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:
Will The Hobbit make LOTR redundant? (Long Post!)


Feb 25 2013, 12:50pm

Post #1 of 16 (1172 views)
Will The Hobbit make LOTR redundant? (Long Post!) Can't Post

or (is The Hobbit Trilogy feeding The Lord of the Rings Trilogy or is The Lord of the Rings Trilogy feeding The Hobbit Trilogy?)

First off, I'd like to state that I've really enjoyed AUJ and am still in awe at the production level - which fits so well with the Rings Trilogy. The subtle connections and references made between the two stories really added a special touch to my viewing and I am confident that the next two installments will be of similar if not better quality. That said, I do have my own small criticisms with the film and still believe that AUJ isn't quite on the same level of FOTR (though extremely close).

That out of the way, I'm fascinated by how the audience will/is/has been perceiving the two Trilogies in relation to each other and as stand-alone stories.

Let me explain ...

It seems to me that to viewers who have not yet seen the Rings Trilogy will affect the way in which they experience it, if they see The Hobbit first.

So, coming to the title of the post: "Will TH make LOTR redundant" ... most, if not all of us appreciate the genius of The Lord of the Rings and many scenes through the Trilogy sparkle with their perfectly crafted effectiveness and execution. However, now that we are presented with the prequel to that story (and this can already be seen in AUJ), will certain scenes from TH (which somewhat reflect some scenes in LOTR: be it the music, camera work, dialogue, etc) undermine those very same scenes in Rings?

How is this affected if a viewer has seen TH before LOTR?

Some examples ...

Now we must first assume that our viewers in question have no knowledge whatsoever of the story, characters, motivations, etc and that they will be viewing any of the two Trilogies without any prior knowledge of the books.

Example 1: Introduction to Saruman
In The Fellowship of the Ring, as Gandalf prepares to whisk away Frodo from Bag End, he briefly mentions that he must see "the head of my Order" and that "he will know what to do". To me, that short piece of dialogue already sets my mind in anticipation, to see who this character might be. We are later introduced to Saruman at Orthanc and Christopher Lee's presence as he walks down the stairs and greets his "old friend" is both a powerful and striking scene. We are drawn in to explore further this character's role in the whole story.

In An Unexpected Journey, the introduction to the wizard is of a more-or-less similar situation. This great and powerful voice greets Gandalf at the White Council - clearly to the disappointment of the grey Wizard (for some reason or other) and yet, we are still intrigued by this character and wish to know more about him.

In both cases, we have a very similar way of introducing the character. But if one were to watch any film first before the other, how will this affect the entire film itself?

In my case, having seen FoTR first, I had no knowledge of Saruman's treachery and therefore, that scene at Isengard played in a certain way. Once I saw the entire Trilogy and now just witnessed that scene in AUJ at the White Council - I perceived Saruman's entrance in a very different way from someone who would have seen The Hobbit before The Lord of the Rings.

As soon as I heard Lee's voice in Rivendell, a smile beamed across my face and a chill ran down my spine as I recalled his actions in The Lord of the Rings and the impact he had on THAT particular story (thus also understanding why AUJ's Gandalf was so concerned at hearing his voice).

So for me, the scene in AUJ had a very specific and particular effect. But what if a newcomer decided to watch The Hobbit first and then The Lord of the Rings; when he/she would come across these two same scenes in a different order, what would be the reaction? Surely different, since the viewer has yet no knowledge of Saruman's treachery.

So, is The Hobbit aiding the numerous classic scenes now part of cinematic history in The Lord of the Rings, or "weakening" their effect due to the chronological viewing order of the two Trilogies?

Example: Elrond, Rivendell and Galadriel
Similar to Saruman's example, the first time we witness Elrond in The Fellowship of the Ring, he greets an injured Frodo and welcomes him to Rivendell. In the scenes that follow, not only do we get our first glimpse of Elrond, but also of the beauty of Imladris. The short montage of Frodo and the other hobbits walking around this enchanted place was/and remains a mesmerizing experience in my mind - especially the first time I witnessed it on the big screen.

