|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 16 2015, 11:00am
Post #1 of 62
(2539 views)
Shortcut
|
|
On the Arkenstone... and other ramblings from the teapot
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the whole debate about Battle of the Five Armies, one of the main criticisms voiced in these threads is the lack of resolution of several themes and storylines: one being the fate of the Arkenstone. An idea about this has been nagging at the back of my mind and I'm posting it here just to toss another thought into the mix. Agree or disagree, I don't mind, it's just something that occurred to me in watching the film and I thought it was interesting.
In the book the Arkenstone in the book is an heirloom of Durin's house which means a lot to Thorin - "the heart of the Mountain and also the heart of Thorin" (quote from memory, may not be exact). We're not given any specific reason why he wants it so much beyond its being a family heirloom. For the film it has been given a whole new significance as the king-stone: the seven houses of the dwarves have sworn allegiance to the one who bears the Arkenstone. So Thorin doesn't just want it - he believes that he needs to have it or his quest fails, even if the Mountain itself is regained. Giving this importance to the Arkenstone has also enabled Peter Jackson to explain the company's need for a burglar in the film. Again, this is never really explained in the book though as Smaug so rightly points out, stealing the whole treasure piece by piece would never have been an option.
This new story of the Arkenstone is set out in the early scenes of AUJ, reprised and developed in the conversation between Gandalf and Thorin in the prologue of DOS. Later in the film we see the stone itself and Bilbo's attempts to take it. We hear Smaug warn him what it will do to Thorin and we see the first inklings that Smaug is right about this. Then we come to BotFA and see Thorin's increasingly desperate search for the Arkenstone. We see Bilbo do his job and 'steal' it, though not in the way that was intended.
The last we see of the stone is when Bard shows it to Thorin and then stashes it away in his coat, just before the battle begins. It's never mentioned again. We know Bard survives. We know Thorin and his nephews don't. So what (if anything) are we supposed to think about the stone? According to the book there should have been a moment in the funeral when Bard placed the stone on Thorin's breast and that's what a lot of people have understandably missed. It would have rounded off the story. But is it just possible that there IS another and very different resolution to the Arkenstone story implied in the film - one that we just weren't expecting...
In AUJ they set up the idea that without the Arkenstone the other houses of the dwarves would not give allegiance to Thorin. Or at least, that Thorin believes this is so. 'They say this is our quest, and ours alone.' But when he sends for Dain on the eve of battle he has the kingdom but not the stone - and Dain brings his army. Either this is a mistake on the filmmakers' part or Dain is very willing to give allegiance to a Thorin who has regained Erebor, stone or no stone, even to die for him. And when Thorin leads his company in the charge from the mountain Dain acclaims him as king - Gandalf underlines this: 'they are rallying to their king'. Could this moment actually be the resolution to the Arkenstone story? That Thorin didn't need the Arkenstone after all, because the dwarves will follow him and die for him anyway once he lets it go, and becomes Thorin Oakenshield again? I think there's another hint of this in the scene with Dwalin, when Dwalin says "You were always my king. You used to know it once."
This opens up an intriguing question. We seem to be pretty sure that the funeral scene will be in the EE. So far as we know, Bard still has the Arkenstone. Given its new significance in the film, as the king-stone, what will he do with it? If it really does convey the right to kingship of the dwarves then he should present it to Dain. But if the film is trying to say that the true essence of kingship resides in the character of the dwarf ("There is one I could follow. there is one I could call king") not in the possession of a revered artefact, then the right place for it is where it ends up in the book; on the breast of Thorin who gave so much to possess what in fact he already had.
So who do you think will get the Arkenstone - Dain, or Thorin?
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 16 2015, 1:02pm
Post #2 of 62
(2348 views)
Shortcut
|
Bard gives the Arkenstone to Dain. This seems appropriate in the context of the films where the Arkenstone confers authority over all of the Seven Houses of the Dwarves.
Dain can do one of two things: 1) Accept the Arkenstone and become the High King of the Dwarves; or 2) Take the stone and place it in Thorin's Tomb as Bard does in the book.
I vote for Option #2; the Arkenstone is more trouble than it's worth.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
May 16 2015, 2:45pm
Post #3 of 62
(2312 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I will be surprised if the Arkenstone is not buried with Thorin
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As you note, he already succeeds in becoming King without it. My interpretation of Gandalf's comment that the dwarves were rallying to their king was that Thorin had become a true king by overcoming the dragon sickness and coming to his people's rescue, and that that superseded the need for the Arkenstone. I would not at all be surprised if one of the speeches by Gandalf at the funeral that Richard referred to discusses this. Dain will become King under the Mountain, but not take Thorin's place as the true king.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 16 2015, 3:31pm
Post #4 of 62
(2288 views)
Shortcut
|
In thinking about IT..
1. Shouldn't Bard hand it back to Bilbo?
2. Bilbo hands it to Dain...
3. Dain says Something like "No, YOU, Hobbit give it Back Thorin?"
The only reason Bom says this...That somewhere it was written
That.. "Bilbo places it on Thorin's
Chest before they
Close the
Coffin"
Could be wrong..Don't know
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
(This post was edited by Bombadil on May 16 2015, 3:35pm)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 16 2015, 4:41pm
Post #5 of 62
(2262 views)
Shortcut
|
Which is quite irritating because I am trying to hold off until the E.E. with further observations.
