|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thorinoakenshield
Rivendell
Feb 11 2013, 10:49pm
Post #1 of 28
(1407 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A probably pointless thought
|
Can't Post
|
|
I saw the Hobbit for the third time on Sunday, and I noticed something probably really pointless but I thought I would post it any way. When old Bilbo is talking to Frodo at Bag end, Frodo tells Bilbo that people are talking about tunnels filled with gold at Bag End. Then Bilbo says something like 'It was one small chest, and it still stinks of troll'.So when the dwarves are at the troll cave, they bury a chest of gold. I think that instead of Bilbo getting two chests from Smaugs lair, he will go back to the troll cave on the way back and get that chest that the dwarves buried.
|
|
|
florian
The Shire
Feb 11 2013, 10:57pm
Post #2 of 28
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not sure if this is accurate or not
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I think in the book both Gandalf and Bilbo end up a chest a piece. They go back to cave on their way home and retrieve them. Probably in the movie the chest in question is the one Gloin buries.
(This post was edited by florian on Feb 11 2013, 10:58pm)
|
|
|
The White Wizard
The Shire
Feb 12 2013, 12:19pm
Post #3 of 28
(762 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you are right. I think when Bilbo is returning to the Shire, he will get a treasure chest from the troll cave. It will probably be the one that is buried by the dwarves. But Bilbo might still get a chest from Smaug's lair because he spends so much money trying to replace the stuff that the Sackville-Bagginses sold which might explain why he only has one chest left at the time of that scene. It also might explain why the Sackville-Bagginses think he has so much gold because he was able to buy all that stuff. Or maybe they just happened to see the chest on one of their snoops around Bilbo's house.
True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 12 2013, 8:08pm
Post #4 of 28
(692 views)
Shortcut
|
Bilbo took his share of the treasure: The Arkenstone. Technically he wasn't owed anymore than that. He gave it away but that was his choice. Once Gloin and the others got their share they would have no reason to make that dangerous journey back for the treasure they buried.
A clever change by PJ that I don't find much fault with.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Feb 12 2013, 8:16pm
Post #5 of 28
(699 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Arkenstone was never his to take
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
His contract said 1/13 of the total profit, not sneaking off with a priceless, sacred gem.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 12 2013, 8:34pm
Post #6 of 28
(682 views)
Shortcut
|
The contract never speculated what treasure he wasn't allowed to take nor did it specify the order that treasure would be selected. He called dibs first and took it. In a court of law it would have held up, assuming The Arkenstone is not worth more than the fraction of the treasure he was entitled to. According to Thorin it was but it would need to be appraised for a legal ruling. So for now, technically, yes, it was his to take.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Feb 12 2013, 8:53pm
Post #7 of 28
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it's pretty safe to say that the Arkenstone...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
was worth a lot more than 1/13 of his promised part of the profit. I know you hate Thorin, and that may cloud your judgement here 
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 13 2013, 5:55am
Post #8 of 28
(635 views)
Shortcut
|
but I think in the book both Gandalf and Bilbo end up a chest a piece. They go back to cave on their way home and retrieve them. Probably in the movie the chest in question is the one Gloin buries.
In the book, Bilbo is given two small chests, one filled with gold and one with silver. Bilbo and Gandalf do stop at the troll lair and retreave the treasure they and the dwarves buried, but they split it between themselves.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
florian
The Shire
Feb 13 2013, 9:57am
Post #9 of 28
(646 views)
Shortcut
|
I was thinking I wasn't remembering something.
As far as what was stated in another post about Bilbo Taking the Arkenstone and that being his portion of the treasure, I am fairly certain that it was stated that only the Arkenstone was not allowed to be claimed because Thorin himself declared it his. It was a symbol of the Royal House and he would never allow it to be carted off by a Hobbit or anyone else for that matter. Bilbo knew it was the Arkenstone that he he had found (maybe not right away but eventually) and that Thorin was looking for it specifcally.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 13 2013, 2:45pm
Post #10 of 28
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
It was a symbol of the Royal House and he would never allow it to be carted off by a Hobbit or anyone else for that matter.