In The Hobbit, we are similarly taken back to Rivendell through Bilbo's exploration and with such a scene accompanied by a very familiar score (a variant from the one used in FOTR) we witness again the beauty of Rivendell. But to someone like me who has already seen Rivendell in the "sequel" (I dislike that word in this case but it helps in explaining the situation), the AUJ scene plays out differently than a first-timer who does not know this place.

Once again, very much like Saruman, it was a spine-tingling moment to re-witness the magic of Rivendell in a different story as it where - but would that take away the "purer" magical scenes found in The Fellowship of the Ring - for someone who watches TH first?

Let's also not forget that breathtaking moment when the Fellowship comes across Celeborn and Galadriel for the first time. The cinematography, editing and acting of that scene helped create a moment of suspense as we (the audience - much like the Fellowship), are blinded by this strong light as our curiosity increases to see the faces of these two Elves.

In AUJ, (using once again a very similar score to Galadriel's theme), Elrond and Gandalf look on towards the Elven lady as she turns round in splendour. Probably not as powerful as in FOTR - a beautiful moment nonetheless.

Now, considering I have no idea what The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings are about and decide to watch all six films in order, I might be awed by AUJ's introduction to Galadriel but most probably, the moment in FoTR won't have as much impact as a first-time viewer since they would already know who's behind that bright light.

This raises another pressing question. Are Peter Jackson and the writers aware of what they might be achieving or undermining through 'The Hobbit'?

Example 3: Gollum (... and the One Ring, of course)
Yet another character that spans across the two Trilogies, in Gollum's case, this issue gets a bit more complex.

Our first real introduction to Gollum in the Lord of the Rings takes place in FoTR - but during the prologue and the Moria sequence. Both instances help establish the creepiness and the sinister feel that surrounds this character. We are ultimately fully introduced to him in The Two Towers in a beautiful camera swoop down the rocks as Gollum prepares to jump upon Frodo and Sam.

From my own experience, seeing Gollum for the first time in TTT (also in FoTR) was a very spin-tingling moment. His voice, his movements and appearance all contributed to a powerfully chilling sensation - wondering at what this thing is and what will it do to our protagonists.

In AUJ, as we see Gollum emerge from the darkness to grapple at the goblin, I remember the sheer joy and grin I had as an all-time favourite character returned on screen. In fact, the entire cinema theatre was filled with a sudden stirring and mumbling as all the audience present welcome with a smile his sudden appearance.

Now, it is my reasoning that for someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of both stories and watched The Hobbit first, and comes across the Riddles in the Dark sequence, their attitude towards Gollum would be different: perhaps fear? or other sensations similar to what I first felt when seeing FoTR/TTT for the first time?

Suffice to say, if that same individual then proceeds to watch The Lord of the Rings, those two shots in FoTR might have two effects:
1) The element of mystery is lost since the viewer would know what that creature is and what it looks like, his motivations (for the Ring), etc
2) Intrigue at how know character (from the Riddles in the Dark sequence) will be involved in this other Trilogy

So far, almost all examples seem to favour LoTR and put The Hobbit scenes in not such a good light (not at all). As I referred to earlier, I believe AUJ (and hopefully both DOS and TABA) will be on the same level (or almost) of Rings.

However, when it comes to the introduction to the One Ring (speaking from my personal viewpoint) I find the Trilogy's roles reversed.

Throughout The Lord of the Rings, the filmmakers cleverly manage to give the Ring a character of its own and emphasise the evil that it is tied to. So when I first saw AUJ and witnessed that shot of the Ring falling out of a struggling Gollum, the meaning of that one moment was electrifying. That single instance made all the difference in the world and the impact and significance of it all was so much powerful - and obviously made possible because of my viewings of The Lord of the Rings.

Having prior knowledge of the One Ring and the evil that is procured to the characters and inhabitants of Middle Earth in Rings, that small moment in The Hobbit was almost monumental.

