Amph The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Desolation of Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies

Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    so gandalf rushed to minas tirith only to read scrolls for 17 years before he found the relevant one? also, merry, pippen and sam didn't age at all either so the point about frodo having the ring is kind of irrelevant.
  2. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    It take so long to trek in fantasy worlds.
  3. Bacon164 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2005
    star 7
    I'll concede to that first point. There are a multitude of direct references to the appendices in the film. I was wrong. Although, if you'd like, please elaborate on 2841 and 2845. But none of that negates anything beyond what you bolded. This isn't so much an adaptation of Tolkien's freshly paced children's novel as it is the appendices, adapted material or otherwise. I'm sure you're aware of the story of how Tolkien sat down and tried to rewrite the The Hobbit to fit the tone of The Lord of the Rings and implement such historical material that he had built up over the decades, and stopped. And why are we told he stopped?

    And good for you for listening to it twice! I'm afraid I can't supply any time signatures, because I don't have a copy of the EE with me and won't for another week or two. If it's in the commentary and not the supplemental material, look for it The Scrolls of Isildur or the following scenes. I recall Boyens or Walsh going on about how six months had passed instead, because seventeen years was far too long and killed the momentum of the story. They certainly weren't making the case for it being ambiguous, as Boyens once argued about the lack of Tom Bombadil. A Wikipedia citation, however unreliable, seems to agree with me, but neglects to give a time signature. Sorry. :(
  4. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Really? You don't get why it's a big deal that Tolkien had the opportunity and means to integrate that fully into the hobbit and didn't? A parallel story is not the same story in any work of fiction.
  5. Bacon164 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2005
    star 7
    Best description of this movie I've read in awhile.
  6. Force Smuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 5
    No it wasn't. It was a fun adventure story with some extra details thrown in.
  7. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    For whatever it's worth, I just rewatched the Colbert Report episode with Andy Serkis from Hobbit week, and I noticed that Serkis says there is 60 years' difference between LOTR Gollum and The Hobbit's version.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 29, 2012
  8. TiniTinyTony Episode VII Movie Poster Contest Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Mar 9, 2003
    star 5
    Well yeah, if you recall from the movie, it showed "old" Bilbo smoking (pre party events of LOTR: FOTR) and then young Bilbo smoking and in the corner it said 60 years earlier.
    darthcaedus1138 likes this.
  9. Bacon164 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2005
    star 7
    And if you'll recall from FOTR, there's a similar "60 years later" subtitle in the theatrical version, that's not the point. The point is that according to Andy Serkis, and the writers, if I'm correct, a seventeen year gap between a minor plot point doesn't exist in the films, meaning that it's possible that a 27 year old Aragorn could be seen, given that they established his age in the extended edition of TTT. Heck, they could even recycle footage they shot for the original trilogy involving the first meeting of Arwen and Aragorn (without a beard!).
  10. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Since the Ian Holm scene is pre-party, that means it's at a point 60 years after The Hobbit regardless of whether or not we assume the 17-year gap from the book still holds. However, in the book timeline, the bulk of LOTR, including Gollum's appearance, would be 77 years after The Hobbit, so that's why I was saying the Andy Serkis reference to LOTR's Gollum being 60 years older would further indicate the change in the chronology.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 29, 2012
    Bacon164 likes this.
  11. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    It's not an opinion- FOTR did not treat Saruman's turn as something needing subtle foreshadowing. One can argue the degree as a matter of opinion, but the film is fairly blunt about it's portrayal of the matter-made even more obvious by the character's name (which, granted, is the source material's fault, not the film's).
    Last edited by The2ndQuest, Dec 30, 2012
  12. Sith-Lord-Gunray Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 7
    Stahp. Opinions. These are not facts.
  13. Bacon164 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2005
    star 7
    A subtle variation of one of the Mordor themes does play as Gandalf approaches Orthanc. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
  14. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    I want to go see this again, but nobody else has any interest in it. :(
  15. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I want to see it again in 2D and 24 fps. But they're coming to drag me to 3D and 48 fps. :_|

    3D!!! We hates it!!! We hates it forever!!!

    According to the appendices of ROTK, it wasn't until around TA 3000 that Saruman used the palantir of Orthanc and became "ensnared" by Sauron. Before this point, during the time of The Hobbit specifically, we can say that he was "turning to the dark side" in the sense that he was already plotting to acquire the Ring in his lust for power. This is arguably why he feigns disbelief in Sauron's return during AUJ. But in this sense he sees Sauron as a kind of rival, not as an ally or master.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 30, 2012
    darthcaedus1138 likes this.
  16. FatBurt Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 21, 2003
    star 5
    My 8 year old daughter really wants to watch this. In the UK it is a 12a which means anyone under 12 can see it provided they have an adult with them.

    For those of you who have already seen it, can you let me know if there is anything inappropriate for a young child or is it similar to LOTR in it's themes? I've read the book and based on the book I'm fine but I know stuff has been added and I now don't know if anything unsuitable would be there.

    Aside from the near 3 hr length, I think she would manage it but I just need to know if the themes/scenes are OK.
  17. Sith-Lord-Gunray Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 7
    There's gore. I wouldn't take an 8 year old. Maybe in a couple of years.

    edit: iirc there's specifically a beheading, and then the troll king's death was a bit nasty. also he has a huge scrotum on his face.
    Last edited by Sith-Lord-Gunray, Dec 30, 2012
    Rosslcopter likes this.
  18. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    There are a few decapitations, and a gut stabbing ( no blood in that one IIRC ). Lots of dwarf-goblin violence but it's kept to at most a "PG-13" level.

