[quote=""Fingolfin""]I wasn't aware it was out of print! It looks like you can still get the individual books pretty cheap on eBay or amazon, but good luck finding the boxed set itself. Deimos, here is a picture of the copy I'm talking about:



I hope that shows up.

Can anyone identify the rest of the books in that picture while we're at it? I definitely see the Lord of the Rings...suppose the big one at the end is a one volume copy of the whole trilogy? What about the others?[/quote]
Wow this takes me WAAYYYY back!
I joined the Book of the Month Club, got the boxed set of three volume LOTR, a boxed Hobbit, The Silmarillion, Tolkien Companion, and JRR Tolkien biography (all hard cover) for $1 introduction price and had to buy 4 more books within the year.

These are the books I read today, although the years have ravaged the paper covers over them.

Awesome, Thrand! I didn't know about those editions of UT and the Sil! love them!

I went and watched BoFTA yesterday in regular 2D. I still liked it. Can't wait for the EE, though. I then went on to watch the LotR EE's the last day and a half....

Mostly I came on here to post about the end of The Return of The King when Aragorn tells the Hobbits, "you bow to no one." And then they go home, have a drink, and no one knows about them saving Middle-Earth. I got teary-eyed as I do on that part. My girl walked in and saw me wiping my face and responded with, "Let me guess: the end of Return of the King or Dobby's death."

It was pretty funny. The films run together very well, I think. I can't wait to do a six night event once the BoTFA EE's come out.

That scene at the end of ROTK is my favorite change from the book that PJ made. I don't like many changes- but to me there was something that felt so right to have the Hobbits come back from such a dangerous adventure to a completely untouched Shire. These hobbits had the king of Gondor bow to them and no one in the Shire has a clue. They are all sitting around the table thinking back on everything they just did and knowing they are changed forever- but apparently their hobbit spirit was completely taken away- as Sam proved.

Oh, did I cry at the end of the movie, but that was nothing to my losing it when I READ not only the end of ROTK, but also Appendix B, the Tale of Years, beginning at 3020 (S.R. 1420) on to the end.

And I still lose it every single time I read it....(20 times at least, and counting).

Reminds me, I REALLY owe LotR another reading this spring. I usually tear up at the end of The Hobbit, just at the shear splendidness of the whole affair. And. I hear there are many who cry at the end of The Silmarillion; they have tears of joy that it's finally over!

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Reminds me, I REALLY owe LotR another reading this spring. I usually tear up at the end of The Hobbit, just at the shear splendidness of the whole affair. And. I hear there are many who cry at the end of The Silmarillion; they have tears of joy that it's finally over! [/quote]

I read the Sil maybe once a year, and I've never cried at it, but it almost always leaves me incredibly depressed. There's just so much loss, and Tolkien goes to such lengths to press how beautiful so many things were. The sense that the world can never be recovered, can never recreate so many of the things that were destroyed or loss...it just gets me down. Everyone has to live in this broken world where they've all picked up the pieces as best they could, but so many heroes died in a futile effort to save something that was totally washed away.

Plus there was a lot of personal heroics, darkness and betrayal that's also emotionally heavy. Hurin swinging his axe as it smoked with goblin blood, Finrod dying to save Beren, EVERYTHING that happened with Turin, Fingolfin's incredible one on one combat with Morgoth. it'd make an incredible mini-series if they could ever do it right.

There are parts that drag, sure, but as a whole it's full of epic, tragic, and beautiful stories.

Finally got back to see BOFA for the second time yesterday and was happy to notice the the original Bolg design did make it into the movie. The ork the dumps Gandalf out of his cage at Dol Guldur is this guy. Pretty sure I even saw the weapon.

Will be rereading the Hobbit soon...

You posting that photo of Bolg made me remember that I have been trying to picture how the original two movies would have worked with Bolg and Azog.

