The Desolation

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?

Same here. I have yet to see the film due to my work schedule, but i'm getting the impression seeing the two together removes the grating feeling that DoS is extensive action scenes.

If I can use an example of how both films could have been far, far worse, there's always the television adaptation several years back of the first two The Wizard of Earthsea novels. Both were used in a single film and much like AUJ and DoS together they were meant to ease understanding for viewers who may have not read the books, or hadn't recently. Instead of even taking some liberties as PJ did, the film completely veered off into the sunset and skipped most of the set up of the plot (imagine if PJ had cut out that the gold belonged to the dwarves, or even WHY Smaug continued to stick around Erebor).

I absolutely love Le Guin's series, so you can imagine after watching something like that, I was surprised when my mom also saw it (who never read any of the novels) and was disappointed because it was, "hard to follow."

So, as far as I can see, yes there are issues with PJ's adaptation (hence the term...), but it could be far worse. At least fans who have never read the book can identify why the dwarves have a need and determination to win and later, protect the lonely mountain. As long as PJ doesn't cut out Thorin's famous parting words, at least that lesson of Tolkien's story won't be glazed over.

(Sorry, I would add more, but I'm typing this away from my home computer and access to both my copy of the novel, the first film and a proper internet access.)

[Bêthberry]

I still have not seen DoS so I shall refrain from any more comments but this article was pointed out to me on FB. It's an interesting perspective and one I haven't seen before about the Jackson films. I think it is quite true that Tolkien was particularly intrigued by how the past remains an influence on the present. And I also know that for me one of the fascinating things about Europe is just how ancient its lands feel--this coming from someone who lives in the (relatively) untouched new world.

This is not Middle-earth.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And I also know that for me one of the fascinating things about Europe is just how ancient its lands feel--this coming from someone who lives in the (relatively) untouched new world.

This is not Middle-earth.

I find this article quite interesting, as I agree that as picturesque as New Zealand is, it doesn't necessarily capture Professor Tolkien's vision with complete accuracy. I think Rohan is arguably the most egregious example, where the terrain doesn't seem suitable for horses at all (although given that I know nothing about horses that might be completely wrong).

My latest source of frustration is people claiming the accuracy of the film's pronunciation of "Smaug" based on pronunciation guides intended for the pronunciation of Elvish words from which "Smaug" is in no way derived. The pronunciation is, apparently, correct, but "Smaug" was a Dalish (hence Old Norse) word and its pronunciation has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Elvish. It's my own fault, really, for reading internet comments.

[Pervinca Took]

I agreed with a lot of the article too, and I too found it interesting reading.

Whilst on the topic, I suppose dwarf-names should be pronounced according to the Old Norse sounds, too. Can anyone confirm how "Dain" should be pronounced? I used Dain as the answer to a cryptic clue in the Password thread, according to the elvish pronunciations, but this must have been wrong. When I tried to look it up, I found a recorded pronunciation that sounded like "Doin." This might have been on the Tolkien Gateway (I think it was).

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Whilst on the topic, I suppose dwarf-names should be pronounced according to the Old Norse sounds, too. Can anyone confirm how "Dain" should be pronounced?

Well the "ái" in "Dáin" isn't a diphthong so as far as I'm aware (from studying Old Norse at University) it should be pronounced something like "Daa-in." Similarly "Thráin" should be pronounced "Thraa-in" (not "Thrane") and "Óin" and "Glóin" should be pronounced something like "Awe-in" and "Glawe-in" or "Owin" and "Glowin" (but definitely not to rhyme with "coin" as they do in the films - the 1981 BBC radio adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, pronounces Glóin correctly). The names really aren't any different to Thorin, Balin, Dwalin etc but don't have a consonant between their first and second vowels. The structure is the same. Similarly Óin and Glóin's father's name is much less amusing when you realise it's pronounced something like "Graw-in" and not like the English word "groin."

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

(...) My latest source of frustration is people claiming the accuracy of the film's pronunciation of "Smaug" based on pronunciation guides intended for the pronunciation of Elvish words from which "Smaug" is in no way derived. The pronunciation is, apparently, correct, but "Smaug" was a Dalish (hence Old Norse) word and its pronunciation has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Elvish. It's my own fault, really, for reading internet comments.

Not that you aren't aware, but in this Appendix Tolkien also refers back to his guide to Elvish pronunciation to explain some names that are not Elvish.

Emphasis on some names, so some exceptions, but not Smaug I would say [meaning, using the Elvish guide and Tolkien's English 'loud' works well enough for Smaug]. I use Sauron as an example here myself.

Of course if someone also claims the name Smaug is Elvish then that's a different kettle of fishesss.

[Sarumian]

Haven't seen the DoS yet. Am going to do it with rather low expectations, just due to some positive moments mentioned. As for "violence porn", even one who likes porn can probably get slightly bored if it gets too repetitive and predictable

Btw, my way to make peace with PJ is an "idea" that his interpretation follows not Tolkien's books, but a weird version of The Red Book, much altered by scribes of later ages. Tolken's books are based on a different version of The Red Book. Imagine a difference between the Dark Ages Britain how it appears in De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae by Gildas and in Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Lots of thanks for the reviews.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tragically, though, we know that it was Geoffrey's version that won......