Obviously, the disadvantage of someone seeing TH before LoTR would be that they would miss out on such a significant scene. Only later, once they have gone through the entire story would they realize what that one single instance really meant for Bilbo, Frodo and everyone else tied to its fate.

Example 4: Shore's Score
Obviously, I won't go into how beautiful Howard Shore's score is in AUJ and how much it ties in with LoTR - others have done that before me. However, I will talk briefly about these "repetitive" tunes.

Almost everyone knows now about the infamous (for some) moments when Thorin faces Azog (with the flare of the Ringwraith theme), or Gandalf talking to Galadriel about Bilbo ('The Breaking of the Fellowship'), etc, etc. And in a way, I have to agree - it DOES make you cringe a bit that some of the most beautifully composed music and crafted scenes in The Lord of the Rings, find an odd reference in The Hobbit.

My main scene for discussion is the Thorin/Azog moment - which in my opinion is one of the highlights in AUJ but is somewhat "spoilt" by that brief introduction of what I refer to as the Ringwraith theme (though I can't recall it's actual title). Upon my first viewing, I was suddenly drawn out of the story for a moment as I heard the very familiar tune from Rings - and I couldn't quite place it within this TH context; awesome moment though it be.

After several more viewings, those few seconds of "distortion", just before Thorin charges towards Azog, still remain but have somewhat lessened. If this were viewed by someone who has never seen The Lord of the Rings, the scene will no doubt play out as correctly as expected, with no disharmony whatsoever. The problem might arise though once that individual comes across the same tune in LoTR and the same disharmony might take place.

On the other hand, one moment I very much enjoy and cherish from AUJ is the scene where Bilbo spares Gollum's life. That particular instance, as he holds Sting against Smeagol's neck and falters - reflecting on this poor creature, is accompanied by the familiar theme played during Frodo and Gandalf's conversation about that same event in Moria. Having seen LoTR before, I can appreciate all the more this scene in TH and understand better the effects that this has on both stories.

If someone watches Bilbo's scene in TH first and then the one in FoTR, the effect might very well be the same vice-versa. Recounting both the same events in two different stories but with the same score, seems to "balance" the situation and provides for a rare instance where one Trilogy complements the other - no matter in what order they are first watched.

Many other examples of course exist throughout the films, such as: the introduction to the Shire (and Hobbits), returning characters such as Legolas, the Ringwraiths, etc. No doubt that the such connections will increase drastically once films 2 and 3 are eventually released.

Will all this affect the legacy of The Lord of the Rings for future generations? How is it comparable to the Star Wars franchise (I've never seen all the films so I cannot really say, but the two 3-film structures has been done in a very similar way)?

So, to clarify the post's title: "Will TH make LOTR redundant?" is mainly a reference to first-timers in Middle-Earth rather than the already established fan-base through The Lord of the Rings.

Should we love The Hobbit films for laying the foundations of The Lord of the Rings films? Or should we be wary of the undermining effects they may have on The Lord of the Rings? (Not on us, those who have experience LOTR before the Hobbit, but for any newcomers to Middle-Earth.)

Lots of questions ... questions that need answering ...

Let's Discuss! (unless I'm the only one who's delving too deep in this matter! Crazy)

'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' Review


Feb 25 2013, 1:05pm

Post #2 of 16 (540 views)
Depends on the order you watch, I suppose [In reply to] Can't Post

Due to the many ties to LOTR in the first film alone, I've already decided that I will present these films to my future kids in the current "LOTR, then Hobbit" order.

I don't think it's as bad as you describe, but I do think the films will be better viewed in the opposite order based on all the curtain calls. It's definitely not as bad as the plot twists ruined if you watch Star Wars Episodes 1-3 first.


Feb 25 2013, 1:13pm

Post #3 of 16 (541 views)
I think... [In reply to] Can't Post

... AUJ hit the balance between starting a new story and doing fun side-kicks to the established movies quite well.

It is a really thin line that I always considered to be a problem for the Hobbit even before they actually did it. Because you do not want to bore people with an introduction that repeats the earlier movies... but you cannot just expect your viewers to know about Hobbits and Middle-earth.

