Bit late for that don't you think? White council is seen, we see Radaghast go into Dol Guldor or whatever it is. Azog has a big role etc.
Speaking of Smaug, saw this on Cracked.com today and couldn't stop laughing. http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/8/0/7/160807_slide.jpg?v=1
It really wasn't a "boo-yah" moment in FOTR- at all. Saruman=bad was entirely too obvious (even beyond the name). I'm kind of hoping they don't show him go evil and just kinda play him as the stiff he was in AUJ- it might actually make his turn in FOTR actually seem ever-so-slightly unexpected. That said, I think there has to be a timeline jump, no? Aren't we going to be seeing Aragorn at some point? Do those Dragons fly via inflated bellies, Watto-style?
Aragorn is only 10 years old at this point in the story. It would have been a nice little touch to have a young boy running around in Rivendell that sharp-eyed fans can spot and say "Ah-HA, there he is!". Maybe in the EE?
Theoretically, the writers could argue that in their version of the story, Aragorn is at this point 27, since they decided to close the seventeen year gap in FOTR.
Then maybe at the end of TABA we'll get that first-meeting scene between a young Aragorn and Arwen Evenstar? Cheers, Lauré
yeah in flight of dragons they're able to fly because of helium or something. its also how they make fire
Sure it is. It's the narrative of Tolkien's The Hobbit, plus elements culled from the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings that relate to the "There and Back Again" timeline. At the risk of inviting you to prove a negative, how is it not about the narrative of TH? The entire book is being adapted page-for-page.
So the deluxe version of the score CD contains some extra tracks at the end of the second disc. Dreaming of Bag End A Very Respectable Hobbit Erebor The Dwarf Lords The Edge of the Wild Anyone have these and figure out where they go in the film order of the score? I'd like to integrate into film order in my playlists...
Apologies for being argumentative here; I don't mean to single you out for debate, it's just happening organically as I read through the thread. But I'm not convinced the 17-year lull between Bilbo's birthday party and Frodo's exit is not shown on-screen in FOTR. If anything, it's ambiguous. Hobbits age slowly, after all, with an extended period of youth -- especially WRT Frodo because he owns the Ring. 17 years might have passed between the Party, and Frodo's meandering home one night to find Gandalf tweaking out about "secret" and "safe". In short, it's not shown explicitly but neither is it explicitly contradicted.
The sense my wife and I got is that, in cold-blooded reptillian fashion, Smaug is cold (and perhaps under-oxygenated) underneath all that gold, so his scales are blue. As the gold falls away and his scales are exposed to the warmth (and air), they turn red with heat and oxygen.
There's no way a creature that large (and as intelligent as dragons are in Tolkien, too) is cold-blooded, as long as you want to mess everything up by bringing science into it
It stands reason to say that if the ratio of invented (and I do mean invented, as much as people like to say the extra material draws from the appendices, there is nothing added in this film that comes directly from the appendices that I can see) material to source material closes in on 50:50, the films are "not really about" the narrative of the original source. This will become more and more pronounced in the last film, when the only narrative from the book the writers will be able to draw from is the various disagreements before and the actual battle of the five armies and its aftermath. Regarding FOTR, the writers have said before that they specifically decided they did not want seventeen years to pass between those scenes (FOTR commentary, I believe). While it's ambiguous in the film, it wouldn't surprise me that the writers might "theoretically" think as I stated.
We see that the Ring has an effect on people if it's not being worn-it makes you desire it. Plus of course Bilbo didn't literally "wear" it all the time-he kept it in his pocket, or in a box at times.
I don't know what to tell you except to look again at your copy of The Lord of the Rings, because here it is, I'm looking right at it. Specifically, the material dealing with the timeline and events of The Hobbit are found in: Appendix A III: Durin's Folk -- a 12-page section in which the history of the Dwarves, Erebor, Moria, Azog, Thror, Gandalf, Thorin, etc. is expansively laid out, and has already been partially adapted in AUJ. Still more of this material will surely make its way into the sequels. Appendix B: Third Age Timeline -- Again the events referring to Erebor, Smaug, Thror, etc. are described and clarified, as are the matters of the White Council, the origins of the Witch King, and the Necromancer/Sauron at Dol Guldur and in Mordor. The years which will have been adapted for AUJ and/or the upcoming sequels, are: 2770, 2790, 2793, 2799, 2841, 2845, 2850, 2851, 2941, and 2942. Depending on Jackson's plans for Hobbit 3, more of the interstitial stuff between 2942 and 3001 (and 3018), also described in this section, may be filmed as well. To claim that the filmmakers have "invented" this material is to ignore what's on the printed page of the ROTK Appendices -- namely, about 15 pages' worth of Tolkien's own writing which clarifies and expounds on the events, backstory and characters of The Hobbit. What Jackson and co. have done is dramatized the events the professor described, cinematically, with dialogue and pacing and music and visuals.That's not invention, that's adaptation. I've listened to/watched that commentary at least twice, and I don't recall that statement being made. I'm not saying Jackson or Walsh or Boyens didn't make it, but would you mind supplying a time signature to support your claim?
Except that Tolkien had literally decades from finishing the appendices to integrate any or all of that into the actual book. And didn't.
On the other hand, there's no way a large blooded carnivore of that size could really sustain itself.
What is this meant to demonstrate, exactly? The material is right there in the Appendices and is not contradicted by any other published material. What is the relevance of your comment? Tolkien began a rewrite of The Hobbit with LOTR references and a "higher" style of prose, but abandoned this as the charm of the original was lost. I don't understand what this factoid is intended to convey.