    There are, unfortunately, a few sleazy drug references. Radagast is said to be the way he is because he eats too many mushrooms. :rolleyes: In another scene he is made to smoke "pipe-weed" to calm him down, and it causes a drug-like reaction. :rolleyes:
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 30, 2012
  19. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    Tobacco has a calming effect, and is used in English literature, specifically Hardy with whom Tolkien was familiar, to render characters taciturn and becalmed.

    "Magic" mushrooms have been ingested for tens of thousands of years, probably for shamanic purposes. Saruman has been established as being anti-drug and contemptuous of those who use them. It follows, both logically and for story purposes, that Radagast might ingest such psychoactive substances, and that Saruman would reproach him for it.
  20. Bacon164 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2005
    star 7
  21. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    These are good points! Arguable, though. Obviously the film is edited in such a way that the matter feels urgent and immediate. Gandalf tears off into the night and we next see him riding into Gondor to pour over scrolls, and then suddenly he's returned to Hobbiton with dire fears. It's all very briskly-paced and rapid-fire. Yet taken in the context of the book, these scenes can be viewed as mere moments extracted from a far more drawn-out timeline. In those 17 years Gandalf did research in Minas Tirith, but he also looked for Gollum with Aragorn, visited Frodo off and on, learned of Gollum's capture in Mordor and subsequent arrest by Aragorn, etc.-- IOW, a lot of backstory the movies don't go into.

    As to Merry and Pippin, hobbits age slowly and have an extended youth compared to humans. Samwise was born in 2983, which would make him 18 at the time of the Party, and M & P were a little younger than he. They might be 15 or 16 in the fireworks scene ("This was your idea!") and ~32 at Frodo's exit. Why not? Olivia Newton-John was 29 during the filming of Grease. I can accept a mild flaw in the filmmaking techniques to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story being preserved. It's still an ambiguous presentation and can be interpreted as maintaining the 17-year gap.
  22. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    These should not be criminal substances. Your reaction to natural medicines and consciousness-expanding psychoactives with a contemptuous pejorative reveals your bias.
  23. Bacon164 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2005
    star 7
    LSD and marijuana? Sure, they shouldn't be criminal. Juvenile jokes at their expense also have no place in an adaptation of The Hobbit.

    But I would agree with you that FOTR is edited in such a way as to leave the gap ambiguous. Doesn't mean the filmmakers necessarily intended it to be ambiguous when making their decisions.
    Sith-Lord-Gunray likes this.
  24. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    The pipe-weed is of course tobacco in the books: it is explicitly called that in the text of The Hobbit, while FOTR calls it Nicotiana in a fairly obvious reference to nicotine. I just don't like the way the films seem to portray it as marijuana, as though it is a reference to modern-day drug culture.

    He criticized Gandalf's use of pipe-weed, though we know this was hypocrisy: Saruman was a secret smoker of pipe-weed and began stockpiling it at some point.

    Psilocybin and marijuana, technically. ( Based on the setting, I doubt we'll ever see a direct LSD reference in one of these films, but if we do I'll give it the requisite facepalm. )
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 30, 2012
  25. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    I appreciate your willingness to concede points. I value intellectually honesty. As to 2841 and 2845, Thrain II was Thorin's father; his return to the Kingdom under the Mountain (which his father founded) was referenced (briefly) in AUJ, and his capture and imprisonment in Dol Guldur and ripping away of his Ring of Power I fully expect to be shown or referenced in one of the sequels, given that Thrain II, Dol Guldur and the Rings are all elements of the overall "There and Back Again" story.

    Your initial statement, to which I objected, was that 50% of the film was Tolkien's The Hobbit and 50% was Jackson and company's invention. You then graciously conceded "a multitude of direct references to the appendices in the film". Surely this concession raises the Tolkien-derived percentage to something like 75% or higher. (I'd argue for ~85%, but that's a sidebar). Yet now I see the gist of your complaint is not Tolkien's absence from the source material, but that the source material is in The Lord of the Rings rather than The Hobbit. Fortunately, I'm prepared to argue against this position, but let's be clear from the outset that this is a matter of opinion.

    In brief, the vast majority of Tolkien fans 1) want to see cohesive film adaptations and 2) conceive of both works -- The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- as belonging to the same, consistent universe and timeline. That you personally object to either of these tenets does not obligate the filmmakers to agree with or legitimize your minority-held opinion.

    To expound on the aforesaid assertions, Jackson's movies must compete in the global marketplace, and fans should expect some changes to the source material based on purely creative ideas from the writers and producers, on differences in the medium, and on market and genre expectations. Purist ideals often reflect the mental precision and high intellectual standards of the ideator, but the demands of mass theatrical exhibition and home-video sales do not often accord with those elevated ideals. At the end of the day this is a juvenile fantasy-adventure movie belonging to a long tradition of such films. To some degree it has to conform to long-standing narrative and pacing standards: traditional styles and techniques of action-adventure cinema, which necessitate certain changes, such as adding spectacular action sequences to otherwise lackluster traveling scenes. This movie has to make audiences go 'wow' or it isn't going to last a weekend in the theaters, and no more movies like it are going to be made because audiences went 'meh' instead of 'gosh-wow'.

    Tolkien stopped the Hobbit re-write either because he personally found it charmless and unnecessary, or his publishers at Allen & Unwin did. Someone will need to drum into me, as if unto a rebellious and fidgety child, the relevance of this continually harped upon factoid.

    The Wiki page you've linked refers to scenes that have been "condensed or omitted altogether. In the book the time between Gandalf leaving the Ring to Frodo and returning to reveal its inscription, which is 17 years, is compressed for timing reasons." I agree with that phrasing -- "condensed and compressed". Boyens and Walsh never directly assert that they excised the 17 years; they merely "compress and condense" the period cinematically, which has been my position all along. , QV my response to Tom, upthread: "The scenes can be viewed as mere moments extracted from a far more drawn-out timeline."