|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProudFeet
Bree
May 26 2016, 10:59am
Post #1 of 16
(2472 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hobbit Prologue - Was it necessary?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I may have written a post involving this discussion before so if I have, I apologise, but after re-watching the entire trilogy again, I always keep coming back to the necessity of the prologue. On the one hand, it's a nice bit of lore and we get to see new locations like Dale in its prime and Erebor too. We get to see new characters as well such as Thror and Thrain. However, ultimately, everything that is highlighted in the prologue is brought up again later on in the film, so it feels awfully repetitive. For example:
- We see that Dale was once a great city, we are told about this multiple times throughout the trilogy.
- We see Thror's Dragon Sickness kicking in. We are told many times that Thorin's grandfather fell to his greed and that Thorin is following in his footsteps.
- The entire discussion with the Dwarves in Bag End is the most repetitive as they ultimately bring up everything again that we've already seen.
- Thranduil's want for the white gems is brought up in the Woodland Realm and again in Battle of the Five Armies.
- Thranduil abandoning the Dwarves is brought up when Thorin yells at him in the Woodland Realm.
There are probably some more examples but they are all the ones I can think of so far. Do you guys think it would have been better to build slowly much like the book did? Start in the Shire and let the audience find out about what happened as Bilbo does in Bag End. Although Smaug is only seen in a few quick shots in the prologue, without seeing him at all and just building the tension of the dragon may have worked better. Same with Dale. Save the reveal of what happened to it for when the company see the ruins in Desolation of Smaug.
What do you guys think? I'm not hating on the prologue at all, I think it's a fantastically done scene (minus the Frodo stuff), but I just question if it was merely a mechanic to make The Hobbit feel more epic and to mirror The Lord of the Rings too much.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 26 2016, 12:27pm
Post #2 of 16
(2395 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I like the prologue and think it serves a valuable function.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have long maintained that the AUJ prologue was not meant for LotR book and movie fanatics or Hobbit book lovers like we here who recall every detail of both stories. It was intended for the casual viewers who make up most of the audience, who might not remember most of the details of LotR and need both a refresher and a fast lesson in the Middle-earth of Bilbo’s time.
The presence of old Bilbo and Frodo immediately sets AUJ in time and place because we meet them in their innocence on the day of the Birthday Party. We come to understand that this is not the further adventures of Frodo but is rather the tale of young Bilbo, from a time many years before LotR.
The prologue eliminates the need for multiple flashbacks or lengthy verbal exposition during the main part of the movie to explain what the background to what is going on. For instance, we easily understand the Dwarves’ discussion in Bag End.
It’s good to see Dale and Erebor in their heydays, so that we better grasp the tragedy caused by the dragon's coming and see what was lost. Plus it’s just cool to see the beauty of both cities before they were ruined.
It’s true the all three movies touch upon many of the points shown us in the prologue, but because we already understand the background, they can be just be mentioned in passing, as it were.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 26 2016, 1:41pm
Post #3 of 16
(2378 views)
Shortcut
|
The prologue, by introducing Thranduil's White Gems of Lasgalen and the conflict over them, did serve to prepare readers of the book with the knowledge that these films were going to have some significant departures from the original text even beyond the addition of material from LotR and the Appendices.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 26 2016, 1:42pm)
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
May 26 2016, 2:16pm
Post #4 of 16
(2370 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It could have worked without the prologue scenes,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but that would be a case of telling, not showing. It's usually much better to show than to tell.
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
May 26 2016, 3:44pm
Post #5 of 16
(2343 views)
Shortcut
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
May 26 2016, 4:32pm
Post #6 of 16
(2331 views)
Shortcut
|
But it shows all the necessary exposition so that the characters can mention it without having to go into great verbal detail or random flashbacks every time they do.
Since this is world-building and history to set up the entire story, I would prefer having it at the start, than peppered throughout the whole thing. As a viewer, it sure is nice to see how great Erebor and Dale were, how the greed of Thror led to alienating the elves as allies and the invasion of a dragon, how the dwarves had to become refugees... than just to be told about it.