As we now from Phillippa's directors commentary once they had filmed some of Bilbo's work with the dragon they decided to tighten up the narrative arc and emphasise the importance of the Arkenstone and bring it even more into focus in the subsequent filming and that resulted in the prologue for DOS. However with Radagast, Beorn and Dain in attendance its earlier film material and but for some art work showing something shining on Thorins cadaver I would even consider it was not part of the funeral. Certainly Orcrist wasn't because they had room to allow Legolas to shimmy it over to him.
There is also the placement of Bard with his people in the theatrical cut which puts him outside of the funeral and Legolas has already left which makes sense because his role hadn't been developed at the time the funeral was shot.
Beorn may have brought Thorin from the battle field and Gandalf will sum up for the audience what is happening through his speeches. Billy has a very effecting speech with Bilbo a good bye.
I say all this because the Arkenstone will not be the central geo political moment Gandalf's speeches will be. So where does Mr Baggins fit in. It would make a good deal of sense as part of his public rapprochement for his great friend and to increase his prominence in the scene for Bilbo to lay the Arkenstone on Thorin. He stole it he gives it back great symbolism and really gets martin involved.
Why not Dain I think he is the cousin who we come to love as a cheerful bruiser whereas the Arkenstone has a quasi symbolic spiritual dimension to it which i do not feel would work well with Billys take on Dain (whats the sodding bauble). For me the placement of the Arkenstone is about Thorins restoration and the completion of his redemption and will bring all of the Dwarves into play.
Will Thranduil and Tauriel be there given the huge input to their arcs late on. Maybe not this a Dwarven centric occasion with magical creatures on hand and no one has mentioned the other "Bloody" Icon the necklace. ….or not!
DM you can see my answer is driven by character not philosophical dwarven cultural niceties because if you went that route then Dain makes sense but I do not think he does dramatically. He has earned our affection but not our love..
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 16 2015, 7:56pm
Post #6 of 62
(2191 views)
Shortcut
|
1) Re AUJ and the WETA books, Balin describes the life Thorin built for his people as "peaceful and prosperous" and we see the Durins and Balin richly dressed (and I believe the books make mention of Thorin in the Blue Mountains).
The other thing - the leaders of the dwarf kingdoms are evidently quite willing to meet with Thorin, which to me indicates his status. But "may the heart of the mountain unite all dwarves in defense of this home" - to me, especially with Erebor's critical position as a kind of "gateway to the North" (and knowing a bit more about the evils that were in the North) -
it would make sense that the seven kingdoms would take the Arkenstone as a sign, and swear to protect Erebor. Otherwise, stone or not, what is so special about the kingdom of Erebor, as opposed to the other dwarf kingdoms? It's the "greatest Kingdom" but still, I see the dwarves as fiercely protective and clannish e.g. of their OWN lands, not just Erebor.
But Erebor has fallen, tho in theory (in a way), Erebor is "safe" from other evils with a dragon in residence . So I can see the dwarves possibly not wanting to take on a very dicey quest, and Thorin doesn't have this "sacred sign" even tho he IS in fact, a king (assuming Thrain is gone). Perhaps the fact the stone seems to be lost, and a dragon came, is seen as a kind of curse for the dwarves - a warning not to stir things up - perhaps even Thranduil "turned his back" for the same reasons.
Because the "shadow that fell over Erebor" must have been going on for a while - a mad king; things not as good as they used to be...rumors of a king with a bottomless need for gold, even by dwarf standards - Bard describes the gold in the mountain as "cursed"....
But going on a "foolish and unneeded quest" IMO is quite different from getting a message from your cousin (keeping in mind the fierce loyalties and symbolism of a dwarf king to their people) that incredibly, not only are Thorin and his heirs at Erebor and the dragon is dead, that there is an army of elves coming to take dwarf gold , and threaten a king who is also family.
(Dain receiving the message from the raven is a scene I like to picture - listening in almost disbelief, then the surge of anger and Dain striding through his castle? bellowing to arms, rallying his army, word of the "fulfillment of the prophecy" spreading through the Iron Hills along with word of a threat from ELVES and men.... And to the KING - as Dain is described as "Lord" - e.g. a threat to the dwarf king is this huge insult to the dwarves.)
2) Re the stone itself - I think in the films it's a bit murky, but I don't know enough about the books to comment. Still, for me - with all the tales and legends of sacred stones, cursed stones, stones that bring calamity when removed from their specific place - I think Tolkien was certainly aware of these. Thror - and the other dwarves - accept the Arkenstone as a "sign."
But I have often wondered - at least in the films - the very fact that "the heart of the Mountain" was taken from its place is a nod back to the idea of cursed stones - e.g. the "evil" of the stone ends when Thorin dies defending Erebor/the mountain and more importantly, when Thorin is buried with it, the stone and Thorin - the "heart of the mountain" are returned to their rightful place. NOT as a "vain and prideful" symbol of kingship - in this case as a decoration on a throne - but the Durins and stone rest deep within the mountain - the "heart of the mountain" is where it belongs once more.
And of course, the old tradition of a curse being atoned for by blood/great sacrifice - in this case, the Durins giving their lives.
