Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Elijah Wood will be in 'The Hobbit'
First page Previous page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next page Last page  View All

Junesong
Rivendell


Jan 9 2011, 6:45pm

Post #326 of 379 (37490 views)
Shortcut
I wish there was a like option like facebook [In reply to] Can't Post

because I would like the hell out of your post Bran!

I totally agree!

I've hung out on TORN for long enough to know the very loud dissenting opinion of fans of The Hobbit who are mad that the film won't be a stand alone story like the book is. They are worried that the filmmakers or the *evil* studio are trying to piggyback The Hobbit onto the shoulders of the trilogy for more $ or whatever but that doesn't hold much weight with me.

The fact is that The Hobbit is not a stand alone story anymore - in any form. Even the book has been altered since it's 1937 publication and the story has been absorbed into the amazing mythos of Tolkien's universe.

To not bring this into the movies would be a huge mistake - it makes the story even more epic and it allows for a more grown up tone to the whole thing.

They are still telling Bilbo's story - the casting clearly proves this - but they are going to do it in a way that brings more of Tolkien's Middle Earth to life!

If you want a faithful stand alone Hobbit movie watch the Rankin Bass cartoon - it's actually still pretty good even after all these years! (Even without Beorn)

But we have two years to wait and it's clear as a button now that Jackson and co are making The Extended Hobbit (if you will) so I wonder how much longer we're still going to be hearing the fan backlash of "I wish they hadn't" - hopefully not for the whole two years!

"Tim... Canterbury... Canterbury Tales... Chaucer... Shakespeare."


Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 7:07pm

Post #327 of 379 (28015 views)
Shortcut
Bag End [In reply to] Can't Post

In the 'Tale of the Years' Sam is still living in Bag End. There's a passage which mentions him riding out from there to go to Gondor to see Aragorn. I also thought there was a passage somewhere which refers to Frodo giving Sam the keys to Bag End, although I cannot for the moment remember which text it is in. It may even be in a version in 'The History of Middle Earth'.

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jan 9 2011, 7:21pm

Post #328 of 379 (24818 views)
Shortcut
I think that was in Sauron Defeated [In reply to] Can't Post

It was a sort of epilogue chapter that Tolkien cut from Return of the King, if I recall correctly.


Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 7:27pm

Post #329 of 379 (27538 views)
Shortcut
Quite possibly [In reply to] Can't Post

I get confused, especially after reading 'The History of Middle Earth'. I thought I recalled a paragraph or two about Gandalf explaining his thoughts behind killing Smaug to prevent Sauron using him, but I cannot find where I read that either!

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jan 9 2011, 7:50pm

Post #330 of 379 (27324 views)
Shortcut
That was The Quest of Erebor [In reply to] Can't Post

from Unfinished Tales.


Sunflower
Valinor

Jan 9 2011, 7:51pm

Post #331 of 379 (25255 views)
Shortcut
"Naysayers" [In reply to] Can't Post

This is more or less a reply to you agreeing with you--but I'd like to address our new friends like Bran, Nob, Arda etc

Some of us are not "naysayers" as much as merely VERY concerned, and there are good reasons. I consider myself neither "naysayer" nor cheerleader--my position might be a bit complicated.

Tying TH inside an LOTR "candy-wrapper" Prologue/Epilogue, with a bit of TH "voice-oever" narration by Elijah, does not concern me. If it is done carefully and jusiciously, in that it ensures a smooth flowing of the story, is fine with me. I was always of the opinion that some sort of "tie-in" with LOTR was inevitable, on tghe part of the film-makers--a film franchise/story being much different than the book. And maybe it is for the best, since the four screenwriters had a much more difficult task this time around. At first blush, adapting LOTR seems like the harder task, b/c of its massive scope. But it was a single version of a single dtory, written for adults, with elements that made it more adaptable for modern audiences. But with TH we have a conundrum: which "Hobbit" to use? The 1937 origional fireside-tale for 6 yr old children, which the world fell in love with and which is the basis for every school stage play worldwide down the years, OR Tolkien's later revision of his middle-aged years, seemingly tyoing in closer with LOTR? With its more "adult" tone? (We shall see if this is the case.) And how to sneak in any Unfinished Tales material, if they decided to do so, and I think they may have tried to? SO there isn't even one version of TH.

