believable if they hadn't added a contingent of elves who joined up with Theoden at Helm's Deep in the second film.

Or maybe it's just Mirkwood elves who are particularly awesome at fighting in their own country, but Thranduil has no desire to take the fight beyond their borders - in the film, his attitude was basically "We'll protect our own lands, screw the rest of the world!".

But that could well be the reason that the elves don't take part in the War of the Ring in the book.
Back to top Go down
Cyberwulf
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-03
Age : 35
Location : TRILOBITE!

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:51 pm

Two things:

1) The word "filler" sprang to mind several times during the movie.

2) HOLY FUCK WHY IS THRANDUIL SO SEXY
Back to top Go down
Mr.Doobie
Knight of the Bleach
Knight of the Bleach
avatar

Join date : 2009-10-23
Location : under the sink

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:42 pm

Cyberwulf wrote:
2) HOLY FUCK WHY IS THRANDUIL SO SEXY

All the elves radiate charisma from their eyebrows.
Back to top Go down
Mikey Go WOOGA
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-16
Age : 27
Location : In desperate pursuit of lulz.

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:15 pm

Cyberwulf wrote:
Two things:

1) The word "filler" sprang to mind several times during the movie.

2) HOLY FUCK WHY IS THRANDUIL SO SEXY

They're trying to turn a movie that was one movie into three movies.

Filler: Parts I, II, and III could be the titles.
Back to top Go down
Cyberwulf
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-03
Age : 35
Location : TRILOBITE!

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:22 pm

Mr.Doobie wrote:
Cyberwulf wrote:
2) HOLY FUCK WHY IS THRANDUIL SO SEXY

All the elves radiate charisma from their eyebrows.
that bit where he was interrogating thorin in the throne room I literally couldn't hear the dialogue for the tacatacatac of keyboards writing slash
Back to top Go down
Owlish
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2010-03-06
Location : Not giving a hoot.

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:34 pm

I enjoyed this one far more than part one. (It still can't comparable to Lord of the Rings.) Regardless of how well it maps from the original books, it reminds me of why I could never finish any of Tolkien's books in one go. There's no real tension in the story...it just gets lost in its own mythology. And obviously Bilbo lives to tell his story, so...


Happyhooligan2001 wrote:
I guess it's because having a beautiful, slim, heroic woman falling in love with the dumpy, hairy guy is a pretty common fantasy among nerd boys. I know I've had it for years.
Does this count as interracial coupling? haha I was waiting for this to happen though. There were no other couples to speak of, so the story was missing an element crucial to any Hollywood package. They had to shove it in there somewhere.
Back to top Go down
Cunovendus
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-01-11

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:21 am

Owlish wrote:
...There were no other couples to speak of, so the story was missing an element crucial to any Hollywood package. They had to shove it in there somewhere.

Yep. I really wish they wouldn't do that.

I'm not totally against romance in films, but it has to a) make sense, b) be properly written and developed, and c) add something to the story. This one fulfilled none of the criteria. I understand that they want Tauriel to go out and fight to save Middle Earth, but surely she can do that without falling in love with a random dwarf whom she's known for all of 2 minutes.

Shoehorning an unnecessary, badly written and totally illogical romance into an action adventure is a bit like forcing a poorly coreographed fight scene into something like Sleepless in Seattle.
Back to top Go down
Cyberwulf
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
NO NOT THE BEEEEES
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-03
Age : 35
Location : TRILOBITE!

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:52 pm

I'm sorry, I'm back on how fucking sexy Thranduil is. I mean Legolas is pretty and all but he never did it for me and still doesn't. Maybe I have a thing for dads. Or maybe it's just Lee Pace's performance. I saw a post on tumblr that read "Thranduil looks like he's perpetually about to come" and that...yeah. Accurate.
Back to top Go down
Malganis
Knight of the Bleach
Knight of the Bleach
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-10

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:43 am

I hated the first Hobbit film so I have no desire to see the second one.

Actually I retroactively hate the LOTR movie trilogy as well. And the books.
Back to top Go down
Miss Jennifer



Join date : 2009-06-12

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:20 am

Cunovendus wrote:
Owlish wrote:
...There were no other couples to speak of, so the story was missing an element crucial to any Hollywood package. They had to shove it in there somewhere.

Yep. I really wish they wouldn't do that.

I'm not totally against romance in films, but it has to a) make sense, b) be properly written and developed, and c) add something to the story. This one fulfilled none of the criteria. I understand that they want Tauriel to go out and fight to save Middle Earth, but surely she can do that without falling in love with a random dwarf whom she's known for all of 2 minutes.

Shoehorning an unnecessary, badly written and totally illogical romance into an action adventure is a bit like forcing a poorly coreographed fight scene into something like Sleepless in Seattle.

This. I love a good romance but I hate an obviously shoehorned-in one.

I have mixed feelings on the Hobbit movies. They're well-made and well-acted, of course, and I like the way some of the supplemental material fills in stuff that didn't make a whole lot of sense in the original book once you stop to think about it. For example, IMO, the vague "burglary" in the book (how far would they have gotten when Smaug noticed the loss of ONE cup?!) makes less sense than the plot to find the Arkenstone to unite the dwarf clans and take back the kingdom.

But they could probably have done that in one or even two movies. Turning it into a trilogy seems like padding, not embellishment, while the LOTR movies' additions seemed more like embellishment and prudent adaptation than padding.

Still, I can see where Peter Jackson kind of painted himself into a corner. You see, he released the LOTR trilogy first. There is such a huge difference in tone between the original Hobbit book and the Lord of the Rings books; as I understand it, Tolkien wasn't even planning to incorporate The Hobbit into his Middle-Earth legendarium (which was, at the time, separate) until he started his "Hobbit sequel" which grew into LOTR. If PJ had been true to the tone of the novel, with its more playful and childlike outlook, people would have been scratching their heads at the difference between the two versions of Middle Earth. Whereas maybe if PJ had made The Hobbit first, and gradually darkened the outlook of it, showing the wider Middle Earth through Bilbo's eyes at first and then showing us some of what was really going on, it might have fit better.

About Thranduil...I thought I heard a rumor that David Tennant was being considered at first?

(And I'm still peeved that "Song of the Lonely Mountain" didn't even get a Best Song nomination. I'm not at all upset that "Skyfall" won, of course, nor would I have complained if Les Miserables' "Suddenly" won. But "SotLM" should have at least gotten NOMINATED!)
Back to top Go down
Exodia's Right Leg
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 31
Location : Niggertown, HUAHUEHUAland

PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   Tue May 27, 2014 8:01 pm

Mr.Doobie wrote:
It's just every time I see elves in action it always makes me wonder why anyone's even afraid of Sauron coming back and gathering his army of clumsy and easily disposable neanderthals. Because each and every elf shown in LotR is a total badass that can kill hundreds of men by themselves without breaking a sweat. And there are entire countries of these guys.......

....... And they also hate Sauron.......


........... Yeah why are we afraid of fucking orcs again?
You could say that it's because there just aren't that many elves around and they are very hard to replace. Plus elves are pricks and refuse to fight for other races. If things get too crappy, they can always take some ships to Valinor and leave the suckers behind. They don't give a shit about Middle-Earth.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Hobbit part 2: good or no?   

Back to top Go down
 
The Hobbit part 2: good or no?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Leftovers from 8 Impala part-outs...lots of good stuff left!
» Where are the appendices part 1-6
» Good, successful writer websites?
» Link to Dynaco SCA-35 rebuild article - good information
» what is (or was) your least favorite part of high school?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Why God, Why? :: The Sporking Table :: GodAwful Bullshit-
Jump to: