HOME | DD
yourparodies — The Hobbit (Purist Version) #3
#bilbo #comics #erebor #gandalf #hobbit #lotr #parody #peterjackson #purist #tolkien #middleearth
Published: 2015-12-16 11:32:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 3068; Favourites: 37; Downloads: 11
Redirect to original
Description
The Hobbit (Purist Version) #3 - On the matters of detail...I keep hearing the compaints from a lot of people, that the movies - in contrast to the book - abbandoned things like character development, dialogue and motivations in favor of the action scenes... Which is something I have adressed quite a few times before, but there are two things I wanted to point out in this parody.
Fist, how exactly is the above compaint true, when in truth, it's the movie version, which took it's time to make all the dwarves distinct, both in appearance and character, while in the book, Tolkien doesn't bother with their personalities at all. They pretty much all look the same, except for the color of their hoods of course, they have little to no personality - apart from Thorin being mean, Balin being old and doubtful, Bombur being fat and the brothers being young, but that's not exactly much, is it... - , and worst of all, they have zero chemistry with Bilbo thorughout the story.
So in the book, it feels like Bilbo is just there, but not really a part of the company at all. It surely doesn't help, that the dwarves are constantly shown to be absolutely helpless and always need saving, and despite the fact, that Bilbo saves them all the time, they are still very dismissive of him for the most part.
Meanwhile, in the movie, it's quite easy to tell them apart, both visually and personality-wise, so how exactly is the movie the "all-action-no-character" version again? Because the movie does make a whole lot more of an effort to make these characters not only distinctive, but also likeable - which they should be, if we're supposed to care and root for them...
And the movie also makes Bilbo feel like an actual part of the company, not just some underappreatiated guy, who somehow got mixed up in the whole thing for whatever reason.
Which brings me to the second point.
Why exactly does Gandalf bother with all of this in the book? Because we're never really told. He just picks a seemingly random hobbit and a seemingly random bunch of dwarves to go on a seemingly random quest... And why? What exactly is the motivation behind this? And if this quest is so important to him, why does he just run off at one point without any prior building up to him leaving?
Of course, we know the real life reason - having a powerful wizard around would have made the quest too easy, so Tolkien removed Gandalf from the battlefield. But in-universe, that's not a very good way to go, from a mere storytelling point of view... Even if we consider, that later, Tolkien worked out the details of what happened behind the scenes of the Hobbit as well...
But none the less, we're not really told or shown in the book itself why most of the characters do what they do, which is not so good. Sure, the little kids this story was meant for will not question these things, but from an adult's point of view, now that's a whole different ballgame.
So once again, the movie actually explains and answers this all. We know, why Gandalf chooses Bilbo, we know, why Gandalf wants to go on the quest, we know, what the motivations for the dwarves are, we know, how the whole idea for the quest started, and we also get to see why Gandalf will end up leaving, as that is all made part of the actual story, instead of him just leaving without any warning or explanation.
So once again, claiming that the movie is all action and no story/character development is rather questionable, especially in comparison to the book, in which the action/character development/story ratio is much more in favor of the action element, considering that in the book, Bilbo basically runs from picking one fight to the next, without dwelling much on the story or the characters at all.
Disclaimer:
The Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit (c) Tolkien, New Line Cinema
backup account: www.yourparodies.wordpress.com
More Middle-Earth sillyness: yourparodies.deviantart.com/ga…
Related content
Comments: 36
Okay, I don't know if anyone has mention this so I apologize in advance if this is just a repeat of argument stated prior to this one.
1: the giant eagles. No I am not talking about why they are not using the eagles to travel to Mount Doom and toss the Ring into the volcano because in reality, if not for a entire huge population of highly trained orcs and goblins that can just shoot millions of arrows, catapults and what not at their asses or the giant all seeing eye at the top of a huge tall tower that can see everything and everyone.
No, my real issue with the eagles was the movie never bothered to explain them. At least in the books, especially in The Hobbit I think it was, Gandalf rescued one of the eagles and they owe it to him but as a good person he just doesn't call them to do whatever, he just used them for extreme dire situations. But in the movies, this becomes a huge plot hole (that I am sure IS explained in the extended cuts) that just kind of bugs me a little and becomes a great annoyance for any purists out there.