(Makes me wonder: if the world had been introduced to Tolkien's later version first,, would TH have been as beloved as it has been? The charming sugar-coated tale is qwuite complelling. When you get down to barss tacks, TH is a pretty grim tale.)

I always thought that a happy medium could be reached: the story beginning light-hearted and whimscial as LOTR did, with the Party, and getting darker. Are people upset that this seems to confirm a darker more LOTR-like tone and look and feel to TH, no "whimsy" (and that is a loaded word), that this means the film version of the 1937 Hobbit is dust, or that they don't want a repeat of Jackson's LOTR?

Myself, I had no concerns about the story at the scriptwriting stage. I have no doubts about the team of Peter, Fran, Philippa, and Guillermo to craft a compelling and awe-inspiring tale, every bit as faiythful to the spirit and heart and soul of Tolkien's tale. And I can tolerate some slight deviatins. What concerns me though are elements of the storytelling every bit as important as words on the page. And thismay interfere with the effect of the words on the page.

Statements like" I trust Peter's writing/story-telling abilities as much as I trust Tolkien's writing abilities" are a bit (pardon me, I am not trying to put down anbybody, just stating an opinion) very presumptuous. You have to remember that no film is independant of the times it is birthed in--it does not exist in blank space. Many factors go in to it to make it what it is. TH has had a long and torturous history even before it was green-lit, and thingsd are not going to get easier from here.

The thing that concerns me is that we are working wigth a different person in a different era. 10-12 yrs ago The Peter Jackson that we fell in love with was a solid film-maker with a string of middle-brow "hits" in his pocket: little film gems that had placved him just bubbling under the radar,. He was in that best of times for a film-maker, as for a muscian, in some aspects: when you are enough in the spotlight for people to be noting what you do, but you still have the freedom from heat to be allowed that innicebtly questing spirit, that senese of fun and excitement and adventure. The Peter Jackson we came to know and love was a jolly "hobbit" who was building his kingdom down in NZ and still looked upon the world with a wondering eye--in his film at least. Even HC had its sense of playful mischeviousness in the midde passages of the film. Then the "Beautiful madness" of 2001-03 came and went and we saw him transform before our eyes. Mr Cere I remember wrote a fascinating article about "the new Peter Jackson" a few yrs back. (I widh a link could be found).

But that was before King Kong, before The Lovely Bones, and before all the manifold troubles of TH's birth. Before he became a Mogul. In some aspects, he has not changed--less so than you would think. He is a fascinating dicotomy--a lot more is hidden behind that placid experior than you think,, and maybe the Kiwis have seen more of it than the world at large. Some would argue that this sideof him came out with a bang during the recent labor dispute, and maybe it did, but I think there was also a lot of genuine reactionary and well-deserved angler there.

I think there were many reasons why Jackson did not origionally want to direct. (and maybe why he still doesn;t.) Fear of haivng to top himself (and how much more is that fear now, it will permeate every hour in the editing room). And a desire, perhaps, to hand Middle-Earth off into different hands. Not a passing of the torch as much as a sense that the franchise did indeed need fresh new blood. Many of us don't as much "defer to Del Toro';s opinions" as much as continue to remember and pay homage to the fact that for more than *two years* he was Peter's hand-picked DIRECTOR of this massive project, and such a deciusion is not made lightly. Someday we might ask Peter point-blank why he wanted to hand Middle-Earth off to someone else, at least in the director's chair. Which is a HUGE deal.

It is a director's ethis that pervades an entire project. Even if he (or she) did niot write the thing, it is their look, their vision, that shows up onscreen, if they are an illustragtor it is their vision you see. It;s their DoP, their Art Directors, their production design and FX teams,. It's their worldview that we experience. It's any last-minute script revisions that we get in the final cut (and we know how Peter works on this:). I think that having Del Toro collaberating on the writing phase was the BEST thing that could have happened to Peter, as it reminded him of why he fell in klove with the moviesL: he rediscovered (from what we we have heard of the collabveration) the sense of FUN and JOY, that sense of chilld-like excitement, that it is so easy to lose wheb one becomes a MOGUL--and when your worldview and film-making aesthtics are set in stone,. Let's hopw these elements of the process will survive onscreen.

