As someone who never read the hobbit books i was so shocked when thorin died at the end after all that adventure and bravery he just dies wished he could of lived on and found peace
I'll always remember Thorin's last words from Rankin/Bass' The Hobbit and always cherish it. "Child of the Kindly West... I have come to know...If more of us valued your ways of Food and Cheer over hoarded Gold..it would be a...merrier world. But sad or Merry...i must leave it now...farewell..."
The only real problems I had with the Hobbit Trilogy was the whole Azog plot. He was already supposed to be dead before the events of the Hobbit. Much of this plot could have and should have easily been filled by Bolg. The other was how distrusting the master was to the dwarves at first and Kili being poisoned and having to stay behind in lake town. As for Thorin himself. I think Peter Jackson's version was nearly spot on beside the whole "youthful" looking version of Thorin. Thorin's distrust in Bilbo and him slowly warming up to him is completely canon. One thing you did leave out was Thorin's habit or rambling on when describing people or things or giving compliments. Bilbo even had to comically tell him to shut up at one point.
The reason Kili was poisoned and had to stay behind was so that Tauriel could save him and add a little unnecessary romance and heartbreak to the story, between a dwarf and an elf no less. In Kili's defense though, if Evangeline Lilly used elf magic to heal me -- or, you know, showed any interest whatsoever -- I'd probably develop a crush on her too. Being an elf just means she's going to be hot forever. I don't have a problem with that. Also, no beard, and that's definitely a plus! 😉
@@futuresonex "...no beard, and that's definitely a plus!" Reminded me of the Dungeons and Dragon's movie "What you need is a dwarven woman with a long beard so you can grab her beard from behind and..." and the Dwarf (I forget the characters name) rapidly crotch thrusts forward. Made me laugh so hard in the theater :)
@@futuresonex True but the Kili/Tauriel/Legolas love triangle is the most unnecessary part of the trilogy. Jackson clearly wanted to duplicate Aragorn and Arwen's romance and it just was never going to work.
I have to challenge one claim in the video. Erebor was never THE home of the Dwarves in the Second Age. For the Longbeards, that continued to be Khazad-dum. Erebor at that time was no more than a minor settlement, little more than a mine. It wasn't until after Durin's Bane drove the Dwarves out of Moria than Erebor became the primary home of Durin's Folk.
The Broken Sword is one of my favorite sites. The research, detailed examination of Tolkien's work and commentary are fantastic. I first read The Lord of the Rings in the 1960s and felt I could step into Middle-Earth. These videos give me that feeling again.
I thought the Hobbit Trilogy was great, I just happy to be back in Middle Earth, and Thorin is my Favorite Dwarf. I hope the Silmarillion will be made in the future and stay true to the source. The Hobbit is definitely better than that amazon bullcrap.
The problem with comparing the film and the book is that the trilogy, because of the nature of the motion picture business, had to appeal to more than Tolkien purists. Otherwise, the box office wouldn’t even cover the preproduction costs. That said, I thought the trilogy was true enough to the original tale-and I’ve been a Tolkien fan for nearly 54 years.
Although there are some large differences between the books and trilogy, I still enjoyed the films very much. Personally, I found the extra plot lines and deviations interesting. More importantly, I think we should remember that Tolkien gave us 3 large books for Lord Of The Rings - that's 3 great chances to become much better acquainted with the personalities of the 9 main characters in the Fellowship. In comparison, 'The Hobbit' is a tiny book, yet their journey is almost as epic, and so it barely has time to scrape up much personality definition for each of Thorin's Company of 15 main characters. So, I like the fact the book had been extended into 3 films and that we had a good chance to be better acquainted with dwarfs such as Balin, Dwalin, Bofur, Fili and Kili (who had so few lines in the original book between them, they more or less read off as a list of rhyming names in most places). I'm also in agreement with the fact that Azog was the main villain throughout, since he was Thror's murderer during the retelling of the battle. Otherwise, it would have been most unsatisfactory for the audience if he goes off and dies somewhere else, leaving the focus of Thorin's vengeance against a new villain 'Bolg' and his army. That's just not how mainstream films work. It's traditionally a case of a good guy's vengeance against the 'original' bad guy all the way through the movie until the end. Azog made a great villain, in my reckoning. It would have been a shame to leave him out of the final fight.
I still wonder how much better, and more accurate the Hobbit movies might've been if the studios didn't force Peter Jackson to make them into a trilogy. I remember hearing that he originally planned to split the bood i to 2 movies, but then got told that he had to stretch 1 book into 3 movies, and that was why we got all the extra plot lines and characters, since The Hobbit is too short of a book to stretch into a trilogy.
