a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by JTHipster
JTHipster  ·  4377 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Cut to Dwarves: The Decline of Big Budget Cinema

I'm not though. There are too many plotlines which add nothing to the main story, and while a subplot or two is fine they REALLY need to be subdued.

Stepping back from the books for a second, and taking the film as it is presented to us, the story is ultimately about Dwarves trying to retake a kingdom that was stolen from them by the dragon Smaug. That is the plot of the movie, and its not a terribly complicated plot so it should be easy to follow.

Now, because this is not a schlocky action movie like the up and coming "Pacific Rim," action should all be in service of the plot, yes? As in, each action scene, and every scene in general, should either establish a character's personality or advance the story in some way.

So what's the point of the Pale Orc? Let's examine his actions in the movie for a second.

First he is in the battle scene where he cuts the head off of King Thrall, and then has his arm cut off by Thorin. That's fine; the scene establishes Thorin as a good leader and a good fighter. Excellent, great, point taken, moving on.

Second thing he does is say that there's a price on the Dwarf's head. Okay....I mean I guess there could be payoff in the next two movies, but the only payoff in this movie is that it mildly delays the Goblin King from killing them then and there, right up until he sees the magic sword which negates the fact that there is a price on the Dwarf's head in the first place.

Third, he attacks them at the cliff since apparently Wargs can cross mountains and discover the exact location of a small band of dwarves which spent days on small stone paths which are barely big enough for a creature who is smaller than a human, and would be uncrossable by wargs, in the matter of a few hours.

This scene is important in understanding the problem with bringing in Orcs, because its the payoff from the other scenes. Thorin realizes he was wrong about the Pale Orc being dead and the Pale Orc says something that Thorin can't understand because he can't speak Orcish, and then they fight. Thorin is defeated because he decided to not have his archer just shoot the Orc in the head because that'd make sense and then Bilbo saves him. Then everyone attacks and the eagles save everyone.

What happened here? Well, Thorin realized he was wrong about his supposedly dead enemy and came to accept Bilbo. He was also injured but suffered no long term consequences from it because of Gandalf, so unless the second movie immediately establishes the fact that he somehow has a crippling injury from being bitten by a Warg that will have been utterly pointless as a scene. The party is back on track anyway, so everything is back to status quo.

Meaning that the ENTIRE SCENE, which lasts a good 15 minutes, is for Bilbo to save Thorin, and Jackson can give us a similar shot to the one at the end of Fellowship where Boromir gets shot with arrows a lot and falls to the ground in slow motion.

So really the Orc as a plot device is an utterly pointless distraction, since all he does is make Thorin accept Bilbo, which could have been accomplished a thousand other ways that didn't have to take 15 minutes and have a super long action scene.

If this is how the first movie plays out, then what about the next two? Because we won't forget about that subplot because the audience isn't stupid, and if they pull a Pirates 3 and the Pale Orc dies off camera it'd be worse. So they have to end up resolving the plot quickly because its dumb, but not so quickly that we notice it, AND they have to pad the running time so that we spend a total of seven and a half hours watching people take a small trip to a mountain in order to fight a dragon who is killed by some guy in a village who isn't Bilbo.

Why is this movie called the Hobbit?