From what I can deduce:

Azog would have been the main bad guy, and Bolg reduced to a minor role (smaller than what he is in the movies as is)

Bolg would have been in Dol Guldur when Gandalf finds Thrain and he would have been the one to take Gandalf by surprise and later be killed by Galadriel and so wouldn't be present at the Battle of the Five Armies

Azog would have continued his hunt for Thorin and the dwarves and (if I'm correct) would have faced Legolas in Laketown

Im assuming he would face Legolas because Orlando Bloom's first day on the hobbit was in lake town doing the orc scenes according to the EE of DOS and I'm sure the fight between him and Bolg was filmed then too.

I'm also curious as to what Legolas' story would have been like. Evengaline Lilly said the love triangle was added during pickups when they decided to go ahead with three movies, her scenes with Kili were already filmed. So I don't think there would have been much of a payoff for Legolas' story. I could be wrong though. Perhaps there was another subplot for Legolas, perhaps based around his mother?

What do you guys think? I would like to read the original two scripts to see how different it would have been.

[quote=""Finrod Felagund""]I read the Sil maybe once a year,

.[/quote]


At the rate I read the Sil, if I read it once a year, I would be continuously reading that book on a loop!

[quote=""BladeCollector""]At the rate I read the Sil, if I read it once a year, I would be continuously reading that book on a loop![/quote]

Ah, but now that you have read it even once, the next time you read it should go a teensy faster (or less slowly?).

And the third time will be a bit faster than the second time.

And come the fourth time you'll be moving right along.

And then the fifth time....

I finished re-reading The Hobbit a few days ago and I must admit that having done so, I am now a bit more kindly inclined toward the movies than I had been. The movies managed to incorporate a fair bit of dialog and narrative nearly verbatim from the book, and aspects that deserved e xp ansion, e.g., Bard, got them. I still feel that PJ's adaptation went overboard in places, playing fast and loose with things such as the essential nature of the Nazgul, and could scarcely pass up an opportunity to make Gandalf look like a feeble old man, but strict adherence to fine detail was never really his strong suit with LOTR either.

All in all, I still feel he missed the high mark set by his LOTR movies by a fair margin, and I am left wondering how it occurred. Was he more reckless this time? Did nine years of anticipation over-inflate my e xp ectations? Were my impressions influenced by the unending critical mantra that inflating an average size book into three lengthy movies could only lead to mediocrity? Probably only time and perspective will answer those questions for me.

In the meantime, I believe I am going to embark upon a re-reading of The Silmarillion, a work I don't e xp ect to see adapted for film or TV any time soon.

Here is what appears to be a screenshot of the funeral scene that was cut from the BOFA

https://atolkienistperspective.files.wo ... ral-ee.jpg

I believe this has been scanned from a book, but I have no idea which book. It's not in any of the ones I own.

[quote=""Olorin""]I finished re-reading The Hobbit a few days ago and I must admit that having done so, I am now a bit more kindly inclined toward the movies than I had been. The movies managed to incorporate a fair bit of dialog and narrative nearly verbatim from the book, and aspects that deserved e xp ansion, e.g., Bard, got them. I still feel that PJ's adaptation went overboard in places, playing fast and loose with things such as the essential nature of the Nazgul, and could scarcely pass up an opportunity to make Gandalf look like a feeble old man, but strict adherence to fine detail was never really his strong suit with LOTR either.

All in all, I still feel he missed the high mark set by his LOTR movies by a fair margin, and I am left wondering how it occurred. Was he more reckless this time? ....[/quote]

You answered your own question.
He set himself up to "miss the mark" when he initially decided to e xp and not on threads already present but rather in adding so much of his own stuff.
The guy suffers from hubris...he wanted this to be Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, and that was the beginning of the end.
But I think the biggest factor in this sub-standard adaptation was his love affair with CGI.

I will quibble a bit with ".... strict adherence to fine detail was never really his strong suit with LOTR either."

