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:
What are your theories? **Spoilers**
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

The Tenth Walker
The Shire

Jun 26 2013, 10:02am

Post #1 of 27 (1186 views)
Shortcut
What are your theories? **Spoilers** Can't Post

Greetings to all,

This post contains some major book spoilers. So if you are staying “spoiler free” don’t read on.

This post is for everyone to get on and tell everyone their theories about the upcoming two “Hobbit” films. You never know someone might come up with a brilliant idea that no one has thought of before.
Don’t be shy because your theories mightn’t work out. One or two of my own haven’t! For instance I was sure that Azog would be killed by Beorn, not long after the company reaches Beorn’s House, because the book says that when the Company woke up in the morning at Beorn’s House they go out and see a goblin’s head stuck on a post, and a wolf skin nailed to the gate. I thought that the goblin would be Azog and the wolf, Azog’s white Warg. A nice shock for Thorin and for the audience! But after watching the DOS trailer Azog seems to be around in Mirkwood, after the Company leave Beorn’s House.

Also, what does everyone think of Thorin’s, Filli, and Killi’s upcoming deaths? Do you think that Peter Jackson may let one survive? It would look strange in a film (to those who haven’t read the book) if three of the principle characters are killed in one fell swoop. Actually I know someone who didn’t know that Thorin, Filli, and Killi get killed and she accidently saw a comment on You Tube that told her that they die in the book. She was astounded; she couldn’t believe that that would happen. She also happens to be a screen writer and she thought that their deaths wouldn’t work in a film, as each ones death would cancel out the others. Also the death of all of the last Heirs of Durin would make Azog ultimately win. Evil wins. Even though Azog will die, he still emerges the victor if the Line of Durin is ended. Peter Jackson has created the Heirs of Durin vs. Azog slant, so he would have to have something up his sleeve to answer this. I still think that Thorin will certainly die, I am not so sure if both Filli & Killi will die. Of course this theory puts Dain’s nose out of joint, but after all hasn’t he already got his kingdom in the Iron Hills. Also three death scenes one after the other would be too much in a film (though most modern films kill of 20 in one go!). Perhaps either Filli of Killi will survive and become “The King under the Mountain”. What are your thoughts on this subject?

If you have any ideas of your own, share them with us.


Signed: The Tenth Walker

(This post was edited by The Tenth Walker on Jun 26 2013, 10:03am)


Bumblingidiot
Rohan

Jun 26 2013, 10:53am

Post #2 of 27 (600 views)
Shortcut
Screen writing courses have a lot to answer for. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think your post says a lot about how modern screen writing dogma has infected the film industry. There is a cure - a director with respect for his literary sources and for good, original storytelling.

A strong theme in all Tolkien's work is that the 'good' side doesn't win - the best it manages is a partial or temporary victory. To adapt The Hobbit in the way you are suggesting might happen, would show very little respect for Tolkien - a writer who fought in the first World War and lost nearly all his close friends doing so. To have only three deaths amongst the company in the final battle is actually quite lenient, compared to reality and is both believable and dramatic; the old Peter Jackson and co. could have managed it standing on their heads.


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Jun 26 2013, 10:59am

Post #3 of 27 (608 views)
Shortcut
More spoilers! [In reply to] Can't Post

I disagree with your screenwriter friend. I think the same three characters will die in the film as in the book, and I think it will work. First, the battle does not end the Line of Durin even in the books, as Dain (already mentioned as Thorin's cousin, IIRC) is also of that line. (Though I expect both Azog and his son Bolg will be dead by its end). Also, while PJ has introduced the "Line of Durin" idea, I think he has started to introduce, and will further develop, the idea that Sauron wishes to interfere with the reestablishment of the Dwarf kingdom of Erebor and is ordering or manipulating the Orc characters to achieve this goal. Which would make the book ending, a triumph for Thorin and Company (and other "good" characters) in the end, if mixed with sadness because of the losses.

Regarding her cancellation idea, has she read the book, or is she going by a brief comment? In the book Thorin is wounded, Fili and Kili die defending him (all learned by us after the fact), and Thorin dies later, after the battle, in a separate and key scene of the novel. I would not bet it will play out exactly the same way on the film n(in particular, I thing we will see Fili and Kili fight and die in the battle), but this separation brterrm their deaths and Thorin's, I think, will be maintained. Fili and Kili dying "together" (in close proximity timewise and in terms of battle events) could I think heighten rather than lessen the impact, because of their closeness to one another.