2: The ending of Hobbit 2: This is more a nit pick to me but I never liked that they ended the second movie so abruptly in a cliffhanger and instead they just should have let the fight between Bard and Smaug be the epic climax for the movie and then start the third movie with the aftermath of said battle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi there.
1) Well, the movieverse doesn't really have talking animals - a change I'm most grateful for - , so obviously, it won't be expained in the same manner as in the book. Of course, that's not to say, that Gandalf couldn't drop a line or two about the eagles himself. Appearantly a lot of people were looking out for that. In my personal opinion, the explanation, that they are Radagast's companions is enough, but each to their own on this one.
Although I'm sure that if the movie actually stopped for a moment to explain it in more detail, the same people who were annoyed by other explanations (such as Gandalf's journey and the reasons for it, etc...) would be bashing it for that as well.
2) I was actually surprised how many people don't like cliffhangers, but here's my take on it. I think that killing off Smaug at the end of the movie would have done more harm than good from both a storytelling and a marketing view.
Storytellingwise, it helps to end the movie on a much more suspensful, dark and excting way, than wrapping up the Smaug storyline. It also helps to start the next one with much bigger drive as well. The stakes are higher right away, and they pressure and fear and excitment can carry over from the last movie just where they left off. For a final movie, I think that's a really good move.
I'd argue that killing off Smaug right after he was just introduced in person would have been too quick. This way, at least the audience had a year to "get to know" him and such. If they killed him right there, the resolution would have been too quick.
And of course, many people, who aren't familiar with the books, would have been immensely confused. "What do you mean, there's another movie?! They just killed the dragon, it's over!" and such... Granted, the movies put in a lot more time and effort to set up the battle of the five armies, than the book did, so many might have gathered that there's still something to come, but still, knowning people, a huge chunk of them would have been very confused about it and the other half would have rebelled even more about how they are just dragging things out now, even though the dragons dead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello.
1: Oh dear lord, if there would be talking animals in the movie, I bet that the Narina movies (which is a bit sad that they didn't continue the movie series) would would be accused to ripping off LOTR or vice versa to have talking animals ignoring the fact that C W Lewis and Tolkien were close friends. It is astonishing how close minded fans can be about a franchise.
2: That does actually kind of make sense in a marketing movie but as a storytelling move, I dunno, it just feels a bit lazy to me personally. Maybe I have been dealing with worse cliffhangers in other movies like The matrix, Harry Potter, and the Pirates of the Caribbean movies to name a few. My other major issue, is that they kill of Smaug within like what five minutes from starting the third movie which just feels a bit pointless to me (just as having Legolas suddenly having a sad background story about his dead mother that just came right out of left field).
But since it did its work of pulling a sucker on me to wanting to watch the third movie again, I guess that they did a good job...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1: Oh dear lord, if there would be talking animals in the movie, I bet that the Narina movies (which is a bit sad that they didn't continue the movie series) would would be accused to ripping off LOTR or vice versa to have talking animals ignoring the fact that C W Lewis and Tolkien were close friends. It is astonishing how close minded fans can be about a franchise.
Well, I've seen people accusing Tolkien of ripping off Harry Potter, so... But than again, I also saw people accusing northern mithology of ripping off Tolkien, so... XD
My other major issue, is that they kill of Smaug within like what five minutes from starting the third movie which just feels a bit pointless to me
I'd say the point was to let Smaug's oncomming onslaught linger on until the 3rd movie came along, for one. That's a very powerful tool, and it has a much greater impact, if you let it grow and faster for a year, as opposed to Smaug flying off to Laketown, cut to a different scene at best, than 5 minutes later, he's killed. In my opinion, that would have been way worse, than leaving it to the last movie.
I'd also note, that the third movie's main thing was war. Which means a lot of action, obviously. But there's also a lot of build up to it - pretty much an hour, if I remember correctly. So that's an hour of mostly planning and pyschological things - Thorin's madness, Bilbo's choice, etc - , before the action kicks in. In that sense, starting the movie with 15 minutes of pure action, horror and suspense before that kicks in seems like a smart move. It helps to ballance things out and as I mentioned earlier, it's also a very suspensful way of starting the movie.