NOw we have a Jackson who has been gthrough, for better or worse, Pelennor Fields. It reminds me of how the film Mery and Puippin remained hobbit-like ungtil that final battle, which changed them forever. Now Jackson is sans his "brother in arms" director (for whatever reason, though I think it had a lot more to do than scheduling conflicts), and permanently scarred by the Pelennor Fileds of the labor dispute, which IMO went on for far longer than the public saw. And now he has had a confrontationakl meeting with his WB bosses in NZ, and who knows what artistic consessions they got from him? And he is in the exact postion he sought so stringly to avoid: rushing to meet frantic deadlines before a camera has rolled, making up for lost time, under pressure from the studio. struggling tio top himself, and cosncious of the fwct thq Del Toro is *still* mourned by many fans worldwide in this projecft--and the world;s media will betaqlking about TLB and remembering Del Toro also.


THe one aspect of Del Toro that I was eagerly looking forward to onscreen was that he was a man of "OLd WOrld" sensibilty. That is, he is an intellectual in the truw sense of the word--he , unlike many American and British contemporaries (or NZ for that matter) still viewes the world primarily through lirerature, through books--while Jackosn, Spileberg, Lucas, even Coppola and Scorcese and almost every other Hollywod director are products of the TV age: their main cinemastic insopirations are from the world of TV, movies, video. Thwy get the big second-hand. I could go off on tbis, It doesn;t make one better or worse..it;'s a different way of working, that's all.

There are other aspects f Del Toro I could go on about--and since Nob addressed PL I could reply to that, but I won't (yet). For me that's a whole nother topic. But there are those of us who felt that this franchise needed an Irvin Kershner, as Peter Jackson needed to re-discover himself. And he desperately needs that sense of fun and adventure back...and someine to tell him when to rein it in. Fran and Philippa couk do that...but they haven;t ben winning the battles lately, it seems..CGU or otherwise.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jan 9 2011, 8:06pm

Post #332 of 379 (28312 views)
Shortcut
It's in The Return of the King [In reply to] Can't Post

'In the next day or two Frodo went through his papers and his writings with Sam, and he handed over his keys'.

('The Grey Havens')


(This post was edited by geordie on Jan 9 2011, 8:08pm)


Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 8:50pm

Post #333 of 379 (29719 views)
Shortcut
Sunflower, Thanks for that [In reply to] Can't Post

I appreciate your point of view. I really don't want to start getting involved in calling people Naysayers and so on. Tolkien's works have sold hunderds of millions of copies, and yet I doubt any two fans would make exactly the same films. Ultimately, what we all see when we imagine Tolkiens worlds are different. Unless the professor himself was here to settle arguments about what is, and what is not the right thing to do, we'll never know the 'truth'.

I said earlier, that if I had my way, I'd squeeze every tiny piece of Tolkien in from all his works, but that's just my opinion. Copyright prevents that, and so does the movie making process. I'm still a fan of adding in as much of what we know was happening at the time of the Hobbit as possible, others will say that it should be strictly what Tolkien writes about in that one book. No problem, both viewpoints are born out of a love of the material, so it's all good.

Ultimately, my position comes from nearly 40 years of devouring new Tolkien material, and remaining hungry.

When I heard that LOTR was being made into a film, and Bakshi's cartoon came out, I was blown away. I loved it, and remember being so dissapointed when I found out the second half would not be made.

Compare that with what Peter Jackson did, and it's the difference in depth between The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. I'll always love PJ for that.

I'm still hungry. I still want more. And more.

I'm not sure how I feel about GDT. I trusted him, love his films and I'm sure the new films would have been great with him at the helm. I do firmly believe that the whole crew, not just PJ, will give their all in these new films. I'll love much of it, and wince at other biits, I'm sure, but they are just fans too, and that's their view. Mine might be different, but I don't make films!

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi

(This post was edited by Bran on Jan 9 2011, 8:53pm)


Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 8:51pm

Post #334 of 379 (27253 views)
Shortcut
Thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

Ah, thanks for that Geordie. I thought I remembered it from somewhere. I forget the detail that is in LOTR sometimes, having read so many of the other worls.

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 9 2011, 8:56pm

Post #335 of 379 (28284 views)
Shortcut
That's the book. [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought we were talking about the movie...


Quote
In the 'Tale of the Years' Sam is still living in Bag End. There's a passage which mentions him riding out from there to go to Gondor to see Aragorn. I also thought there was a passage somewhere which refers to Frodo giving Sam the keys to Bag End, although I cannot for the moment remember which text it is in. It may even be in a version in 'The History of Middle Earth'.