His attention to detail in LOTR was one of its delights, for me anyway.
To name just a few:

the elaborate, not to mention cluttered, interior of Bag End,
the Hobbit carrying the keg of ale with the Golden Perch label
Frodo's foot slipping into the Sirannon
the Simbelmyne on the barrows of the Kings of Rohan
the Pukel-men statues lining the road to Dunharrow
the two watchers at the gate of the Tower of Cirith Ungol (how I wish PJ had animated them to react both at Sam's entrance and when Sam and Frodo escape)

Those immediately come to mind; there are many more examples.

The inclusion (or absence ) of these details do not affect the filmed story, and unless the viewer has read the books, quite a few may go unnoticed, or at least not commented on.
Yet they cannot fail to add a satisfying richness to the movie for those who have read the books, even after the fact.

That scan is actually concept art. It's from the Weta Chronicles BOFA book. No images of the actual funeral scene have been released yet that I have seen.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]That scan is actually concept art. It's from the Weta Chronicles BOFA book. No images of the actual funeral scene have been released yet that I have seen.[/quote]

Just checked my book again and I missed it originally whoops.

Well still, I hope that scene makes it into the movie. I'm hoping Thranduil will be there and he'll lay Orcrist in top of Thorin's tomb like he does in the book.

Ok... in the book, on the way back to the shire Bilbo gives something to Thranduil before they part. Was it a necklace? I dont have my book at hand at the minute but I remember him handing something to him.

[quote=""Lindir""]....Ok... in the book, on the way back to the shire Bilbo gives something to Thranduil before they part. Was it a necklace? I dont have my book at hand at the minute but I remember him handing something to him.[/quote]


Not certain on this ( I didn't pull the book out) but I think he hands payment to Thanduil for "stealing" food from Thranduil's stores while he wandered the halls looking for the dwarves (dwarrow? ) because he was, at heart, an honest hobbit.

(And because Olorin just read it, he may freely correct me.)

It was a silver and pearl necklace.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]It was a silver and pearl necklace.[/quote]

But was it for payment as I conjectured?

Yes, for 'drinking his wine and eating his bread', as Bilbo stated.

[quote=""Deimos""]You answered your own question.
He set himself up to "miss the mark" when he initially decided to e xp and not on threads already present but rather in adding so much of his own stuff.
The guy suffers from hubris...he wanted this to be Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, and that was the beginning of the end.
But I think the biggest factor in this sub-standard adaptation was his love affair with CGI.[/quote]

Refreshing/reassuring to hear someone other than just Val or me say this.

[quote=""Deimos""]I will quibble a bit with ".... strict adherence to fine detail was never really his strong suit with LOTR either."

His attention to detail in LOTR was one of its delights, for me anyway.
To name just a few:

the elaborate, not to mention cluttered, interior of Bag End,
the Hobbit carrying the keg of ale with the Golden Perch label
Frodo's foot slipping into the Sirannon
the Simbelmyne on the barrows of the Kings of Rohan
the Pukel-men statues lining the road to Dunharrow
the two watchers at the gate of the Tower of Cirith Ungol (how I wish PJ had animated them to react both at Sam's entrance and when Sam and Frodo escape)

Those immediately come to mind; there are many more examples.

The inclusion (or absence ) of these details do not affect the filmed story, and unless the viewer has read the books, quite a few may go unnoticed, or at least not commented on.
Yet they cannot fail to add a satisfying richness to the movie for those who have read the books, even after the fact.[/quote]

Those are good examples of things where he did pay attention to detail, things mostly of a physical/set/prop nature. Indeed, the LOTR movies excelled at that aspect. What I was referring to by inattention to detail was rather in his intentional disregard of other things, such as downplaying Gandalf's wisdom/foresight/courage, because he felt it served the story better. The story that he wanted to tell, that is. Other examples would be the completely blown encounter between Gandalf and the Witch-king in Minas Tirith and the very poorly realized final fall of Sauron. These are two things that were absolutely archetypal in the book that PJ just flat-out blew.

