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:
Why the Rings of Power will HAVE to be discussed in these movies by THe Council, just as the book says.

AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 23 2013, 11:23pm

Post #1 of 23 (1098 views)
Shortcut
Why the Rings of Power will HAVE to be discussed in these movies by THe Council, just as the book says. Can't Post

It maybe could have been avoided, save for a key moment in this first film.. . a very astute and perspicacious Wizard saw Bilbo slip a golden trinket into his pocket while preveracating on the matter of his escape from the goblins. . . the Wizard not only notices, he is concerned, enough that he decides the dwarves don't need to inquire any further into the matter, and hastens to negate the subject. Having done this, the film makers now all but HAVE to give a plausible reason for Gandalf not to be all over Bilbo about the Ring henceforth. The only way to do that is to make it clear to everyone that there "are many Magic Rings in this world," and that while "none of them should be used lightly", some certainly are less a cause of concern than others. Many of us have seen the B-clip of Saruman discussing The Dwarf Rings. My guess is that it is a scene which we WILL be seeing in the subsequent films, and there will be more talk of The Ring, the other Great Rings, and the lesser rings besides. The Audience will need to be reminded not to be hasty, and that there is still every reason to believe that Bilbo's little ring that makes you invisible could still be nothing more than one of the many lesser magical rings, not even obvious as A Great Ring let alone The Ruling Ring.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


The Mitch King
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 4:39am

Post #2 of 23 (508 views)
Shortcut
How much? [In reply to] Can't Post

How much would you want to see? Like a whole history or just mentioned a bit more?


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 24 2013, 5:12am

Post #3 of 23 (464 views)
Shortcut
It could go either way for me. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not set on one way versus the other, but it will need to be discussed in some manner for the two reactions to be reconciled (i.e. concern absent certainty).

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 24 2013, 9:42am

Post #4 of 23 (409 views)
Shortcut
I know... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm not set on one way versus the other, but it will need to be discussed in some manner for the two reactions to be reconciled (i.e. concern absent certainty).



That many people do not like the idea because they want a clearer cut between the Hobbit and LotR.

But I think after AUJ there is no turning back - we will get a six piece Middle-earth saga rather than a seperate Hobbit and LotR.


That is why I agree that the rings should be in there through a second WC scene - I still hope for a shock moment in the Council when Gandalf tells them about Sauron. And then possibly Galadriel starting to speak: "The Enemy... Sauron... Annatar... the traitor..." Depending on what they are allowed to use it could be a flashback including more of Sauron's history (which would nicely show just HOW terrible his return is, even though the major conflict with him won't happen for another 60 years) or be strongely focused on the rings (I would prefer the former, as I think Sauron is more important to the story and the rings should be mere tools of his doings).

It could also be done via explanation only (which might be the case seeing the Saruman B-roll stuff) - but it should be done in a rather simple way. The most important thing is that they are portrayed in connection to Sauron and how he uses them to strengthen his control. It would be catastrophic for the storytelling if the normal audience start to get confused over what ring does what etc. Then it would be better not to mention them at all.
The One has to remain in the audience's mind as the "super ring" or the way it was shown almost as a character in itself in LotR will not work as nicely anymore looking at the 6-movie cycle (that is what Lucas messed up big time with trying to explain the Force). But they managed to pull that off with Galadriel's ring in FotR, so I am positive on that.


(This post was edited by Arannir on Jan 24 2013, 9:45am)


Lightice
Lorien

Jan 24 2013, 11:17am

Post #5 of 23 (375 views)
Shortcut
I think that the DoS prologue would be the most natural place to discuss about the Rings. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm all but certain that all the three films will start with old Bilbo's narration, and it would be good if one of them would concern the Rings and how they relate to dwarves. This could also be used to explain why neither Bilbo nor Gandalf figure out that there's something special about the One Ring. I'm thinking something along these lines:

"Long ago many magic rings were made in this world. Most, like my old Ring, were simple things that could make you strong, or fast, or invisible. But there were also a handful of Great Rings that could turn the fates of entire nations. Many of these Rings were corrupted by evil before they were passed on to their owners. Dwarves are a hardy race, made of bones of the earth, but even they are not always immune to deception, and sometimes evil bears a fair guise. But the dwarves proved too strong and stubborn to be corrupted, and the Rings that brought them great wealth and prosperity could do nothing but strengthen the vices they already had. And so, evil sought to do with violence what it couldn't achieve by deception. Dragons and goblins attacked the kingdoms of dwarves and over centuries most Rings were lost or destroyed, until only one remained, and it, too, dissappeared with Thorin's father, Thrain. But the ancient evil that had first given the Rings and then taken them away was long gone and forgotten, or so we thought. For little did we know, as our minds were only concerned with the Mountain and the Dragon, that the same dark force was once again awakening in the dark depths of Mirkwood, mere hundreds of miles from where we were, at the time."


