|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 22 2010, 12:29am
Post #26 of 38
(217 views)
Shortcut
|
The central action takes about a year and dates need not be given at all. Aragorn need not appear in the films and neither will the Hobbit members of the Fellowship.
I see no reason to assume that The Hobbit will ignore the time-compression in the LOTR films. It is known approximately when Bilbo would have found the Ring (2940 T.A.), when he departed the Shire for Rivendell (September 22, 3000), approximately when Frodo left the Shire (Late Summer 3001) and the age of Aragorn in The Return of the King (87 years).
You are certainly correct that there is no chance of Frodo, Samwise, Merry or Pippin appearing in The Hobbit unless it is as part of a framing device, none of them would have even been born yet. I would not be so certain about Aragorn (or Arwen, Galadriel, Saruman or even Legolas). In fact, Lady Galadriel and Saruman almost have to be assumed to be returning as members of the White Council. Arwen might still be staying with her father in Rivendell (if this were the original continuity where Aragorn is still a boy, I would assume that Arwen was with her relatives in Lórien). It is entirely possible that Aragorn's "journeys and errantries" have taken him leagues away and keep him out of the narrative. However, it is equally possible that Jackson finds an appropriate role for him within the film(s)--played by a younger actor, of course.
Sorry for the "duplicate reply." For some reason, I didn't think that the earlier one had posted.
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 22 2010, 12:38am)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Jul 22 2010, 12:44am
Post #27 of 38
(212 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In Movies all things are possible,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but not all things are advisable. I think (personally) that any of the characters that were alive during the Hobbit (Book's) time frame are fair game for cameos in the Hobbit movies. There are indeed several characters that will likely appear in the side events portion of the two movies. (Again this is loosely based on written information) But because of the time problem I feel that Aragorn would best be avoided. Now do not take this as open support for a bunch of cameos in character from LotR. That would be problematic in my less-than-humble opinion. A few LotR Hobbits as little goblins might be fun.
Kangi Ska
Make the Hobbit Happen Now!
|
|
|
Elven
Valinor
Jul 22 2010, 12:56am
Post #28 of 38
(241 views)
Shortcut
|
and I think their individual contributions cannot be divided into who did more than another. We dont know what aspects were worked on individually in solitude on the script, and I would assume that regardless if one is working alone there is still the connection to the others.I assess they have been working collectively on the script, and GdT did say that his timetable everyday saw him going to meet the other 3 (PJ, FW & PB) at 10am, after he had done some of his own personal writing and film related stuff from 6am - then work on the Hobbits script - and in the afternoon GdT would go to WETA to see what was happening there.
GdT also mentioned that when all their ideas and concepts for the script were laid out on the table (and they did collectively tease them out) - at times it got heated. Which is to be expected in such a long and challenging process.
It was GdT who announced that the first script was finished, I never had the impression from GdT that one person was contributing more than the other on scripting - its not his style.
Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh are not to be overlooked in this process either.
In LOTR both were often seen on their laptops (Philippa anyway), nutting out script changes, and I dont doubt that the process during the Hobbit/s script that they were contributing as enthusiastically and passionately as PJ & GdT. As far as we know he stated that he is still involved with the scripting process - if anything his contribution to the script is still ongoing - which leads me to believe his participation is not peripheral.
I will say I think that there was more to GdTs departure than timelines (which I speculated and posted about a long time ago). A collision of many concerns which led GdT to move forward. Nothing could be braver nor more noble, and saddening than to walk away this far into such an important project.
And GdT thanked everyone on this forum for his support - maybe not by name, but he acknowledged everyone here who had contributed and supported him, and I would like to think, when they go up and grab the Oscars for screenwriting the Hobbit ( ) - they will each individually and collectively deserve the acclaim and rewards together as a team.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Jul 22 2010, 1:10am
Post #29 of 38
(221 views)
Shortcut
|
Kangi Ska
Make the Hobbit Happen Now!
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Jul 22 2010, 2:30am
Post #30 of 38
(216 views)
Shortcut
|
There are four people who worked on the script. To call one of them the "prime architect" is just plain wrong.
And that will be me last word on this subject (and very possibly at this messageboard).
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Jul 22 2010, 11:15am
Post #32 of 38
(228 views)
Shortcut
|
for the information about Aragorn's early ancestors. History has never been my strong suit, either in the real world or Middle-earth...
The film is unclear about what Aragorn is doing wrong that his father, grandfather, and ancestors further up the line were doing right.
I've been trying to unpack the assumptions that led you to this conclusion, but I'm not sure I've followed your thinking correctly. Still, here's my best shot.
First of all, in the film there's no mention of Aragorn's ancestors doing things either "right" or "wrong". No indication that they were under the protection of Elrond, none that there was a secret about their inheritance which, when revealed, had to be either accepted or rejected. Nothing at all to say what Aragorn's father, grandfather et al. did, or were expected to do, in their own lifetimes.