I didn't feel any repetiveness, because of course they are going to mention at various points things we saw in the prologue, because that's the entire reason why the story is happening. I don't feel it was done too much.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
May 26 2016, 10:05pm
Post #7 of 16
(2255 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It served great and efficient purpose
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Much like the one in "LotR" which, if we're being honest, is also further reiterated and echoed later on in that trilogy (Gandalf's discussion with Frodo at Bag End and Elrond and Gandalf in Rivendell spring immediately to mind).
Helps with establishing a solid starting foundation and perspective for what's to follow.
"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 27 2016, 12:41am
Post #8 of 16
(2225 views)
Shortcut
|
- We see that Dale was once a great city, we are told about this multiple times throughout the trilogy.
Seeing the city is much more impressive than merely hearing about it's destruction here and there. The only other time we see it is several decades after the destruction.
- We see Thror's Dragon Sickness kicking in. We are told many times that Thorin's grandfather fell to his greed and that Thorin is following in his footsteps.
I wouldn't say "many times," Elrond mentions it once and Balin reminds him in DOS. Later he tells Bilbo "I've seen it before." Besides, the prologue ties Thror's sickness directly to the Dragon attack.
- The entire discussion with the Dwarves in Bag End is the most repetitive as they ultimately bring up everything again that we've already seen.
Really? I don't recall any discussion about white gems or dragon sickness there.
- Thranduil's want for the white gems is brought up in the Woodland Realm and again in Battle of the Five Armies.
I think without the image in the prologue, Thranduil's statement would be confusing. "White gems of pure starlight" - say what?
- Thranduil abandoning the Dwarves is brought up when Thorin yells at him in the Woodland Realm.
Not really - Thorin's words are "We came to you once, starving, homeless, seeking your help...." That has always sounded (to me at least) like a totally different encounter. In fact that confuses me a bit, but not enough to ruin that fantastic scene! RA and LP at their finest!  Anyway, the prologue says Thranduil wouldn't help them fight the dragon.
To answer your last question, I think it does explain some of the backstory behind the Quest. And as far as your question regarding the mechanism to make the Hobbit more like LoTR, well of course. But Peter Jackson also has a certain style with all his movies, kind of a "Bigger is Better" attitude that has been debated repeatedly on this site. Whether this was a good move or not is a matter of opinion, pretty much like everything else in the movies.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
May 27 2016, 1:10am
Post #9 of 16
(2226 views)
Shortcut
|
The films needed the prologue, it was the additional scenes afterward that were unnecessary.
As was stated earlier, many people watching the movie hadn't read the book and weren't familiar with the backstory -- the prologue did a great job getting them up to speed just as the prologue for LOTR did. I think the only other way to approach it would have been more like the book and fit the material from the prologue into "An Unexpected Party". That could have worked but also might have slowed down the pace of the story right at the start unless they trimmed the two songs some more.
Of the various things I think they did wrong in these movies, the prologue isn't one of them.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 27 2016, 2:36pm
Post #10 of 16
(2137 views)
Shortcut
|
The cinema audience doesn't have the time to absorb backstory that a reader does - and also needs to be drawn into a very different world. And the film needs to work for someone who knows nothing whatever about Middle-earth. The prologue provides essential orientation. It shows the wrongs that must be righted and the key elements on which everything else will rest. It sets up the dwarves, Smaug, the destruction of Dale and Erebor, Thranduil and the Mirkwood elves so that as the story unfolds the audience will recognise those elements and see how they fit together. Take away the prologue and viewers who haven't read the books will constantly be bombarded with new images, characters, names and references to the past and will have to work out who they all are on the hoof.
I think you've answered your own question: look again at this:
- We see that Dale was once a great city, we are told about this multiple times throughout the trilogy.
- We see Thror's Dragon Sickness kicking in. We are told many times that Thorin's grandfather fell to his greed and that Thorin is following in his footsteps.
- The entire discussion with the Dwarves in Bag End is the most repetitive as they ultimately bring up everything again that we've already seen.
Film is a visual medium. The whole point of the prologue is seeing key events so that when they're spoken about in the course of the film you know what is meant because you've already seen it. It's not just 'a nice bit of lore' tacked on at the start of the film, it's an essential part of good storytelling.
