Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lastofthelight]

I tried to find a forum topic on this - but to my amazing surprise, a search didn't reveal one.

I think we should give our reviews of the hobbit, and talk about dwarf culture within it, and how it stacks up to dwarf culture, and the things we can do about dwarf fortress - and what we have learned about dwarves.

[TheDarkStar]

Dwarves like gold (and other riches). They like swimming in gold. Also, they will ignore the fact that there is a dragon to fulfill a hauling job, and then run the instant they see it. Also, they like megaprojects and overcomplicated ideas that do it WITH STYLE.

So yeah, we didn't learn anything new.

[Valtam]

Toady One himself summed it up nicely:

What did you think of Atrocious Beards Part Two (assuming you saw it)?

I guess it's appropriate that the one that didn't even have a beard fell for a flesh eater.  We knew going in that it was silly, so we could appreciate it as an extension of Peter Jackson's earliest movies more than a Tolkien adaptation.  Even in that vein, the action sequences were too goofy to enjoy a lot of the time though...  barrels for instance.

I, for one, left the theater mildly amused, but ultimately dissapointed. Was expecting a lot more "Hobbit", even if dwarves were pretty central through the movie.

Also, dwarves and elves falling in love? Now these are just filthy teachings.

[Clatch]

I'm afraid to say that the only commonality between Jackson's Hobbit thriller and Dwarf Fortress is that the story is much better in print.

[Rapozk]

Also, dwarves and elves falling in love? Now these are just filthy teachings.

I usually see myself as a fairly liberal person, but I disapprove this kind of race mixing.

From the movie, I got the most inspiration from the crypt where the nasgüls/ring wraths were buried, which wasn't even in the book. Not that it actually gave me new inspiration, because I usually go about doing silly projects like that in dwarf fortress, doing hard to access crypts, making long walks carved out from the mountains, through waterfalls etc, just to get to the fortress etc... so, it didn't do more than remind me of dwarf fortress...

Also, the first three movies were much better. The hobbit movies are more cartoonish.. The lord of the rings trilogy had a more realistic setting.. It was like a real world, only with more sentient races/species, and a dash of magic added to the mix, and people and nations in the movies acted reasonable and realistic (as in; the way that would be realistic to act in such a world). All of that realism disappeared in the hobbit movies, making it a kinda shitty movie.

Dwarf fortress have realism, in a different world, if you get what I mean. Meaning that some things of the world are changed and what happens in the world gets affected realistically. Many other shows/games/movies do this as well, for instance star trek. Other stuff don't manage to do this, for instance harry potter books, much of what happens in Harry Potter books are simply stupid and unrealistic if you account for how magic in that world works and what wizards are able to do, in a reasonable approach the story would have been completely different. 


Edit: do I make sense whatsoever?

[Cedwyn]

Walkways without handrails... who designed that fortress...

[Trickman]

I usually see myself as a fairly liberal person, but I disapprove this kind of race mixing.

[gabandre]

Walkways without handrails... who designed that fortress...

A Dwarf Fortress player?

[klefenz]

Things I don't like about The Hobbit movies:
-Not enough beard, seriously, these were dwarves of the Longbeards clan. The actor that played Thorin used his natural human beard, and it had to be trimmed constantly for the movie. So much for longbeards.
-Radagast had shit on his head.
-Too much pointless CGI. Orcs and goblins can be perfectly played by actors with costumes, but PJ wanted more shitty CGI.
-Bad looking exaggerated MMO armor. I only saw the first movie, and the armor orcs wore annoyed me quite a bit, it was over elaborate, orcs should make more practical armor, the pieces they had in TLOTR were far better, why didn't they reuse them? Oh, yeah, CGI.
-Radagast had shit on his head.
-They added characters that were not present in the book (Galadriel, Saruman, Legolas, etc).
-They added monsters that did not exist. Like those stone giants, and the goblins. I know the book says goblins, but Tolkien stated that he meant orcs. They were orcs.
-Goblin king has a scrotum beard.
-Radagast was not present in the book, and has shit on his head.

Well, at least they didn't throw Tom Bombadil. That would be too much.

The Hobbit is a children book, and it is more fitting for a Disney movie, or Warner:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)

[Manveru Taurënér]

Things I don't like about The Hobbit movies:
-Not enough beard, seriously, these were dwarves of the Longbeards clan. The actor that played Thorin used his natural human beard, and it had to be trimmed constantly for the movie. So much for longbeards.
-Radagast had shit on his head.
-Too much pointless CGI. Orcs and goblins can be perfectly played by actors with costumes, but PJ wanted more shitty CGI.
-Bad looking exaggerated MMO armor. I only saw the first movie, and the armor orcs wore annoyed me quite a bit, it was over elaborate, orcs should make more practical armor, the pieces they had in TLOTR were far better, why didn't they reuse them? Oh, yeah, CGI.
-Radagast had shit on his head.
-They added characters that were not present in the book (Galadriel, Saruman, Legolas, etc).
-They added monsters that did not exist. Like those stone giants, and the goblins. I know the book says goblins, but Tolkien stated that he meant orcs. They were orcs.
-Goblin king has a scrotum beard.
-Radagast was not present in the book, and has shit on his head.

Well, at least they didn't throw Tom Bombadil. That would be too much.