I've always felt it was implied in the book, as in the film, that until the Ring was found there was no chance of reclaiming the kingdom in any case. The film makes it very clear, through the imagery of the shards of Narsil and the Ring being cut from Sauron's hand, that the two things are intimately bound up. The sword is turned into a visual metaphor for the Kingship, broken through its contact with the Ring, with the reforged sword as a metaphor for the reclaimed Kingship. Elrond wants Aragorn to take the reforged sword immediately, whereas to Aragorn that would imply that he's snatching at a power he hasn't earned - effectively repeating Isildur's error. In the book too, of course, Aragorn is very careful not to snatch at power as he gradually earns it, but in the film it's bound up with the metaphor of the Sword - with Aragorn eventually forced to accept it because he needs to exert his authority over the Dead.
In the film, there's no indication that Elrond had any actual authority over Aragorn. Elrond urges Aragorn to follow his (Elrond's) wishes, and is unhappy when Aragorn insists on following his own path (hence his dismissive "he has chosen exile"). But there's no sense that either Aragorn or Arwen has a duty to follow Elrond's wishes. Arwen eventually gives way out of love for her father, before realizing Elrond's way is wrong and turning back to challenge him.
Perhaps the basic point that you're assuming, and that the film does not follow, is that Elrond is dispassionately wise and the source of legitimate authority over both Aragorn and Arwen. In the film, he's a bit of a "mortalist" - he doesn't have a high opinion of mortals' qualities ("Men are weak"), and certainly doesn't want his daughter to marry one! (I don't think his own half-elven status comes up, but even if it does, that doesn't invalidate his attitude, since it's not uncommon for people to reject a part of their own heritage that they consider "inferior".)
(Actually, hidden within the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen are a couple of small hints that suggest to me that Elrond is not as dispassionately wise, even in the book, as his press would have it - I think there's a hint that when Elrond laid down the condition for Aragorn to marry Arwen, he believed that the Ring would not be found and therefore the Kingship would not be achievable in Aragorn's lifetime. "Be careful what you wish for", they say - did Elrond's injunction "tempt Fate"?)
Of course, in the book Elrond didn't offer Aragorn his daughter either!
Yes, that was very inexact of me. I should have said that Elrond offered Aragorn his consent to wed his daughter. Or if you prefer, withheld his consent until his own conditions were fulfilled. Either way, it gives Aragorn a motivation that he does not have in the film, where Arwen is free to give her own heart, and supports Aragorn in his own choices - although she also encourages him to believe that he's made of stronger stuff than Isildur, whose weakness of will, in keeping and using the Ring, is highlighted repeatedly.
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Jul 22 2010, 11:18am)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Jul 22 2010, 3:36pm
Post #33 of 38
(188 views)
Shortcut
|
I wanted you to know that I was not trying to claim any extra credit for my support of GdT. I am still deeply saddened by his loss as director. He seems to be a very special human being. When I initially said that he was the prime architect of the script I knew very well that there were three others writing with him (and him with them). I made the statement based on the fact that he was Director Designate during the writing process. It was to be his movie. That has changed now. I really believe that all of those involved are friends. Peter and GdT are so alike in so many ways. I think that whatever the circumstances were that forced GdT to move on they came from the outside and not from his situation in New Zealand. The only evidence that we have to base our judgments on at this time, are the statements made by Peter & Guillermo. I chose to believe that what was said was the truth. The situation is what it is: no reason to go beyond those things.
Now I have a pet theory that G quit (in part) to help Peter leverage the deal with MGM. We will see what happens in the next few days.
Kangi Ska
Make the Hobbit Happen Now!
|
|
|
Arwen Skywalker
Lorien
Jul 22 2010, 9:55pm
Post #34 of 38
(188 views)
Shortcut
|
In the books, Faramir is 12 years older than Eowyn. Yet David Wenham is just 2 years older than Miranda Otto. Should that affect the timeline?
While it would be nice to see Aragorn in the hobbit, I agree that it would be difficult to fit him into the story. Fitting the sons of Elrond into the movie would be a much more practical choice. Heretical, I know but it can work since we don't know a whole lot about what they were doing at the time.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 22 2010, 11:30pm
Post #35 of 38
(250 views)
Shortcut
|
In the books, Faramir is 12 years older than Eowyn. Yet David Wenham is just 2 years older than Miranda Otto. Should that affect the timeline?
While it would be nice to see Aragorn in the hobbit, I agree that it would be difficult to fit him into the story. Fitting the sons of Elrond into the movie would be a much more practical choice. Heretical, I know but it can work since we don't know a whole lot about what they were doing at the time.
I don't see that the ages of the actors have a close bearing on the relative ages of the characters in this case. I still consider Pippin to be the youngest of the Hobbits even though he is played by an actor several years Woods' senior. Likewise, I have no problem believing that Farmir can be 12 years older than Eowyn.
I will not be surprised if Aragorn gets at least a cameo in the Hobbit film(s)--unless he is played by Viggo. I would not be upset if there was no such appearance either.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Dec 28 2014, 3:56pm
Post #37 of 38
(110 views)
Shortcut
|
The Hobbit movies will ignore the LotR time compression. The central action takes about a year and dates need not be given at all. Aragorn need not appear in the films and neither will the Hobbit members of the Fellowship.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Dec 28 2014, 4:11pm
Post #38 of 38
(104 views)
Shortcut
|
TH:BotFA seems to agree with the timeline that would put Aragorn at 25 or so at the time of the quest.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
|
|