Angharad73
Rohan


Jun 26 2013, 11:47am

Post #4 of 27 (528 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Peter Jackson has created the Heirs of Durin vs. Azog slant, so he would have to have something up his sleeve to answer this. I still think that Thorin will certainly die, I am not so sure if both Filli & Killi will die. Of course this theory puts Dain’s nose out of joint, but after all hasn’t he already got his kingdom in the Iron Hills. Also three death scenes one after the other would be too much in a film (though most modern films kill of 20 in one go!). Perhaps either Filli of Killi will survive and become “The King under the Mountain”. What are your thoughts on this subject?


Well, yes, Peter Jackson has something up his sleeve - that something could be Dain...

I do not think that PJ would dare to let one of the three 'Heirs of Durin' live. There is a lot he can mess with, but not the ultimate outcome of the book.

I also suspect that there will not be three death scenes, but rather that it will be like two. Fili and Kili will die together on the battlefield. They always are together, they fight together, they die together. Their deaths will probably be very close timewise, so it can be handled like one scene. Thorin's death will be handled separately and differently. Let's not forget his need to redeem himself after the Dragon sickness and all the bad stuff that goes with it. He has to get his last talk with Bilbo. The impact of these deaths will not be lessened. It is rather a study of futility. Fili and Kili will die heroically defending their uncle, but they cannot prevent his death in the end. If that isn't tragic, I don't know...Unsure

The Hobbit is also about more than the straight-out fight between good and evil. The story of the Hobbit, to me, is about the Dwarves reclaiming their home and about Bilbo's journey. The fight with Azog is, when it comes down to it, only secondary, a device to increase tension in the movie. And the Dwarves do get to reclaim their home, just in a different way than they perhaps imagined, with Dain as their king instead of Thorin. And Bilbo makes it back to his home, too. So the good side does 'win' in the end, but like with every war, there is a price. And besides, not every movie needs a completely happy ending.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jun 26 2013, 2:51pm

Post #5 of 27 (441 views)
Shortcut
They don't cancel each other out [In reply to] Can't Post

Fili and Kili have to die in order for Dain to become King under the Mountain, otherwise one of them would have inherited it after Thorin died.

The very presence of Dain in the movies assures me that everyone will die their appropriate deaths.

"...not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall.
As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.
For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men,
it is bitter to receive." -Arwen Undómiel




PreRaphaeliteHobbit
Registered User


Jun 26 2013, 3:48pm

Post #6 of 27 (433 views)
Shortcut
Re: What are your theories? **Spoilers** [In reply to] Can't Post

I was a little confused by the presence of Azog in The Hobbit at all, but I'll allow that it adds a nice bit of antagonism to keep the story going... In the trailer, it looks to me like Azog might actually be around Beorn's house and I do like that idea about Beorn killing him... Personally I'd like to see Dain killing Azog at the Battle of Five Armies- just like in the book but shuffled around a bit. If Azog survives that long, though, it'll probably be Thorin that kills him for the sake of majesty and all that.

Who do you think is going to kill Thorin? It was so vague in the book I was never quite sure, but I'm pretty sure it'll be expanded in the film. I'm personally betting on Bolg. It would make sense, if Thorin killed Azog...actually that would be wonderfully twisted in a sick way. Thoughts?

I would hate to see any of the three- Fili, Kili or Thorin- left alive at the end. I know that sounds horrible, but as much as I like them and was deeply upset by their deaths (I found out by opening up my copy of The Hobbit to the middle and reading Bilbo's farewell to the dwarves...I was depressed for two weeks...) it would suck if PJ took that much licence with the story. It would kind of screw up the plot. I'm a big Kili fan, but you know: if Tolkien killed him off there's a reason for that. I'll be interested to see how it plays out in the actual film, though.

History has remembered the kings and warriors, because they destroyed; art has remembered the people, because they created.
- William Morris

In case you're wondering, my avatar is a detail from 'Miranda- The Tempest', by John William Waterhouse (1916).


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Jun 26 2013, 5:31pm

Post #7 of 27 (354 views)
Shortcut
yes, indeed! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think your post says a lot about how modern screen writing dogma has infected the film industry. There is a cure - a director with respect for his literary sources and for good, original storytelling.

A strong theme in all Tolkien's work is that the 'good' side doesn't win - the best it manages is a partial or temporary victory. To adapt The Hobbit in the way you are suggesting might happen, would show very little respect for Tolkien - a writer who fought in the first World War and lost nearly all his close friends doing so. To have only three deaths amongst the company in the final battle is actually quite lenient, compared to reality and is both believable and dramatic; the old Peter Jackson and co. could have managed it standing on their heads.