Another thing I would add is that Smaug's death was a great "start" to the last movie in the sense as well, that it wrapped up something we dealt with in the previous movie in a grand and spectacular way, and introduced the next source of conflict - which was also the main theme of the movie - just before the name of the movie appeared on screen. I think that in this style of film, it's a very important moment, when the title credit appears. It can really help to define a tone for the whole thing, if it's done right, and I think BOTFA did it great. Laketown is in burning ruins, Smaug's body has crashed, everyone's seemingly both shocked and relieved, everyone still pumped from the sheer adrenaline of what just happened, and just when they think, the dark times have passed, and Balin says "The dragon's finalyl dead! Now every eye's gonna turn towards the mountain!", which at first seems like a good thing ,a new age of hope, but then we see Thorin's face, and the tone shifts immediately to darkness, and then the title appears... It's just a very well executed set up in my opinion. Starting the movie with the mere aftermath of Smaug's attack would not have been nearly as powerful.
just as having Legolas suddenly having a sad background story about his dead mother that just came right out of left field
I wouldn't say that either. Here's how I see it.
The backstory of Legolas's mother actually serves a purpose - it's a further part of the puzzle in Thranduil's character. It helps to explain and understand, why he's so isolated and bitter, why he's so seemingly cold to the outside world. So it's not really out of nowhere either, because it's more like a continuation of things we already saw in the second movie, instead of being a completely new, unrelated thing. It also plays into the ending scene of Legolas and his father, so really, it's just part in a chain that's been there since the first few minutes of the first movie, ever since Thranduil was mentioned by Bilbo in the flashback.
And really, when else would Legolas mention it? He doesn't seem like he loves to chat about it, as it's a very painful subject, and as he said it himself, his father doesn't really talk about it, so he probably doesn't know much himself. So that explains why he never mentioned that to Tauriel - that, and the fact, that she wasn't even born at the time it happened . And really, it's the one place where it's completly normal for him to speak about it. After all, this is where his mother died. If I was in his shoes, I would think about that as well. So it's not like he just randomly brought it up in the middle of Randomtown or something. ^_^
Just my two cents, hope that gives you some further insight on these scenes.
Can't say much in regards to the Matrix or Harry Potter, but I also liked the cliffhanger at the end of Dead Man's Chest. I would say that's actually a very well done cliffhanger. It makes sense, it builds up hype, and it has a nice payoff in the next movie. It did everything for me back than, what a cliffhanger is supposed to do. Instead of just leaving the theatre with the feeling of being contempt with having just seen a very entertaining movie, it made me leave with that feeling, AND the feeling of "Man, I can't wait for the next one!" followed by many conversations with friends about what the future movie will hold...
I would never call that a bad thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
agree, although i still think 2 movie is enough, 3 is a bit too scretch
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A movie of thirteen Gimli clones would have been funny, confusing as heck and utterly ridiculous. I love Gimli but one is enough. These purist idiots have no idea what entertainment is and certainly no clue how the movie industry works. Oh it was just a coincidence that Thorin, Kili and Fili were hot as heck and every dwarf was played by a totally talented actor with their own personality. Sure and it was also just a fluke that the big action scenes drew in sold out theaters and tons of cash. Really, give me a break. No one makes movies with the idea of not making money and that means lots of sex appeal, lots of action, and lots of character development. It looks like the purists wanted an hour long snooze fest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Behold my sick burn!
It's all in good fun, of course.
^____^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is very true. We may have issues with exactly how the movie was developed, but at least there was development in it for characters, motives, dialogue, and even the action scenes.
When I read the book (which I only did after the LotR movies came out), the two big things that hit me about it was the utter lack of detail and how Bilbo seemed practically useless for half the story. Now maybe part of that was everyone (who bothered to even speak) was ragging on him, but he really didn't do a huge lot other than travel with them up until Gollum, and the first real action for the Company being in Mirkwood.
(The next thing that hit me was when I read the Chronicles of Narnia again and really saw the total differences in writing style between Tolkien's children's story and CS Lewis's.)