None of this is spelled out I think by Tolkien or by the filmmakers, but for me the thread is there - a wondrous stone with unknown powers, taken from its place, and evil comes; the evil only ends after some sort of cleansing/sacrifice and/or the stone is returned. I am actually thinking of the stories of the Hope diamond which by reputation cursed all that dealt with it. Interestingly:
The Hope Diamond, also known as Le Bijou du Roi ("the King's Jewel"), [3] Le bleu de France ("the Blue of France"), and the Tavernier Blue. (Wikipedia)
Also:
http://www.livescience.com/16981-hope-diamond-cursed.html
The diamond has finally ended up at a museum which seems to be a neutral place where it is "happy". (LOL it may be superstition but I personally wouldn't even buy or wear a replica of the Hope diamond - superstition but why look for trouble.... )
So, did Thorin EVER need the stone to be king? I think not, and I think at least in the films, that is one of the tragic threads here - which I think Bilbo knows the whole time, and Thorin witnessed with his grandfather. "You've won the mountain, is that not enough?" I don't think Thror needed it either - "he took it as a sign....his right to rule was divine..." and the moment that is said (for me) - well, history is littered with real people who decided their "rights" were "divine" and Tolkien was certainly aware of those.
E.g., unwittingly - tho perhaps triggered by the stone itself? the belief that the Arkenstone is a symbol, and SO important to have, was a madness from the beginning - it's murky but IMO the stone should never have been taken, at all (which again, re Tolkien and ancient tales, it's an unwitting tragedy - the dwarves didn't know that the stone is "dangerous" as well as beautiful "drive him mad..." and should have been left where it was, if it is "the heart of the mountain")
And the line of Durin - at least some - is privy to the dragon sickness, which I take it would have been triggered and fueled by gold, and even more so by a kind of power-stone "would it stay his madness?.....I think it would make it worse...."
So finally re:
Quote
Could this moment actually be the resolution to the Arkenstone story? That Thorin didn't need the Arkenstone after all, because the dwarves will follow him and die for him anyway once he lets it go, and becomes Thorin Oakenshield again? I think there's another hint of this in the scene with Dwalin, when Dwalin says "You were always my king. You used to know it once."
IMO for me this is absolutely accurate - tho I think not treated like this in the books - but re the movie Thorin, for me, is the tragedy that Thorin doesn't "get" that as driven as he is, that he is beloved, and both dwarves, and eventually Bilbo - will both follow and die for him. E.g., Thorin had treasure all along - which in a way Bilbo is a symbol of - tho I think that theme is touched on with Thorin's last words "if more people cared about home..." and that Thorin's last words also are about Bilbo "I would part with you in friendship..."
And I think the movie also hints at "letting go" of the need for the stone and all the "trappings" of kingship - e.g., Thorin pulling the crown from his head and just throwing it; "I am not my grandfather"; and Thorin goes into battle without all the fussy gold armor and so on. He's just Thorin.
Which I think dovetails nicely with what Tolkien was trying to get across in the Hobbit book.
So yes, I would agree that that IS a resolution in the film , that Thorin is able to rise above and truly SEE (again, I think the book is more prosaic about things, but that is OK as well for me, given the nature of the material - also, I believe the book Thorin also must have "come back to himself" in that as I remember, an entire wall of Erebor is brought down, and Thorin would have had to order that, and the Durins fall defending Erebor. So even in the book for me is the thread of an inherent courage and heart of the Line of Durin as well as a sense of "coming back to yourself").
3)Re Bard - in the films (I wasn't that fond of the book Bard...) but anyway, I think the films show Bard as a reluctant, and above all UNGREEDY hero "what gold is in that mountain is cursed...we will take only what we need". Even when presented with the stone, Bard is uneasy "how is this yours to give?"
I think Bard would be more than happy to give the Arkenstone to Dain, but:
I personally think that whether or not the Arkenstone had ever been associated as a symbol of divine right to rule, that if it were merely the finest single jewel in all of Erebor, it well have been laid to rest with the Durins as tribute, the way great rulers are laid to rest with their jewels and swords.
And the sheer fact is that Thorin - "the Dare-er" for good or ill is the reason in the films that Dain will inherit Erebor. And we see in the films that Dain is honorable, cares for Thorin, loyal...I think as presented in the films for the characters it would have been beyond thinking that this Dain would have held onto the Arkenstone. That with the sacrifice of the Durins it would be sacrilege at worst, and really cheesy and ignoble, for anyone coming after to try to keep the stone.
Also, following the thought of ancient legends and tales of some stones being "alive" in a sense, or carrying a power - who can say, but the Arkenstone, if kept, at that point, may have cursed anyone (again) who took it from what it "feels" is now its rightful place (resting with the Durins especially Thorin who in a sense died for it - in a way, or at least died for Erebor/the mountain). That's speculation on my part, but in any event I can't imagine the Dain as presented in the movies keeping the Arkenstone.
E.g., I think either Bard or Dain would lay the Arkenstone with Thorin, as IMO if the stone could ever be described as having an owner, or if a being could ever be described as the "heart of the mountain" IMO it would be Thorin/the Durins who sacrificed all to reclaim Erebor. And both Bard and Dain, being as depicted honorable, would know that (one nice thing the movie does, I think, and this is a credit to Luke Evans, is that the film Bard I think is truly trying to engage with Thorin, frustrated by him, angry with him - but there is no enmity really, and in another reality I could have seen the two as friends, eventually. Nor do I think Thorin, even dragon-sick, feels Bard is dishonorable and so on.)
