|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.Ithilwen.
Rivendell
Aug 15 2009, 5:40pm
Post #1 of 7
(4149 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Controversial Movie Timeline???
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, yesterday evening I was watching the Fellowship. And I noticed something a bit odd. When Gandalf goes to Minas Tirith and reads Isildur's "journal/scroll thingy" it's read year 3434 of the Second Age and Isildur talks about the finding of the Ring of Power. But I double checked my timeline and the siege of Barad-Dûr begins then, but the battle goes on for another 7 years. Isildur doesn't isn't actually in possession of the Ring until 3441.
Am I the one missing something here? Because this has really been bugging me...
Live...Love...ROCK!
\m/
9500 words (and growing!) of pure fandom:
http://www.lotrfanfiction.com/viewstory.php?sid=12544
|
|
|
One Ringer
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2009, 3:27am
Post #2 of 7
(3749 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Isildur claims the Ring in 3441 ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now, I haven't watched the films in well over a year, but if I recall correctly, somewhere in the quote it says something along the lines of "and my finding of the One Ring of Power". Now, perhaps the year 3434 isn't the exact date, but the beginning of the tale. It's hard to word, but I'll just assume that it is an honest mistake in the writing of the film. Perhaps someone else would like to elaborate?
(This post was edited by One Ringer on Aug 16 2009, 3:29am)
|
|
|
LordotRings93
Rohan
Aug 16 2009, 3:36am
Post #3 of 7
(3750 views)
Shortcut
|
What you said, One Ringer. It said "and". So, I am assuming it was written together, the what happened in the Year 3434 and the year of Isildur finding the Ring (3441). As was stated, maybe some accidental overlooked writing by the script makers.
The HUGEST Lord of the Rings fan ever!
Owner of all Lord of the Rings merchandise.
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."
|
|
|
One Ringer
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2009, 6:17am
Post #4 of 7
(3711 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for the confirmation LoR93 ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think in the end it depends on how you view it all. I think it's a little bit of a general explanation, and perhaps a mistake. Who knows.
|
|
|
.Ithilwen.
Rivendell
Aug 16 2009, 1:16pm
Post #5 of 7
(3717 views)
Shortcut
|
"The Year 3434 of the Second Age. Here follows the account of Isildur, High King of Gondor and the finding of the Ring of Power."
Live...Love...ROCK!
\m/
9500 words (and growing!) of pure fandom:
http://www.lotrfanfiction.com/viewstory.php?sid=12544
|
|
|
One Ringer
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2009, 4:15pm
Post #6 of 7
(3739 views)
Shortcut
|
"Here follows". Right there we know that this isn't what takes place in 3434, but what takes in 3434 and beyond. Probably would have worked better if they had made specific references.
|
|
|
Randalin
The Shire
Aug 17 2009, 9:06pm
Post #7 of 7
(3977 views)
Shortcut
|
I've read somewhere that it's no mistake, but a deliberate change in the story. There is no siege in the movie, so they had to change the year to 3434, because it was then they came, fought and triumphed over Sauron.
Of course they could have changed it the opposite way so that they came in the year 3441, but thats just a question of choices.
That is - as I remember it - the explanation of the changing of the year.
Look out for me, especially at unlikely times.
|
|
|
|
|