I too was struck by his experiences in WW1... and II (in which his son fought). I seem to remember some ridiculous percentage of young men he knew died in WWI... I am also quite tired of Hollywood tropes and formula (the latest fiasco being the mangling of the character design for Merida in Brave from its original awesomeness to sickly Barbie stickwoman... I digress)

Go outside and play...


The Tenth Walker
The Shire

Jun 26 2013, 10:04pm

Post #8 of 27 (280 views)
Shortcut
I can see your point [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, I can certainly see your point. Dain does change the outlook of things. She has not read the books for many years and she has completely forgotten the story. So she knows nothing about Dain, or how the death scenes play out. She was simply going off the AUJ. I have been trying to keep information from her for the last year! She says she doesn't want spoilers!


marillaraina
Rohan


Jun 26 2013, 11:32pm

Post #9 of 27 (260 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think Thorin, Fili and Kili have to die and I love them.

Big Kili fan as well and I'd be rather disappointed if he and his brother and uncle didn't die. I want my heart ripped out, that's what I'd be disappointed by and I know a lot of other's who feel the same way. The only thing that would disappoint me is if their deaths aren't devastatingly heartbreaking. :)

It may sound horrible, but they really kind of need to die and it needs to be all of them. It would worse if one of them managed to live IMO than if all of them die.

swordhale, I don't the percentages but I've read that so many young men died, from Britain for example, that it actually caused a very very problematic shortage of marriageable men. That may not sound serious but it really was.


(This post was edited by marillaraina on Jun 26 2013, 11:36pm)


Dwarvenfury
Lorien

Jun 27 2013, 4:22am

Post #10 of 27 (272 views)
Shortcut
Not the Deaths. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think all three are doomed. Your screenwriter introduces some interesting points.
Three characters deaths seemingly could cancel eachother out, especially if they were
handled individually, successively. I don't think the production would opt for that sequence.
Fili and Kili will probably have their last fight defending Thorin, according to the book. Thorin will
have his last stand before theirs, probably, according to the book.

Going down while fighting may be reassuring to an audience and often apt, but i don't necessarily read this in the Hobbit
for THorin, Fili, Kili. Their ends on the battle field are not the defining features of this act, imo. I mention this before, but I
would think that the climax for this act is between Bilbo and Thorin on the battlefield. I get this image in my mind of Bilbo
looking down in the valley through the adrenaline of the Dwarven host recently joining the fray. Tensions are most likely severe
as the battle was seemingly lost and now his dwarven comrades are involved and all might be lost still for the worst, now that the fates
of the main characters are involved. For BIlbo, Thorin is unmistakable on the battlefield. The Dwarf in all the glory of his house, exhorting
Elves, Men, and Dwarves to rally. So, I think it's the Bilbo/Thorin connection and will occupy a pivotal part of the act. Thus, maybe the death
scenes won't have pressure to be the defining acts.Thoughts?


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 27 2013, 5:50am

Post #11 of 27 (250 views)
Shortcut
Think about this [In reply to] Can't Post

In the book theres no metion of an Azog/Thorin personal combat. It's Dain who kills Azog after Azog slays Nain, his father.
Dain is of the House of Durin, and while not the King, he is still nobilty as Thorins cousin and a high ranking leader among the Dwarves. I have a feeling Dain will do something spectacular and show why he deserves to be the King under the Mountain.

Thorin pays for his sins and arrogance with the death of himself and his direct heirs, for which he repents later. How exactly PJ will portray this is of course up to his imagination, but I think it will be close to the book.


“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”


Marionette
Rohan


Jun 27 2013, 3:07pm

Post #12 of 27 (203 views)
Shortcut
The thing about the book and some of us... [In reply to] Can't Post

is that we don´t see what sins are those and what arrogance Thorin payed with his death.

I don´t see it no matter how much people explain it to me.

Arrogance and greed: I still think he was protecting his treasure from invaders to his eyes (Thranduil and Bard) Everyone was greedy about the treasure not only Thoirn, but Thorin to me was the rightful owner of the treasure.

Sins: What sins? He had an anger moment becoz Bilbo betrayed him.


I see the ending of the Hobbit different from that. It´s plain sad and a bit unfair.
Then it comes Dain and he gets the throne...
Ouch

I saw it that way in the book, but I accepted it, but I see in the movie it will be harder.