Also, IMO there would have been an "aura" about Thorin - e.g., for good or ill or having "brought ruin and death" or "rivers running with gold", Thorin is the embodiment of a fulfillment of a prophecy - e.g. seems to me that that fact alone would elevate the Durins - especially Thorin - as almost sacred figures and figures to be revered - in a different world and reality they may have been considered saints, demigods, etc. in time.
E.g. as such I would think the Durins would be treated with great reverence - nice to see the concept artwork of the funeral - at least some that I have seen - seems to play into that concept with the grandeur (the drawing of the two great dwarf figures holding the Durins - if there has to be a funeral I would wish that was actually depicted on film, but the images I have seen, it doesn't look like PJ went that route????)
But LOL I am not PJ & co. - who "love to tweak the fans"
(This post was edited by Avandel on May 16 2015, 8:07pm)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 16 2015, 10:01pm
Post #7 of 62
(2145 views)
Shortcut
|
it is entirely clear that Thorin unhinged, unredeemed and highly protective of the treasure was delighted to see Dain turn up. I think most movie goers buy that instinctive response and after all in the T E Dain just disappears from view.
However the astute observer of the traditions created for the films might have some problems and see the Dwarves of Erebor asking for Dains help as odd.
1) Dain is the Dwarf who did not help his cousin or his cousins father and grand father in the attempt to retake another Dwarf homeland - Moria. I know some might say he might have been there, If he was there it should have been made clear to support the story. To important to guess particularly given the book story.
2) He rejected Thorins plea for help with the quest on a matter of procedure and was prepared to let his cousin and his nephews enter Erebor naked without support.
But as soon as the dragon was dead at the hands of Bard, whom Thorin rejected, he forgot Dain's politically correct non intervention and sent him an E Mail via Raven.Com.
Curiously the loveable rogue we meet who forgives Thorin his tardy appearance in the battle looks just like the kind of Dwarf who would have bled for Thror at Moria and would have offered to assail the dragon. Thorin of course would reject the offer as suicidal without all the seven famiiies might, and would go with the re acquisition of the Arkenstone gambit. However he would take a rain check on his support and ask him to keep his In Box open for a message at the right time. So when the right time came Thorin pinged off the E Mail. For me all that is much more coherent and makes Dains choice as King a shoe in with the audience that have come to love the one guy who historically would always, whatever the odds, support his cousin. That approach also has no collateral damage on the rest of the plot and would have tied Azanulbizar into the real time story just that little bit more.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on May 16 2015, 10:08pm)
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
May 16 2015, 10:52pm
Post #8 of 62
(2128 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And Dain does continue to grow as leader
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He is a heroic, if aged, warrior by the time of LOTR.
Dain was quite right about Moria. It does not go well for Balin and his following.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 17 2015, 3:48am
Post #9 of 62
(2075 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Dain came to Thorin's aid because 1. Thorin had regained the mountain; and 2. He was being threatened by Elves and Laketowners. I think the reason Dain didn't help with the initial quest was summed up by the Goblin King: "Oh, but I'm forgetting you don't HAVE a mountain, and you're not a King, which makes you ... nobody really." I take this to mean that Thorin was merely HEIR to the throne. He either needed the Arkenstone in order to rally the 7 armies, OR he needed to have the mountain itself - and he did retake the mountain in the movie, driving Smaug out even if he didn't kill the dragon. So repossessing the mountain is what made him King, not the Arkenstone.
However, it was the heirloom of his family, the direct descendants of Durin, and if I've got this correctly Dain is NOT a direct descendant, so therefore although he may be heir to the Throne the Arkenstone was never meant to be his. So therefore I think it will be buried with Thorin. Now, it's possible that Bard will give it to Dain, or he may give it back to Bilbo, but I see no reason why he can't be the one to put it in Thorin's tomb when the time comes. Yeah, I know he was outside Erebor blowing horns & all, but that could just as easily been for the Laketowners that died in battle. That scene seemed so out of context for me, I just couldn't figure out why they'd be saluting Thorin and not their own fallen.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 17 2015, 8:15am
Post #10 of 62
(2028 views)
Shortcut
|
..there's something about the way Gandalf says that line about the dwarves rallying to their King. Something in the emphasis and intonation that tells you he means more than might appear on the surface. He realises that Thorin really is the King.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 17 2015, 8:35am
Post #11 of 62
(2023 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There's another factor that makes Thorin's position ambiguous....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... when he embarks on the quest. The whereabouts of Thrain. When Thror was killed Thrain would have become King. But if Thrain had also died at Azanulbizar or after then Thorin would have inherited the title, albeit as a King without his kingdom. Thorin makes it clear in talking to Gandalf at Bree that he is sure Thrain is still alive (in which case he himself is still only heir the lost throne). He implies that everyone else thinks Thrain is dead. So to start with he doesn't believe that he is the King - and I suppose that for that reason it's quite important that the film established the death of Thrain.
On the point about Dain, he is a direct descendant of Durin. His grandfather Gror was the youngest brother of Thror, Thorin's grandfather.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 17 2015, 11:47am
Post #12 of 62
(1965 views)
Shortcut
|
Family Heritage is a Big DEAL
to Dwarves, Hobbits &
Tolkien.