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 24 2013, 11:57am

Post #6 of 23 (361 views)
Shortcut
In general... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I like the idea.

I just see the potential for massive confusion among the regular moviegoer: "Okay, Thror had some sort of "sickness of the mind"... then we hear of a ring he and Thrain had... but wait - didn't that other ring also lead to a sort of "sickness of the mind" and drove Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo almost mad? And isn't Thrain mad because of sorrow? So was it greed with Thror - or is it that ring-story again? And in TABA, what's with the dragon-sickness of Thorin?"

That kind of confusion has to be ommitted. It does not help, really, that Tolkien never really explained how exactly the power of the rings actually works or can be used.

But you are right, if they manage to explain that the Seven helped the Dwarves to forge and sustain their kingdoms and that they were used as tools by Sauron to gain control, then it might sperate them strongely enough from the other "issues" Thorin's family developed.


stoutfiles
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 1:40pm

Post #7 of 23 (350 views)
Shortcut
Rings need to stay away [In reply to] Can't Post

The book didn't cover the rings...why must the movie?

the Wizard not only notices, he is concerned, enough that he decides the dwarves don't need to inquire any further into the matter, and hastens to negate the subject.

The same thing happens in the book, he realizes something is off but doesn't delve further into the matter. The key is he knows Bilbo found something, and if it's helping him on this suicide quest that Gandalf signed him up for, then so be it. If Gandalf really wanted all the facts, he would have forced them out of Bilbo right then and there in both the book and movie, but it wasn't worth it.

Please note there will be an EE scene or future scene where Gandalf asks what Bilbo found, and he says "my courage". So he does try but finds that Bilbo doesn't want to talk about it.

The only way to do that is to make it clear to everyone that there "are many Magic Rings in this world," and that while "none of them should be used lightly"

That's already covered in FOTR. Also, please note that this movie, while being first in the timeline, is being shot with the notion that everyone has already seen LOTR.

My guess is that it is a scene which we WILL be seeing in the subsequent films, and there will be more talk of The Ring, the other Great Rings, and the lesser rings besides.

Boy I hope not. We already know about the rings, why do we need to be reminded? The more you talk about the Rings, the more we're going to wonder why Bilbo isn't getting obsessed with his One Ring of Power.

The Audience will need to be reminded not to be hasty, and that there is still every reason to believe that Bilbo's little ring that makes you invisible could still be nothing more than one of the many lesser magical rings, not even obvious as A Great Ring let alone The Ruling Ring.

If you're watching this first, you will have zero reason to believe his ring contains the fate of Middle-Earth. If you're watching this after LOTR, you already know it's the One Ring and you already know the history of the Rings. Not knowing at all is best, knowing and not being reminded is good. Knowing and hearing the same ring story over again is bad.




Arannir
Valinor

Jan 24 2013, 2:07pm

Post #8 of 23 (327 views)
Shortcut
It is not a MUST... [In reply to] Can't Post

.... I think, but a way to connect the Hobbit more to the history of Middle-earth in general.


You can, of course, ask as well: if the Hobbit as a book did not need that connection, why does the movie?

Well, a movie that does not want to fill out the blanks would not need that - but that is not what PJ and Co opted for - no matter whether you like the expansion or not. Therefore, if the rings can be used to make that connection (without being redundant links to LotR) - why shouldn't they us them?

If one accepts (or even likes) the expansion of the story, the rings actually become quite useful tools, as they connect Sauron, the White Council and the Dwarves in a way few other story elements do in the story (given that they ommitt the possible confusion I mentioned in earlier posts).


burgahobbit
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 2:15pm

Post #9 of 23 (350 views)
Shortcut
Watch this video! I think the rings are in! [In reply to] Can't Post

Unless they cut this out or something, things are looking great for the seven rings of power! Go to about 0:21 seconds in to the video to hear Saruman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiodRjlAvos


Lindele
Gondor


Jan 24 2013, 2:19pm

Post #10 of 23 (339 views)
Shortcut
Actually [In reply to] Can't Post

Gandalf did not see him slip the ring in his pocket. The ring was already in Bilbo's pocket and when he was trying to explain his escape he moved his hand down to his pocket, and Gandalf noticed.
He was definitely curious, but it was not in any way insinuated that Gandalf definitely knew it was a ring.

