#that’s my main basis for saying he’s his universe’ Aragorn

[emperorsfoot]

I disagree with the example given. Sonic is basically the Aragorn of his universe and Frodo/Aragorn is a perfectly comprehensible ship. So you’re just shipping Frodo with a different lost king who defeats an evil conquerer trying to enslave his people, so what. And, hedgehogs also live in holes. So Sonic would feel at home in the shire.

The only thing that makes them incomparable would be that the Hobbit lifestyle is too mellow and SLOW for Sonic. But that just means they’d have an amusing “opposites attract” love story.

Beginning to think some of you don’t actually know what a crackship is

[absynthe--minded]

so because I got to go see The Two Towers (2002) at our local theater this weekend with @katarina-elaine​ I figured I’d ramble about a few of my thoughts. of the three films The Two Towers is the one I have the most to say about? Fellowship is more or less a perfect adaptation and King is back in the vein of the first film in that its problems are more about portraying characters , but Towers is unusual for me because its plot is wildly different from the book in a lot of places and it also introduces a theme that’s absent from the original work

(bullet points because reasons, under the cut because Long)

first off I think that the Rohan plot in the movie is as good as it could get with the time that they had. I’m struck by how well this film does what we now expect from fantasy/historical shows and tells three different stories at the same time, and how that disparate storytelling is maintained throughout the next film in the trilogy. but I think that simplifying the politics and the characters was a good thing! Erkenbrand is basically a nonentity, as are many of the bannermen and smaller lords of Rohan, and having him be the third act savior when he kind of doesn’t show up again in any great capacity is... it makes sense from an in-universe perspective? but it’s got very little emotional impact for our heroes to be saved by someone we don’t know and have never seen and who also never appears again. expanding Saruman’s control over Théoden and giving Éomer that role was a good choice because it makes the audience care.

there were a lot of choices made in screenwriting that were basically meant to make the things that happen have emotional impact? Arwen being the one to save Frodo, Éomer taking Erkenbrand’s role, etc - the idea was that these big moments would capture the attention of the audience and make them care.

there are so many subtle production design things - the statue of Gil-galad in Rivendell, the elven banners that the Lothlórien host carries, the tapestry in Arwen’s room, Faramir’s leather armor! - that really add depth and meaning and nuance to a lot of the things that happen onscreen. Faramir being a ginger mess means. a lot more. when he’s the only one in the film wearing armor with the book-accurate White Tree and the seven eight-pointed stars.

Kat said this but it’s true - movie!Aragorn is kind of a mess in this one in terms of motivation. He insists throughout Fellowship that he doesn’t want the power he’s been born into, and even in Towers he’s demonstrably uncomfortable with it, and yet his role in Rohan is to basically be a king of a neighboring country. He constantly steps up to take the lead and to be powerful and influential. This is the movie where he’s closest to his book characterization and frankly it works for him but it should have been consistent. If they were trying to go for an angle of “oh shit I thought I didn’t want power but look at what a good leader I am, I can’t run from this” they should have done more with it.

I just. I love Rohan??? So much.

the main theme of The Two Towers seems to be an anti-isolationism one - that everyone, no matter who they are, is part of the greater world and can’t escape rising darkness but must instead resist it. This works really well with the Ents and not so well with Rohan, who only stop being isolationist when Haldir and the Galadhrim are banging on their door going “hey let us in we’re here to help”. Aragorn tries to get Théoden to send for aid, but Théoden refuses, because he doesn’t think help will come. And he’s right in that help will almost certainly not get there in time? But I feel like he never comes to the same conclusion that the Ents do, and it would have been a better character arc for him if he did. Instead, he finds himself caught up in war and is more or less forced to accept it. This conflict is resolved in greater and more satisfactory detail in movie 3 when he actively chooses to ride to Gondor’s aid? But it also doesn’t persevere as a motivation and a plot thread through the first half hour of that film.

there are a lot of ways to take Denethor’s relationship with his sons but I will agree with @yavieriel in saying that PJ’s greatest sin wasn’t in emphasizing Denethor’s cruelty but in inventing his incompetence. I will die on the hill that movie!Denethor’s treatment of his children has a canonical basis, even as it’s not the only take.

it shouldn’t have been the Galadhrim who came to Helm’s Deep to help. it should have been the Grey Company, the Dúnedain, with Elladan and Elrohir. they could have explained that Lothlórien and Mirkwood and Dale and Erebor were all under attack, and that Imladris was besieged (headcanon but I firmly believe it happened), and that they were all who could be spared to help in the war. it would make more sense than random elves showing up, and it would allow Elladan and Elrohir to be around in movie 3 and give Aragorn the banner Arwen made as well as Andúril. (this gets rid of Arwen’s Mystery Sickness and Elrond fast traveling from Rivendell to Rohan and back to Rivendell in like two days)

we’d also get the twins. you know. existing.