But this is an endless discussion I really don´t want to get into again.

But about the topic: The movie must be as the book, hopefully it will be. The book even though is perfect as it is, it teachs us not everything in life has a happy ending, it´s a realistic ending.


"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"
Queen



(This post was edited by Marionette on Jun 27 2013, 3:11pm)


IdrilofGondolin
Rohan

Jun 27 2013, 8:59pm

Post #13 of 27 (175 views)
Shortcut
Iconic Scenes [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ has been pretty good with the iconic scenes in TH. The "good morning" scene was brilliant and just how I pictured it. And of course it helped that the dialog was pure JRRT. Ditto with The Riddle Game and Pity of Bilbo. So if PJ considers the deaths in BoFA iconic then these will play out as Tolkien wrote them. Fili and Kili will die defending Thorin's body (they think he is dead) and Beorn will come a sweep Thorin up and take him out of the battle. Perhaps other bears will be here to take up the bodies of Fili and Kili. Then there will be the heart breaking scene between Bilbo and Thorin before Thorin dies. It is to be hoped that we also see Beorn return to battle and become gigantic in his fury and crush Bolg as happens in the book.


Dwarvenfury
Lorien

Jun 27 2013, 9:28pm

Post #14 of 27 (180 views)
Shortcut
Interesting point. [In reply to] Can't Post

I only wonder if they'll leave Fili and Kili strewn on the battlefield or have them carried off.
I think they'll just lie where they fall. Their 'glory' is in their living, not
in death. Thoughts?


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 27 2013, 10:34pm

Post #15 of 27 (153 views)
Shortcut
The Sins of Thorin [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
is that we don´t see what sins are those and what arrogance Thorin payed with his death.

I don´t see it no matter how much people explain it to me.

Arrogance and greed: I still think he was protecting his treasure from invaders to his eyes (Thranduil and Bard) Everyone was greedy about the treasure not only Thoirn, but Thorin to me was the rightful owner of the treasure.

Sins: What sins? He had an anger moment becoz Bilbo betrayed him.



Thorin's first sin was a failure to recognize that his treatment by the Elvenking was as much due to his own stubborn silence as anything else. Even if Thorin did not want to reveal his plans for Erebor (as poorly thought-out as they were) he could have easily said that he and his companions wanted to visit his cousins in the Iron Hills. Perhaps that would not have satisfied King Thranduil, but we can never know, can we?

Thorin's second and third sins were his lack of compassion for the survivors of Lake-town and his lack of gratitude for the aid that they had given him (not to mention his lack of gratitude towards Bard specifically as the slayer of the wyrm).

Now granted, Thorin's thinking was muddled by the dragon-sickness, which is why I can also understand his reaction to finding that Bilbo had delivered the Arkenstone into the hands of Bard and the Elvenking. To Thorin's credit, he did heed Gandalf and did not hurl poor Bilbo off of his battlements. Gandalf's statement to Thorin, "You are not making a very splendid figure as King under the Mountain," rings true and can be contrasted with Dain's example later.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Dwarvenfury
Lorien

Jun 27 2013, 10:55pm

Post #16 of 27 (154 views)
Shortcut
Can that be a sin. [In reply to] Can't Post

I would think Thorin would be indignant toward his treatment by the Elven king.
Since when does silence merit a prison cell. Thranduil should learn from
Elrond the hospitality worthy of Dwarven royalty. This could be the xenophobic
Thranduil acting while he has the upper hand. But see how the Dwarves reclaim
their mountain and Thranduil comes stomping in for his due? What due...he threw
them in jail Laugh


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 27 2013, 11:03pm

Post #17 of 27 (151 views)
Shortcut
I still fault Thranduil for being an ungracious host [In reply to] Can't Post

At the same time, I must acknowledge that Thorin was not exactly the perfect guest. And it is not as though Thorin and his companions had not had plenty of time to discuss such issues as what story they should give if captured by potential enemies. Much of this can be blamed on poor planning on Thorin's part.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


marillaraina
Rohan


Jun 28 2013, 12:13am

Post #18 of 27 (142 views)
Shortcut
I go with Dwarvenfury here [In reply to] Can't Post

I think Thranduil was a rat and always had just about zero idea what Bilbo saw in him. He treated the dwarves really horribly over what was nothing more than a minor disturbance in his realm really. And I'm sure the elves could have helped the dwarves long before it got to the point of them being lost and starving, instead of turning out the lights and leaving them.