There is not really a "best" way to reach this balance, one will have to make compromises.

In many ways, "Phantom Menace" was much more radical - it did not really play a role whether you knew Episode IV-VI or not (of course, it had a huge impact the other way round and totally changed the dynamics of some story archs).

Will the Hobbit influence the viewing experience for those who have not seen LotR first? Yes, of course. In a connected movie saga, this will always be the case unless you do something that has almost nothing to do with each other anymore. But will it make many scenes or introductions in LotR redundant or less effectful? No, I do not think so. Because the feel and the look is distinguished enough so you will not be forced to compare all the time. Actually, I think this generation who will see the Hobbit first might even have quite a blessing to not naturally compare them all the time, as we do now.

(This post was edited by Arannir on Feb 25 2013, 1:16pm)

Grey Havens

Feb 25 2013, 2:01pm

Post #4 of 16 (510 views)
I don't think so... [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think it is really possible to say for us (who have seen the LotR movies) but my guess is that for a hypothetical new viewer to the franchise, seeing any one of Peter Jackson's four (at present) "Middle Earth" movies will lessen the impact of any of the others in the future. This is partly owing to the stunning visuals they all share, partly to the music they all share, and partly to the presence of characters who appear in several movies.

So for us FotR was an amazing experience - but this was in part because it was our first.

Your examples (naturally, given your thread title) emphasize where you feel "Hobbit" would undermine the LotR experience for a new viewer. I would like to end with an example where I feel they will have the opposite effect. Consider your third example, that universal audience reaction of a smile and murmurings when Gollum shows up on the screen in AUJ. I would suggest a new viewer of LotR, having watched "Hobbit", would have the same reaction of seeing something familiar and much loved again, to the first strains of the Shire theme in FotR, and the first sightings of Bilbo, Frodo, and the landscape of Hobbiton. Which was not the same as our wonder that it was even possible that we were seeing these characters and places on a movie screen, but may in its own way be as satisfying.


Feb 25 2013, 2:21pm

Post #5 of 16 (513 views)
Viewing orders [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
Due to the many ties to LOTR in the first film alone, I've already decided that I will present these films to my future kids in the current "LOTR, then Hobbit" order.

I don't think it's as bad as you describe, but I do think the films will be better viewed in the opposite order based on all the curtain calls. It's definitely not as bad as the plot twists ruined if you watch Star Wars Episodes 1-3 first.

I've actually devised a possible way to watch the Star Wars series for the first time WITHOUT ruining the twists via leapfrogging between both trilogies (ideally, I, IV, II, V, III, VI). I haven't been able to try it out on anyone yet, and the person would have to be OK with non-linear storytelling, but it's worth a shot, and it changes said revelations slightly, since in IV we're led to believe that Anakin will die, while in V the 'big one' becomes not OMG, Vader is Luke's father! but rather OMG, Vader is actually Anakin! Shocked Then the sibling twist is moved up to the end of III rather than halfway through VI. Of course, after this first viewing I'd still say all subsequent viewings should be in numerical order.
As for this Middle-Earth saga, since, as with SW, I have no choice but to see them in production order for on first viewings, that's how it'll be. But I'd also prefer to watch them chronologcial order on all subsequent viewings (once they're all out on video, at least). As for the order to recommend one for watching them for the first time, I still don't know.


Feb 25 2013, 2:56pm

Post #6 of 16 (494 views)
The popular order [In reply to] Can't Post


No plot points ruined, you get a Anakin flashback right after the Vader plot twist, and the best part: no Episode 1. Episode 1 adds nothing to the story whatsoever and can be omitted without hampering the story at all.


Your order is improved on what Lucas wanted, but it still ruins the good Yoda plot twist.