Aragorn: [jumps in front of a shield wall and a battering ram in leather armor and mail to give Théoden like five more minutes of time] Elladan: Estel what the fuck are you doing?! Aragorn: What Adar would do! Elrohir: Damn it - hold on! We’re coming down!

[amethystpath-writes]

See, I can agree with you for the most part.

But here’s where I diverge from that path. When the first Hobbit movies came out, I was a very little girl. My dad and I watched it together before I could even think about reading Tolkien’s works. I think that makes a huge difference. I had no expectations. I had nothing to compare the movies to.

So many of the movies we criticize so heavily are derivative of books. They are based on, but not the true story of, “Blah Blah Blah”, right?

Again, as a kid, I loved the movie, Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief. I could never tell that to other kids at school, though. “IT’S HORRIBLE. IT’S NOT LIKE THE BOOK AT ALL. THEY JUST USED THE TITLE.” And I agree, full-heartedly. Is it disappointing? Absolutely!

But it’s Hollywood, and it’s expected. I never expect a movie (based on a preexisting book) to be like the book. To follow the same plot line, to have authentic-to-the-book characters…it’s just not how it works, however unfortunate it is. It’s incredible when directors and screenwriters do stick true to the book/s, but I never expect them to, and I think that’s why I formulated a different opinion on the Hobbit.

Looking at The Hobbit as a movie about adventure and hobbits and dwarves, though? I see nothing wrong with it.

Truthfully, I like the story of LOTR more. But I enjoy the Hobbit movies over the LOTR movies- maybe it’s because I was growing up as they came out, and I had no basis of comparison, but I still feel as though they are enjoyable movies.

Genuinely, I feel that Peter Jackson just loved his cast and loved Middle Earth enough that he simply wanted to make something in the same universe. I will say that I’m very glad Viggo Mortensen declined the cast invite for The Hobbit movies. Aragorn doesn’t belong in The Hobbit, just like Legolas and Tauriel.

But even with that said, about characters who were in the movie- “but not the books!”- when looking at the movie as a movie, and not attaching it to every lore of the books, I think it’s a well pieced-together movie.

I almost agree that the main villain shouldn’t have been killed when he was, but I also find that it created a larger spin. Doesn’t it make you question the antagonist altogether? So what if the enemy wasn’t truly Smaug? Isn’t greed an almost better one? Something unseen and not entirely expected. You want the dragon to be the bad guy, because dragons always are the bad guy.

I can see the frustrations between book and movie, but I wish more people could look at these movies from a new perspective. The Hobbit is loosely based on the book. It has dwarves, elves, wizards, and hobbits. The names match with the races in the books. That’s it. I get it. But looking at it as a movie in general- not something based on something else- I think they are great movies and deserve more credit.

(It would have been SWEET if Del Toro directed these movies, though. I had no idea he was considered to do it. Favorite director right there :p )

*deep breath, dee* I’m not here to fight…as an avid Tolkien reader, what are your reasons for hating the Hobbit movies? How, pray tell, are they so “terrible”? I’m just curious. That’s all.

Is it the cinematography? The actors? Missing scenes? Give me something here. So many people hate on the movies but never give reasons. It starts to feel like it’s because it’s simply not LOTR- and the fact that there’s an age gap. The Hobbit is baby. LOTR is everyone’s great grandmother who makes you warm cookies every time you visit.

Oh boy, here we go.

Lucky for you, I am an unhinged movie nerd and I have lots of food for you on here…

When we talk about the Hobbit, we also have to talk about Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit got published in 1937 and is a fantasy novel for children. Tolkien wrote this book for his kids, so it was a silly story with a simple moral. An episodic narrative with a message about greed and trust, adding lots of adventure and fun. It’s one of the best-selling books ever written. It’s a classic.

Fellowship of the Ring got published in 1954 and is not intended for children. Simply, Allen & Unwin (Tolkien’s publisher) wanted a sequel to the Hobbit and Tolkien provided with a story that is more mature. Because his kids grew up. And those kids who had read the Hobbit had also grown up. Which made Fellowship a perfect story for those grown-ups/teenagers.

And that’s the thing. Fellowship works as a sequel. The Hobbit does not work as a prequel.

