|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ghost_matt
Rivendell
Dec 22 2014, 12:54am
Post #1 of 38
(1632 views)
Shortcut
|
"Bilbo Baggins! You haven't aged a day!"
|
Can't Post
|
|
That line in FOTR is really going to confuse people now when they watch the movies for the first time in order. What other scenes in LOTR don't work anymore after watching the Hobbits first, and what scenes are actually improved?
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 12:57am
Post #2 of 38
(1195 views)
Shortcut
|
Just another example of why...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...these films shouldn't be thought of as a true six film series. Two related trilogies with some differences between them. Though I suppose, if you really wanted the line to work, you could just say that Gandalf means he hasn't aged since the last time they saw each other. ...though I did notice that the filmmakers left this wrinkle out of TBotFA by omitting the line at the end of the film.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 22 2014, 12:59am)
|
|
|
deskp
Lorien
Dec 22 2014, 1:02am
Post #4 of 38
(967 views)
Shortcut
|
well its a thing people say in real lfie despite people ahving aged. Also RELATIVELY speaking, its 60 years later, hes does not look to have aged that much
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 1:03am
Post #5 of 38
(1072 views)
Shortcut
|
Isn't that what the phrase always means?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
FOTR makes it plain Gandalf has visited the Shire in the decades between the events of TH and LOTR. Why would it mean anything other than he hasn't aged since Gandalf saw him last?
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 1:10am
Post #6 of 38
(915 views)
Shortcut
|
Gandalf could have been being courteous ??
The flames of war are upon you..
|
|
|
gkgyver
Bree
Dec 22 2014, 1:10am
Post #7 of 38
(935 views)
Shortcut
|
Gollum had the ring for an eternity, and he certainly has aged, wouldn't you say? In fact, RotK shows the very transformation. I don't see any reason why Bilbo shouldn't change his look a bit.
|
|
|
DigificWriter
Lorien
Dec 22 2014, 1:50am
Post #8 of 38
(888 views)
Shortcut
|
... this line doesn't make sense any longer with the addition of the Hobbit films.
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Dec 22 2014, 1:51am
Post #9 of 38
(870 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, besides the fact it's two different actors....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb? "Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 1:54am
Post #10 of 38
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
Why would Gandalf be comparing Bilbo with a point 60 years earlier?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Dec 22 2014, 1:59am
Post #11 of 38
(860 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think he is. I'm with you.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Although the line still seems sort of strange when transitioning between the two trilogies. Without thinking about it, it seems like he is referring to Freeman's Bilbo.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb? "Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 2:20am
Post #12 of 38
(829 views)
Shortcut
|
He's talking about younger Bilbo
Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 2:37am
Post #13 of 38
(870 views)
Shortcut
|
Gandalf could have been being courteous ??
The flames of war are upon you..
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 2:46am
Post #14 of 38
(786 views)
Shortcut
|
I am notoriously unperturbed by problems which only occur if one doesn't think!
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Dec 22 2014, 2:54am
Post #15 of 38
(790 views)
Shortcut
|
Exactly: "that's what they always say."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Though, in actual fact, the actual age difference between the actors is closer to 40 years than 60, so it really works well enough.
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Dec 22 2014, 4:21am
Post #16 of 38
(781 views)
Shortcut
|
This is only a problem if people assume they haven't seen each other since The Hobbit. Frodo and Gandalf clearly know each other quite well already, so I don't see what the problem is. I'm sure people will be confused, but that will be more because they're not paying attention not necessarily because it's the film's fault.
|
|
|
DigificWriter
Lorien
Dec 22 2014, 4:24am
Post #17 of 38
(779 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not even a problematic line if they haven't....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... seen each other since the events of The Hobbit, because Ian Holm's Bilbo doesn't look all that much older than Freeman's Bilbo. He's gotten a bit 'fuller of face', but that's about it.