I still think some of the complaints about what was done in the movies are worth discussing, but comparing them to the book and saying the book was better in characterisation just does not work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LOL it's true. I heard someone mention a lot of gimlies would not attract the female audience. And you kept true to that.. LOL
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh come one. Their is much more to difference the dwarfs. Thorin has yellow socks an Fili a big nose!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know what's extra funny? The dwarves in the book blend together SO much, that even if you can't remember all of their names, is that...it DOESN'T matter. Shit you could name them after numbers or letters and lose NOTHING as they are portrayed in the book.
And I really can't remember all their names off the top of my head. Maybe...8 of em easily, 10 if I think, but I doubt I could tell all 12 from memory.
But yeah, the movies at least make me consider each one of them an individual. And I also hear plenty of complaints about Mr. Hair-bird poop himself too. Yet he's hardly a mention in the book either, and how can you hate him? He's played by the SIXTH Doctor!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
but I doubt I could tell all 12 from memory.
Well it's Thor, Bor, Loki, Floki, Odin, Ragnar, Heimdall, Fandrall, oh wait...
Yet he's hardly a mention in the book either, and how can you hate him? He's played by the SIXTH Doctor!
"Boooo, you left out Tom Bombadil, how dare you! The movie totally needs such a wacky wizardry dude!"
"Boooo, I hate Radagast, how dare you! The movie is ruined by this wacky wizardry dude!"
Can't please them it seems...
Even though PJ made Radagast an actual part of the story, whereas Tom Bombadil didn't really effect the LOTR book in any way. If you took out his part, the plot would remain the same. If you take out Radagast, many things in the movie would work out differently, as he actually affected the events of the story, and by no small amount.
But what do we know, aye? ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yeah that's right they forget Bombadil and he's a cool character. He's a tree whisperer. I need him on my team!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very true there. Tom Bombadil is basically the biggest 'Big-lipped alligator moment' of the LotR books. Radagast actually DOES do something as you said, even briefly. But yep, what do we know, eh?
I also do love that you made all the dwarves look like Gimli. Since they all blend together so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Reading the comic, I didn't understand what Gimli is doing here. And then, I understood and I was laughing out loud.
By the way, I remember while reading the book, I couldn't remember who was which dwarf — just Thorin was the leader, Bombur the fat one, and barely that Fili and Kili was the youngest and Balin the oldest. As well, I didn't understand why there are THIRTEEN !!!!!
So I am quite grateful to Peter Jackson to have made them more distinctive from each other and more likable — and to not have made the mistake of making them Gimli's clones.
And Gandalf who leaves the company for no reason mentioned in the book three times to making his deus ex machina (by turning the trolls into stone, killing the Great Goblin and preventing men, dwarves and elves to kill each other for treasure to fight together against an army of goblins and wargs), it looks like narrative holes to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Reading the comic, I didn't understand what Gimli is doing here. And then, I understood and I was laughing out loud.
While making this comic, I was aware of the chance, that this might happen, so I thought about adding nametages to each dwarf, but in the end, it would have felt like too much in my opinion.
Either way, glad you still enjoyed it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well... Gandalf actually hung out with Bilbo's mother, Belladonna Took, rather a lot. He was very fond of her, then she settled down to be a 'respectable' hobbit. I think he wanted to keep her inward strength and courage in the world, even through her son, and that's why he chose Bilbo.
And I find it a way better excuse than, "Oh, you used to try to catch fireflies when you were a kid and you were happy about it!" reason. C'mon. Every kid does that, and every kid loves to run around after sparkly, pretty bugs when they're little.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well... Gandalf actually hung out with Bilbo's mother, Belladonna Took, rather a lot. He was very fond of her, then she settled down to be a 'respectable' hobbit. I think he wanted to keep her inward strength and courage in the world, even through her son, and that's why he chose Bilbo.
We learn more about this in the movie, than the Hobbit book, though.
And I find it a way better excuse than, "Oh, you used to try to catch fireflies when you were a kid and you were happy about it!" reason.
To be fair, that wasn't exactly Gandalf's reasoning in the movie either. Just to be precise.
It was more about him being one of the few hobbits, who actually wanted to venture beyond the borders of the shire, not about catching bugs and whatnot.
C'mon. Every kid does that, and every kid loves to run around after sparkly, pretty bugs when they're little.
I wouldn't say all kids. But again, we're talking hobbits, not humans, let's also keep that in mind, so our statistics might not apply to them. People seem to forget quite often, that different species would behave differently.
