Skip to content

The Desolation of Smaug vs The Hobbit -- (FILM SPOILERS PRESENT)

OcculusXOcculusX Member Posts: 99
edited December 2013 in Off-Topic
So, I just saw the Desolation of Smaug over the weekend. I read the Hobbit recently in the past 2 years, so it's pretty fresh in my memory.

Peter Jackson changed the 'feel' of the book somehow without changing the spirit of the story. In JRR Tolkien's story, the feel is more like, "Grab a pint of ale, good sir! Sit down... and let me tell you the jolly tale of a hobbit, and some dwarves. We will join them on an adventure is going to be lots of fun! We will sing songs, tell riddles, and generally have damn good time." The book feels like a jolly old romp in the forest with some funny characters. The book takes it's time telling the story, it's in no rush whatsoever.

Here's an example of precisely how rushed the book was. In Mirkwood, the spiders had caught and woven the dwarves into their webs. The spiders were discussing how fantastic this meal will be that they plan to be having.

"""
The others laughed. "You were quite right," they said, "the meat's alive and kicking!" " "I'll soon put an end to that," hissed the angry spider climbing back onto the branch.

Bilbo saw that the moment had come when he must do something. He could not get up at the brutes and he had nothing to shoot with; but looking about he saw that in this place there were many stones lying in what appeared to be a now dry little watercourse. Bilbo was a pretty fair shot with a stone, and it did not take him long to find a nice smooth egg-shaped one that fitted his hand cosily.

As a boy he used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet games of the aiming and throwing sort-indeed he could do lots of things, besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had time to tell you about. There is no time now. While he was picking up stones, the spider had reached Bombur, and soon he would have been dead. At that moment Bilbo threw. The stone struck the spider plunk on the head, and it dropped senseless off the tree, flop to the ground, with all its legs curled up.
"""

So... instead of just picking up a rock and throwing it at the spider, we are treated to the history of Bilbo and his aptitude at throwing things... in the middle of an action scene?! Then Tolkien has the gall to suggest, oh, there are plenty of other stories about all of Bilbo's other skills, but I don't have time to tell you about that now, because Bombur is in trouble. That's Tolkien for you.

There was a consistent theme in the book where the stupid dwarves would get themselves into trouble and the sensible hobbit would get them out again. The dwarves in the movie were exceedingly competent. In the book, the dwarves were exceedingly incompetent, always putting themselves in ridiculous situations that would have proven unnecessary if the dwarves had even a lick of sense.

Peter Jackson's film, on the other hand, impresses upon the audience a sense of urgency and dread of things to come. These things are also happening within the universe of middle earth (indeed, they have to be for the events of the Lord of the Rings to make sense), but they are not the concern of the characters in the hobbit. An example of this rush is that the dwarves are taken prisoner by the wood elves, in the movie; Bilbo gets the Dwarves out the very night they are thrown in jail, in the book; it was at least several weeks before Bilbo could get them out. In the movie, they are always rushing. Rushing on to the next action scene.

People have expressed agitation at the introduction of Legolas and Tauriel as a shameless money grab. That may have been part of it, but, in the books, Legolas is, in fact, a wood elf. It's not inconceivable to think that he was around but unnamed in the book. From a world building perspective, I don't see that Jackson committed any sins here. People have also expressed agitation at the budding love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel, and Fili. There was no such thing in the book, and they were right. In my mind, Jackson's movies are Jackson's stories... strongly influenced by Tolkien, but they are not Tolkien's. I like Jackson's stories. I like Tolkien's stories too.

Perhaps there was one gripe that I had with the movie... the whole republic vs. aristocratic autocracy in Laketown seemed contrived. Putting conflict where none probably belonged in the first place. And there was this whole issue of Thorin riding on top of a lake of molten gold. Gold melts at 1064 C. The heat wafting up from that would have cooked anything, especially a dwarf.

I loved the book. I loved the movie too. But they are different stories.