Feb 25 2013, 3:46pm

Post #7 of 16 (444 views)
Viewing order [In reply to] Can't Post

I always go by publication/release date order. Chronological order is over-rated :P

Introducing it to my kids (if I ever have any) might be problematic, because they will come of 'Hobbit' age sooner than The Lord of the Rings. But then again I can't be so sure of that, because by the end of the Hobbit, I think the heavy themes are going to go over young viewers' heads anyway, so I guess I'll just stick to Lord of the Rings when they are 10-ish, then The Hobbit immediately afterwards :P


Feb 25 2013, 4:17pm

Post #8 of 16 (436 views)
Thank you for a fascinating thread [In reply to] Can't Post

This is such a wonderful topic Arandir, and you do it justice. Some thoughts I had, point by point:

Using "introduction" in a different way, let me first discuss the introduction of ME to newbie viewers (NBVs) through culture and landscapes.

Erebor, though it has its blur issues, is unique, magnificent and distinctly almost alienly different than human culture or anything humans would have made. The giant Dwarf lords, streames of unmined gold, a glimpse of Dwarven runes and bold artwork in stone; those narrow dizzyingly high walkways that so many races would find perilous and terrifying are comfortable to earth-bound Dwarves whose feet are heavy and sure. In addition and seperate from meeting the Company (which gives NBVs a quirky and complex view of Dwarf personas) this gives the NBV a real sense of history and vailidity to Dwarf culture. Moving forwarc with this information into LOTR will enhance Gimli so much, as well as give NBVs a much more poignant feel for Moria, Gimli's grief, Balin's tomb. And by showing a glimpse into some of the mistrust and anger between Dwarves and Elves, we add weight both to the hostility between Legolas and Gimli and underscore the miracle of their friendship later on.

Hobbiton, in all its green growing goodness (alliteration alert, sorry) is a lovely primer into whjat those silly furry Hobbits are all about. It shows peace, prosperity, calm. Does it show their resilience, strength, inner will? No, and it shouldn't. We will see Bilbo grow and change, and we will see dark places but it isn't BILBO that goes there in AUJ himself, but Frodo will later on. So for NBVs this will be part of the evolution of the heart of the LOTR canon, the growth and ultimately the sacrifice of the everyman's hero. I think seeing Frodo young, careless and happy in both films will set the stage for his ascent to heroism and his descent into failure.

The introduction of Saruman in the Council scene gives us a sense of conflict, certainly, but not a definite sense of "evil" associated with Saruman (canon correct for us,as such irrelevant for NBVs). We see a rather stubborn, masterful man, at odds with his fellow Wizard. His motives and the heart of the conflict remain hidden, so for NBVs this is anither mystery to be solved later on in LOTR. Seeing them interacting as strained friends does not detract from the later betrayal. I think it will give NBVs either a sense of surprise OR a sense of "Oh I knew it" when the truth is revealed at Isengard. Either way it will enhance the attack by Srauman. The Palantir may or may not make an appearance in DOS. Aside from any other considerations if it does NBVs will be thrilled to see it in Orthanc.

The presentation of Rivendell conveys the magic, I think, to NBVs. I think they are very able to see that in human terms this can be seen as a Paradise (note different than the more alien world of Erebor). It feels very alive. The magnificent shot of the falls in the moonlight, the water flowing around the Council, and the intimacy of the dinner scene make it alive and real. A wonderful contrast to Rivendell 60 years later when the leaves are falling, and it feels beautiful but distant. NBVs of the philosphical bend might notice the falling leaves and their symbolism.

In AUJ Elrond we finally get "kind as summer". That wonderful warm smile HW gives Elrond, his respect for Thorin, his patience and generosity towards the Company are summery Elrond. An amazing and perfectly played contrast to the Elrond of fall that we see in LOTR. I think the softer Elrond we see on AUJ will underscore the grimmer Elrond we see speaking about the Ring and in the Council of Elrond later on. For NBVs the change in Elrond will accent the peril of ME, because of the darkening of his mood.