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 17 2015, 3:59pm
Post #13 of 62
(1930 views)
Shortcut
|
Thorin makes it clear in talking to Gandalf at Bree that he is sure Thrain is still alive (in which case he himself is still only heir the lost throne). He implies that everyone else thinks Thrain is dead. So to start with he doesn't believe that he is the King - and I suppose that for that reason it's quite important that the film established the death of Thrain.
For me - I just assumed it was a symptom of dragon sickness that Thorin is by BOFA assuming kingship, although it seems the denizens of Middle Earth accept Thorin as such.
I've found it odd - a missing scene? That Gandalf didn't go over to Erebor and try to talk to the dwarves, during which Thorin could have been told of his father's death - because later Gandalf calls Thorin "son of Thrain." - and why emphasize that (unless it's a reminder of a father who tried to protect his son in battle and/or Thrain was never dragon-sick and Gandalf is trying to snap Thorin out of it...)
I suppose you can't have Thorin and dwarves looking startled if they know a big orc army is going to show up - but then again nobody knew about the wereworms and no-one seems to believe Gandalf anyway.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 17 2015, 6:22pm
Post #14 of 62
(1905 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Either the Arkenstone drives the plot or it doesn't.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think Dain came to Thorin's aid because 1. Thorin had regained the mountain; and 2. He was being threatened by Elves and Laketowners. I think the reason Dain didn't help with the initial quest was summed up by the Goblin King: "Oh, but I'm forgetting you don't HAVE a mountain, and you're not a King, which makes you ... nobody really." I take this to mean that Thorin was merely HEIR to the throne. He either needed the Arkenstone in order to rally the 7 armies, OR he needed to have the mountain itself - and he did retake the mountain in the movie, driving Smaug out even if he didn't kill the dragon. So repossessing the mountain is what made him King, not the Arkenstone.
I think that is a perfectly plausible way to look at it from Dains point of view. He has the mountain so Dain comes. However there are two problems with that.
1) It contradicts his decision earlier ( which is arguably get round able).
2) The real issue is we have spent all this time with the Dwarves and Thorin going nuts trying to find it, Smaug and Balin offering extremely clear statements as to its spiritual/philosophical power and Bilbo withholding it because of the power therein, who uses it as a bargaining chip as a turning point in the saga and suddenly we down grade it to well its not important he has the mountain.
All in all this is Tolkien and I know there are people that contribute to this site that disagree with this but one of the professors constant repeating themes is in this ancient world icons were not merely symbolic they were bound in the fates of the history of Arda and represented real power. That is why to change the subject to down grade the staff of an Istari and a Morgul blade, their invention to EE material if at all is not within the spirit of Tolkien mysterious world full of magic and myth making.
I know our magnificent Dormouse is not keen on me doing this but as I have said there was a terribly easy way to deal with this and give Dains love and loyalty of his cousin a sustained and powerful arc. When your running a story for 460 minute almost the equivalent of 4 normal films to say some thing at 25 minutes (Bag End) and then again at 70 minutes (Azanulbizar) and bring it in at 420 adds cohesion and gives the films a truly symphonic quality and binds them together in a glorious whole.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 17 2015, 7:38pm
Post #15 of 62
(1891 views)
Shortcut
|
...(not magnificent, just intrigued!). What is it I don't like you doing? I can't see anything objectionable in your post - though of course if I'm not going to like it, perhaps you'd better not tell me!!
Seriously, I don't understand your last paragraph. Just me being dim, but what was the terribly easy way? What was it that you wanted them to say at the various points listed?
You're absolutely right about some objects in Tolkien having such profound importance that they are bound with the fate of Arda itself. The Silmarils - the One Ring. But I don't think it applies to every named object - what about Sting, for example, or the mithril coat - the Ring of Barahir - the Nauglamir - the Elfstone? Finding what is and isn't on the list would make for an interesting debate.
I see what you mean about downgrading the (film) significance of the Arkenstone, I'm just not sure that it is a downgrade. Something more interesting, I think - an answer to 'what makes a king'? Thorin was desperate to find it because he believed that he needed it to command the allegiance of all the dwarves. The Mountain wasn't enough. For myself, I don't believe that possession of the Mountain made him king. I don't think finding the Arkenstone would have done it either - and Balin seemed to feel the same way. I think Thorin came fully into his kingship when he overcame the dragon sickness, throwing down the crown and the regal armour and breaking free from his obsession with the Arkenstone and the rest of the treasure: setting aside the symbols of kingship and taking command of his dwarves on the battlefield where he was supposed to be. At that point it wasn't only his own dwarves, it was Dain's dwarves who rallied to him as well - he didn't need the Arkenstone to command them.
At the heart of all this lies the danger of possession. When Thorin let go of his need to possess the Arkenstone he gained the power it was supposed to convey. And there are so many other examples in Tolkien where the desire to possess a thing leads to all the wrong results that I can't see this twist in the film Arkenstone's story as being alien to the spirit of Tolkien.
Just a thought....
|
|
|
Glassary
Rivendell
May 17 2015, 9:22pm
Post #16 of 62
(1847 views)
Shortcut
|
Was starting to make my list if what I wanted to say and read Avandels reply. Immediately knew I could toss my list as you stated very well what I wanted to say. Also would add in that bit for Kikidoescsrtwheels about Thoron not having a mountain or kingdom when he went for help.