[quote=""Lindir""]JOk... in the book, on the way back to the shire Bilbo gives something to Thranduil before they part. Was it a necklace? I dont have my book at hand at the minute but I remember him handing something to him.[/quote]

[quote=""Deimos""]Not certain on this ( I didn't pull the book out) but I think he hands payment to Thanduil for "stealing" food from Thranduil's stores while he wandered the halls looking for the dwarves (dwarrow? ) because he was, at heart, an honest hobbit.

(And because Olorin just read it, he may freely correct me.)[/quote]

[quote=""Nasnandos""]It was a silver and pearl necklace.[/quote]

Yes, I do recall that, and I hope that this finds its way into the EE. It sounds very much like the "white jewels of Lasgalen" bit that was introduced in AUJ but never paid off by the subsequent movies.

[quote=""Olorin""]... What I was referring to by inattention to detail was rather in his intentional disregard of other things, such as downplaying Gandalf's wisdom/foresight/courage, because he felt it served the story better. The story that he wanted to tell, that is. Other examples would be the completely blown encounter between Gandalf and the Witch-king in Minas Tirith and the very poorly realized final fall of Sauron. These are two things that were absolutely archetypal in the book that PJ just flat-out blew.[/quote]

Oh, yes, I see what you mean now.
And as long as you've taken that tack, add these...
Theoden's vacillating
Faramir's character (should have been more like Boromir but without the fatal flaw)
Denethor's character (came across as petty, lacking gravitas)

[quote=""Olorin""]
Yes, I do recall that, and I hope that this finds its way into the EE. It sounds very much like the "white jewels of Lasgalen" bit that was introduced in AUJ but never paid off by the subsequent movies.[/quote]

Yes thats what I was thinking. You guys know who the necklace belonged to don't you? I guess this could potentially be a spoiler. I cant remember if I posted it here now or if it was discussed, but its mentioned in the visual companion and also, if I remember correctly, the official movie guide. Movie spoiler. I don't think this is part of the Tolkien canon:

The necklace was designed by Thranduil for his wife, that's why he's so desperate to get them back. Its all he has left of her.

I used black speech just in case people want to wait and find out in the EE

[quote=""Lindir""]Yes thats what I was thinking. You guys know who the necklace belonged to don't you? I guess this could potentially be a spoiler. I cant remember if I posted it here now or if it was discussed, but its mentioned in the visual companion and also, if I remember correctly, the official movie guide. Movie spoiler. I don't think this is part of the Tolkien canon:

The necklace was designed by Thranduil for his wife, that's why he's so desperate to get them back. Its all he has left of her.

I used black speech just in case people want to wait and find out in the EE [/quote]

Black speech:

Ummm, no, he has Legolas "from her" too jk

I thought we were done with Black Speech, LOL! In any event, that's an interesting story point. One, obviously, that PJ and his writers cooked up out of whole cloth, but I guess I don't mind in this instance.

[quote=""Deimos""] The guy suffers from hubris...he wanted this to be Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, and that was the beginning of the end.
[/quote]

Isn't that a good thing, to make an adaptation your own? I am not talking about complete disregard for the source material, but making it your own is what makes it an adaptation.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Isn't that a good thing, to make an adaptation your own? I am not talking about complete disregard for the source material, but making it your own is what makes it an adaptation.[/quote]

Maybe... but typically adapting something from one medium to another means making changes that are necessary (operative word) for the story to make sense in the new medium.

PJ made a necessary adaption in the LOTR with the prologue.
He included some of the original prologue from the book, plus he added the part about the Last Alliance (from the ROTK Appendix) to put the history of the Ring in context for viewers who hadn't read the books.
Likewise with the inclusion of the story of Smeagol and Deagol...he placed it in a different place in the movie.. that was all.

An adaptation is not creating and adding something new, especially a new [side] storyline "cooked out of whole cloth" (as Olorin said). If the addition truly fleshes out something ambiguous, then it's probably desirable and even prudent.

Really, I think the Hobbit movies should have been titled something like: Peter Jackson's "An Une xp ected Journey" based on the story and characters from JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit.

