Rules      FAQ       Register        Login
It is currently December 16th, 2017, 6:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 9th, 2015, 3:22 pm 
Balrog
Balrog
User avatar

Joined: 10 November 2007
Posts: 3946
Location: Finland
Country: Finland (fi)
Gender: Female

Offline
I understand why some people don't like Tauriel, I was skeptical of her at first and I'm surprised how much I ended liking her. I think the whole Tauriel/Kili thing went little too far but it didn't ruin the movie for me or anything.

_________________
Image

banner by Aredhel Ar-Feiniel


Top
 Profile       WWW            
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 10th, 2015, 6:23 pm 
Movie Extra
Movie Extra

Joined: 15 February 2014
Posts: 21

Offline
It's fine to just not feel a character or a relationship. That's different from it being badly done.

Erin Lunaire wrote:
Since it has been mentioned a few times, that some of you don't understand why quite a few people hate Tauriel, I'll ellaborate on why I hate her. Maybe that will help to understand both sides a little.

In a lot of ways, Tauriel comes across in a way that feeds into the whole tough archer girls trend. She is no different from Katniss Everdeen, or Gretle from Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters, or Marida from Brave. Tough women, who are amazing with a bow, and are more than capable of defending themselves without the help of men. Seen it, don't need another.


I've never seen Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters, but Tauriel is nothing like Katniss or Merida. The only thing the three have in common is that they all can use bows. I enjoy all three, but Merida is a selfish child trying to avoid responsibility, Katniss an extremely traumatized young woman slowly being driven insane by her society, and Tauriel a fighter for justice who's able to see the big picture. There's nothing wrong with female characters wielding weapons, just like there's nothing wrong with females that don't. Women vary just as much as men do, and to have a broader range of characters is good. All three are fleshed out beyond their ability to use a weapon; they're not mindless stoic killing machines, but complex characters.

Quote:
Even in the writing of it, she exists solely for the purpose of offering fans another archer woman to admire, and have at least one woman in a very male cast. Something the film did not need at all, because the quality of it would have made up for that.


No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one female. The ratio is already 3:1. I'm not saying you're trying to be sexist, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained sexism in our society, that makes women trivial.

Quote:
Also, something that comes across very strongly, is that the script writers, etc, were probably way over their head, in stretching this tiny book into three movies, so they threw in a couple of OCs to stretch some time out--which did no favours. (Alfred, funny in DoS, really over the top and annoying in BotFA.) It's not just characters I don't like, that I feel got way too much unneeded screen time, I'm the same with ones I do like. Legolas for example. I understand why they brought him back, the company did pass through his home. But Lord of the Rings was his adventure, he didn't need The Hobbit as well. I think he should have had a cameo. Such as he was the captain of the guard, who captured the dwarves and brought them to Thranduil, then dissappeared. Only to reappear riding beside his father, as they go to war.


I'm not going to go into detail now, because this is not the place, but The Hobbit is a very poorly written book. That doesn't mean we shouldn't like it - there's nothing wrong with loving something while acknowledging its flaws. There is no character development (or if there is, like Bilbo, it's out-of-the-blue) or reasons for actions. The films are not perfect, but on the whole, they've fixed the problems with the book. Alfred may be funny on a superficial level, but he is not there to be comic relief, but to make a point about cowardice and greed.

As for Legolas, we're back to needing development and reasons. Why does an isolated elf prince decide to throw away his father's mindset and go out into the world? What makes him open-minded enough to have two mortals as best friends? That's the complete opposite of Thranduil, after all.

Quote:
Since Tauriel was an original character, she needed to have a role within the plot of the story. Her whole purpose sort of monopolised that quite a bit. Because of her, the elves went to war. Not their real motives, such as Thranduil wanting the treasure that was rightfully his. Her effect on Kili changed him in a drastic way. In AUJ and very early DoS, Kili was quite an interesting character. Loyal to his brother and Thorin. Brave, but knew how to have a joke. A good fighter. Enter Tauriel. He comes across as a love sick puppy, desperate to find a way to be with Tauriel. I like to call this the Gollum Effect. Tauriel becomes his precious, that through the course of the films feeds into borderline obsession to find away to be with her, that ultimately kills him.