Yeah I'm cheating but others expressed it very well before me.
|
|
|
greenbalrog
Bree
May 17 2015, 9:34pm
Post #17 of 62
(1858 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why I see no loose ends in the Arkenstone plot, and what really bothers me about it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The quest's objective was never to kill Smaug, which was deemed impossible without a large force, but to steal the Arkenstone because that would be enough to convince the Dwarfs to rally behind Thorin to then march and try to kill Smaug and retake Erebor.
So, the killing of Smaug in BOFA changed the state of affairs, and whatever was said in the meeting between Dain and Thorin (before the quest) became obsolete, and we entered into a new stage of play.
When word got out that Smaug had been killed and that Thorin had taken over Erebor, Dain had all the reasons to believe that Thorin had the Arkenstone with him. I mean, why not? The jewel was there somewhere, or was thought so.
But, nevertheless, the mountain was re-taken, and Dain had to analyse the situation. So, let's look at the scenarios presented to him, and why he needed to go:
a) Thorin had the stone with a 90% probability, but Dain decides not to help (unlikely); So, he goes to honor the allegiance.
b) Thorin didn't have the stone 10% (unlikely) but there was still a dwarf home to protect, since with Smaug gone, many eyes would turn to Erebor, and for Dain, better have Thorin there than the treasure taken by the Orcs or worse, the Elfs; So, he goes.
c) Even if Thorin had the stone and was considered king, he could still be killed in battle, which would make Dain king or at least eligible (which in the end was what happened). He must go and help/check things out, and take possession if the chance comes or calls for it. So, he goes.
So, in either scenario, Dain's best decision would always be to go and "help" Thorin out (or at least the chance of Dain intervening was very high). Of course, Thorin didn't know this for sure. He thought he would come, but he wasn't 100% sure.
So, I see no lose ends or plot holes regarding the Arkenstone. Having not read the book I feel no real loss at not having a funeral for Thorin presented, nor I do find important to know or see if the stone is buried with Thorin or not. But, what I do have trouble with regarding the whole Arkenstone plot, is that I never understood its significance besides being part of the dwarven kingdom's relics. I mean, The One Ring we know what it could do and what its importance was. Even if it's still a stretch to understand what it is all about, we can understand that it embodies the essence of all of Sauron's malevolence and power. So, we buy its significance, not because by what we can do but by what the enemy will not be able to do.
However, what is the power of the Arkenstone, besides being a symbol of significance only to the Dwarfs themselves? Why do the Elfs "pay homage" to the bearer of the Arkenstone? Because it gave them the "right to rule"? I can understand it from the point of view of the Dwarfs, but why would the Elfs care about Dwarf's relics and symbols, unless the stone did have some kind of power, besides driving Dwarf rulers nuts.
I get the symbolism, the idea of the "ruler burden", the all "one day you'll be king and you'll know" idea, the greed that a treasure like that would provoke to its rightful owner. But, I still don't get why it was so important, and above all, why did the Elves even cared? If it's one of the Silmarils, then why not tell us about it or at least hint at its significance. Not all people have read the Silmarillion and know that story. I know I don't. But I do love the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and I feel that like myself, many people may have issues with the Arkenstone plot because of this, and because of that have issues with PJ's The Hobbit itself.
Anyone on "Why was the Arkenstone such a big deal for everybody and not only the the Dwarfs' themselves and their lineage affairs? :)
(This post was edited by greenbalrog on May 17 2015, 9:48pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 18 2015, 5:11am
Post #18 of 62
(1808 views)
Shortcut
|
Why I see no loose ends in the Arkenstone plot, and what really bothers me about it
Ah, but in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies the Arkenstone is a loose end. Since, as far as anyone knows, Bilbo's magical ring is nothing particularly significant and not even suspected of being the One Ring, it is the Arkenstone that represents absolute power--at least as far as the Dwarves are concerned. The disposition of the Heart of the Mountain is a matter of importance. If Dain rejects the gem and places it in Thorin's tomb then he is abandoning the Way Things Have Always Been and is starting a new tradition based on the trust and goodwill of his neighbors.
What made the Arkenstone important to other peoples was the authority it gave to its possessor over all of the Houses of the Dwarves. To risk the ire of the King under the Mountain was to risk the ire of the entire dwarven race.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 18 2015, 6:29am
Post #19 of 62
(1793 views)
Shortcut
|
As an aside my remark was a way of saying I admire your passion and commitment on this site and your enthusiasm for the subject. As you have said in the past you are an historian and your inclination is to accept what has been given and come to understand that tradition with all its natural flaws and inconsistencies whichs reflects real history and life.
I am a self starting entrepreneur and take things apart and start again thats what I have done all my working life. So my reaction to these films when I see things that could have been communicated better with more cohesion and clarity is to offer an alternative. Its a version of JRRT's finding the truth.
Last night I watched Woody Allan's" Magic in The Moonlight" and I throughly enjoyed it and went to bed. It all made sense within its own mode, the characters were introduced developed and a denouement and the film had a resolution.