Wouldn't matter, they wrote up an extensive contract that Bilbo signed. Legally it would be fine. Of course, the contract wouldn't physically protect Bilbo when Thorin eventually threw him off a cliff.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 13 2013, 2:51pm
Post #11 of 28
(609 views)
Shortcut
|
There is A LOT of treasure there. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have lots of gold that I could spend over one gem that I couldn't. It's rare and it's shiny, but how much would anyone be willing to pay for it other than Thorin?
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 13 2013, 3:05pm
Post #12 of 28
(726 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, Bilbo found and pinched the Arkenstone before Thorin brought it up and made it off-limits. Even then he had a feeling that he would likely not be allowed to keep it. Of course, once Thorin made a big deal out of finding the gem, poor Bilbo didn't quite know what to do with it until he started to formulate his plan to broker peace between the Dwarves and the Elves and Men.
I wonder if Bilbo wasn't given any gems or jewels when he left because the Dwarves didn't quite trust him with such things after the Arkenstone incident or if it was a reflection of dwarvish humor? More likely, he simply refused anything beyond those two chests.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2013, 3:19pm
Post #13 of 28
(608 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sure, he's entitled to his "share",
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but i doubt very much that as a hired hand he'd get to choose what treasure was his share. Especially when that share would include a gem with incalculable historical and cultural significance, and would be considered "priceless".
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Feb 13 2013, 3:37pm
Post #14 of 28
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
In the book, from the letter Thorin leaves on the mantle:
"Terms: cash on delivery, up to and not exceeding one fourteenth of total profits (if any); all traveling expenses guaranteed in any event; funeral expenses to be defrayed by us or our representatives, if occasion arises and the matter is not otherwise arranged for."
In the film, I don't think Bilbo reads the whole thing aloud for us, it appears quite lengthy. But the term "cash" to describe the form of payment he is entitled to receive is among the things he does read. Thus, the contract in no way gives him the right to single-handedly select any non-cash item of value as his own.
Personally, I always thought book-Bilbo's uneasiness about his own actions regarding the Arkenstone reflected his awareness that his initial taking of it was not justified.
|
|
|
florian
The Shire
Feb 13 2013, 10:48pm
Post #15 of 28
(586 views)
Shortcut
|
it was his uneasiness about what he was doing with the Arkenstone that led me to believe he knew it was not included in the treasure that was acceptable for him to claim. Esp after he became aware that Thorin was searching for it specifically.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 14 2013, 12:10am
Post #16 of 28
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Then why did they have a contract?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The contract was there so no assumptions would be made. What we did was perfectly acceptable as per the terms of the contract that they all agreed upon.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 14 2013, 12:10am
Post #17 of 28
(583 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, it was because he knew Thorin was crazy and would try to kill him
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Which is exactly what happened.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 14 2013, 12:23am
Post #18 of 28
(571 views)
Shortcut
|
Considering it doesn't state the currency being given, that leaves it open to interpretation. Bilbo could easily argue that someone uses precious metals as currency.
Note that Bilbo ended up taking treasure home for him instead of dwarven currency, so the treasure IS considered cash.
|
|
|
florian
The Shire
Feb 14 2013, 12:32am
Post #19 of 28
(569 views)
Shortcut
|
|
well, this is an area that is open for different interpretation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One person sees it one way and another sees it in a different way. Thorin wanted the Arkenstone. HE certainly never intended that it was included in the treasusre that could be claimed by Bilbo, even if Bilbo was not aware of that--contract or not. But this is my interpretation and I don't expect everyone will see it my way which is the wonderful thing about the movie--people can muse on things and come up with their own conclusions without the director telling what to think.
