Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55
I am not that familiar with the animated adaptations so have to just take your descriptions at face value, but I would argue that at least part of the "bad change" example might not be so much a reflection of the fictional changes as a reflection of bad storytelling. It's bad storytelling to not give a proper conclusion to your story, whatever "proper" may be in that context (whether closure or cliffhanger, answer or eternal question - it all depends on the story, but there has to be a conclusion, and TH begs more certainty). The fictional change was perhaps in the number and identity of the Dwarves that died. Is there some internal justification for killing off Bombur and the nameless others? Perhaps Bombur is one of the most memorable Dwarves (dunno if that's so in the adaptations too, but he does stand out), so that might have played into it. Doesn't explain the other extra Dwarves though. But I'm not sure here, this question requires actual knowledge of the adaptation which I am lacking. But I suppose my question, if we were to dissect this scenario and split a couple hairs, is: was the "badness" a result of changing the cannon, poor storytelling (ie it would still have been a dissatisfying conclusion even if Dwarves died canonically), or a combination of both?
|
To fill in the gaps (so to say...and sorry, **Spoilers**
). In the Rankin/Bass Hobbit, all 13 dwarves are introduced. They get introduced all at once, instead of arriving in groups spaced apart. That change is fine, I get it for costs and time, I don't need an explanation of why they changed that part. But I think, you hit the nail on the head. What bothered me about changing how many dwarves died at the Battle of Five Armies, was simply bad storytelling. First, they didn't bother telling us who died aside from Thorin and Bombur. Secondly, my thought is you introduced all 13 dwarves in the first place, so why change how many of them died in the battle? And if you are going to change that number, why not show us (or at least have Gandalf tell us, since he said Thorin and Bombur died) who survived by being at the end with Bilbo?
So, your thread got me thinking why that change bothered me, but I was able to accept a waffly-Aragorn and softer (plus strawberry-blonde wigged!) Boromir in Jackson's movies? After reading
Huey's theories, it makes sense to me. If you're going to change something, then you have to be clear in what you're changing. I think consistency and an explanation of your reasons for making a change are important too. Waffly-Aragorn and softer-Boromir probably wouldn't have worked in Tolkien's story. But with they worked in Jackson's movies, because it was consistent within the story he was telling. In my opinion, I expect others will probably disagree.