I find the more i watch the Hobbit Films the more questions I have about their inner coherence and internal belief systems particularly those elements created by the film makers. Once the E E is released I will open up all of those observations and what I see as the solutions. In the case of Dain I was alluding to my solution which I described in an earlier post. The arc is as allows:-
1) Dain is the one leader who would attempt an assault on Erebor unlike the remaining six famiies. But Thorin will not risk just 500 from the Iron Hills against the dragon and opts in the Prancing Pony for a stealth mission with "a handful of faithful friends and family" and some thing unexpected to retrieve the Arkenstone.
2) Dain is the one leader that would follow the family of Durin to Azanulbizar and is seen grieving with Balin and Dwalin after the catastrophe (No more than that in the film universe) . Note In my view they were there to avenge Thror not to re acquire Moria.
3) When the dragon is by good fortune killed the natural person to turn to is the one Dwarven leader who the audience know during the 400 previous minutes has stood by his cousin. He wouldn't give the Arkenstone a moments thought they are close family and he comes for family whereas the six remaining families would not view Thorin as anointed or that power is bestowed on him until the supreme emblem of Dwarven Power is in his possession.
This approach has no collateral damage on any of the other plot strands it enable the audience to build up affection for this heroic rogue throughout the film and makes him a "shoe in" as the new King Under the Mountain.
In order to complete Thorins redemptive arc and his offering of the ultimate sacrifice as a one off turning point decision a letting go of its emblematic value the Arkenstone is not passed to Dain but is laid on Thorin's cadaver and sanctifies his body and bestows a special protective talismanic power on those whom hold the mountain in the ages to come.
When Gandalf and Bilbo take ship to Aman one because his labours are finished and the other out of recognition by the powers of Bilbo's unique contribution and loss of a normal life through his experiences which lead to the Arkenstone and the Ring the two of them know that Thorin too has been sanctified for ever in the fates of Arda.
For me this approach
A ) Provides Dain with a clearly defined and consistent arc and doesn't reduce his decision to come to "Great they have the mountain I am prepared to risk it now the dragon is dead and not make the excuse about the Arkenstone"
B) It keeps the Arkenstone in its dramatically established place as a supreme emblem of power which Bilbo uses to great effect and someone else, we shall find out in November, as the supreme act of sanctification of Thorin.
To me the zenith, the fulfilment of Thorins arc is his sanctification and the decisions with the Akenstone and Dain which to deal with other threads is why I see the narrative choice the film makers have chosen to complete the 460 minutes of T E with maybe complete for their priorities but I believe are the wrong ones.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on May 18 2015, 6:32am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 18 2015, 6:47am
Post #20 of 62
(1786 views)
Shortcut
|
In the film tradition if you consider the dialogue in the Prancing Pony, The Prologue, Bag End and Balin to Bilbo this "Silmaril like" stone in the film universe has been lifted very high and in a typical myth making way bestows on its own a sanctified power. The Arkenstone elevates its owner in the Dwarven world not unlike the Ring though with differences but it transforms the owner in the eyes of the Dwarves.
To drop that ball or to just put it into Bard's pocket and reduce Dains decision to come to "right the dragon is dead lets forget the "Bloody Bauble" " is philosophically inconsistent and incoherent. In the world in which we live for a commander to commit after a key target has been destroyed happens all the time but this is a world of symbolism and myth where mysterious forces hold the players and guide their actions. The entire history of the elves is built around that notion.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on May 18 2015, 6:57am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
May 18 2015, 6:54am
Post #21 of 62
(1786 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you demonstrate that if you take the film at face value and do not of yourself take any significance from the arc of the arkenstone dialogue that the film you received is complete.
However the Arkenstone is not a symbol of an office held. It is the power which gives that office and in that sense is ring like and silmaril like.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 18 2015, 8:42am
Post #22 of 62
(1775 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Your question about the Elvenking's homage is a good one....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... and gets right to the heart of this Arkenstone business. In the book the Arkenstone has no particular power attached to it. It's a family heirloom of Thorin's house, referred to as 'the heart of the Mountain'. He is desperate to find it once Smaug is gone - he values it above the other treasure - but Tolkien doesn't give us any reason why beyond the beauty of the stone itself.
For the film they've given the Arkenstone a new significance as a way of rationalising the importance Thorin gives it - also as a way of explaining the company's need for a burglar. They've made it the symbol of the primacy of Erebor among the dwarf kingdoms. The other houses of the dwarfs have sworn allegiance to the bearer of the Arkenstone: at Bree Thorin tells Gandalf nothing else will unite them. Which makes sense, as far as it goes.
I think it's worth noticing that they haven't said that the stone has power. It isn't magic in the way that the Ring is magic. Bilbo can't command the dwarves because he has it, nor can Bard. The movie Arkenstone seems to be the symbol of the king's power - rather in the way that the Great Seal of England was once thought to represent the power of the king. It was said that you couldn't be properly king if you didn't have it - when James II fled the country in the 17th century he threw the Great Seal into the sea, to prevent his nephew from becoming king. Seems to me this is the significance they've given the Arkenstone. "Thror took it as a sign: a sign that his right to rule was divine. All would pay homage to him, even the great Elvenking, Thranduil."
That one line from the AUJ prologue is the problem, and I'm afraid it's one I tend to ignore. The wording 'divine right' doesn't fit comfortably with Tolkien for me, and the idea of any Elf king doing homage to the dwarves seems preposterous, given their history. (Incidentally it precludes any idea that the Arkenstone is a SIlmaril. If it were the elves would be fighting to get it back!)
