The Hall of Fire DoS Review Thread

[axordil]

Of course, it all depends on what we mean by "story." It's not always the same thing as plot.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Right. And there is no commonly-accepted definition of 'story,' and don't let any lit professors tell you otherwise! As I stated to Lord_M, regarding FOTR's early chapters:

It seems we may have different definitions of what makes up a "story." You seem to be implying that the main thrust of a "plot" is really all that matters in constructing a story, while I think other elements and layers may be just as important. In the case of the allegedly dispensable chapters you reference, I think they communicate something interesting about the story and the author's philosophy - and that is, that though the human drama of our protagonists is important, this drama is not necessarily at the center of the universe. There are older processes underway, and a wider world of time and experience, that serve to humble both our protagonists, and the reader. You're about to embark on a ripping yarn, but remember: even this epic story is dwarfed by the depths of space and time (as represented, in this case, by the ancient enigma that is Bombadil). I find that valuable, thrilling, and deeply engaging, and would argue that it is the sort of thing that the best "faery stories" do.

Those chapters elevate LOTR above what it would have been otherwise, IMO, even if Tolkien may have considered revising them (which I don't believe he did).

In short, I don't subscribe to the narrow definition of the rule that each scene must "move the narrative forward." There is plenty of disagreement about both what the most important parts of that narrative are, and what constitutes "moving it forward." Based on my broader definition, I find that the chapters in question enrich the narrative significantly, and in so doing, "move it forward."

[kzer_za]

And Tolkien is hardly the only highly-regarded author to do this. The Brothers Karamazov is ostensibly about a murder and a couple of interconnected love triangles, but it very frequently meanders from that path for its various subplots and philosophical interludes. And Victor Hugo is legendary for his tangents.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Almost all of Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain consists of lengthy philosophical interludes that do not directly affect the main plot (to the extent that there even is a "main plot").

[Passdagas the Brown]

That's what puzzles me about criticism of this element of Tolkien (and the beginning of FOTR, in particular). It reminds me of the way critics attacked the beginning of AUJ. Because it is fantasy, they reject anything that isn't driving the plot forward with action and intensity. "How dare they talk, eat and sing for so long!?? This is fantasy, not a real story!"

It's a standard they do not apply to other types of films. A strange bias, IMO.

[yovargas]

As the guy who was originally supporting that argument, I do think there is a difference between them that goes beyond anti-fantasy bias but I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet....

[Passdagas the Brown]

Personally, I think it's partly PJ's fault. By making the dwarves look so ridiculous, on a visual level, I think critics found it hard to take their talking, eating and singing very seriously. I would have stripped down the prosthetics considerably (while maintaining as much facial hair as possible), and given them a more human appeal.

[Faramond]

It's a bad movie. It's disjointed. There is no coherence to it. There is no real narrative structure. The film-makers just make drama where ever they want to without any thought given to the characters or the story.

*********

Legolas comes up behind Tauriel and surprises her. Tauriel whirls with an arrow ready to shoot, and this makes sense, because it might be an orc.

But it's not an orc -- it's Legolas, *also with an arrow ready to shoot.* Why? There is no reason for him to do this, no reason within the story, or within the character. What if Tauriel sees the arrow aimed at her and fires, before she realizes that it is Legolas? Is Legolas thinking of firing on her? Surely not -- unless subconciously he resents her for making him love her when he can't have her because of his father. But that's not the intent of the scene, not in *this* movie. The intent is to give the audience a bargian-bin thrill -- ooh, the potential lovers are aiming arrows at each other. But it doesn't make sense. It's an insult of a scene. It shows a contempt for the characters and the story being told. The film-makers need to respect their characters, let them be real, let the drama come naturally, not contort them to create ludicrous false drama.

**********

The sun has set on Durin's Day, and the keyhole doesn't appear. The dwarves give up and begin to walk down the mountain. Thorin drops the key in disgust as he leaves. Bilbo alone does not give up. He still thinks that he can find a way to unlock the door.

But Bilbo fails to take the obvious first step -- he doesn't pick up the key. *He just leaves it on the ground.* Why? Doesn't he think he'll need it? He doesn't even properly keep track of where it is. What could possibly explain his silly and negligent behavior here?

Fabricated drama explains if, of course. He kicks the key, nearly off the mountain, before Thorin steps on the string and keeps it from tumbling away. Woah, that was close! Good thing Dwarves have such clever/lucky feet. Good thing Thorin was there so quickly so save the day, er, night, I mean. How did he get back so quickly, by the way? Bilbo shouted for the Dwarves to come back, but how much time elapsed between him shouting for them and him kicking the key? Thorin must have been waiting just around the corner, along with the rest of the dwarves, who appear all in a line not long after Thorin saves the key. Why would they give up but then just linger that close to the door?

What's intended here is the drama of a narrow escape and the drama of friends returning, but instead they show the lead character to be a fool and the dwarves to be very slow at climbing down a mountain ( or very fast at climbing back up ).