In the book, as geordie says, Frodo gives the keys of Bag End to Sam before they ride away to the Grey Havens.

Earlier, of course, the hobbits had returned from their adventure to find Bagshot Row destroyed and Bag End badly damaged and full of filth. Sam organises the rebuilding of Bagshot Row and then moves back there while overseeing the repairs to Bag End, while Frodo remains at the Cottons'. When Frodo finally moves back, after Sam has everything ready, he invites Sam to move in with him - at this point Frodo doesn't know that Sam has "spoken" to Rosie and is planning to get married. When he finds out, he invites them both to move in. And then, when he leaves, he gives the keys to Sam - and on the way to the Havens, once Sam understands what's happening, he makes it explicit: "...you are my heir: all that I had and might have had I leave to you."

But that's the book. In the film, there's no Scouring of the Shire - no desecration of Bag End, no heroics to shake the Shire hobbits out of their smug beliefs, no need to Sam to repair Bag End and replant the trees of the Shire. And, as far as I can see, no need to have Sam move into Bag End for us to understand that Frodo has left him "all that I had and might have had" - simple happiness like Sam's is the fundamental thing that Frodo had to give up to save the Shire, and it's what he explicity gifts to him at the Havens ("you have so much to enjoy, and to be, and to do..."). The house is just a symbol of that, in the book. And it's not a symbol that's used in the movie. In the movie, I'd say, it's seeing Sam stay in his own humble home, neither wanting nor expecting any other reward, that makes the final scene so moving. Or at least, it is for me...

Smile

They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 9:02pm

Post #336 of 379 (26366 views)
Shortcut
My apologies, FFH [In reply to] Can't Post

I must have been being a bit thick.

Cool

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 9 2011, 9:10pm

Post #337 of 379 (25731 views)
Shortcut
No argument about that. [In reply to] Can't Post

In fact, if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I never mentioned "belief" at all. I only talked about "imagining". This is, after all, just a story. And stories can be retold many ways, and still be "true" in the ways that matter. I love Tolkien's version too. But I also like PJ's version, and in particular I love having another version of the story - looking at things from more than one perspective is very enriching, I find. But I find it much easier to appreciate the film if I try not to crowbar bits of the book into it, and simply let the film tell the story in its own way. That way, I don't need to decide which version to "believe", or even to choose between them at all - I get to have them both!

But certainly, if you do prefer to mix and match, I wouldn't presume to suggest you shouldn't. Every story speaks to everyone in its own way.

They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



duats
Grey Havens

Jan 9 2011, 9:12pm

Post #338 of 379 (36342 views)
Shortcut
Just to clarify [In reply to] Can't Post

"The naysayers will still be there opening day."

I'm sorry, but comments like this always annoy the cuss out of me.

I never said I'd be boycotting these films. I never said these movies would be horrible and an insult to Tolkien.

I expressed my personal disappointment in some of the choices being made with this project - Elijah Wood's inclusion being the most recent. I, like many others, have the right to disagree with the filmmakers from time to time. As much as I love the LoTR trilogy, there are plenty of changes, omissions, and additions that had me rolling my eyes and shaking my head. Loving the trilogy doesn't mean that I have to love every single aspect about them, nor does it mean that I am obligated, as a fan, to put my absolute trust in PJ from here on out.

I wanted the story told in the present tense. I wanted the story to be able to stand on its own. I wanted no more LoTR tie-ins than what was absolutely necessary. These are individual, personal wishes, mind you. But they explain why I am adamantly against the proposed inclusion of Elijah Wood.

To have story of The Hobbit read by Frodo during the LoTR timeline is absolutely unnecessary. It adds nothing to the story of The Hobbit. All it does is change The Hobbit into a LoTR flashback, and a LoTR prequel/sequel (depending on whether Frodo is reading Bilbo's book before or after the events of LoTR).

The Hobbit already contains enough tie-ins with LoTR as is. We have Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the Grey, Elrond, Gollum, and the One Ring. We see Bilbo meeting Gollum and finding the One Ring - the event that sets up the very events of LoTR. Why do these films need more tie-ins to LoTR other than these characters and this crucial scene?