In the "How The Hobbit Should Have Ended" Cartoon, however, Gandalf did see Bilbo slip the ring in his pocket.


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 24 2013, 3:06pm

Post #11 of 23 (311 views)
Shortcut
He does have it in his hands though... [In reply to] Can't Post

... the audience can see it as well, so should Gandalf.


stoutfiles
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 3:09pm

Post #12 of 23 (290 views)
Shortcut
Anyone who wants to know, will [In reply to] Can't Post

If one accepts (or even likes) the expansion of the story, the rings actually become quite useful tools, as they connect Sauron, the White Council and the Dwarves in a way few other story elements do in the story (given that they ommitt the possible confusion I mentioned in earlier posts).

I'd say the Rings are an extra layer to the story, but the moral of the Hobbit was that greed leads to bad things. If we put all the blame on the rings, then it cheapens that moral. Technically it was never Thror's fault, or Thrain's fault, or possibly Thorin's fault if he ends up having the ring on his person in the movie.

The more the rings are discussed, the more we branch away from what The Hobbit is all about. If anything, they should add to the LOTR prologue on what the Rings do and how many Sauron has in a EE edition, so people who are still oblivious can figure it out without ruining The Hobbit. In the world of information we live in today, I'd say anyone that really wants to learn about ring lore has already done so themselves.



Arannir
Valinor

Jan 24 2013, 3:25pm

Post #13 of 23 (294 views)
Shortcut
Who said the rings will be blamed for the greed? [In reply to] Can't Post

The movie surely would have made that connection already if it wanted to and not speak about a "sickness of the mind".

No, I think the morale how greed leads to bad things will be very popular in the movie - it already is with the Prologue and when Thorin takes his turn for the worse in TABA, there should be no question about that morale anymore (one rather has to be careful not to mention it 10000 times).

I just meant, one has to be careful to avoid any potential confusion when it comes to the sources of madness in the movies: greed for Thorin and Thror, the Ring for Gollum (and to some extent Frodo and Bilbo).

And it is also not an education in ring-lore alone. As I said before, it connects Sauron (regaining power in the world; gathering power and influence, also via the rings), the White Council (with their knowledge of the rings AND Sauron) and the Dwarves (one of the origins of their wealth, obviously the "family" connection to Thorin because of the imprisonment of Thrain).

Therefore, imho, a potentially very useful tool to tell an expanded Hobbit story.


For the telling of the story of the Hobbit (the book), it will remain rather useless, of course. But that is not the movie PJ and company are doing anyway.


Lightice
Lorien

Jan 24 2013, 3:29pm

Post #14 of 23 (297 views)
Shortcut
With the Necromancer in the picture, there is little choice. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The book didn't cover the rings...why must the movie?



The necessity of the Seven Rings is directly tied in with the Necromancer subplot, as I have explained numerous times. In the books Gandalf's quest is a completely separate adventure that has little connection to the Company, except in Gandalf's original motivation for helping them a bit, and in sharing a bit of the same geography.

That will simply not do for the films. Gandalf's story cannot be detached. It must be connected with the dwarves with every plot thread that can possibly be tied in with them. The Seven Rings are one of the these elements, literally the only thing that bring Sauron and dwarves together into one plot in the books.They are also a vital part of the story of Thrain, which will still definately play a part in the trilogy in one shape or another. Bringing up the Seven Rings will solve many problems, although I'm not in the camp that suggests that Thorin would possess one of the Seven in the film storyline.

Gandalf will canonically find out about Bilbo's Ring, so it needs to do so on screen at some point, and there needs to be an explanation why he doesn't immediately see the inherit danger. Hence, we need a brief reference to the Lesser Rings. People will want to hear more about Bilbo's Ring in general, whether or not they already know the full story or not. Just having it be there would be a waste, and PJ has already stated that the Ring will have a subtle effect on Bilbo in the subsequent films.

Overall, your main argument is rather weak. The book didn't cover Azog or the Necromancer, either, but the films do. You need to accept the fact that the story will be expanded from the book and will feature many subjects that it didn't directly touch, if they fit the setting and the themes.