Thranduil goes to war because of the gems. Thranduil wanting the gems has been a theme since the beginning of AUJ. He and Bard even have a conversation about this. What Tauriel does is act as the catalyst for LotR. Legolas needs to have his eyes opened to the rest of the world. Thranduil needs to accept that he cannot keep Legolas locked up forever. And that is what happens in the film. Again, it's all about there needing to be a reason for the character's actions.

Having a romance does not detract from Kili's character. He never acts desperate or obsessed. In DoS he flirts and has a conversation with Tauriel. That doesn't stop him from fighting for and going with his kin - he says to Thorin, “What are you talking about? I’m coming with you. I’m going to be there when that door is opened, when we first look upon the halls of our fathers, Thorin.”

In BoFA, he asks Tauriel to come with him, and when she declines, he goes with his kin; during the battle he hears her scream for him and goes to fight alongside her. He doesn't take a killing blow for her (I really wouldn't have liked that). None of this stops him from saying things like, "The people of Laketown have nothing. They have lost everything." and "Thieves! How come you by the heirloom of our house?!" and "I will not hide behind a wall of stone, while others fight our battles, for us! It is not in my blood, Thorin."

Quote:
Her whole character is just echoes of other LotR film women. Healing a poisoned man, while someone runs off for kingsfoil. (Um, Arwen after Frodo gets stabbed?) A practised fighter, in love with a man she has no future with. (Eowyn, and her feelings towards Aragorn.) Also, her whole need to go off on her own to join in on the war and go off on her own independance thing just screams fo Arwen's choice to go back to Rivendell, instead of going to the havens. Arwen was ordered to leave Middle Earth, but she followed her heart and chose to stay. Tauriel on the other hand, was ordered to focus only on Mirkwood, but she followed her heart and ran away. There is nothing about Tauriel at all, that makes her different. If there was no love between her and Kili, she would have been nothing more than a random repetative extra, like Alfred.


Kili is not Tauriel's only reason for leaving. As I showed above, she doesn't accept her feelings until the end of BoFA. And it's not running away. She goes to fight, to do the right thing. Thranduil's isolation is wrong, and she knows it. Her situation is nothing like Éowyn's or Arwen's. Éowyn thinks Aragorn is the only way she can escape her sexist and oppressive life. It was always Arwen's choice to make, and she knows that she will regret it for all of time if she leaves. All three are vastly different characters, with different situations.


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 10th, 2015, 10:07 pm 
Elf
Elf
User avatar

Joined: 11 August 2008
Posts: 1037
Location: Mirkwood
Country: United Kingdom (uk)
Gender: Female

Offline
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even in the writing of it, she exists solely for the purpose of offering fans another archer woman to admire, and have at least one woman in a very male cast. Something the film did not need at all, because the quality of it would have made up for that.


No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one female. The ratio is already 3:1. I'm not saying you're trying to be sexist, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained sexism in our society, that makes women trivial.

Laineth, this is perfect :notworthy:

Quote:
Since it has been mentioned a few times, that some of you don't understand why quite a few people hate Tauriel, I'll elaborate on why I hate her. Maybe that will help to understand both sides a little.


Erin, there's nothing wrong with disliking a character. But I don't understand the wider hate for Tauriel because the major arguments against her are:
A- Book Purists
B- Pacing Issues
C- Inherently sexist
D- Personal taste


Personal taste is fine, I can understand that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The book purist argument and pacing issues are focussed on wider criticism of the films, not Tauriel herself. And there is nothing acceptable about the inherently sexist arguments.

But I've not seen a single case that against Tauriel that isn't based on the reasons above. If someone can point me to one, by all means enlighten me.

Quote:
For the fact, that she solely exists to feed into the archer women trend


I'm pretty sure we see her use her knives more on screen anyway, but you would still dislike her if she used a sword, ax or spear. Maybe if all the female archers in films were alike one another, then there would be a valid reason to complain about this, but as Laineth pointed the only similarities between Katniss, Merida & Tauriel is the fact they use a bow. It comes down to a serious lack of understanding of female characters, if the fact they all use the same weapon means they're supposedly the same character. And where is this archer women trend? Katniss and Tauriel are contemporary to one another, but Hansel & Gretel is two years old and no-one saw it- Brave was three years ago.