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Feb 14 2013, 2:29am
Post #20 of 28
(563 views)
Shortcut
|
The contract never speculated what treasure he wasn't allowed to take nor did it specify the order that treasure would be selected. He called dibs first and took it. In a court of law it would have held up, assuming The Arkenstone is not worth more than the fraction of the treasure he was entitled to. According to Thorin it was but it would need to be appraised for a legal ruling. So for now, technically, yes, it was his to take.
I disagree. I'd assume he was contracted to be part of Thorin's party. Being entitled to 1/14th of the total share doesn't mean he gets to take whatever he wants up to 1/14th of the total value, in fact more likely than not it wouldn't. It would more likely mean he gets paid 1/14th share by the people he contracted with, meaning they would likely choose the form and if it says cash, that means whatever form of legal payment whether it be coins, jewels, etc but I'd think it would be the choice of the head of the party he's contracted to join and that person would I assume be Thorin Oakenshield. Thorin I think would basically be his employer, even if they are splitting the value by equal 14ths.
Not to mention Bilbo could be held to be essentially breaking good faith - the Arkenstone is a national treasure of the Dwarves of Erebor and it naturally being considered that, as it's a sign of royal office, it would NOT be included in his possible prize. It is pretty much literally a "priceless jewel". It is worth more than the rest of the treasure combined in that sense and courts do take those sorts of things into account sometimes.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 14 2013, 1:40pm
Post #21 of 28
(560 views)
Shortcut
|
Note that Bilbo ended up taking treasure home for him instead of dwarven currency, so the treasure IS considered cash.
That is not what is written:
In the end [Bilbo] would only take two small chests, one filled with silver, and the other with gold, such as one strong pony could carry.
There is nothing to indicate that the gold and silver were not in the form of coinage, which is as I have always assumed: One chest of gold coins and another of silver coins.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 14 2013, 6:13pm
Post #22 of 28
(552 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gold and silver aren't useful currency
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There is nothing to indicate that the gold and silver were not in the form of coinage, which is as I have always assumed: One chest of gold coins and another of silver coins.
When the metal it's made with is worth more than the amount it represents, it ceases to be used as currency. The value of those coins is entirely in the metal, it doesn't matter what the coin label says anymore. He took home gold and silver, not X number of coins at a value of Y.
|
|
|
florian
The Shire
Feb 14 2013, 10:22pm
Post #23 of 28
(543 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not to be beating a dead horse but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
gold and silver coins were useful enough in our own history. If the metal a coin is made from is worth more than the amount the coin represents, the coin would not cease to be used as currency. The owner of said coin would be able to purchase more for his money than with a coin not as valuable. Its like when financial analyst say things like the dollar was down against the pound. The dollar may only be worth .92 cents where as the pound might be worth $1.02 in comparison. Someone from England could exchange his pounds for more American dollars whereas an American tourist would not be able to trade his dollar for pounds and have the same amount of money that he exchanged for. Besides that, unless I am mistaken, gold is still the standard used to judge a currency's worth.
(This post was edited by florian on Feb 14 2013, 10:23pm)
|
|
|
florian
The Shire
Feb 14 2013, 10:56pm
Post #24 of 28
(527 views)
Shortcut
|
I am wrong about gold being the standard for today's currency although in the past this was true. I will have to check this out.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Feb 15 2013, 3:40am
Post #25 of 28
(528 views)
Shortcut
|
If the metal a coin is made from is worth more than the amount the coin represents, the coin would not cease to be used as currency.
Except that is what would happen. Hypothetically, if a gold coin is worth $20 dollars, but the metal is worth $100, and the cost to melt it down and sell it was $30 per coin, what would you do? The coins would be melted down at $50 profit, and some of the profit will buy more coins, and this would repeat until there are no coins left and you are very rich (this is technically illegal but people would do it). For that reason you should never make a coin that is worth more than the value prescribed. The U.S. has adjusted the % of metals in its coins to offset rising metal values to avoid this, although the penny is still made at a loss. Silly wasteful coin.
As for the gold standard, yes, the U.S. moved away from that a long time ago. We like to manipulate the economy by printing money we can't back up with anything. Nice in the short term but it's going to bite us soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
1