So, for me as for you that part is a problem. The Elves would certainly appreciate the beauty of the Arkenstone but they would never pay homage to a dwarf king. Never. This is how I come to terms with it.
1) If you look very carefully at that line from the script you'll see that it doesn't say that the Arkenstone IS a sign, or that all WILL pay homage to Thror. It says that this is what Thror THOUGHT it meant. So, I'm thinking that what we see in the theatrical version of AUJ is Thror's fantasy played out on screen. There he sits on his throne, under the Arkenstone, while the Elvenking of Mirkwood pays homage - but it isn't really happening that way.
2) Seems to me this is confirmed in the extended edition, which shows us what was really happening in that scene. Thranduil wasn't paying homage at all - he'd come to collect the necklace the dwarves had made for him. (From his point of view this is rather more like calling in at the jeweller's!) Thror refuses to hand over the necklace and Thranduil storms out.
That's my take on it. The Arkenstone wasn't a big deal for everybody, because you're right, that doesn't make sense. (It's worth noting also that Gandalf doesn't seem to see the stone as having any particular power - at Bree he urges Thorin to unite the dwarves without it). The Arkenstone was supremely beautiful, mystical, but not powerful - the King under the Mountain was wrong to attach such huge importance to it - as indeed he was wrong in his whole attitude to his treasure. Thorin becomes the true king when he breaks that spell and leads his company into battle. All the dwarves rally to him then for what he is.
Just my take on it...
BTW - the Great Seal turned out not to be powerful either. They just made a new one.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
May 18 2015, 9:27am
Post #23 of 62
(1748 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What? Dain was at AZANULBIZAR?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
IT seems we only see Dwalin & Balin doing a quiet Head But...
& Thorin searching the Bodies for his Father...
Where is Dain exactly? THATS News to Bomby?
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
greenbalrog
Bree
May 18 2015, 10:12am
Post #24 of 62
(1743 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Elves "pay homage" to the Dwarfs because they are afraid of them?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What made the Arkenstone important to other peoples was the authority it gave to its possessor over all of the Houses of the Dwarves. To risk the ire of the King under the Mountain was to risk the ire of the entire dwarven race. You have a point, but that would imply that the Elves respect, or "pay homage" to the King Under the Mountain not from a position of rightful ruler (by divine right, or by sheer power) but from a position of fear, because, as you say, the Stone unites the Dwarfs under one flag in a way that could be dangerous to the Elves themselves.
But, that justification doesn't seem to make sense to me to justify the "pay homage" by the Elves part because I don't see Elves being "afraid" of the Dwarfs. So, it could be the geopolitical reason you give but I still don't buy it. And, I'm not sure if the Elves "pay homage" because of the Dwarfs' might and wealth (because they were already wealthy and mighty before finding the stone) and they respect that, or because of the Stone itself. This is the part of the Arkenstone plot I find confusing and that 'm not too comfortable with.
(This post was edited by greenbalrog on May 18 2015, 10:14am)
|
|
|
greenbalrog
Bree
May 18 2015, 10:42am
Post #25 of 62
(1739 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for the reply. However, Arkenstone's disproportionate significance remains unexplained
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That one line from the AUJ prologue is the problem, and I'm afraid it's one I tend to ignore. The wording 'divine right' doesn't fit comfortably with Tolkien for me, and the idea of any Elf king doing homage to the dwarves seems preposterous, given their history. (Incidentally it precludes any idea that the Arkenstone is a SIlmaril. If it were the elves would be fighting to get it back!)
So, for me as for you that part is a problem. The Elves would certainly appreciate the beauty of the Arkenstone but they would never pay homage to a dwarf king. Never. This is how I come to terms with it. Exactly, the "divine right" and "pay homage" parts of the script attribute a disproportionate significance to the Arkenstone (or so it seems to suggest), one that, as you and I both seem to agree is never really explained and fully realized in the movie, so now I see what you really meant to convey with your post on the Arkenstone. When I said that I saw no loose ends regarding the Arkenstone was more about the "Why did Dain came?" and "Who gets the stone?" parts. Those questions don't trouble me.
What troubles me, and you also to some extent it seems, is the fundamental questions of why was the Arkenstone so important to Thror, and let's not forget , all the Dwarfs in Middle-Earth (otherwise they would never swear allegiance to him), besides being a very pretty jewel with no magical property or cultural significance of any kind what so ever. So, what changed with the jewel? Thror and Erebor were already powerful without it. This is the part I don't get.
So, perhaps the Elves didn't "pay homage" to Thror because of him having the Arkenstone after all (that could be Thror's own delusion in thinking that way, and that's what we get in the Prologue, as you suggest) but because Thror had a mighty and wealthy kingdom already, and to date (before the dragon sickness came) "peaceful and prosperous". Before the dark days...
So, thanks again for your reply, all others who replied, and your post in the first place. The all Arkenstone business is now a bit more clear, I feel. However, the doubt about its over the top significance is still around for me. I think the movie tried too hard to give the Arkenstone significance because, in a sense, it was the driver of PJ's Hobbit movies all together (the MacGuffin if you like), but then forgot to explain why was the Arkenstone so important after all.
(This post was edited by greenbalrog on May 18 2015, 10:50am)
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts - LOL lots of them
[
1