Galadriel. Hmmm. here is a bit of a problem. Her being "the one to whom Gandlaf is answerable" and her uneartly beauty and sense of hidden power does indeed change her status (for us, from canon) and makes her seem a bit more important and powerful than Elrond and Gandalf and perhaps even Saruman. The shot of her turning is stunning, but it has made her a goddess. I do not think that perception will be changed. Aside from that essential point, which is an issue for canon fans but perhaps not so much to theater fans, I do not think that NBVs will be disappointed to see her in Lothlorien. They will get to see a whole new cast of characters respond to her, and with their personalities and issues so well played it will give them more insight, I think, into the Fellowship becuase of the goddess-like wisdom she has been given (NOT valuing that other than in present discussion of NBV perceptions) and their imaging within it.

The introduction of Gollum in AUJ is simply picture and word perfect. Just based on that I think it will enhance any NBVs experience if they watch in order. The menace and instability of Gollum is artfully established. We have the introduction image issues in FOTR of course, but I think NBVs will get a thrill realizing its Gollum lurking in Moria. And as you point out in TTT when he comes down the wall the "mystery" will be gone, but in its place is the chance for the NBV to be "in the loop" and get to see how Frodo and Sam deal with this scary charactar they already know.

The sight of the Ring was so fraught with weight and power. For you, as you said, knowing the Ring's history and nature impacted you (and me Arandir!!! I gasped as it arched through the air!!) primarily because of the foreknowledge. I think for NBVs it will be a journey of discovery, of mystery-solving, when in FOTR they finally know the Ring's story and see it on Sauron's hand, so I think AUJ and LOTR can be a bit different but reciprocal in sharing a wonder for the Ring, no matter what order it is watched in.

The score points you discuss are my weakest area. I adore the score and play it in the car so often....but I am in danger of beinf one of those I May Not Know Art but I KNow what I LiKe people. I am fascinated by Magpie's gifted analyses of score but don't understand it all. I do know I loved hearing the Ring's sugnature, and thatb other pieces are used but until I have DVD couldn't address this as much.

So I think over all that although there are some key misrepresentations present in the films, AUJ WILL enhance LOTR in a sort of intriguing, mystery-solving and revealing way, in a fashion that we (going LOTR to Hobbit) would not see it. I think for many NBVs especially young ones this will be very satisfying. Maybe they will read a book (joy!) Where mystery is removed I think all the charactars will be enhanced.

I expect these films to be MUCH better effort than Star Wars, which were so weak (as Stoutfiles correctly points out). The excessive use of coincidental threads, flat dialogues and charactar pandering lost me early on. Can only watch the last 35 min of 3 with any pleasure.

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

(This post was edited by Brethil on Feb 25 2013, 4:24pm)

The Shire

Feb 25 2013, 5:03pm

Post #9 of 16 (379 views)
interesting thoughts ;) [In reply to] Can't Post

They did, of course, cater to the people who saw The Lord Of The Rings trilogy first (which is of course the right way to go). If they knew they were gonna do the Hobbit at some stage they would have probably handled it differently but how could they have known?

For people new to the franchise they should definitely start with The Lord Of The Rings first to have a greater overall experience but I think they did an awesome job making it a great experience to watch the Hobbit first and then The Lord Of The Rings afterwards (oh what a happy day will it be when all Extended Editions are released^^ :))

Thus, I am very happy that they catered more to the Lord Of The Rings-familiars xD Such amazing feels in the cinema - goosebumps all around ;)

But I have to say that when I watched FOTR after having seen The Hobbit 1 in the cinema I got shivers down my spine when Gandalf and Frodo discussed Bilbo not killing Gollum in Moria - in this case it really works both ways imo ;)

Tol Eressea

Feb 25 2013, 6:19pm

Post #10 of 16 (354 views)
Really good analysis Brethil [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with you completely. the whole Galadriel thing is really quite interesting and you made some great points there about how she is now a super goddess type being. That will be interesting upon future viewings of the trilogy. We obviously have yet to see things played out but she will obviously be the main character behind Sauron being tossed from Dol Guldor in the end. I think she foreshadowed this obviously with Gandalf when she says "if you need me call on me and I will come" or something to that effect.