[quote=""Deimos""]Oh, yes, I see what you mean now.
And as long as you've taken that tack, add these...
Theoden's vacillating
Faramir's character (should have been more like Boromir but without the fatal flaw)
Denethor's character (came across as petty, lacking gravitas)[/quote]

I guess I just cherry-picked a couple of my sorest points with it, not wanting to reopen that old can of worms. But yes, all of those.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Isn't that a good thing, to make an adaptation your own? I am not talking about complete disregard for the source material, but making it your own is what makes it an adaptation.[/quote]

[quote=""Deimos""]Maybe... but typically adapting something from one medium to another means making changes that are necessary (operative word) for the story to make sense in the new medium.
[/quote]

What she said.

It was probably an example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. They make one change to better tell the story, and having made that change, it's easier to make the next one, until you get to the point where Arwen is charging Helm's Deep and Denethor runs two miles while on fire so he can plunge off the front edge of Minas Tirith.

[quote=""Deimos""]But I think the biggest factor in this sub-standard adaptation was his love affair with CGI.[/quote]

I have tried to gauge the effect of that on my estimation of the movies. Certainly, it was a sore point. And not only was the CGI overused, but it often failed to produce realistic, believable results. Case in point: in LOTR we had actors wearing costumes and prostetics, resulting in completely realistic-looking Orcs, whereas in The Hobbit, we had cartoonish-looking Orcs. You know, some point before these movies began to appear, I think we all wondered whether they would have the higher, more adult tone of LOTR or the more child-like tone of The Hobbit book. Obviously, PJ tried to grow the story more toward LOTR by including the White Council stuff and so forth. At the same time, the look of the movie tended in the opposite direction...less real, more cartoonish, more comic-book like. Was that an intentional nod toward the story's origins as a bed-time story? Or just the result of deciding that CGI was to be the first tool of choice?

[quote=""Olorin""]
Yes, I do recall that, and I hope that this finds its way into the EE. It sounds very much like the "white jewels of Lasgalen" bit that was introduced in AUJ but never paid off by the subsequent movies.[/quote]

I don't know if the gift giving scene between Bilbo and Thranduil was filmed or not, but the one scene may tie into the other.

In the counting room scene in BOFA Thorin actually picks the Lasgalen necklace says something like 'I know an Elf who would pay dearly for these'. There is more about the gems that will be in the EE according to Phillipa Boyens. They were supposed to have been made by the Dwarves for Thranduil as a gift for his wife, but the Dwarves kept them. I don't think that bit of info was filmed, it was just character background, but there is a scene where they get returned to him.

They've been known to call the actors back and film extra bits just for the EE after the TE is in theaters, so we can hope.

And if this doesn't confound everyone, Olorin hoping for a bit of non-canon extras, I don't know what will.

Other than complete main character CGI orcs what stood out as the most jarring use of CGI, for me was when Legolas was fighting Bolg in Laketown, when Legolas was doing his spinny moves.


This has probably been discussed but if someone could jog my memory, why did PJ have the Orcs in the Hobbit speak their language when he didn't bother in LOTR. Just one of those things that really stands out when you watch them close together.

The ones in AUJ spoke English/Westron when talking to Thorin and Co, as they did in the book. They spoke Westron in the LOTR book too. Sauron's Orcs and his captains spoke Black Speech, so it makes sense that the Dol Guldur Orcs would be speaking it in the film.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Sauron's Orcs and his captains spoke Black Speech, so it makes sense that the Dol Guldur Orcs would be speaking it in the film.[/quote]

Hmmm, yes and no.

Black Speech was Sauron's ambitious attempt at a constructed language, which was to be spoken first by all of those under his command, and then later by the conquered peoples of Middle-earth once he achieved his intended dominion. The plan was less than successful, however.

