|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 5, 5:52pm
Post #1 of 6
(60 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Filling a Plot Hole: The Founding of the Shire
|
Can't Post
|
|
It struck me the other day that there is a huge plot hole in Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth universe that I can’t recall anyone ever discussing before, a plot hole introduced in his Hobbit trilogy. How does the Shire come to be if Sauron did not inhibit the Dol Guldur until late in the Third Age?
We learn in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that a new Power has taken control of the old fortress of Dol Guldur in the southern region of Greenwood Forest that the locals have begun to call Mirkwood. Dol Guldur was built on the site of Amon Lanc after the site had been abandoned by the Elves of the Greenwood in the Second Age in response to rumors of the rise of Sauron. The fortress, possibly constructed by the Men of Númenor before the War of the Last Alliance, had been abandoned for centuries and was seemingly only recently re-occupied as discovered by the wizard Radagast the Brown.
Now, hobbits first enter the knowledge of Men in the Third Age as a small, secretive people dwelling in the Vales of Anduin along the banks of the River Anduin. It was only around Third Age 1050 that Hobbits began to flee westward because of the rising evil in the Greenwood. In the continuity of the Peter Jackson films, Sauron, as the Necromancer, doesn’t come to the Forest until many centuries later, so what impelled the hobbits to leave the Anduin Vales?
I can only speculate, but what if Dol Guldur was inhabited in the early Third Age, not by Sauron, but by Orcs under one or more of his servants? Little, if any, of this is directly supported by the films; however, we do get some interesting information from Brian Sibley’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Official Movie Guide (2013; HarperCollins) as Alan Lee and John Howe discuss how Dol Guldur was designed for the films:
‘We’ve treated it [Dol Guldur] as being an ancient place,’ explains Alan, ‘that might have been built by the Númenóreans and later taken over by Orcs and finally moved into by the Necromancer.’
I’m not certain that Orcs alone in southern Greenwood would be enough to drive the hobbits westward, but the presence of a greater evil in the form of one of the Nazgûl might turn the trick. In this revised timeline, around the year 1050 a group of Orcs takes control of Dol Guldur under the command of one of the Nine (perhaps Khamûl, the Black Easterling). This prompts the hobbits to leave the Anduin Vales, eventually to relocate to Bree and, later, to found the Shire. After the end of the North Kingdom the Nine, united under the Witch-king of Angmar, are defeated at the Battle of Fornost and buried in tombs located in the High Fells of the Misty Mountains. At this time Dol Guldur is abandoned again.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Feb 7, 9:34pm
Post #2 of 6
(50 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Dol Guldur must have been in some other sinister hands prior
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just by dint that it's called a name so baleful as "Dol Guldur" would suggest it has, as Dan Hennah said, "a grim past."
Basically, most of the tweaks they did to the chronology don't necessarily need to impact their Middle-earth's history in any discernable way. Dol Guldur can be occupied by Sauron's servants at the date that the book gives it as being taken over by Sauron himself, thereby maintaining the essential order of events.
Likewise, in their version Angmar survives much later down the line: the Nine are imprisoned "when Angmar fell" only some 400 years prior to An Unexepected Journey, but you can easily have the downfall of Carn Dum take place when it's supposed to take place and the have the Nine holed-up somewhere, besieged, even after Angmar ceased to really exist as a threat.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 8, 2:17am
Post #3 of 6
(46 views)
Shortcut
|
The name Dol Guldur might not have been given to the fortress until circa Third Age 1050. Before that it might have been known under a different name. And, though I proposed that Dol Guldur had come under control of one or more of the Ringwraiths, it might instead have been commanded by a Black Númenórean servant of Sauron, perhaps even an ancestor of the Mouth of Sauron. Of course the evil reputation of the fortress could have begun even earlier than I've suggested, Sauron's forces could have originally seized control of it during the War of the Last Alliance only for it to be abandoned for centuries after the Dark Lord's defeat.
Another mystery introduced by the entombment of the Nine is how the line of Anarion ended. Obviously, in the continuity of the Peter Jackson films, King Earnur of Gondor could not have been done in by the Witch-King as the Lord of the Nazgul.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 8, 2:28am)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Feb 8, 12:33pm
Post #4 of 6
(39 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, Dol Guldur could have fallen to enemy hands in any number of ways
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A good candidate would be one of those Easterling invasions when Gondor lost control of that area: in the logic of the films, it's a Gondorian fortress.
I don't see the issue with Earnur: he dies from a wound at the hand of the Witch King long before the point in the film timeline when the Witch King is incarcerated.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 8, 5:04pm
Post #5 of 6
(36 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't see the issue with Earnur: he dies from a wound at the hand of the Witch King long before the point in the film timeline when the Witch King is incarcerated. I would like to know your source for your previous statement that the Fall of Angmar in the film universe takes place very much later, well after the death of King Eärnur of Gondor. We do know that the discovery of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur marks the end of a "Watchful Peace" of four hundred years in the films, but how do we know that the Fall of Angmar, and not some other event, marked the beginning of that peace? What we do know that in the original legendarium, the fall of Angmar takes place in Third Age 2975, forty-eight years before Eärnur gains the throne and a full fifty-five years before Eärnur accepts the challenge of the Witch-king and rides out to what would become his death (or undeath?). Granted, changing the timeline is the easiest way to avoid a problem here, I just don't have a source for your alleged change. My own proposed film timeline included the following events:
1975: King Arvedui of Arthedain drowned in the Bay of Forochel. The Witch-king is nearly defeated at the Battle of Fornost until the rest of the Nine come to his defense. The Kingdom of Angmar is pushed back, but persists for another five centuries. At some time between 1975 and 2300 Angmar makes war upon the Woodland Realm and the Elf-queen is killed in Gundabad.
2463: The White Council is formed. The Nine are defeated by the Dúnedain (possibly with the aid of the Wise) and are entombed at the High Fells in Rhudaur. About this time Déagol the Stoor finds the One Ring and is murdered by Sméagol. If we assume that you are correct then the last King of Arnor in Peter Jackson's continuity would probably be Aragost, son of Arahad I, canonically the eighth Chieftain of the Dúnedain of the North. Aragost's death would then be moved back to around the year 2540, give or take a few years.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 8, 5:52pm
Post #6 of 6
(34 views)
Shortcut
|
I wanted to add a bit more after my quote but delays due to the bot infection of the boards prevented me from editing my post. Here it is:
This proposal does leave room for the death of King Eärnur, though possibly taking place in Angmar rather than Minas Morgul. I really wanted to avoid making a radical change to the end of the North-kingdom of Arthedain.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
|
|