The Hobbit is a children book, and it is more fitting for a Disney movie, or Warner:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)

While I generally agree with most of your stated opinions (the non-existant beards!) I feel some slight nitpicking is required.

Yes, they added characters that weren't in the book, however they weren't (for the most part!) grabbed out of this air. It has been stated that the movie plot is also based on the additional stories in the compendiums, detailing the actions of the white council and the driving out of the necromancer from Dol Goldur, which occured during the time the dwarves were in Mirkwood, it just wasn't in the book. Also, bringing in Legolas isn't necessarily a bad idea either, seeing as Thranduil is his father and the company is passing through his home. I do however feel Jackson et al completely botched the implementation of all these additional characters, even though the idea was sound. Even Tauriel might've been ok if it hadn't been for the horrible romance sub-plot.

They also didn't really add any creatures (apart from that ridiculous centipede). Stone giants were in the book, though that Jackson implemented them in the most silly way imaginable. While Goblins and Orcs are supposedly the same thing yes (at least after Tolkien made up his mind on the matter), it's still a fact that there are a lot of different breeds of them of differing size, stature and appearance. The goblins of the misty mountains were supposedly of the smaller type, save the great goblin, so that far it's not really all made up. Same thing here though with Jackson overdoing it and making them too different and "silly".

Also, to me the addition of Radagast seems by far the least of the many changes Jackson made to the story. I actually kind of like him, although I agree the bird's nest on his head might be taking it a bit too far. Silly is obviously not necessarily bad, since as you said it was originally a children's story. In my opinion though Jackson focused a bit too much on the wrong kind of "silly"



As for how the movies can be related to Dwarf Fortress, the only thing to really take out of it imo is the visuals, which for the most part remain stunning as always. Lots of nice inspiration for how to build your fortress.

[Sizik]

I'm hoping that it turns out that the love triangle is just Tauriel pretending to look like she likes Kili in order to dissuade Legolas.

[MDFification]

I'm hoping that it turns out that the love triangle is just Tauriel pretending to look like she likes Kili in order to dissuade Legolas.

Unfortunately, Kili kicks the bucket at the end, so if so there'll probably be a heartwarming undwarvenly sickening make up scene.
I know how these things run.

Also we now know it is possible for dwarves to [Cancels haul item: Trying to tap dat fine Silvan behind]

[Loud Whispers]

The Hobbit is a children book, and it is more fitting for a Disney movie, or Warner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)

Or a 2 and a half hour dub over.

[Tawa]

Ah, another comparison thread!

I didn't see the new one, but I did see the first one. I read the book long before I saw the movie. Thoughts on the matter:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

-I think that they did the scene in Bilbo's house rather well. That was good, in my mind.

-Then stuff starts going downhill. They should not have had Radagast in the movie at all; he was mentioned. By Gandalf. Twice, if I remember correctly, in two different books. The end of Radagast's apparent existence.

-That "white council" scene was absolute crap. Gandalf leaves a whole-frickin'-lot later in the book to go to the Council. Bilbo doesn't see it, so it's not described in the book. Gandalf was with the dwarves in the cave when the goblins show.

-Goblins and orcs are the exact same thing, yet in the film, they are mentioned separately as two different things.

-I agree with klefenz about how the armor for the orcs and stuff is too over-complicated and decorative. It looks like an illustration out of a D&D 4e handbook.

-There are supposed to be goblins guarding the exit of the mountain after Bilbo jumps over Gollum.

-It's been a while, but I don't think Azog originally existed, or was at least mentioned in the Hobbit.

Now, I didn't see the second movie, but I read a lot of articles about it in the USA Today app and one in Time Magazine. My thoughts:

-The names of elves are not supposed to be mentioned. They aren't mentioned in the book; why do they need names (other than Tharanduil or whatever his name is who was named later anyway) now?

-There was a load of more crap regarding that Tauriel or whatever the lady elf was called. "The movie needs more feminine energy!" Too bad. Tolkien wrote the original without women, Jackson. You don't need to add any.

-Legolas. I hate that guy. In the LOTR books, he shoots a bunch of orcs and says some stuff. That's it. He's over-hyped in the movies, especially the lengthy scene in Return of the King where he kills the elephant dude crew. He was not mentioned in the Hobbit at all. Tolkien thought of him after he wrote The Hobbit.

-I heard a lot of stuff about the CGI. According to one interview,

Basically, if it's not a close up, they've been replaced with digital models.

I understand now why they called Peter Jackson "the CGI master".

And in general:

-The films are too serious. It's a kid's book, an 8-year-old could understand it, and Tolkien uses a bunch of silly hyphenated words and whimsical terms.

-Why. The heck. Are there. Three Hobbit movies. It's one Hobbit book. Why do you need three Hobbit movies?

-The beards are not good enough. THE BEARDS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Now, on to more positive things:

-The films still at least sort of capture the story of the books.

-The visuals are still nice; Jackson has a way with pictures.

-The Erebor scene in the start of the first one inspired me to go fire up fort mode.

-My favorite dwarf, Bombur, looks fine. Nice and fat.

Apologies if that sounded a bit rant-ish, but the reactions to these movies are just egging Jackson on to keep on doing what he did with the Two Towers and add a bunch of unnecessary crap to the movies to make them "better crowd pleasers". This is LOTR, man, not the mathematical equation (James Bond - 1500 years).

[thvaz]

The second movie was so bad it almost make me hate Tolkien and fantasy in general.