Orcs have had their own language since their early days under Morgoth, a variety of tribal dialects collectively known as Orkish. Sauron's Black Speech came much later, and did not take very well among the Orcs, which is no surprise given their stubborn and unruly nature. Cetainly the Black Speech was spoken by elite servants, like the Nazgul, the Mouth, and Sauron's highest captains and lieutenants among them, with Azog and Bolg being very likely, but not the common Orcs. Many spoke a debased form of Black Speech, and certainly their Orkish dialects were peppered with words and other elements of Black Speech, but their command of it was far from what can be considered a formal language in a spoken form. It is said that it didn't even catch on with the Easterlings and Haradrim, which clung to their own tongues rather than learn Black Speech and learn it to the exclusion of all else.

The orcs that find Frodo after the Shelob run in would have been from Mordor, they were speaking "English."

If any orcs were going to be speaking Black speech, It would these guys... going with the idea that mordor orcs spoke in the black speech.

Black Speech came and went when Sauron disappeared, yes, but when he returned his orcs spoke Black Speech. It was made the common tongue of his orcs in Barad-Dur, so by extrapolation his orcs in Dol Guldur would have spoken his chosen language, hence the Black Speech in the film.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]The orcs that find Frodo after the Shelob run in would have been from Mordor, they were speaking "English."

If any orcs were going to be speaking Black speech, It would these guys... going with the idea that mordor orcs spoke in the black speech.[/quote]
Those were two different tribes who spoke different dialects of Orkish. They spoke English/Westron to each other since their Orkish was different. The Barad-Dur orcs would have also spoken Black Speech, but not to the Cirith Ungol orcs.

Common orcs always spoke Westron to non Orcs, as they did in the Misty Mountains. Actually Tolkien said most orcs of the Misty Mountains spoke Westron as the common language, not Orkish.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Those were two different tribes who spoke different dialects of Orkish. They spoke English/Westron to each other since their Orkish was different. The Barad-Dur orcs would have also spoken Black Speech, but not to the Cirith Ungol orcs.

Common orcs always spoke Westron to non Orcs, as they did in the Misty Mountains. Actually Tolkien said most orcs of the Misty Mountains spoke Westron as the common language, not Orkish.[/quote]

No wonder they lost.. they didn't speak the same language haha.

I have a lot to learn still. When you get a grasp on one thing, there is a million other things about this universe to learn.

Orkish, being ancient and varied, was generally non-sensical from one tribe to another, especially among the multiple holes and warrens of the Misty Mountains, thus when the tribes united for a war, they had to speak Westron in order to understand one another.

As Kit said, the orcs within Mordor, under the direct influence of Sauron (when he was home,) and also at Dol Guldur, would have spoken their best Black Speech (debased, but Black Speech nevertheless.) I think only Sauron, the Nine, the Mouth, and the highest generals and captains, like Gothmog, would have had command of uncorrupted Black Speech.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]No wonder they lost.. they didn't speak the same language haha. [/quote]

They did all speak Westron. It was the only way different orc tribes or races could could communicate since they hated each other and refused to learn each others languages. There really was no actual common orc language called Orkish. If you heard an orc speak and it wasn't Westron, he was just said to be speaking 'Orkish', but that could be any one of their crappy gutter languages.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I have a lot to learn still. When you get a grasp on one thing, there is a million other things about this universe to learn.[/quote]

That's the fun thing about Tolkien. There is always more to dig into if you want to, but none of that is necessary to enjoy the stories. There's quite a bit about the languages in the LOTR appendices. Appendix F, I think. What little Tolkien wrote about Black Speech is there.

So I finally watched DOS EE.
I must say that for the first time in this Hobbit trilogy I finally felt like I returned to ME as in the LOTR days.

The extended scenes make the film far more appreciable. Another way to say it would be that the theatrical was more like a rushed tour.

I'm excited to get AUJ, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to wait until there is a boxed set of the 3 so I can also get all the appendices stuff.

Finally I feel I can give a overall.

Still don't see the need for Thranduil's "magic make up" covering his supposed dragon wounds from the past & of course :beatdead: you all know what else I hate about it, all in agreement say EYES!