Female archers are hardly a major thing in the way male ones are. There are thousands of male archers who are all fundamentally the same, some films even acknowledge the characters are indistinguishable from one another ("Better clench up Legolas"). From October 2014 to Spring 2015, Daryl Dixon (Walking Dead), Hawkeye (Marvel), Green Arrow (DC), Robin Hood (Doctor Who), Legolas, Bard and Kili have used, or will use bows in major film or TV series. That's 8 male archers in the space of 6 months. Compared to 4 female archers since 2012.

Besides Daryl and Legolas are fan favourites and Marida was made an official Disney princess despite being Pixar's invention. Archers, male or female are hot property. There's three male archers in the Hobbit alone- Legolas, Bard & Kili. Surely that's overkill? Are they just feeding into a trend with them? Bard is the only cannon archer, as Kili only uses a bow when all the other dwarves do in the books. Why is it wrong to add a female archer, but not two male ones?

It makes sense for Tauriel to be an archer. It's suited to her roll as a guard, swords aren't very useful for fighting giant spiders in the trees, bows are more stealthy and efficient. Plus she's an elf, and the Elves in LotR and the Hobbit elves use bows, it's one of the ways the filmmakers define them as a different race. Thranduil and Elrond are the only elves we see fight without bow and arrow over the trilogy. The prologue elves all had them and even Arwen was going to use a bow in FotR. So it's not even like they thought they could just make her more popular by being an archer, it's actually a sensible and logical choice.

Quote:
to stretch the plot out


As I said above, the plot was stretched by making 3 films, not 1. Not because of Tauriel. They didn't add her because there was a gap, or because they needed to make the story longer. They added her because they needed to add a female character.

Quote:
purely for the need to have at least one woman front and center to the progression of the plot.


This is never an acceptable reason. Especially not in a major film franchise the size of The Hobbit, what message would a 9+ hour sausage-fest send to viewers?

The fact is there was always going to have to be a significant female character added to The Hobbit and she had to have a lot to do. Galadriel alone was not enough, Lobelia Sackville Baggins and Belladonna Took are only Cameos. Arwen or Dis may have been possible but again just cameos. So what other options were there:
-Itaril?- Fundamentally no different from Tauriel.
-A living wife for Thranduil or Bard? Potentially interesting, but not enough to do.
-Gender-swapping an existing character? Just no, they might have got away with making one of the dwarves a lady, but even then they still wouldn't do much, just hang around in the background like all the others did.

If anyone has a better suggestion for ladies in the Hobbit, I'd love to hear it. (Actually I think it would be quite fun to speculate) But there was no way of not having a major female character in the Hobbit.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 11th, 2015, 8:59 am 
Elf
Elf
User avatar

Joined: 30 July 2008
Posts: 1331
Location: Off drinking tea somewhere
Country: Rohan (xr)

Offline
Laineth wrote:

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one female. The ratio is already 3:1. I'm not saying you're trying to be sexist, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained sexism in our society, that makes women trivial.



No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one person of colour... I'm not saying you're trying to be racist, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained racism in our society, that makes people of colour trivial.

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one homosexual character... I'm not saying you're trying to be homophobic, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained homophobia in our society, that makes homosexual people trivial.

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one transgender character... I'm not saying you're trying to be transphobic, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained transphobia in our society, that makes transgender people trivial.

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one [insert marginalized group]... I'm not saying you're trying to be [insert term] , but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained [insert term] in our society, that makes [insert marginalized group] trivial.