I do think there are parts of LOTR now enhanced by AUJ and The Hobbit overall. We have all discussed those in the past. Bilbo's sparing of Gollum now gives extra poignancy to the scene in Moria where Gandalf admonishes Frodo about pity staying Bilbo's hand. PJ brilliantly, and expertly, took that phrase out of Bag End in the book where Gandalf is talking to Frodo before they even left the Shire and put it in Moria. This is critical I think for NBV's as it highlighted it and showcased it in it's own setting and gives the NBV the relevance of Bilbo's pity and act of mercy. That was an absolute brilliant move by him and now that whole scene with Frodo is enhanced because we have seen with our own eyes Bilbo sparing Gollum and in so doing setting in motion the destruction of the ring. That scene had to be spot on and it was. It's the single event in all of the stories, the fulcrum if you will, on which the story turns. I think LOTR is now greatly elevated by us having seen that. We know it having read the books, but Jackson's isolating it mid story and now having seen the pity of Bilbo I think makes it better and more cohesive for the NBV.

Also, I think because we have seen the dwarves quest at Erebor both Gimli and Balin (who's tomb we see in Moria as well) are much more elevated perhaps for the NBV as well. NBV's may have felt "bad" for Gimli as he cries at Balin's tomb but now having seen Ken Stott's Balin all of us, as well as NBV have a deeper perspective of the dwarves, their efforts to reclaim their homes, and their loyalties and also their grudges (vis a vis the elves for instance) in the story as a whole.


Feb 25 2013, 6:31pm

Post #11 of 16 (403 views)
I Don't Even Know Why I'm Posting... [In reply to] Can't Post

I just like to throw stuff out there once in awhile so i'll take up one side of a perspective...

By accident or not, perhaps auj does not make lotr redundant in that some of the scenes you mention revolving around
rivendell and elrond, galadriel, saruman, gollum, and the score are not as pertinent, perhaps, to the Hobbit as to LOTR.

As you mention, i think, the scenes are more drawn out in the rivendell scenes and we see shots of the mystique and comfort of the place. I don't
think the rivendell scenes in auj will have much impact on fotr (although i haven't watched to compare hehehe), because there seemed to be more of an aura
of safety and awe in fotr rivendell as compared to auj. For me, there seemed to be this tension that ran throughout the narrative of auj. i don't know if it was an editing thing or
a product of something else or just imagination, but for me there was never a sense of being at ease, no obvious cues to a respite...that the danger or the struggle has abated or passed for the time being.
perhaps this is because the dwarves themselves are not as comfortable in rivendell and are not too fond of elvish company at first. they don't like elvish food too much and are maybe a bit
suspicious of elves. adding to it, bilbo is out of his burrow and perhaps a bit uncomfortable along for the ride despite being quite taken with the elvish surroundings. but auj doesn't seem to
dwell as much on rivendell itself as fotr, which has clear pressing dangers and provides safety for frodo and company. whereas the pertinent theme in auj is the mountain. it's like this burning dream
of thorin's and rivendell is just another stop on the map on their way to the mountain. the dwarves want to get this show on the road already!
part of the location redundancy might change as the company goes into mirkwood and such, untrotted area of the fellowship of the ring.

As far as the characters and their introductions and their perceptions being tweaked due to auj, this is interesting point. I think it could very well have an effect on redundancy.
on the other hand, by accident or whatever, i think it might have averted this also. Why? maybe because the characters of elrond, saruman, galadriel, and such are pretty much just there
in the hobbit. i might have fibbed earlier that there might've appeared to be too much recognition of these characters, but i think auj stayed away from too much introduction of these characters for the intriguing
character hooks of fotr to still be effective and profound. fotr delves into their histories more and their participation to hte storyline is more pertinent in fotr. in auj, they are sort of just there. they are important, but part of this seemingly undeniable tension of auj is that these characters are there but they don't ultimately matter; it's about bilbo and the dwarves who frankly have a parochial perspective about all of this : Erebor our lost kingdom!! they don't give a rats butt about these other characters or their histories and i think the movie itself asks the audience to not care as much. it is important to the larger story as the dol guldor narrative will play out. this is somewhat a parochial tale, a plot that relates to the larger struggle of middle-earth, yet still uniquely felt by the individuals with their singular histories. that's why this could be a tricky balancing act. because as it fits in the larger struggle and story of the ring, the Hobbit is still a tale of dispossessed kingdom of dwarves fatefully enlisting the help of a wizard and a certain unconventional, obscure hobbit. what will become of middle-earth? who knows? who cares? what will become of bilbo, thorin, and dwarves and their immediate task at hand of the risky, audacious endeavor to reclaim their home? oooh boyyyy.
and then there's gandalf though. what is to become of him? he is the hinge that brings in the larger picture and brings in galadriel and saruman and radagast. the larger picture is being set within the framework masterfully, yet this trilogy will probably keep this what it is: a fateful, audacious endeavor of reclamation and validation featuring our hobbit and his companions. thus fotr might possibly be safe from the flavorings of the Hobbit.
p.s. the misty mountain theme is nice to listen to hehehhe