They were obviously lost and starving. IMO it was clear Thranduil was doing it pretty much just because he could. And then him saying he wouldn't want to got to war over treasure, when that was really the only reason he was there. Sure a bit of humanitarian aid to the people of Lake Town but let's be real, if he didn't want to fight over money, he wouldn't have an army with him. It wasn't his fight, he was quick enough to "not get involved" when there wasn't any treasure in it for him, that's the only difference this time, even in the book.


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 28 2013, 12:34am

Post #19 of 27 (140 views)
Shortcut
I think that you're a bit too hard on Thranduil [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, the Elvenking brought an army to Erebor, but I think that he had goblins and bandits more in mind than anything else. His assumption was that Thorin and his companions were dead.

Thranduil had the Necromancer living in Dol Guldur with his servants and spies infesting southern Mirkwood. We have been told of malicious Dwarves allying themselves with evil things, he had every right to be suspicious of wanderers who stirred up trouble.

There is the question of whether (or if) Thranduil recognized Thorin Oakenshield. Unlike Peter Jackson, Tolkien seems to say that the Wood-elves had few if any dealings with the Dwarves under the Mountain. It is entirely possible that he couldn't tell Thorin from Balin or any other Dwarf. And the Elvenking must have been burning up with curiousity over what a Dwarf was doing with an elven blade from Gondolin.

At the Battle of the Five Armies, it was the Dwarves that started to attack first, rather than the Elves or Men.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jun 28 2013, 12:36am

Post #20 of 27 (135 views)
Shortcut
That's the great thing [In reply to] Can't Post

about the animosity between Thorin and Elvenking, IMO. Neither one is "good" or "bad". They're both a mixture of grey, and I really like that dynamic.

"...not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall.
As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.
For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men,
it is bitter to receive." -Arwen Undómiel




marillaraina
Rohan


Jun 28 2013, 2:39am

Post #21 of 27 (133 views)
Shortcut
I don't see it that way [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Yes, the Elvenking brought an army to Erebor, but I think that he had goblins and bandits more in mind than anything else. His assumption was that Thorin and his companions were dead.

Thranduil had the Necromancer living in Dol Guldur with his servants and spies infesting southern Mirkwood. We have been told of malicious Dwarves allying themselves with evil things, he had every right to be suspicious of wanderers who stirred up trouble.

There is the question of whether (or if) Thranduil recognized Thorin Oakenshield. Unlike Peter Jackson, Tolkien seems to say that the Wood-elves had few if any dealings with the Dwarves under the Mountain. It is entirely possible that he couldn't tell Thorin from Balin or any other Dwarf. And the Elvenking must have been burning up with curiousity over what a Dwarf was doing with an elven blade from Gondolin.

At the Battle of the Five Armies, it was the Dwarves that started to attack first, rather than the Elves or Men.


Yeah sure he had goblins and bandits in mind. Sorry, I don't buy it. He stayed hidden in his little nook in the woods for ages, aside from a bit of trade, never really doing anything for anyone else, even when the dragon attacked(not different from the book, he may not have been standing there on a hill turning away, but he sure as heck didn't do anything else either) but now all of sudden out of the goodness of heart he's oh so worried about the goblins and bandits? That doesn't even make sense, beyond his being worried the goblins and bandits might reduce his share of the loot.

He had a right to be worried? About THOSE dwarves, who were obviously lost and starving. Maybe before he met them he had a right to be worried but once he saw them, no offense, but especially in the book, it was blatantly obvious these dwarves were pretty much incompetent. LOL

IMO you can't on one hand try to sell the elves as being so much more evolved and then claim they were terribly worried these starving, clearly confused little pack of dwarves were working for the dark powers when they could barely even feed themselves.

Either they are more highly evolved, in which case their behavior has to be held to a higher standard or they are just like everyone else, in which case they are just as capable of being greedy selfish jerks. IMO Thranduil proved himself to be on the selfish jerks side.

As for the dwarves starting it. The dwarves didn't show up with two armies. There were 13 of them and everyone knew it, once they knew they hadn't been killed and yet they show up on Thorin's doorstep with an army? Anyone, I don't care how peaceful you are is going to feel threatened by that. The fact is IMO they left Thorin, even if he hadn't been affected by the dragon sickness, very little choice but to act as he did.

I can see how he was wrong in his own way about things, I can see where his actions directly or indirectly led to some bad consequences, mostly for himself IMO, but sorry you show up with that kind of fire power, you are being threatening just by being there, especially against only 13 people. Once they knew the dwarves survived, if they'd really been interested in treating, they should have sent the armies away. Thorin had every right to refuse to treat when they had what the equivalent, in a gangster movie, of two thugs standing behind the godfather's shoulders as he's "requesting" your acquiescence to something.