I am not a naysayer. I haven't condemned the films, and I haven't called PJ a hack. I am simply a fan of The Hobbit who is disappointed with some choices PJ and Co. have made (this includes GDT, who was involved in the script-writing process). I don't appreciate being accused of something I am not. I am no less of a fan for not keeping blind faith in every decision PJ makes.


(This post was edited by duats on Jan 9 2011, 9:15pm)


FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 9 2011, 9:14pm

Post #339 of 379 (30310 views)
Shortcut
No need... [In reply to] Can't Post

to apologise! I enjoyed having an excuse to revisit my favourite chapter of LotR!

Cool

They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 9 2011, 9:19pm

Post #340 of 379 (30869 views)
Shortcut
Why, thank you Sir Dennis [In reply to] Can't Post

That's a great way of putting it - "it is important that the movies remain true to themselves". I guess that is how I feel. Although I also agree with you that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and their own way of seeing the story. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I'm glad you made that point yourself so clearly.


They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 9:28pm

Post #341 of 379 (32316 views)
Shortcut
I wanted no more LoTR tie-ins than what was absolutely necessary. [In reply to] Can't Post

The difficulty, duats, is when it comes down to defining 'absolutely necessary'. It's a subjective opinion - what some people here feel may be 'absolutely necessary' may not be what others feel. What the film makers see as 'absolutely necessary' may not seem so for the rest of us. I know, from watching the appendices, that some sequences they felt were 'absolutely necessary' for the movie version, I did not, and vice versa.

If I remade the flims and they grossed more than the original films, I guess I could say I was right and they were wrong. Until I do that, I can disagree, but have to accept they knew what they were talking about!

Smile

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


duats
Grey Havens

Jan 9 2011, 9:51pm

Post #342 of 379 (31056 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

I think we can all agree that Bilbo stumbling into the cave, meeting Gollum, and finding/taking The One Ring is absolutely necessary.

I think we can all also agree that the inclusion of Gandalf the Grey is necessary.

Outside of that, I really don't know what other tie-ins to LoTR are necessary. You have two major characters from LoTR, and you have the single scene that brought about the events of LoTR. Plus, as mentioned in the past, we also have:

-Elrond
-The Shire and Bag-End
-Rivendell
-The Misty Mountains
-The Eagles
-Balin (mentioned by name in LoTR)

A brief cameo by Legolas, while unnecessary, can at least be argued to make sense - given that he is Thranduil's son and could very well have been present in Mirkwood when Bilbo and the Dwarves passed through. So while I'm not a particular fan of it (mostly because I dislike Bloom), it is relatively harmless (so long as it is a brief cameo and nothing more).

I've already expressed my concerns regarding the White Council/Dol Guldur scenes, so that doesn't need repeating.

I am genuinely curious. What else, in your opinion, is necessary to connect these films to LoTR? I'm not arguing what you said about this matter being subjective. I just honest-to-God can't think of anything else that PJ could think was absolutely crucial - to the point that it HAS to happen.

P.S., your adaptation making more or less money wouldn't make you right or wrong. As that is also a matter of subjectivity Wink.


(This post was edited by duats on Jan 9 2011, 9:55pm)


Mooseboy018
Gondor


Jan 9 2011, 9:54pm

Post #343 of 379 (28846 views)
Shortcut
I agree with basically everything you said [In reply to] Can't Post

but a lot of people seem to forget that PJ was very busy (or supposed to be) at the time the Hobbit was finally starting. He was still working on the Lovely Bones, and he had other projects that he was committed to at the time:

-District 9
-the Tintin movies
-the Dam Busters
-Halo
-a potential video game

Those projects are either done now or never happened, so it's easier for us to say now "well why didn't he just want to do the Hobbit in the first place?" But I'm not saying these projects were the only reason he didn't choose to direct from the beginning.

I don't think it was even really an option for him at the time. What was it? Three or four years ago? A lot has changed since then, and am I the only one that remembers him saying something "now I kind of regret not being the one directing it"? I think he said something like that in the last year or so as the script writing process was underway. He was obviously getting sucked into Middle-earth again, and I think he wanted to stay longer. Not that he regretted GDT being involved.

I wish I could find where/when he said that.


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Jan 9 2011, 9:57pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 9 2011, 9:55pm

Post #344 of 379 (29620 views)
Shortcut
Making Bilbo's journey more powerful than it is in the book. [In reply to] Can't Post

Just what do you think is weak about Bilbo's journey as it was written?