Tintallė
Gondor


Jan 24 2013, 4:47pm

Post #15 of 23 (293 views)
Shortcut
I beg to differ [In reply to] Can't Post

From my perspective Bilbo had the ring in his right hand, just having taken it off his left, and slipped the ring into his vest pocket when asked how he got away. Gandalf saw the glint of gold as he did so, just as I did.


Azog
Bree


Jan 24 2013, 5:12pm

Post #16 of 23 (258 views)
Shortcut
thats how [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw the scene play out as well,it will be interesting to see how that plays out


imin
Valinor


Jan 24 2013, 5:25pm

Post #17 of 23 (253 views)
Shortcut
This :) [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
From my perspective Bilbo had the ring in his right hand, just having taken it off his left, and slipped the ring into his vest pocket when asked how he got away. Gandalf saw the glint of gold as he did so, just as I did.



jimmyfenn
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 11:09pm

Post #18 of 23 (187 views)
Shortcut
heck [In reply to] Can't Post

..why not just chuck the history of the silmarils in there aswell!!

although it is a bit annoying, it will definatly be in the films now, you have to connect them two trilogies up and dwarf rings were the basis of the hoards of gold!

"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 25 2013, 12:42am

Post #19 of 23 (185 views)
Shortcut
A good assesment. [In reply to] Can't Post

And I am inclined to agree on most of your points, especially in the first half.

In Reply To

In Reply To
I'm not set on one way versus the other, but it will need to be discussed in some manner for the two reactions to be reconciled (i.e. concern absent certainty).



That many people do not like the idea because they want a clearer cut between the Hobbit and LotR.

But I think after AUJ there is no turning back - we will get a six piece Middle-earth saga rather than a seperate Hobbit and LotR.


That is why I agree that the rings should be in there through a second WC scene - I still hope for a shock moment in the Council when Gandalf tells them about Sauron. And then possibly Galadriel starting to speak: "The Enemy... Sauron... Annatar... the traitor..." Depending on what they are allowed to use it could be a flashback including more of Sauron's history (which would nicely show just HOW terrible his return is, even though the major conflict with him won't happen for another 60 years) or be strongely focused on the rings (I would prefer the former, as I think Sauron is more important to the story and the rings should be mere tools of his doings).

It could also be done via explanation only (which might be the case seeing the Saruman B-roll stuff) - but it should be done in a rather simple way. The most important thing is that they are portrayed in connection to Sauron and how he uses them to strengthen his control. It would be catastrophic for the storytelling if the normal audience start to get confused over what ring does what etc. Then it would be better not to mention them at all.
The One has to remain in the audience's mind as the "super ring" or the way it was shown almost as a character in itself in LotR will not work as nicely anymore looking at the 6-movie cycle (that is what Lucas messed up big time with trying to explain the Force). But they managed to pull that off with Galadriel's ring in FotR, so I am positive on that.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 25 2013, 12:52am

Post #20 of 23 (175 views)
Shortcut
I have seen the movie 7 times. He sees him slip it into his pocket. [In reply to] Can't Post

He is watching, and the camera moves for the Audience to see what he sees. Bilbo slipping some small golden object into his pocket as he also fumbles for an explanation of his evasion of the goblins. Gandalf then quickly moves the conversation forward.

And, to another posters comments. . . it becomes a glaring problem and feeds the sort of gag reels that the recent "how it should have ended" cartoon is an example of. If no other rings are mentioned until Fellowship (and that seems unlikely), including lesser Rings which are "round and unadorned" but do minor magics like granting added strength or invisibility, as Lightice commented, then a lot of questions begin to be asked, and the vigilant Wizard looks like he has started slacking. What seems best and most likely is that there is some discussion of Rings, and of The Great Ring, and Gandalf perhaps posits a query as to how well accounted for The Great Rings are. What are the chances of one being found by chance? To this Saruman would assure no such chance could happen, and that while it would not be unheard of for someone to, from time to time, stumble by fortune upon one of the many lesser rings, "early trifles of The Elves before Sauron taught them the mastery of the craft. . . baubles of minor magic, able to aid one's speed, or to bestow added good fortune, or to evade unfriendly eyes, but void of any consequential power." That at least would allow the matter to lie more easily in the mind of the audience.

In Reply To
Gandalf did not see him slip the ring in his pocket. The ring was already in Bilbo's pocket and when he was trying to explain his escape he moved his hand down to his pocket, and Gandalf noticed.
He was definitely curious, but it was not in any way insinuated that Gandalf definitely knew it was a ring.