But what's more important is, that Gandalf's reasoning wasn't built on what you're suggesting in the movie. His reasoning - to Bilbo - was, that Bilbo was an extraordinary adventurous kid by hobbit standards, which means that the regular hobbit is not like him, even when they are little.
My original point however was, that we aren't usually given much detail - or any detail at all - about the motivations and reasonings of the characters - or the characters themselfs, for that matter. So we don't really know, why Gandalf is pushing this quest, or why it's Bilbo he chooses - he's not the only one with Tuk blood in his veins after all -, and so forth.
Fact is, there's a whole lot of information the book itself does not bother to explain or develop, so those who claim, that the movies left out the amazing character development and story from the books in favor of the action are quite simply mistaken, considering that there's a whole lot more character development, detail and background information in the movies, than it was in the book itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They took liberties with the story -and I'm okay with that, but they did take it to the ridiculous. Half an hour scene of CG orc fights. An inexplicable molten gold statue of a dwarf that holds form than clashes down onto Smaug -seriously, I don't care what you're made of, that's killer. Imagine the heartburn to that one uncovered little speck of his! The random dwarf love story when neither Elf or Dwarf knew much about each other than their first names. I can watch the movies fine, but they just added so much in there that made suspension of disbelief nigh impossible. (And they totally made Beorn a hillbilly. Unforgivable! I know the book scene with him would have been a bit of a stretch, but at least make him look and sound happy and gruff, with beehives and animals.) Also, Thorin on the ice. How stupid do you have to be? Just saying, He should have stabbed that sucker instead of following him downstream like he was watching flowers drift across a lake or something. I think the book dedicates more on Belladonna than one or two sentences (As in the movie).
Exactly. By your reasoning, we are given very little to expect of hobbits in their youth, but it's seen that they're very much like English society of that time. Tolkien more likely than not based them off of happy country towns of the early nineteenth century, prior to WWII. And if we don't know how hobbits are socialized, more like as not that they actually have brains that, even if they prefer comfort, do yearn after some excitement, and do have responsibility. We see this in almost every hobbit we encounter. Even at the end of RotK, every Hobbit takes up arms to fight, and Lobelia redeems herself.
Yeah, I agree about the dwarves. They had very little identity in the books, other than that Balin was the kind one, Bombor was the baby, Fili and Kili were young, and Thorin led the others in the jerk-fest. The beards, though. And the ax in one of their foreheads at one point. C'mon, they could have provided basic individuality with slight distinguishing features and quirks, rather than complete hyperbolic silliness.
Honestly, I didn't much mind Legolas, but his continuinity was out. Aragorn was about 13 and not a Ranger when Thranduil sent Legolas to find him? They have absolutely no history when they meet in Fellowship. Maybe Legolas just dorked about for 70 years.
They just tried WAY too hard to provide inspirational scenes and lovable characters and they kid catered way too much with their battles. Orcs couldn't make the giant worms eat the armies, nope. Just tunnels. Bad leadership qualities there, Bolg/Azog.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Aragorn was about 13 and not a Ranger when Thranduil sent Legolas to find him? They have absolutely no history when they meet in Fellowship. Maybe Legolas just dorked about for 70 years."
I'm sorry for crushing in, but this issue is actually the evidence for that, what was assumed by some fans (and also by people, who don't know the bookverse) since the cinematic release of FotR: that in the movieverse the period between Bilbo's 111th birthday and Frodo's departure from the Shire lasts for only a couple of months, not around 20 years (like in the book). In such situation Aragorn was around 30 years old, when the events from the Hobbit were taking place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh! Clever catch! Thanks for clarifying that. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They took liberties with the story -and I'm okay with that, but they did take it to the ridiculous.
I find it kinda hillarious, that every sentence, that begins with "I'm okay with [insert subject here]" will actually end with how much the person is in fact not okay with whatever he claims to be okay with. ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL "Balin is the short one with the beard"... I fucking love this. X'D
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
"Bofur being fat"
Bombur, not Bofur
"(...) the dwarves are constantly shown to be absolutely helpless and always need saving, and despite the fact, that Bilbo saves them all the time, they are still very dismissive of him for the most part."