I did not mind so much the changes made in The Hobbit movie , would have taken six movies to actually tell the story and I don’t it could survive that long lol All the characters mannerisms throughout the story spot on , especially Thorin in my opinion , he was off putting and suspicious when first meeting Bilbo , and warming when smiling as I had thought from reading the story
Great video. I just came across a couple things that aren't completely correct. Firstly it is hard to say that Erebor was the home of the dwarves since the early second age. They had controlled it since the early S.A. but the kingdom under the mountains wasn't founded until 1999 T.A. after the awakening of Durin's Bane in Khazad-dûm. In addition Erebor was also abandoned by the Dwarves in between 2210 T.A. and 2590 T.A. for the Grey Mountains. Another smaller annecdote is that Smaug was considered young when he attacked Erebor in 2770 T.A.. Gandalf refers to him as "old and strong" during The Hobbit which takes place around 170 years later.
Peter and Richard Armitage did an amazing job, they havent changed much in my opinnion. For me Richard trully deliverd that kingly and lets say worthy and epic scenes, he is the one I could call King! And this is the channel I could follow, and call King, James another great video, keep ip with good work...
Ive recently been wondering what would happen if smaug failed to take erebor. Dwarves would definitely be stronger into the war of the rings but bilbo would never find the ring.
you wanna know what he was doing before the hobbit!!! he was trying to destroy the warhammer world with an army of soul grinders and contained a bear god named ursun.
Sad when he died..unfair. a lot of things where unfair during his life..i understand why he didnt share his treasure with that pompus elf that refused to help them when they where under attack..he couldve given something to Bard tho but he had lost soo much that he couldnt give anymore. sneeky what Bilbo did 🤭..poor Thorin even went mad because of that stone and to see it in the hands of others 😭i understand why the poor bloke was furious. Good he understood Bilbo's good heart in the end ..important the lesson learned and that quote about the "hoarded gold" is one of my favourites. awsome video..awsome character. As for the question i think Thorins part in the films was one of the best..and like all parts from books to movies it was logically slightley diverse..they could of emphasised the greed.
Maybe you should watch the video for the explanation. But Thorin lost his shield in combat during the Battle of Azanulbazar and picked up a thick oak branch with which to defend himself. He later vowed to continue to carry a shield of oak with him until Erebor could be reclaimed.
As well as I thought Peter Jackson handled the Lord of the Rings, I think he totally botched it with The Hobbit. I took issues with some things in the LOTR trilogy, but was able to accept most, The Hobbit Trilogy, however, took horrible liberties with the story line, adding characters and events that are not found in the books. To this day, I cannot watch The Hobbit unless I pretend it has nothing to do with JRR Tolkien's works.
You could make a good and pretty faithful to the book 1 or 2 part movie from the existing footage and redoing some of the CGI, cutting out the invented characters, making the largest orcs except the Goblin King shorter than Gandalf. I'd like to see Jackson redeem himself with that.
It would have been a much better movie adaptation had the studio not interfered so much and if they had left it at two movies. There was a lot of good things in the movies but also a lot of excess like the over the top scenes in the fighting with the goblins and the final battle, the ridiculous elf-dwarf romance, Legolas being treated as essentially a superhero, etc. I didn't mind Azog so much but there was really no point to adding him in. Also, many of the dwarves behaved frivolously. Even so, it was much better than what we've seen from the RoP show.
I like Thorin. I feel Jackson could of cut some stuff out and done a little more personal scenes. It suffered from the same problem the book did, the dwarfs are 2 characters. Thorin and miscellaneous. Would of liked a little bit of bonding
You should do a video about the named swords of middle earth Gandalfs sword was so coold and so was thorens was as well they both left the goblins frozen if fear
Other than I thought that Thorin should have had a longer, greyer beard, indicating his age, I thought his charactorization was spot on in the movies. Fun fact, Thorin was older than Balin, who while a rock of good sense, was not the "old man" of the company! Also, speaking to the commenter who thought that the other dwarves in the company were given short shrift in the movie, only four of the company of dwarves had any "speaking parts" or did much of note. Balin of course, Dwalin, Bofur and Bombur. So the movie wasn't too far off on that, either. Fili and Kili died defending Thorin after he was wounded, though, so should probably include them.
Hey dude I find your videos very refreshing. A lot of the other guys doing same content are spending too much time bashing the amazon rings. You don't, on the other hand you sound like you want to see it. Me I'm on the fence .I would love to see a tolkien accurate script, but I work 50 hrs a week and just want something new to watch.
What-if video idea for you to do: What if Gandalf never fell at the Bridge of Khazad-dum and continued with the fellowship to Lothlorien and on forward?
There's 1 thing that BOTHERS ME BEYOND ALL REASONING did Smaug have a treasure horde in the Grey Mountains As well and do the Dwarves ever return to reclaim there old treasures in the Grey Mountains And The War of the Dwarves and Orcs
I think thorin in movie was good portrayal was good and good actor but PJ changed some aspects I didn’t like but generally good and carry on with brilliant content