In the "How The Hobbit Should Have Ended" Cartoon, however, Gandalf did see Bilbo slip the ring in his pocket.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 25 2013, 12:58am

Post #21 of 23 (188 views)
Shortcut
There is a ring that is likely a Ring on Thror's finger in that prologue. [In reply to] Can't Post

It actually bears a more than passing resemblance to The Seven as they were shown in Fellowship and the replicas thereof. I don't know how far they will go with that, though it would bear heavily upon Thrain's capture.


That said, some blame would still lie with The Dwarves. The Ring drove Thror mad and Thrain to folly, but it did so by enhancing a fault they already had. . . greed. It simply took more normal greed and made it unbearable and all consuming, and the end result, in response to the prior poster's concern, remains the same in the tenor of moral. . . unchecked greed and desire for wealth is an unwise and dangerous thing. The same can be said for The One Ring and the desire for power. It is oversimplification to suggest that The Ring or The Palantir turned Saruman to wickedness. The desire for Power did that. Gandalf and Galadriel, directly tempted with the same object, make a very different, personal decision.

In Reply To
The movie surely would have made that connection already if it wanted to and not speak about a "sickness of the mind".

No, I think the morale how greed leads to bad things will be very popular in the movie - it already is with the Prologue and when Thorin takes his turn for the worse in TABA, there should be no question about that morale anymore (one rather has to be careful not to mention it 10000 times).

I just meant, one has to be careful to avoid any potential confusion when it comes to the sources of madness in the movies: greed for Thorin and Thror, the Ring for Gollum (and to some extent Frodo and Bilbo).

And it is also not an education in ring-lore alone. As I said before, it connects Sauron (regaining power in the world; gathering power and influence, also via the rings), the White Council (with their knowledge of the rings AND Sauron) and the Dwarves (one of the origins of their wealth, obviously the "family" connection to Thorin because of the imprisonment of Thrain).

Therefore, imho, a potentially very useful tool to tell an expanded Hobbit story.


For the telling of the story of the Hobbit (the book), it will remain rather useless, of course. But that is not the movie PJ and company are doing anyway.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Brethil
Half-elven


Jan 26 2013, 6:55pm

Post #22 of 23 (121 views)
Shortcut
Why Gandalf would let this ring slide a bit [In reply to] Can't Post

The EE scene you speak of would play very nicely, as Bilbo did become secretive for the first time in his life concerning the little gold ring. Worrying perhaps to Gandlaf, but not earth shatteringly so. A fact perhaps to be filed away, like lumber in the yard.

To Gandalf the pedigree of Bilbo's "little ring" would certainly not immediately be presumed to be a Ruling Ring as its known effects to date upon Bilbo would be completely novel, UNLESS one had intimate knowledge of Gollum (which at this point Gandalf does not.). As the One gives power "according to one's stature" no one to date would know what it did for little people. They would only know its effect upon Sauron and upon Isildur. One disagreement I have with FOTR is showing Isildur becoming invisble; I don't believe he would have, based upon his charactar. Instead reference Boromir waxing to Frodo at Tol Brandir about how he could use the Ring to stride mightily across the field of battle and lead as no one had ever done before....(I'm paraphrasing here).This implies that Boromir is describing what did indeed happen to Isildur when he used the Ring. Of course I understand the theatrical need to keep the effects consistent, as to avoid confusion. But upon a Man, a great warrior as was Isuldur despite his other shortcomings its effect would have enlarged his shape, strengthened his voice to nigh irresistable. Thats how it would have betrayued him ultimately, through feckless bravery, by creating a visible and reckless target who would take no precautions and fear no enemy.
I like Saruman's persistent and "logical" negation of danger in the White Council scene. I think its his mind already having studied too closely the arts of the enemy and seeking to dissuade any acknowledgement or discussion of Rings, as perhaps he has already formed the thought to find the One himself, ostensibly not for evil, perhaps; but thus the road to hell glitters. Having Saruman insist the One has rolled into the Sea and is lost forever, thus defending his view that Sauron CANNOT return might make sense, as he attempts to negate an advance upon Dol Goldur.

...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.


Brethil
Half-elven


Jan 27 2013, 2:00am

Post #23 of 23 (148 views)
Shortcut
Addendum [In reply to] Can't Post

....or does Unfinshed Tales refer to invisibility specifically in one of the death of Isildur tales? Thought it was about camp being attacked without guard. Sorry can't remember....if so there goes most of my argument...!

...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

(This post was edited by Brethil on Jan 27 2013, 2:06am)

 
 

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.