It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Found That The Third Hobbit Lacked Two Very Important Scenes? Good News!

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
First, hello and welcome to my first official thread; and for it, I decided to begin by a very good news that everyone will enjoy:



Grieved by the deaths of Thorin, Fili, and Kili, the people of Laketown, the elves, and the dwarves bury them inside the tombs of Erebor. As a result, Dain is crowned King Under the Mountain, the citizens of Laketown are given the riches promised to them by Thorin, and Dain returns to the elves the white elven gems that King Thror had stolen from them years ago.


Source: The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies


Discovered it by mistake while looking up in Wikipedia a possible explanation as to why Thranduil wants Legolas to go after Aragorn. I was reading the story, saw what I quoted above, and suddenly thought: "Hey, wait a minute, that wasn't in the movie I saw.

Checked the credibility of it in Google, and apparently, the Extended Edition of the Hobbit BOFTA will indeed contain Thorin's funeral, and Dain's coronation. Plus honouring the broken promises Thorin and Thror did to Bard and Thranduil, which was treasures for the Men and the white gems for Thranduil.

Now, why for God's sake was those two EXTREMELY important scenes left out from the original version in the first place? They are kinda important to explain why the sudden alliance between Elves, Dwarves, and Men at the end of the third LOTR, why Legolas isn't that suspicious of Gimli the first time they meet in the first LOTR, or why though Thranduil's army is greatly weakened with all the wars in Mirkwood, then alongside Galadriel in Dol Guldur, he still goes defend Erebor beside Dain against the last hordes of Orcs. It all sprung from the ending of the Hobbit, by the Dwarves honouring their words, and in return receiving the alliance of Laketown and Mirkwood should anything happen.
The answer is simple: so Jackson could sell in greater quantities the Extended Edition, since everyone would be so disappointed, they would buy it just to finally see these two memorable scenes, the two that stuck to our memory the first time we all read the book as a child.

Well, beside the rant, at least they indeed filmed theses, and I hope they live up to everyone's expectations. Fingers crossed.




posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna
Ah, this happens very often when you read the book before the film. This is probably explained as the directors perogative. Some scenes are cut, other scenes are added. It's how the director percieves the story and it can be quite diferent from how a reader percieves a story.
Example. Where in the three Lotr was Tom Bombadil? No-where, yet he was in the books. I think one of the major anomilies in the film and the books is Gimli is the dwarfs representative yet when their backs are to the wall in the fight for the whole of middle earth there is no army of dwarves only men and elves, and the elves only show up at Helms Deep but not in the two final battles.
You must also know that Tauriel is not in the books yet Jackson saw fit to add hewr into the Hobbit.
Still great reads now and Jackson must be applauded for bringing them to life on the big screen.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Am I the only one that thinks the Hobbit series is really boring and half-assed?



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Nope, you are among the mayority.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Indeed.


Yeah, I noticed! I do admit those lacking parts I didn't exactly minded, I even thought it more logical that Elrond's sons should be by his side helping out alongside Galadriel when she got attacked by Orcs in Lothlorien, during Aragorn's fight with Sauron. Also, if I remember the Appendix correctly, the Dwarves were busy protecting Erebor, which was under attack for some time by Sauron's Orcs. So I sort of understood the lack of fidelity in that part. As for Bombadil, he was a nice addition, but I imagine with the movie running for 3 hours, he was probably considered not essential to the storyline.

I even didn't minded Tauriel. She was a pretty good reason to why would Elves and Dwarves suddenly start forging some sort of friendship and alliance. I only regret she lacked, with the movies advancing, her original badass personality. In my humble opinion, she ended up as another damsel in distress, while I adored how we got introduced to her, the loyal yet badass Elven maiden.

So yes, I adored myself very much all movies (love Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I think he was awesome), and Jackson's vision of them. I just don't understand how the funeral and promise-keeping could have been considered as not essential to the plot...



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

I thought it entertaining, but at the end, really disappointing. There was alot of scenes changes that I could live with, but ultimately, except for the actors performances, I found the emotional impact to be lacking.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I think most just assumed a lot of that, organically, on their own. I do agree it would have been nice to see though. (and may be, on the extended).



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

I dunno if it was a marketing ploy since everyone buys the extended versions anyway.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Am I the only one that thinks the Hobbit series is really boring and half-assed?


...not even a little bit.
The LOTR movies were incredible. The Hobbit... was never a *great* book to begin with (even Tolkein didn't like it), and stretching it out over three movies was an awful idea. It just didn't have the plot to carry that time frame.

I tell you what might be good though - when the extended versions come out, there will be the potential for a pretty awesome fan edit, cutting it down to ~3 hours. There are already some good fan edits out there, that take out a lot of the unnecessary rubbish. Fingers crossed someone will invest the time and put all the good extended bits in.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
My ears are burning....



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Nope

Watched the first one, thought ''ok it'll get better'' , watched the second one and thought ''cool Dragon'' and at that point I gave in, never gonna bother with the third.
edit on vpmThursday13pm630 by valiant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Galadriel

lol



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I rented the Hobbit movies, whereas I had to do LOTR in the theater.

I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Didn't think I would. Excellent effects, as one would expect. I enjoy the world that Tolkien created. I too found the Hobbit trilogy on film a bit "less than" - and just not as engaging.

But, compared to a lot of other "crap" out there in movieland, I did enjoy it. It was no LOTR though.

I guess the film scriptwriters, producer, etc. deviate from the book as they see fit from a what makes a compelling film perspective.

It's been so long since I've read the Hobbit, that I've lost some details.

I am, of course, a fan of the elves. Don't think I can hide that fact.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Galadriel
I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Didn't think I would. Excellent effects, as one would expect. I enjoy the world that Tolkien created. I too found the Hobbit trilogy on film a bit "less than" - and just not as engaging.

But, compared to a lot of other "crap" out there in movieland, I did enjoy it. It was no LOTR though.



I gotta admit, I also was convinced by Martin as Bilbo, he did a good job!

It was no LOTR for sure, not even close! it just wasn't exciting, I did get genuinely bored watching the first two. Such a shame, because I wanted them to be good!



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Yavanna
Ah, this happens very often when you read the book before the film. This is probably explained as the directors perogative. Some scenes are cut, other scenes are added. It's how the director percieves the story and it can be quite diferent from how a reader percieves a story.
Example. Where in the three Lotr was Tom Bombadil? No-where, yet he was in the books. I think one of the major anomilies in the film and the books is Gimli is the dwarfs representative yet when their backs are to the wall in the fight for the whole of middle earth there is no army of dwarves only men and elves, and the elves only show up at Helms Deep but not in the two final battles.
You must also know that Tauriel is not in the books yet Jackson saw fit to add hewr into the Hobbit.
Still great reads now and Jackson must be applauded for bringing them to life on the big screen.



Yes, they only get so much time for the money.

Time is money, pages are minutes....

You will never see everything in a book in a movie, example Gone With The Wind




top topics



 
4

log in

join