We have two completely different stories here on our hands: a story about a ring a bunch of people would like to have and a story about dwarves fighting over their home and…a bunch of treasure. The central conflicts have nothing to do with each other. The Hobbit doesn’t set up the worldbuilding of middle earth, doesn’t tell the story about Sauron nor the rings. And that is because it is not a prequel. It is its own story with its own central conflict.

This made this book a bit difficult to adapt. We either have the chance to turn this childlike story into a movie or turn it into a trilogy that works as prequels to Lord of the Rings (which they desperately tried to do here). I’m not saying there wasn’t any other way — I think they should’ve let Guillermo del Toro do his two movies (as originally intended) that included the overall spirit of the books and could be their own movies without having to reference Lord of the Rings all of the time but we ended up with three movies that can’t be their own thing because trilogies and because money.

The Hobbit is a relatively short book. Roughly around 95,000 words. Fellowship, just Fellowship is around 187,000 words. And it makes sense to make a movie trilogy out of a book trilogy, especially because those books follow a much more Hollywood structure.

But get this. We take the Hobbit with roughly 95,000 words. And we turn this book into a trilogy which leaves us with nine acts in total. Nine acts which leads to adding a bunch of stuff to fill all the plot points. A bunch of mini climaxes that go nowhere, character movements that come too early or too late, adding characters and subplots that absolutely no one asked for (at least of all the story).

For example, the scene at the end of the first movie where Thorin respects Bilbo is way too early. Their relationship doesn’t evolve at all in the second movie. Sure, they fight or whatever in the third movie but wouldn’t it have made sense to show Thorin’s respect for Bilbo when Bilbo frees the dwarves in the barrel plot point? It was originally set to be there but now that it’s not, the barrel plot point is super weak and doesn’t work for character/relationship development at all. It is there because the plot needs it to be there. Bilbo doesn’t have to prove anything, he just does it because the plot needs him to.

And why is that? Because we needed this little climax at the end of movie one (because storytelling and story structure) where Bilbo, a character who is known for his intelligence, who is — unlike the dwarves — not a fighter, fucking knocks over an orc. Don’t tell me this was character development. If this was character development, then he would’ve started killing orcs in movie two and three. Bilbo is not a fighter. He is characterised by his wits. But because the plot needed him to, he had to do this. Weirdly, he doesn’t really do it again, does he?

Originally, the first movie was supposed to end with the dwarves arriving at Erebor/Laketown with movie two starting with getting into Erebor. Smaug’s death would’ve been the midpoint of movie two. Not the most anticlimactic thing to have ever happened in movie three.

Seriously? You kill the main antagonist before the opening title? What were these guys thinking? The death of the Cumberbatch lizard was supposed to be the thing and they just killed him off in the most anticlimactic way ever, thanks to the structure of turning a little book into three movies.

Which makes us watch a bunch of stupid shit: dwarves are — according to the Desolation of Smaug — fire-resistent, we get scary CGI, we get the White Council because, guys, have you heard of lotr, we get a horrible love triangle, a horrible Tauriel who has no character whatsoever, we get Legolas, because guys, remember this trilogy you liked when you were younger, do you remember lotr, we get a river fight scene that is unnecessary, we get Galadriel x Gandalf for whatever reason, a Beorn chase scene, a random trip to Angmar that leads nowhere, Elijah Wood because, hey guys, do you remember LOTR? We get Radagast with poop on his head because we need to tell the people the forest is dying and something bad is coming because lotr, remember? We need Sauron in here because…wait a minute these movies try to be prequels to Lord of the Rings??

It doesn’t work like this. The Hobbit is episodic and not related to Lord of the Rings plotwise. Yes, Bilbo finds the ring but that is that. Help, the ring is actually evil is the only thing that connects these two stories. Nothing more.

But now, we have these three movies full of stuff that doesn’t make any sense, full of characters that stand for nothing, full of contradictions, full of — sorry — bullshit because we needed three movies and as much lotr in it as possible.

Why is Tauriel there? Why is Legolas here? The Necromancer was a plot device to separate Gandalf from the dwarves (which was important for dwarf/Bilbo bonding time) but now the Necromancer is Sauron? Why? Why?

There is more wrong with this trilogy (and don’t get me started on all the stuff regarding the production/New Zealand) and if you’re interested in that, you should watch Lindsay Ellis’ videos on YouTube. She’s an amazing writer and movie critic — a great inspiration— and sums up my thoughts on it pretty well.

But I hope this is somewhat understandable? As someone who grew up with the Lord of the Rings, I am very passionate about these movies and the nostalgia they give me. It is very sad that we ended up with something like this and not Guillermo’s version. Like…c’mon if I recall correctly, these movies came out in December which makes them perfect Academy material and the Academy loves Guillermo…win win for everybody, but no…