Now given his mental state, he may well have found some excuse to refuse even after they'd done that, but that doesn't change the fact it was wrong to have that kind of firepower pretty much on his doorstep while coming to basically demand payment. If they truly wanted to do it in good faith, and possibly get the other dwarves on their side where they could potentially influence Thorin, anyone with half a brain knows you send the army away. That they didn't do it shows they didn't really care to do so in good faith.


(This post was edited by marillaraina on Jun 28 2013, 2:45am)


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 28 2013, 3:21am

Post #22 of 27 (118 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien tells us outright that the Elvenking has a weakness for gold and gems [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't deny that Thranduil has to be held accountable for his end of things. He obviously meant to make off with a substantial share of the treasure, espcially when he still thought that Thorin and his companions were dead. He doesn't even have an actual claim to make (except in the Rankin/Bass animated movie); he simply sees an opportunity to fill his coffers.

Now once he finds that the company is still alive his attitude does change. Thranduil states that he won't go to war just for gold and jewels. He does not withdraw, but that can be attributed to his alliance with the Men of Lake-town, not to greed.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Jun 28 2013, 12:54pm

Post #23 of 27 (109 views)
Shortcut
Yes but... *BOOK SPOILERS!!* [In reply to] Can't Post

As yet another who read the books and sympathized with Thorin's position...

I agree that Thranduil can be criticized for his greed also, along with Thorin (and some Lakemen). Where I think the objections of others (and I tend to concur with them) are coming from is the notion that was expressed earlier in this thread and touched off this discussion. Namely, that Thorin (and his nephews) had to die because of his pride and greed, to pay for these sins, to be redeemed, or however you want to phrase this. If indeed others are also blameworthy, why is it that Thorin had to die, and others did not? That would suggest he is much worse, and that seems the point of disagreement, to me.


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 28 2013, 1:27pm

Post #24 of 27 (107 views)
Shortcut
Because it is all about Thorin [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I agree that Thranduil can be criticized for his greed also, along with Thorin (and some Lakemen). Where I think the objections of others (and I tend to concur with them) are coming from is the notion that was expressed earlier in this thread and touched off this discussion. Namely, that Thorin (and his nephews) had to die because of his pride and greed, to pay for these sins, to be redeemed, or however you want to phrase this. If indeed others are also blameworthy, why is it that Thorin had to die, and others did not? That would suggest he is much worse, and that seems the point of disagreement, to me.



Bilbo is the viewpoint character of the novel; and it is his journey of self-discovery. However, the quest, itself, is Thorin's above all others. He is the one most interested in reclaiming his heritage and homeland. He is the one who is the most affected by the dragon-sickness laid over Smaug's hoard. Thorin Oakenshield is almost a Shakespearean character in his tragedy (poor Fili and Kili are collateral damage). Bard, Thranduil and Dain pay for their part in the lives lost of the Men, Elves and Dwarves serving under them. Note that the Master of Lake-town, the other character who is the most affected by greed and dragon-sickness, also meets a bad end.

Oh, and my use of the word "sin" was just an echo from the post I was responding to.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Jun 28 2013, 2:07pm

Post #25 of 27 (91 views)
Shortcut
I agree! *Book Spoilers* [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, I figured you were only echoing the other poster, your view seems to be that others did help create the situation.

I agree about Thorin. He is a more central character than the Elvenking or the Master (whose death is directly related to his greed/dragon sickness in the book, very cause and effect unlike Thorin's) Thorin as a literary character and "The Hobbit" as a book (and I hope, movie series) are the stronger for his character arc as it is written, deaths included. I just don't see it as primarily a simplistic moral fable, the "bad" Thorin dies, the "good" others survive.

And it is not just my sympathy/understanding of Thorin's choices in reaction to the various events and other characters. It is also because of the cause of his death. As I read the book, anyway, Thorin did not die fighting to secure his loot. His decision to enter the battle was to my eyes brave and noble, and his death was a straightforward consequence of that (good) decision. He could (and should!) have dealt more generously and justly with the Men of Laketown (who had helped him, who as descendants of Dale Men had a just claim to a fraction of the treasure, who were in need, and one of whom solved Thorin's dragon problem for him...). But even if he had, Bolg was already on his way with his armies.

First page Previous page 1 2 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.