Middle-earth Journeys

They made her up; now they've got to give her something to do.

I think we should also talk about whether elven women should be soldiers in the first place. Tolkien's courtly love aesthetic would surely be offended by this. That Arwen, the Evenstar of her people, would be sent out to rescue Frodo was absurd. I suppose it would be a bit more likely with wood elves, but even so. And Eowyn's character is given ample development so we see why she enacted such a role reversal. So the moviemakers are writing the stuff totally apart from the Tolkien aesthetic. They are bound to get it wrong. (Whether Tolkien should have written in the courtly love tradition is another question, but that fact is that he did.)

Another grave departure from that aesthetic is the way they have written the dwarves. Greedy and mercenary, yes, but not fools, food-fighters and skinny-dippers! This actually bothers me more than Tauriel. At least she maintains her dignity.

Le terme de ''vieille fille catholique'' m'a bien fait rire, mais je la rassure: on peut très bien aussi être une ''Grand-mère athée'' et tombée sous le charme d'un beau gars, se trouver émue par la beauté d'un individu, jeune ou non. La 1ère chose qui impressionne, touche les sens et le coeur, c'est quand même l'apparence, non? C'est quelque chose qui flatte l'oeil d'abord, mais heureusement nous n'avons pas tous les mêmes critères de la beauté! il faut reconnaître que c'est cela qui séduit que ce soit la nature, un objet, une oeuvre d'art, un portrait,etc....toute création. Et l'homme n'est-il pas la plus belle création?

Je suis entièrement d'accord avec votre point de vue, cela me dérange beaucoup que PJ ajoute, retire, invente toutes ces situations, je trouve que c'est un manque de respect de l'écriture et je comprends que la famille Tolkien en soit contrariée, fâchée

Merry wrote: I think we should also talk about whether elven women should be soldiers in the first place. Tolkien's courtly love aesthetic would surely be offended by this. That Arwen, the Evenstar of her people, would be sent out to rescue Frodo was absurd. I suppose it would be a bit more likely with wood elves, but even so. And Eowyn's character is given ample development so we see why she enacted such a role reversal. So the moviemakers are writing the stuff totally apart from the Tolkien aesthetic. They are bound to get it wrong. (Whether Tolkien should have written in the courtly love tradition is another question, but that fact is that he did.)

TOTALLY agree here, Merry. I get the distinct impression that Tauriel is what PJ wanted to do with Arwen in the LOTR series when he filmed her at Helm's Deep. Remember that? Tolkien did write them with the courtly love aesthetic, but I suppose that doesn't sell movie tickets. Yup ... they got it wrong alright.

Merry wrote: Another grave departure from that aesthetic is the way they have written the dwarves. Greedy and mercenary, yes, but not fools, food-fighters and skinny-dippers! This actually bothers me more than Tauriel. At least she maintains her dignity.

I agree here also. If PJ doesn't give them some dignity in the final film, it will be like running your fingernails down a chalkboard.

Et l'homme n'est-il pas la plus belle creation?

I'm not sure, Michka, but you're sounding pretty Catholic there!

I think we do all have somewhat different tastes in beauty, but I also find that there is more agreement about these things than we might guess. And here we are, participating in this website, because at least we all find Tolkien beautiful and, as RR pointed out a few days ago, there are THOUSANDS of websites like this where people gather for the same reason. And lots of them are talking about Thorin and Aragorn, but few of them are talking about the beauty of whichever dwarf has the ax still buried in his head--can't even remember his name!--or the Master of Lakeland! My point is that there is some agreement about beauty, even if it is not complete.

Laketown, now that is something I think PJ got right. Bard's lack of lustiness and Tauriel entire character aside, I liked the portrayal of the town and it's mayor. Just enough seediness and decay to make a trading town believable. I think Tolkien would have liked what PJ did there.

Can I be frank... I'm not looking forward to seeing the third installment of this series. I was super excited for the first film, excited but nervous to see the second and honestly, I'm not too emotionally invested in seeing the third. Does that make me a bad person?

No Philipa, it doesn't make you a bad person ... perhaps a smart one. As I have stated, I am a hopeless (hopeful?) Tolkien addict and I will always spend money and time on these movies. The one GRAND thing that they have done for me (and many others, I suspect) is to put faces on the Tolkien characters and visuals to Middle-earth. For that alone, I will be eternally grateful to PJ. And of course ... there is Howard Shore's timeless music.

I am also not invested in this series much, Philipa. I bought the EE of the first movie for its wonderful portrayal of the Unexpected Party and Riddles in the Dark, but I haven't and probably won't buy the second. I hope the third is better, but I have little hope of it. I thought the third LOTR movie was the weakest of them all, so I hope PJ doesn't follow that pattern. I think we'd better expect that a good half of it will be battle.

Merry, I have a bad feeling that the third movie will basically be battle almost from beginning to end, because we have Smaug's attack on Laketown, Gandalf's "rescue" from Dol Guldur and the driving out of the Necromancer, AND The Battle of Five Armies. Sigh . . .

Oh, Lord, you're probably right.

Lindariel wrote:Merry, I have a bad feeling that the third movie will basically be battle almost from beginning to end, because we have Smaug's attack on Laketown, Gandalf's "rescue" from Dol Guldur and the driving out of the Necromancer, AND The Battle of Five Armies. Sigh . . .

Yeah, that's probably the script. A few scenes I am curious about (this will be another test for PJ) is the scene where Bard and Thuradruil talk to Thorin at the cave's gate. Also of Bilbo presenting the stone to them in secret. If PJ messes that up.... he could totally push me off the deep end. Those are delicate scenes in the story line.

I agree, Philipa. I just read that Armitage said that there were no 'pick-ups' to do for the last movie, which might not be a good sign.

On another front, I was just looking at the Encyclopedia of Arda for something and noticed that they have an article with a detailed comparison between the Hobbit movies and the book. Here is a link for the one about DoS:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/the-hobbit ... smaug.html

It is quite detailed and dispassionate, but well done, pointing out things I did not notice.

Merry wrote:I agree, Philipa. I just read that Armitage said that there were no 'pick-ups' to do for the last movie, which might not be a good sign.

Or ... maybe it is a good thing. PJ can't fiddle with it anymore.

Ha! Yes, it's hard to know.