I wrote a reply to NeverarGreat's post shortly after he posted it, and was surprised to see it wasn't posted. Must have gotten distracted then closed my browser without clicking "post" or something.
NeverarGreat said:
Oh, I know what PJ is trying to do; however, after seeing the first installment, I just don't think that it's working. Maybe I'll eat my words after seeing the next two.
I thought it seemed to be working well, but of course that is entirely dependent on how the next two installments turn out.
Them's fightin' words. Granted, my Tolkien shelf is missing the Silmarillion, but that's only because I'm lending it to a friend. Which of the two versions of the Hobbit on my shelf am I not familiar with? Or perhaps it's The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, or The Children of Hurin that I'm rusty on?
I jest.
Clearly I was mistaken. I have the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The Children of Hurin as well. The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales I've never managed to read cover to cover, and have treated them more or less as reference works over the years; Children of Hurin I was extremely excited about and got my copy the first day it was released, started reading, then got bogged down with some academic obligations and never managed to get back around to finishing it. I should do that sometime soon.
My favorite stuff by Tolkien are his children's stories. I love Roverandom, The Father Christmas Letters, and stuff like Leaf by Niggle and Father Giles of Ham. It is a shame the man wasn't a published children's author during his day, I feel like he really excelled at it, but of course, it wasn't really his thing and just fun stories he wrote for his own children. I am sure he would have much rather been well known for his academic works and for his Middle Earth stories.
Tolkien always used the Eagles as his last minute jump in and save the day thing. A very obvious and blatant deux ex machina. I feel they have always been more than a bit of a cop out. There is really no deep "character" and "philosophy". They aren't confusing, they are just lame.
I agree with that, partially. I'm talking about those casual viewers that think that Gandalf summons them with his magic, and they disappear afterwards, or other such confusion. They don't talk in the movies, they just have Gandalf find a moth and whisper to it for some reason, as if that's enough time for the moth to find the eagles and for them to come like trained animals in search of a reward. In the Hobbit, it is established that the Lord of the Eagles was helped by Gandalf when the wizard removed an arrow from him, and the eagles helped Gandalf and company partly in payment of this debt, and partly because they don't like the goblins either. They would not, however, go near any towns of men, for the men would shoot arrows at them. The ancient race of Eagles are described as "proud and strong and noble-hearted", so they clearly have some character. I just think that showing this would clear up the misunderstandings with casual viewers, and would be an addition to the movie which wasn't made up by PJ. But yes, their continual aid at convenient moments is rather lame.
I see what you mean now. I didn't really put much thought into it before, but now that my mind is on it, the fact that we never hear one of the eagles speak is annoying and a wasted opportunity. They are kind of like glorified magical taxis in the films, plucking characters out of the midst of disaster, dropping them off to safety, and never uttering a word. In Lord of the Rings it wasn't a big deal because we only see them pick up Gandalf, then later Frodo and Sam at the end, and both times they are at parts where exposition or dialogue wouldn't flow too well in the films. But in The Hobbit, there was no reason not to have them speak, and it was a little awkward they just plopped them off and left without any communication.