What I find deeply sexist about Tauriel is not the fact that she's yet another kickass warrior woman. What is sexist is that she was never going to be allowed to be a character in her own right, have her own character development, unless she is validated by a man. If she wants to go off and fight, then yes, that's awesome. What is not awesome is yet another female character being pushed into the stupid love triangle troupe. What is a result of deeply ingrained sexism in our society is that it's expected that female characters will have a love interest with a male character. Because their actions, their feelings, their character development are only validated on how they impact upon the male character that's attracted to them. Because women are only there as accessories for men and to develop the male character's story arc. They are not allowed to exist as characters in their own right.
(Off topic but this is why Frozen is so awesome. I don't like it for personal reasons (my sister and I do not get along) but I'm happy to sing its praises. The male characters are there to support the sisters' development, not there to be the reason for their development. At the end of the day it comes down to the sisters, not the male characters, the men just help the plot. And that is why Frozen is brilliant. )

I haven't watched Bo5A, and I'm not planning to because I find it too sexist for my tastes, but I've been reading all the spoilers and I am unable to see why there was any need for Tauriel to be a love interest. What would have been awesome was for the writers to go "you know what? Too many female characters are only validated by a relationship with a male character. Let's change that trend. Let's make her want to break free from her patriarchal society, and forge her own way in the world without reducing her to yet another stereotypical love interest. Now that would be original!"
Yet they didn't. They stuck with the same sexist troupe and that is why I don't like her.

_________________
Image
All by Bellatrix
Married Nymphadora Tonks 29/6/13


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 11th, 2015, 10:54 pm 
Movie Extra
Movie Extra

Joined: 15 February 2014
Posts: 21

Offline
Seren wrote:
What I find deeply sexist about Tauriel is not the fact that she's yet another kickass warrior woman. What is sexist is that she was never going to be allowed to be a character in her own right, have her own character development, unless she is validated by a man. If she wants to go off and fight, then yes, that's awesome. What is not awesome is yet another female character being pushed into the stupid love triangle troupe. What is a result of deeply ingrained sexism in our society is that it's expected that female characters will have a love interest with a male character. Because their actions, their feelings, their character development are only validated on how they impact upon the male character that's attracted to them. Because women are only there as accessories for men and to develop the male character's story arc. They are not allowed to exist as characters in their own right.
(Off topic but this is why Frozen is so awesome. I don't like it for personal reasons (my sister and I do not get along) but I'm happy to sing its praises. The male characters are there to support the sisters' development, not there to be the reason for their development. At the end of the day it comes down to the sisters, not the male characters, the men just help the plot. And that is why Frozen is brilliant. )

I haven't watched Bo5A, and I'm not planning to because I find it too sexist for my tastes, but I've been reading all the spoilers and I am unable to see why there was any need for Tauriel to be a love interest. What would have been awesome was for the writers to go "you know what? Too many female characters are only validated by a relationship with a male character. Let's change that trend. Let's make her want to break free from her patriarchal society, and forge her own way in the world without reducing her to yet another stereotypical love interest. Now that would be original!"
Yet they didn't. They stuck with the same sexist troupe and that is why I don't like her.


Personally, I love Frozen. Just saying that. But the fact that Tauriel is not in the realm of Thorin or Bilbo doesn't make her bad. Do I wish we had more female based films? Of course. That doesn't make The Hobbit sexist by having Tauriel.

She's not pushed into a love triangle. Aside from the filmmakers comments, nothing romantic happens between Tauriel and Legolas. From pure technicality, Tauriel doesn't influence Kíli's actions at all. It's Thranduil and Legolas she influences, and there is nothing romantic in her relationships with either. And why is the fact she's a warrior awesome? Because society says that masculinity is Good while femininity is Bad. There is nothing wrong with warriors, just like there is nothing wrong with staying home. And most crucially: love does not make Tauriel sexist. Love is not bad. Love is psychologically proven to be the thing that makes human beings most healthy. Babies die without love. All of this has been proven by psychology and science. Loving someone does not mean they're dominating you. All of the characters are shaped by their relationships and interactions with other characters, because that's how a story works.

To say that there is something wrong with someone because of love (or any thing else feminine) is the real sexism at work here.


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 18th, 2015, 9:44 am 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 26 October 2005
Posts: 2952
Location: Between the Shire and Erebor
Country: Rohan (xr)
Gender: Female

Offline
Seren wrote:
Laineth wrote:

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one female. The ratio is already 3:1. I'm not saying you're trying to be sexist, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained sexism in our society, that makes women trivial.



No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one person of colour... I'm not saying you're trying to be racist, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained racism in our society, that makes people of colour trivial.

