The Hobbit

I also laughed at that. My roommate waved bye-bye to Azog as he sank.

I watched that scene with amusement, but also with suspicion, because I knew Thorin's fate in the book.

Heh, good to see I wasn't the only one.

I haven't read the book, but I could just tell that Azog wasn't done yet.

Thorin is mortally wounded in the battle, offscreen. In fact, as was noted earlier in the thread, almost the whole battle takes place offscreen. The part where Thorin forgives Bilbo as he lies dying is accurate, though.

Well, that's...I wouldn't call it stupid, but not very interesting.

The book was a very different animal from the films. Or from Lord of the Rings, for that matter. It was, by and large, the adventures of a bumbling group of dwarves and one unlucky hobbit as they wandered in the general direction of Erebor, trying not to get eaten by things.

The films increased the action sequences as well as the dwarves' capability to participate in them rather than just fleeing from one threat to the next. The dwarves' adventure hinged on fortuitous happenstance and the capabilities of others, right down to the Big Bad of the story, Smaug, being killed by some random f*ckwit in Lake-Town who was never relevant to the story up until that point, rather than overcome by our protagonists as is typical of storytelling.

That the effort to reclaim the mountain was a disastrously terrible idea, nobody present is even remotely capable of undertaking the task, and the whole journey should have ended in misery and death a hundred times over - and ultimately DOES end in misery and death, if you think about it - is a theme of the book.

edited 23rd Dec '14 9:23:51 PM by TobiasDrake

@d Roy

No no no I laughed at it too. Lol I was like the dude that laughed at how Anakin Skywalker got lulzly chopped up by Obi Wan in Revenge of the sith (which at first aint fjnd funny but now think it was hilarious) when it first came out.

Anyone laugh at Thorin during his paranoid phases in the film. When he said he suspected his company of withholding the Arkenstone and Bilbo was like -_- "What" I was cracking up.

"Noooooot oooooooooooone coooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnn."

The whole Dragon Sickness thing was hilariously bad. It was a poor attempt at a Fix Fic against Thorin's greed being his undoing in the book, because I guess someone on the staff took issue with a major protagonist suffering such a significant Face–Heel Turn. I love that they even called it Dragon Sickness, and proceed to never really explain what that means. All this time we've been building up an excuse that the Arkenstone has some kind of greed-enhancing evil to it, and it turns out it's just been Scale Itch all along!

Dragon Sickness. I can see some sense in the concept, as I've long been of the opinion that the sheer unbridled greed and selfish weight brought on by a dragon's horde is not for mammals; dragons can bear the greed because reptiles are not social creatures. They have no responsibilities to shirk or loved ones to betray in the pursuit of self-advancement. Reptiles are much simpler in their desires and behavior compared to mammals. They see the world in simple terms of prey and predator, and dragons especially have no predator. Likewise, a greedy, selfish dragon is an easier thing to manage than a greedy, selfish man. The man may be reasoned with. He may be imprisoned. He may come around of his own accord. A moral point will be made one way or the other in how the man is handled, and you will be judged by your peers in turn. Like other reptiles, the dragon is simple. Kill it or it will kill you.

The best thing a mammal can do with a dragon horde is to disseminate it, but its powerful allure - its beautiful, irresistable glory - makes that a difficult thing to do.

So if they were just using dragon sickness to describe Thorin succumbing to the temptations of owning the pride and splendor of a dragon's share, I could believe it. But they depict it like an actual illness that Thorin gradually succumbs to until he has a climactic moment - doing battle with the dragon's very shadow in his madness - and triumphs, and then is cured of all greed, has his former heroic characterization restored, and all is well.

edited 24th Dec '14 6:31:27 AM by TobiasDrake

Dragon Sickness in the book was used to describe what happened to The Master, who in the book did not die until *after* the Battle of Five Armies, because he went mad from his share of the treasure and fled into the wilderness, deserted by his companions. It was otherwise much like how the film portrayed it: you just go a little crazy from greed. The movie was also correct, in a sense, that such greed was what brought down Thror (but more importantly, brought down Thrain as well), although this was shown only in LOTR, and was said to be due to the influence of one of the Seven, indeed the last of the Seven, which was held by Thorin's line until Thrain.

I thought it was both hilarious and Awesome.

Truthfully, I wish they'd let Thorin do this after he and Azog stabbed each other instead of the other way around. As has been already said, it would have been a great way to end their struggle, with Thorin having the wisdom and pragmatism to step back (even if he did so too late to save his own life).