True. And they're rather not likeable, especially Thorin. I think that a good argument for it is the fact that in the Rankin-Bass adaptation of "The Hobbit" from 1977, which stays rather faithful to the source material (when it comes to the letter), almost all the dwarves lack personality (except Thorin, who is simply unlikeable), and therefore the viewer is not moved, when he/she gets to know at the end of the movie that seven of them (yup, four more than in a book) died during the Battle of Five Armies (and the scene of Bombur's death is totally emotionless, despite the fact he is, besides Thorin, the only dwarf dying onscreen: Bilbo doesn't react on it at all, he just watches it, and decides to go to the battlefield to see, how the situation looks like).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
(...) Bilbo doesn't react on it at all, he just watches it, and decides to go to the battlefield to see, how the situation looks like).
Then that you mention it, this is a part of this version that bothers me, that i dislike. Bilbo keeping away from the battle, watching quietly and commentating like a simple spectator while his pals are being massacred by the goblins. And I still hear people who say that the Battle of Five Armies was shit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Bilbo keeping away from the battle, watching quietly and commentating like a simple spectator while his pals are being massacred by the goblins."
Well, if he would watch only his travel companions being massacred, it would be - in this version - somehow explainable (not justified), cause they were all acting completely ungratefully towards him during entire journey (he even said it to them once)... but he was watching also the massacre of the humans from the Laketown, who were nice for him, and of the elves. Tbh, Bilbo's (lack of) action(s) during battle in this version remind(s) me about the anecdote about the last empty spot in hell*.
*in this story the devil saw that in hell there's room left for only one condemned soul more, so he went to the queue of human souls in front of the hellish gates to choose, which one of them is so awful sinner that he/she may take the last free spot - in the end he chose the soul, who said something like this: "I'm definitely not an awful sinner you're looking for, cause I have to be here due to some mistake - in my life I've witnessed a lot of violence, cruelties, and other atrocities, but I haven't done anything then" (I don't know, if I wrote clear, cause English is not my first language 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Bombur, not Bofur
Curse thee, my bewitched tongue, for thou have forsaken meeeeeee!!!!! *dramatic fist shaking*
Kinda funny, how life ended up mimicking the parody above... ^_^
I consider the 1977 version to be a pretty good adaptation and an enjoyable movie on it's own, but the same issues I have with the book are also present in it.
I always felt, that the book version is the one Bilbo would tell to Hobbit kids, while the movie version would be what actually happened.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Bombur, not Bofur
Curse thee, my bewitched tongue, for thou have forsaken meeeeeee!!!!! *dramatic fist shaking*
Kinda funny, how life ended up mimicking the parody above... ^_^"
And you still haven't corrected it ;>
"I consider the 1977 version to be a pretty good adaptation and an enjoyable movie on it's own, but the same issues I have with the book are also present in it."
Tbh, I didn't like the 1977 movie as a movie on its own* - I became bored after 30 minutes
"I always felt, that the book version is the one Bilbo would tell to Hobbit kids, while the movie version would be what actually happened."
Well, it even suits the movie canon somehow 
*but I think that the 1966 adaptation could be a good movie on its own, as a simple story for children - if only its creators had decent time for making it - heh... I've seen also the beginning of the Russian animated adaptation (don't confuse it with the TV theatre play from the 80s), and I think it could be good as well, but in the end they've made only the prologue (Smaug's attack on Dale, and dwarves' meeting with Gandalf at the beginning of their journey) www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoRd1…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you still haven't corrected it ;>
Well I thought that would kinda ruin our little conversation, but since You insist, I corrected it now.
Well, it even suits the movie canon somehow
Heh, it does, doesn't it? ^_^
Oh damn, that 1966 Gollum though... XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um, you didn't have to do it then
"Oh damn, that 1966 Gollum though... XD"
Maybe they would came up with a better design for him?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe they would came up with a better design for him?
I imagine that wouldn't be much of a challenge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I always felt, that the book version is the one Bilbo would tell to Hobbit kids, while the movie version would be what actually happened.
So, in your point of view, the book is the Disney version whereas the trilogy is the original Brothers Grimm version?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In a weird way, yes. Well, I wouldn't say that this was the original intention of course, but that's pretty much what it feels like to me anyhow.
Kinda ironic, considering that Tolkien supposedly hated Disney fairytales.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0