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one homosexual character... I'm not saying you're trying to be homophobic, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained homophobia in our society, that makes homosexual people trivial.

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one transgender character... I'm not saying you're trying to be transphobic, but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained transphobia in our society, that makes transgender people trivial.

No. There is nothing that makes it acceptable. You cannot have a blockbuster film without at least one [insert marginalized group]... I'm not saying you're trying to be [insert term] , but such comments are the result of the deeply ingrained [insert term] in our society, that makes [insert marginalized group] trivial.


I think this is a very good point Seren! Not only are women underrepresented in the Hobbit movies (and in the LotR movies as well), but several other groups (homosexuals, POC, transgenders, disabled people) don't make an appearance either. So to me it's fascinating that there's so much uproar over Tauriel, but not about the others! Of course it is not just the Tolkien-adaptations that fail to include a true representation of the world population, but many other movies as well. Probably one reason why female representation in Tolkien stories is such a big thing because you see all these male heroes running around, saving the world and being awesome, thereby implying that this is a job for men and that women should do other stuff.

Personally I didn't like Tauriel very much. I liked that she was added to the movie, but I wish they would've given her interaction with other female characters about something else than men. Not sure if you've heard of the Bechdel test, that you can only pass if there's a story with two named women who talk to each other about something else than a man, but the Hobbit doesn't really pass it. Nor do many other movies for that matter. I just hoped that adding a women to the storyline would actually add an interesting character to the story, but to me it seems that she's just been added as a women, and not as a person. I've read the arguments above and although I understand them, I still don't agree with it. But hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions here.

Regarding the final Hobbit movie, I was a bit disappointed. Too much impossible action-moves and not enough attention for the subtle interactions between key characters. I hope it would be a beautiful ending like RotK, but it just didn't make it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 21st, 2015, 6:36 pm 
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
User avatar

Joined: 06 July 2011
Posts: 192
Location: Ithilien
Country: Gondor (xg)
Gender: Female

Offline
I went to see The Battle of the Five Armies the day before it came out--our theatre sometimes plays movies the day before which is totally awesome by the way. ;-) Anyways, I cried--as I'm sure everyone else did--and then totally forgot to bring tissues with me. So I had to walk past theatre security with puffy eyes and eyeliner streaking down my cheeks. Fun, I think not.
I really enjoyed the film, so much so that I went to see it again with my cousins about three or four days later and cried all over again. The acting was incredible, the music heavenly and the final words of Thorin Oakenshield, King Under the Mountain were nearly line for line from the book which pleased me to no end.
But I have to say that, being a lover of the book for many, many years, there were some major things missing from the film. For one: whatever happened to the Arkenstone" In the book, Bard placed it inside Thorin's tomb, but Jackson didn't even have a funeral scene for our beloved Durins. I also wanted to see Thranduil give Thorin back Orcrist during the funeral, but like I said in the previous sentence, there was no funeral scene. One of the scenes I hope ends up in the extended version is Balin's visit to the Shire a year after the events of the journey to Erebor. That was one of my favourite moments in the book.
I am not a Tauriel fan, never have been and most likely never will be, but I do have to say that the whole romance between her and Kíli was a tad less corny in this film than it was in The Desolation of Smaug. I couldn't stop laughing when I noticed the bag of walnuts he was using for a pillow, and my brother had to elbow me in the side to get me to be quiet at that part. Let's face it though, their relationship would never have worked. Tauriel is an elf, her people live forever unless they are killed in battle or die of a broken heart. Kíli is a Dwarf who would, had he survived the battle, have lived maybe about one hundred and seventy-three more years tops before he passed on. Dwarves and Elves have pretty much always been at each others throats and I don't see Thorin allowing them to marry. Tauriel was banished so they would have had to find somewhere else to live, and I don't think that, however much in love he was with her, Kíli would have ever wanted to leave his brother.
It never bothered me before that there were no female characters mentioned in the book--except perhaps Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, I can't remember if she was mentioned or not, and Belladonna, obviously. The addition of Lady Galadriel made complete sense to me seeing as she is a member of the White Council. But I have to say that the scene where she picked up Gandalf was a little unbelievable. I know, I know, Elves are stronger than humans, but still....
I do wish there had been more interaction with the Dwarves. They had so much screen time in the first two movies, and I was a bit disappointed that they really didn't show up much at all during the Battle of the Five Armies; I don't even remember seeing any of them fighting in the battle save for Dwalin, Thorin, Fíli and Kíli! I mean, the whole story is about thirteen Dwarves, a Hobbit, and one Wizard going on a journey to take back the Lonely Mountain, so you would think that they would get their own little cameos besides the big three Dwarves, Bilbo, and of course Gandalf.
Dáin was probably one of the highlights of the movie for me. I mean, he's played by the awesome Billy Connolly, what's not to love? I did laugh when I noticed just what his steed was, but if you keep in mind just how small Dwarves are, it kind of makes since--though the war rams were much more majestic, but then again that was Thorin's ride, it had to be majestic.
Over all, I liked the film and I will watch it as many times as I can, I just hope Jackson clarifies some things in the extended films. :yes:

_________________
Zirakzigil ai menu Duzhuk! Zirakzigil, at your service!
[~^!?]


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject: Re: The final chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies.
PostPosted: January 22nd, 2015, 1:00 pm 
Dunadan
Dunadan
User avatar

Joined: 04 June 2005
Posts: 548
Location: Uruguay
Country: Uruguay (uy)
Gender: Female

Offline
I just saw it and LOVED it, though I must say that maybe not as much as say..The Return Of The King. Some sequences felt off, either too slow or too rushed, especially the ending, I was hoping for a funeral for Fili, Kili and Thorin, I know it was included for the EE but it would've made a better transition on the theatrical, it felt too abrupt, battle's over, goodbye I'm out? seemed off. Him arriving at home was perfect, with people raiding his home, Lobellia stealing the silverware, and him entering the house and finding his hankerchief, thought it was nice.
I expected more of Beorn, should've been more of him, I would've liked what's on the book about him fighting in rage after he sees Thorin. Tauriel and Kili....it's alright, I'm not a fan of it but I don't mind it, I just wish him and Fili had died protecting Thorin, instead they died on their own, I didn't like that Fili was just excecuted, I think he deserved better. It didn't seem to me like Kili died protecting Tauriel, maybe I missed something. I knew the deaths would make me cry and it didn't fail, all three did, Thorin's death was perfect and everything I thought it would be.
Ironfoot was great, very amusing!
Thorin's descent into madness was played beautifully, including the fact he almost wanted to kill Bilbo, my only petpeeve with it was right at the end of it, there's some sort of vision of him drowning in a sea of gold, very trippy and don't think it was necessary to show that he was losing it, then right after that he comes into his senses seemed kinda abrupt.
the battle of the Council...there were some stuff that seemed off, like Sauron already revealing himself, it just didn't seem right to me but oh well...Galadriel going full witch mode was strange but cool.
And also...in FOTR Gandalf comments to Saruman that he had no idea Bilbo had a ring of power ("after all these years it was in the Shire, under my very nose!"), and yet in The Hobbit, Gandalf tells Bilbo he knows he has one, I didn't like that, it seemed inconsistent.
Legolas...I love him and loved him in The Hobbit but he's the biggest Deux Ex Machina I've ever seen, always saving the day in impossible ways :P
I thought Alfrid was good comic relief, though maybe too much, I would've liked to see him die at the end or something lol
Also, I know they were trying to tie The Hobbit as much as possible to LOTR which is fine but Thranduil mentioning Aragorn to Legolas 60 years before FOTR seems kinda random.
Quote:
I could be fine with a Tauriel/Kili love story. But throwing Legolas in there just messes up the next trilogy. Because then comes the questions "where did Tauriel go, is he still in love with her, did he ask her to leave Middle Earth, etc". I wish Legolas would have just loved her as a sister or something, because that would've made it all so much better.

it never seemed to me like Legolas loved Tauriel that way, it never seemed like a triangle cause Legolas was never all "back off, dwarf, she's mine" or anything, he was merely protective and also has the whole "my race hates your race" thing, there was never any hint of romance between them.

overall I enjoyed it, wished there were some stuff added to it but I loved it anyway

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile                  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Boyz theme by Zarron Media 2003