Frodo on the other had wasn't necessary - but I for one was really pleased to see him!
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
DainPig
Gondor
May 28 2016, 1:24am
Post #11 of 16
(2071 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The prologue was nice, but we could go without it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Like, we'd miss a lot, like you said. But just watch any fanedit, they always remove it and some of they are great.
|
|
|
ProudFeet
Bree
May 28 2016, 10:50am
Post #12 of 16
(2039 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree. My own edit is a constant struggle of removing scenes then deciding to add them back in, but it's boosting the runtime to nearly 4 and a half hours. I like the charming simplicity of opening in the Shire with the line 'In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit', just like the book. Then we save Thorin's appearance for when they open the door for him in Bag End. It also keeps the focus on Bilbo as he is the first character we meet in the film. However, the prologue is very well done and offers some incredible shots; some of the best in the trilogy. For example, the dragon kite blowing passed the screen is fantastic, and I love the visual of Smaug writhing around in the gold when he takes the mountain. So I'm really torn as I think both work well.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
May 28 2016, 3:50pm
Post #13 of 16
(2023 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yet another thing PJ got wrong
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- We see Thror's Dragon Sickness kicking in. We are told many times that Thorin's grandfather fell to his greed and that Thorin is following in his footsteps.
I wouldn't say "many times," Elrond mentions it once and Balin reminds him in DOS. Later he tells Bilbo "I've seen it before." Besides, the prologue ties Thror's sickness directly to the Dragon attack.
Thror didn't suffer from dragon sickness. How could he? No dragon had touched his Hoard as yet. He was greedy for gold and jewels as is the wont of most (all?) dwarves but it was a rather ordinary level of greed.
In fact, I don't recall any passage in the book that suggested Thror was particularly greedy; he loved the Arkenstone because of its unique beauty but that's far different from the scene of Thror regaling in mountains of gold.
Perhaps PJ felt he had to accentuate Thorin's dragon-sickness in order to explain his actions and then had to give Thror a similar sickness to introduce audiences to the concept. I can understand editorial choices made because he has seconds on screen to explain something rather than pages in a book (but I don't have to like them).
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
May 28 2016, 4:16pm
Post #14 of 16
(2019 views)
Shortcut
|
Thror did not have dragon sickness but he did have one of the dwarf rings and that ring made him greedy, the dwarves of Erebor did not know that the ring made him greedy so they thought it was some sort of sickness. Then Smaug came and took Erebor and the gold and because dragons love gold as much as Thror did ( or even more) they named the sickness of greed after Smaug. Then Thorin got greedy and Balin thought it was the same sickness as Thror ( Balin did not know about the dwarf ring) and Smaug had.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
May 30 2016, 5:02pm
Post #15 of 16
(1925 views)
Shortcut
|
In the book, the explanation is that dragon-sickness infects the gold they lie on and then on to some of the people who come into contact with that gold. Blaming the ring for Thror's sickness is plausible but neither supported nor contradicted by the text (of course, as I said, the text really doesn't support Thror having any gold fever beyond the normal Dwarven love of Earth's mineral beauty). This is yet another small line of change in the movies versus the book.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 30 2016, 5:48pm
Post #16 of 16
(1920 views)
Shortcut
|
Blaming the ring for Thror's sickness is plausible but neither supported nor contradicted by the text (of course, as I said, the text really doesn't support Thror having any gold fever beyond the normal Dwarven love of Earth's mineral beauty). This is yet another small line of change in the movies versus the book.
No, not in The Hobbit alone. However, the idea that the Ring of Power possessed by Thror could have influenced him, at least in the films, to a madness similar to dragon-sickness is supported by Tolkien's larger legendarium.
None the less it may well be, as the Dwarves now believe, that Sauron by his arts had discovered who had this Ring, the last to remain free, and that the singular misfortunes of the heirs of Durin were largely due to his malice. For the Dwarves had proved untameable by this means. The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them.
Of course, in Tolkien's canon it is Thráin more than Thror who shows possible signs of such madness.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
|
|