|
|
|
DigificWriter
Lorien
Dec 22 2014, 4:44am
Post #19 of 38
(738 views)
Shortcut
|
The films have a much different timeline...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... than the books, so it wouldn't be out of the question if Gandalf HADN'T seen Bilbo in 60 years, but there are definitely things present in the films that do indicate that Gandalf has been a repeat visitor to The Shire and Bag-End in the 60-year interval between the events chronicled in the The Hobbit Trilogy and the beginning of the events chronicled in the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 22 2014, 4:54am
Post #20 of 38
(729 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, yes, there's a missing 16 years or so...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but that removes the period of time during which Bilbo has left the Shire and Frodo remains. I don't think there's anything to indicate that the movie timeline and book timeline differ significantly in the 60 years between Bilbo's adventure and his departure from the Shire. But as you say, timeline changes aside, the movies indicate that Gandalf is a fairly frequent visitor after Bilbo's adventure. For one thing, In FOTR Frodo seems to know him well already, and he's only 33 at the time of Bilbo's party, so Gandalf must have visited the Shire within that time, probably more than once, given the level of familiarity they seem to have. Also, Bilbo asks Gandalf to keep an eye on Frodo (which would be an odd thing to ask of someone you have only seen once or twice in 60 years) and he agrees, and so on.
Silverlode Want a LOTR Anniversary footer of your own? Get one here! "Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 5:01am
Post #21 of 38
(727 views)
Shortcut
|
While you guys are talking about the book vs. movie timeline, this reminds me of another reason why I have a hard time combining all six films together. While there were certainly changes to the sequence of events in the present in the LotR films, the historical timeline of Middle-earth was pretty much kept 99.9% intact. That was not the case with The Hobbit films, which (to put it mildly) played fast and loose with the history (Azog, Mirkwood, the Ringwraiths, etc.). When I watch LotR, I still feel that more Tolkien-faithful timeline of events as the background of the story. So my brain doesn't really want to integrate the events of The Hobbit films in there with LotR.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 22 2014, 5:02am)
|
|
|
DigificWriter
Lorien
Dec 22 2014, 5:05am
Post #22 of 38
(725 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm very much a Tolkien novice, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... the only significant chronological difference that I can identify vis a vis Jackson's filmic LotR and his filmic Hobbit vs. Tolkien's history of Middle-earth is Aragorn's age at the time of the events chronicled in the Hobbit films relative to his age at the time of those films' events as depicted in the books.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 5:13am
Post #23 of 38
(710 views)
Shortcut
|
Azog still being alive, Mirkwood not actually being Mirkwood until the events of the Hobbit films, the entire Ringwraith plot (being killed, buried, resurrected, etc.), to name a few things. There are multitudes of significant differences between the history in PJ's Hobbit films vs. Tolkien's history. There were barely any in LotR (Legolas mentions Isildur being the last King of Gondor I think, which was different).
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
|
|
|
DigificWriter
Lorien
Dec 22 2014, 5:15am
Post #24 of 38
(719 views)
Shortcut
|
Aside from the Mirkwood thing, none of those....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... represent CHRONOLOGICAL changes to the events of Middle-earth history as set out by Tolkien, at least not from my perspective. However, even if they did, what does it ultimately matter relative to enjoying the films as a six-part Saga the way that they're meant to be? If you can't see the two trilogies as parts of a single collective whole, that's more of an issue with your own perceptions than it is with any decisions that Jackson and Co. have made.
(This post was edited by DigificWriter on Dec 22 2014, 5:18am)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Dec 22 2014, 5:20am
Post #25 of 38
(700 views)
Shortcut
|
Those are major changes to the history. Are we having an argument over semantics? I can't tell. Point being, when watching LotR it feels very much like a story set in Tolkien's world, with Tolkien's history. The Hobbit films somewhat lack this IMO because PJ abridges and changes elements of the history of Middle-earth. I'm not entirely against this - it's an adaptation. He can do what he wants. But it does prevent me, personally, from being able to integrate the two film trilogies.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 22 2014, 5:21am)
|
|
|
|
|