Feb 25 2013, 7:22pm

Post #12 of 16 (346 views)
Here's why: [In reply to] Can't Post

"A person finds joy in giving an apt reply—
and how good is a timely word!"

Lot of reading here... I'll have to come back to this thread.


Feb 26 2013, 12:51am

Post #13 of 16 (258 views)
Re: Yoda twist [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
Episode 1 adds nothing to the story whatsoever and can be omitted without hampering the story at all.

Except for the whole matter of FINDING the 'Chosen One' in the first place... Tongue

In Reply To
Your order is improved on what Lucas wanted, but it still ruins the good Yoda plot twist.

Granted, most people already know what Yoda looks like before they see the movies. Hell, I did before first seeing "Empire" over 30 years ago... so it's easily the most disposable plot twist.


Feb 26 2013, 12:58am

Post #14 of 16 (248 views)
Introductions to kids [In reply to] Can't Post

Honestly, I'd likely use the animated Middle-Earth trilogy (despite their flaws) to first introduce my nieces/nephews (I have no desire to have kids of my own) to Tolkien; the 2 Rankin/Bass films at about 3-5, then inserting the Bakshi film when they're about 6-8 (due to that film's much darker tone). And, yeah, the live action films when they're about 10/11-ish... depending on their parents' discretions (though, again, which trilogy first will remain to be seen).

(This post was edited by BalrogTrainer on Feb 26 2013, 1:00am)


Feb 26 2013, 6:30pm

Post #15 of 16 (170 views)
Thanks Ham Sammy [In reply to] Can't Post

Picturing our beloved Balin in that tomb...oh dear.

Additionally, two things struck me at my viewing yesterday. That Gandalf's charactar is so multi-layered throughout all of the films so far, he will carry NBVs right through on the strength of his performance. We see humor, power, compassion, and back again. Makes me thrilled to watch Gandalf the White appear in Edoras. I feel like Legolas looks - awed! Unsure of how we will go forward with the balance of Divine perception by NBVs between Galadriel and Gandalf. Will have to return to that topic later on.

And the relationship issues we mentioned between Legoals and Gimli aren't in the distant past - its one generation removed. We haven't seen it yet but one dad imprisoning another's guys dad (and hes a Dwarf!).....whew! Some bad feelings there. But they overcome it.

My son pointed out that Bag End looks empty in FOTR withour Dwarves in itUnsure

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


Feb 26 2013, 7:00pm

Post #16 of 16 (180 views)
Glad you posted! [In reply to] Can't Post

I am interested by your perception of Rivendell not so much being about comfort for our AUJ cast, unlike FOTR. The reasons are what make it an interesting plot point - is it because of the Dwarven restlessness and greater purpose? Their lack of trust? Or is it because when our FOTR cast gets there there is such a real NEED to be there. to save Frodo, so we can see the contrast. So in FOTR then the plot tension is to arrive at Rivendell, and then we get a break; whereas you point out its no respite for the Dwarves, just an unwelcome stopping point. Read the map and roll out.
Two very different facets of the Rivendell experience. And in two phases of Rivendell's lifetime.

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


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.