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Bran
Lorien

Jan 9 2011, 10:17pm

Post #345 of 379 (37896 views)
Shortcut
OK, I'm repeating myself, too..... [In reply to] Can't Post

Firstly, the point about the films gross value was meant to explain how you measure their success. If the films attract a lot of paying customers, they have been successful in the eyes of the filmmakers. Now yes, technically, they could be very poorly attended, lose money and still be loved by a few Tolkien fans and the critics and you COULD call that successful but.....anyway, I digress.

As for essential, as I said earlier, I see Balin's story as essential. If it's not covered, you end up with a major character who seemingly lives happily ever after at the end of the Hobbit, turning up dead somewhere else in FOTR.

For me, the White Council stuff is essential. Gandalf disppears in the Hobbit, meets up with Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and so on, and launches an attack on Sauron. Not told in the Hobbit, and not seen in LOTR, so needs to be told.

I'd go further. I'd want an explanation of why the Dwarves turn up at Bag End in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to be allowed to see that part of the story.

Legolas, for me, is far from essential. He MIGHT have been present when Bilbo's party passed, Tolkien doesn't say either way. Aragorn (as Estel) MIGHT have been at Rivendell when they passed, as might Arwen, but these facts tell us nothing. No story, no exposition, nothing. To me, they are unnecessary. Story pertaining to how and why the quest for Erebor came about, Sauron's story/White Council, Balin, even how Frodo came to be with Bilbo, are important, and fill in lots of detail.

To me, essential, but as I say, it's subjective, and that's just one fan's opinion.

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 9 2011, 10:26pm

Post #346 of 379 (30669 views)
Shortcut
Thanks geordie [In reply to] Can't Post

You saved me from quoting the whole chapter.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


duats
Grey Havens

Jan 9 2011, 10:30pm

Post #347 of 379 (28775 views)
Shortcut
Here's another question [In reply to] Can't Post

Frodo will be reading "There and Back Again," so we are seeing the events of The Hobbit as written by Bilbo.

So given this format, how are they going to make the White Council and Dol Guldur scenes work, given that Bilbo wasn't present for those events? How would he have them recorded? How would he know what all was said? Or how they drove the Necromancer from the tower. I doubt Gandalf would have told him every single detail regarding the Council and their seige on Dol Guldur. To my knowledge, all Gandalf told Bilbo of the whole affair was that he went away to deal with the Necromancer - without getting into too many specific details. I'll have to double check.

If the events of The Hobbit were being told in real-time, and not strictly through Bilbo's eyes, this wouldn't be an issue.


(This post was edited by duats on Jan 9 2011, 10:35pm)


duats
Grey Havens

Jan 9 2011, 10:41pm

Post #348 of 379 (27212 views)
Shortcut
Regarding Balin [In reply to] Can't Post

All we need is one line from Balin detailing his plans to return to Moria.

As for the White Council/ Dol Guldur scenes, considering these events were not addressed at all in the LoTR trilogy, I don't think they are altogether necessary.

Gandalf going in and out of the narrative not only keeps emphasis on Bilbo and the Dwarves, but it adds tension to the story (the Company is without their powerful guide). His comings and goings can be chalked up to the fact that he is a wizard, and has other dealings around Middle-earth. I think not knowing where he is adds mystery to the character, and thus makes him more compelling and wizardy.

Just my opinion, of course. I love Balin, and making mention of Moria would certainly be welcomed. But we don't need to actually see him journey there after-the-fact.


(This post was edited by duats on Jan 9 2011, 10:43pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 9 2011, 10:45pm

Post #349 of 379 (29189 views)
Shortcut
Just Say Nay! [In reply to] Can't Post

It is really interesting how these events turn and how people, blinded by their desires, feel free to cast those who do not agree with them into categories of convenience. I willfully say nay to many things he see expounded on these pages. I also say yes upon occasion.
Now when is it that the thirty seven fully armed Mumakils show up at The Battle of the Fife Armies? Is that before of after Smaug is resurrected and the Balrog from Moria comes out to join the battle?

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 9 2011, 10:54pm

Post #350 of 379 (27748 views)
Shortcut
It appears that the only non-essential things that might be included in these two films [In reply to] Can't Post

are the events that actually take place within the book.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket

First page Previous page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.