I actually liked that bit But I agree, the EE is a much more enjoyable and complete film (or middle third) than the theatrical cut. I e xp ect the EE of BOFA will be the same.

In a few years the theatrical versions will be long forgotten and the EEs will become the 'definitive' versions, but I don't think I will ever enjoy that whole drowning Smaug in gold sequence, or all of the Afrid stuff in BOFA.

I thought the whole drowning Smaug in gold that was a little silly, and it reminded me more than a little of Alien 3, but I understand why they did it. They had this tremendous digital creation, and it would've been a shame not to use him as much as they could. Same reason why they gave the Balrog more time in FOTR than what Tolkien wrote in the book.

I also thought they gave Alfrid too much screen time in the battle five of armies, time that should've been given to the Master. I wonder if the Master will get more time or a different ending to his story in the EE?

I can't wait to get EE's. I still haven't seen any of them, or the behind the scenes footage! It's gonna be a real treat to see it the way it was meant to be seen.

[quote=""Olorin""]I thought the whole drowning Smaug in gold that was a little silly, and it reminded me more than a little of Alien 3, but I understand why they did it. They had this tremendous digital creation, and it would've been a shame not to use him as much as they could. [/quote]
The only reason they did it was that they needed a big climactic action scene for part 2. That was all added after they made the decision to split it into 3 movies. I think it would have worked better had they simply used the attack on Laketown and the death of Smaug as the climax and finale. As it is now, I thought the whole Laketown attack felt rushed in part 3. It was all of 9 minutes of screen time.

[quote=""Olorin""]I also thought they gave Alfrid too much screen time in the battle five of armies, time that should've been given to the Master. I wonder if the Master will get more time or a different ending to his story in the EE?[/quote] I don't think there is much more of him, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure there is more of Afrid to come!

Less Afrid would have meant much more time to do the individual moments with the Dwarves on the battlefield, which suffered a lot of cuts.

As I said though, it won't matter once the EE comes out.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]The only reason they did it was that they needed a big climactic action scene for part 2. That was all added after they made the decision to split it into 3 movies. I think it would have worked better had they simply used the attack on Laketown and the death of Smaug as the climax and finale.
[/quote]

Yup! Rip and edit....

T

[quote=""Nasnandos""]The only reason they did it was that they needed a big climactic action scene for part 2. That was all added after they made the decision to split it into 3 movies. I think it would have worked better had they simply used the attack on Laketown and the death of Smaug as the climax and finale. As it is now, I thought the whole Laketown attack felt rushed in part 3. It was all of 9 minutes of screen time.
[/quote]

I didn't necessarily think it felt rushed but I did feel it belonged thematically with the second movie, not the third. The rest of the third movie was about the buildup to the battle, so the Smaug scene felt rather tacked on. However, I think it's pretty hard to argue with the cliffhanger they used to end DOS. That was very effective. So I guess I would not change having the Smaug final scene in the third movie.

The cliffhanger worked, but I would have much rather had them finish the Smaug story and use Gandalf's capture in Dol Guldur as the cliffhanger, showing him hanging in the cage as he watches Sauron's army marching out below him towards Erebor.

They they could have then opened part 3 with his rescue and driving Sauron out.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]

They they could have then opened part 3 with his rescue and driving Sauron out.[/quote]

I'm hoping we'll see more of the confrontation in the EE. In the official movie guide, Cate mentions that Sauron tries to tempt Galadriel and Galadriel uses black speech.

In Legolas' last scene in the movie, when Thranduil tells him that his mother loved him and he says "more than anyone, more than life"? Is it life or "more than I"? Both have different implications on their relationship and I cant quite make out which one it was that was said.

[quote=""Lindir""]I'm hoping we'll see more of the confrontation in the EE. In the official movie guide, Cate mentions that Sauron tries to tempt Galadriel and Galadriel uses black speech. [/quote]

That would probably e xp lain a cryptic reference I saw in a Wikipedia article the other day, a reference to a corrupted Galadriel confronting Sauron.