forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Thanks Mim. I've only read the Hobbit all the way through once, so my memory on intricate bits is a bit hazy

Just seen the movie, on the whole I actually thought it was better than the first movie because:

Smaug is great and is the true star of the movie- I loved how he knew what the dwarves were plotting but as per the film's ending- you guys can't hurt me so I'm gonna teach those Lakemen a lesson.

Yes there is a lot of combat but because the fight scenes were 'broken up' into lots of shorter ones didn't seem overlong

Bard as a smuggler smuggling the dwarves into Laketown, and leader of the resistance in Laketown- a great new take on the corrupt Master IMHO.

My main concern is that Pj has left a lot to do for the last movie!

Robin S.

Well, PJ does war reasonably well. We can expect 5 Armies to look more or less like Helm's Deep, Pelenor Fields, and so on.

Some one mentioned about it appearing that Bard will not be using a bow to kill Smaug, but a torsion artillery piece (the Windlance). I have to say this makes more sense to me; I really don't see a Dragon the size of Smaug be laid low by a single long bow arrow, even he did find a crack in his scales. An arrow would not have the necessary penetration. I know this is applying reality to a fiction situation, but what the hell. So, I really don't have a problem with what they seem to be doing with the character of Bard.

... But other elements of the film where 'reality' is ignored are fine. Sorry Beran but your comment in the context of what else happens in the film makes no sense.

Love the movies, love all the books as much as any purist and agree with mr. Sanderson - http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/ ... p?IID=1289

Rich H wrote:... But other elements of the film where 'reality' is ignored are fine. Sorry Beran but your comment in the context of what else happens in the film makes no sense.

Sorry, you are going to have to elaborate on that. What "other elements" are you referring to? Other then the thought of killing a dragon with one cloth yard shaft I don't recall anything to far beyond the pale.

Maintaining the willing suspension of disbelief aside, Tolkien wrote the Black Arrow into The Hobbit for several reasons, one of which was his love of the Nibelungen & the slaying of Fáfnir. He did the same thing with Túrin Turambar & Glaurung in the First Age (the weak spot). Yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but so's a dragon

Beran wrote:

Rich H wrote:... But other elements of the film where 'reality' is ignored are fine. Sorry Beran but your comment in the context of what else happens in the film makes no sense.

Sorry, you are going to have to elaborate on that. What "other elements" are you referring to? Other then the thought of killing a dragon with one cloth yard shaft I don't recall anything to far beyond the pale.

Well just put the Thorin & Co in Fellowship of the Ring and in the Moria stairs scene, you will discover that unlike the Fellowship they will just jump and do barrel rolls on the stairs, fall hundreds of meters and then just get up and continue running and jumping.

farinal wrote:

Beran wrote:

Rich H wrote:... But other elements of the film where 'reality' is ignored are fine. Sorry Beran but your comment in the context of what else happens in the film makes no sense.

Sorry, you are going to have to elaborate on that. What "other elements" are you referring to? Other then the thought of killing a dragon with one cloth yard shaft I don't recall anything to far beyond the pale.

Well just put the Thorin & Co in Fellowship of the Ring and in the Moria stairs scene, you will discover that unlike the Fellowship they will just jump and do barrel rolls on the stairs, fall hundreds of meters and then just get up and continue running and jumping.

Yeah those bits and then the running and diving around Erebor. Bouncing goblins up and down in a boat like a see-saw (in the fight scene in Dale), etc. Then you've got Legolas and the Elf-bint being Neo-elves sometimes then lacking any significant abilities in other scenes (although this is throughout all of PJ's Middle Earth films so not isolated to the latest one - eg, one minute Legolas slays everything, then can't kill an orc charging a wall, then can slay and elephant and all its riders single handed, then can't kill an orc to get to Aragorn when he's in need), etc etc.

I'm okay you calling out the Black Arrow as silly, Beran (well at least to some degree), but at least apply some consistency in your view to the rest of the film(s). They are full of contradictory stuff, that Jackson has added, so using your logic these elements don't hold water either so if you're okay with the alteration to the Black Arrow (for reasons of logic) then you should be pulling out other elements of the film for the same and related reasons.

At least the idea about the black arrow is tied to other mythical stories and harkens back to those, as Mim has stated above. If you can hand waive a dragon away as "it's magic" then a blessed black arrow shouldn't be too hard either.

The other bits, summarised above by Farinel and I, are creations of PJ and really suggest that the film's own internal physics/rules/whatever-you-want-to-call-them are in no way consistent and cannot be taken seriously which reduces the credibility of the story as it's internal logic simply doesn't hold together on it's own merits - never mind what peoples' feelings are about its quality as an adaption.

And that's just one thing wrong with this film never mind issues with script, acting, pacing, editing, etc.