***********

Gandalf explains that Beorn the bear is unpredictable, and very likely to kill ( and eat? ) the dwarves, while Beorn the man is reasonable and probably won't kill ( and eat? ) them. And yet later we see Beorn *the bear* escorting them as a rear-guard down to the forest's edge. This is not the action of an unpredictable beast -- this is the action of a calculating man.

It turns out that Beorn's predictability and danger has nothing to do with his form as man or beast, or with anything else in the story. Beorn's actions are tied only to what the film-makers need at the moment. When they needed some drama and danger, he's a dangerous unpredicatable beast attacking the house. When they needed to get the dwarves to the forest without the relentless orcs attacking, he's a guardian beast making sure no harm comes to them.

**************

Sauron the Deceiver has just bested Gandalf the Grey in magical combat. Gandalf is defeated -- there is no one to save him.

But Sauron the Deceiver does not kill Gandalf -- he just locks him in a metal cage. Why? What reason is there to keep Gandalf alive? Such wonderful mercy -- maybe there is hope for his soul yet, eh? Surely he *can* kill Gandalf? I can see an orc not being able to do it, but this is Sauron the Deceiver. Even in weakened form he just crumpled up Gandalf's ball of white light -- it seems reasonable to think he can deliver the final blow.

**************

A golden statue explodes into a pool of molten gold after a Series of Absurd Events. After all that happened here, I'm pretty sure that Thorin must be a Maia. I don't know how else to explain him surviving.

************

Chekov's black arrow is not fired.

Augh! We get to see it, and learn of its history. We get to see that there's a gap in the armor for the arrow to pass through. We have a charismatic hero to shoot the arrow and earn a shot at family redemption. We have everything -- except -- for the actual -- firing -- of the arrow. What a let-down. Sorry, kid. Wait 'til next movie. Sigh. But it won't be the same then.

*************

I have an idea -- Bard and Tauriel and Balin and Bilbo and every other character that was wonderful even in the middle of this mess can hop on Smaug's magnificent back and they can fly off and make a better movie, far away from Peter Jackson's incompetent narrative building and editing. They'd better take the set designers too.

But before Smaug flies off he needs to breathe fire on Legolas and eat him. ( If he's still hungry he can go after Radagast. )

[Dave_LF]

But it's not an orc -- it's Legolas, *also with an arrow ready to shoot.* Why? There is no reason for him to do this, no reason within the story, or within the character.

Because if she mistakes him for an orc and shoots, he's going to shoot her arrow out of the air before it hits him.

What? It's been done.

[axordil]

I just figured the elves of Mirkwood play a particularly rough kind of tag.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Faramond,

I agree with all of your criticisms. But having been worn down by PJ's and Philippa's faux conflict script-writing style across the previous 4 films, I simply accepted that this was not going to change. And having accepted that (very reluctantly) I was pleased that PJ at least stayed true to his rambunctious artistic approach, and didn't try to force much unearned melodrama on the audience. It's a wild, often illogical ride, and at least for me, it beats all previous films for not shying away from that. It's a consistently mad (and strange) movie - like some crazy fever dream about the book that PJ may have had while hospitalized. I don't exactly know why, but it struck a chord with me like none of his other overwrought hack jobs (LOTR and AUJ) did...

As I said after my first viewing:

In DOS, PJ lost his marbles. He spilled them all over Laketown, Mirkwood and the Lonely Mountain.

And I enjoyed every crazy minute of it.

None of that review contradicts your review. It's just that I left logic, reason and an expectation of narrative cohesion at the door, and decided to absorb the film on a more impressionistic, visual and aural level.

[axordil]

Realism is overrated anyway, in film, literature, art and, especially, reality.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Reality is already real enough. Why add more realism to it? That would be like adding salt to salt!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Reality is already real enough.

How do we know that reality is real?

[Passdagas the Brown]

By definition, "reality" is that which is perceived by humans as "real."

It is of course entirely possible that the reality we perceive is, in fact, a false one, and that the real reality is administered by a rabbit with a pancake perched atop its head.

But even if that is the case, why add more "perceived reality" to the "perceived reality" we already have?

[yovargas]

Ah Faramond, I've missed you.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, but I wish he would tell us what he really thinks. I hate when he pussyfoots around like that.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think he liked it.

[Griffon64]

The Legolas / Tauriel arrow thing, times ten. Give me another 20 seconds of Beorn, instead.

Oh, and also! When Sauron was shown as the pupil of the eye, I thought "Oh, great way of tying into the LOTR representations of Sauron we've seen, surprisingly subtle for PJ actu--- oh, wait, never mind the "subtle", now that he's turned it into an embedded animated GIF in the middle of his film just to make sure we get it."

[Passdagas the Brown]

Well, Sauron looks a lot better in DOS than he does in LOTR (where he's a rotating eyeball lighthouse) so I can't complain. That sequence was visually quite interesting, IMO, though for fans who have watched LOTR a billion times, I can see why it lacks subtlety...

But ditto on extra Beorn. I have a good feeling that we'll be getting a lot of extra scenes for the DOS EE. Perhaps even a good half hour's worth.