If he stepped back before he realized it was a trap, how would have he died? He had to die. Azog knew Thorin was obsessed with killing him, so he waited for a chance.

edited 25th Dec '14 5:09:40 PM by Quag15

True that.

I just think that, if not for his book status meaning he was doomed to die, it would have been a great way for Thorin to overcome his old rival, and show great Character Development on his part, not that it still didn't in the end.

I'd like to think in the end that Alfrid, carrying all of that gold, ends up stepping somewhere in that icy river and cracking the ice from all that weight, and getting dragged to the bottom.

So, a little more boring the second time around. All of Alfrid's scenes are way more annoying when you consider that he basically wins.

Lee Pace: Still gorgeous.

A lot of evil people "win" during this time period. It's hardly a stretch to show such among Men, even if he is rather petty. Heck, in the novel, the Master of Lake Town doesn't die in the attack (he dies later, though).

While true, it's still unsatisfying to see in a storytelling medium, especially with an Original Character. Alfrid did not exist in the book; his ultimate fate cannot be considered a Necessary Weasel of adaptation. Somebody felt the need to add him to the story, just to behave like a dipshit and ultimately be rewarded for his trouble.

On top of that, he's not the only greedy asshole in the piece, either.

• Smaug is a greedy asshole, gets an arrow through the heart and dies.
• The Master is a greedy asshole, gets crushed to death under two tons of dragon.
• Thorin is a greedy asshole, has a critical moment where he undergoes a Heel–Face Turn, repents his deeds, and still pays with his life.
• Alfrid is a greedy asshole, abuses and endangers children, gets off scot free with a big pile of gold!

As an adaptation, an Aesop, or a character in his own right, Alfrid is a walking plot tumor no matter how you slice it.

edited 27th Dec '14 6:56:09 AM by TobiasDrake

The extended version of the movie is going to show Alfrid die

Please, make it happen.

Alfrid WILL die almost immediately after as the Master's death became earlier.

edited 27th Dec '14 7:32:59 AM by entropy13

I wonder if the role was made to see if the actor would be hated.

Maybe to invert the expectations of the audience like with the Tauriel element?

I couldn't take Kili and Thorin's death seriously because of Tauriel and Bilbo.

For example Bilbo let out a funny long whimper right after Thorin let out a quiet groan that sounded suspiciously like he just shat his pants. It took all my willpower to not laugh at such an inappropriate time.

Maybe I'm just weird.

Alfrid served his narrative job well; as he allowed the film to focus on any events within the human refugees as needed.

Without Alfrid it suddenly gets a lot harder to show Bard's heroism as a potential leader, have the elves arrive with such bravo, show the women joining their husbands in battle, or show Bard caring for his family rather than vengeance or gold.

Also, Thorin's sickness can still be viewed as simple greed and obsession. You can quiet easily read Dragon's Sickness as being superstition. Thorin did quite reasonably make the point that he needed the funds of the mountain to pay for renovation and re-population, and he does quite reasonably point out that he is justified in his anger at having to have spent his life little better than a beggar.

The whole fight between Azog and Thorin was a master class show off of Thorin's character development. His selflessness meant he couldn't abandon his family, his dedication meant he and Azog were fighting until they were so exhausted they could hardly lift their weapons, his new found humility meant half way through the fight he stopped swinging at Azog all together and instead concentrated on his own life, while Azog over exerted himself, his pragmatic nature, not his pride, allowed him to let Azog simply slip under the ice; and his selfless humble nature is what allowed him to give Azog the killing blow to ensure the orc was left vulnerable to be killed so the battle may turn.

Meanwhile Legolas' fight was similarly a display of character progression,but Thorin's takes the cake because there was a three film build up to it.

I agree that Bard standing up for Alfrid was an important scene, but I see no reason why the latter three scenes require Alfrid at all.

You really can't. Thorin's Dragon Sickness in its later stages caused hallucinations.

Not sleeping nor eating for days also causes hallucinations; and Thorin was doing that too.

If you don't like the Dragon Sickness reading; you don't have to buy into it is all I'm saying.

It's also possible to read it as a genetic mental illness, passed down from his grandfather.

edited 28th Dec '14 7:25:53 PM by LMage

Wasn't that also one of the effects of the dwarven rings, causing its wearer to become extremely greedy? Thror II was one of the dwarven ring-bearers, wasn't he?