Well, as the night continues, my thoughts lose cohesiveness. What were your thoughts on the movie?
EudaemoniumCrevsDaakHeindrichNonnahswriter
«1

Comments

  • EudaemoniumEudaemonium Member Posts: 3,199
    edited December 2013
    Thanks for this. I haven't actually seen TDoS yet, but this is one of the few posts I've read not outright condemning it. (That said, we do already have a The Hobbit topic). Honestly, Jackson's changes don't really bother me. I'm not especially fond of Tolkein except in a vague childhood nostalgia sense, so I wasn't really looking for a strict adherence to the book. However, I find it funny that the Love Triangle is between Legolas, Kate Austen, and the movie's equivalent of a Legolas expy as a Dwarf.

    I do take issues with The Hobbit movies, though. Not as a Tolkein fan, because I'm really not, but because I think the movies are basically at war with themselves. This is mainly due to the (perhaps necessarily poor) meshing of the original material and the added material from the expanded universe. I don't really think this is really Jackson's fault, though. Its likely Tolkein came up with the vast majority of the background to his world after the Hobbit, and the tonal shift in the later "grand epic" narrative and that of an adventurous romp of a children's story is pretty stark. Its kind of a similar issue I have to the Harry Potter books (Heresy!), in that the mythology of the world kind of outgrew the original simplistic premise to the point where the story started to buckle under its own weight. The Hobbit didn't have this issue in book form, because it was always a mostly self-contained story set apart from LotR and the grander mythic arcs of Middle Earth, but the tensions become fairly apparent in the first movie, which basically attempted to insert the gravitas of LotR into what is, at heart, a silly story about a short guy who lives in a hole teaming up with a bunch of one-trick-personality dwarves in a quest to kill a dragon.
    Post edited by Eudaemonium on
    OcculusX
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    Movies < Book. It is easy, like it was with LotR, it is always the same, the movies end up being BASED in the book, and ABOUT the book.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    I see the desolation... as completely unrelated to The Hobbit in that the events of the film are a completely different tale. Whether it be the she-elf nonsense and unnecessary insertion of Legolas that harkens memories of C3PO and R2D2 showing up in The Phantom Menace to a completely different take on LakeTown
    goblin raiders inside Esgaroth

    and serious WT? moments inside the Lonely Mountain
    including but not limited to the stupid hollywooding and ridiculous 'fighting the dragon' nonsense
    or the 'have to make the ring act like The One Ring' when there is no reason to...

    I wanted (badly) to like this movie. It was an hour's worth of material crammed into three... 'like butter stretched over too much bread', as it were. On a five star scale, I'd probably give it two.
    CrevsDaakmeaglothCorvinoMontresor_SP
  • OcculusXOcculusX Member Posts: 99
    edited December 2013
    Part of the issue is that films and books are different mediums. They present information differently, and films do some things really well that books cannot do. The same is true in reverse. Books, for example, are a lot better at conveying the thoughts of the characters, in movies you can show the thoughts of the characters, but it is always awkward. The pacing in films generally needs to be a lot faster than in books, because a general audience has a more limited attention span.

    For anyone who has read Michael Chrichton's Lost World, then watched the movie. The movie is completely different from the book. In the book, there is a rich paleontologist who decides to fund a mission to find ancient dinosaurs living in the modern world (based on his own crackpot conceptions... but is a brilliant paleontologist, nonetheless). Ian Malcolm decides to go along with it. In the book, Chrichton spends some 60 odd pages with the paleontologist and Malcolm sitting up in the 'high-hide' postulating on why the behavior of dinosaurs on the island developed the way that they did. Hollywood *had* to change the story. I know of *very* few audiences that would tolerate *that* much introspection in a film. But in the book, this kind of thing is completely fine; extremely interesting even. If the director of the 'Lost World' decided to make the Lost World film too much like the book, it would have devolved into faux animal planet documentary. I'm *sure* that the director would have lost audiences and money on that kind of a thing.
  • AristilliusAristillius Member Posts: 873
    edited December 2013
    I loved the movie! I agree that obviously there have been taken quite a few liberties, but that's fine by me. In my eyes, the Hobbit has a story more moldable and possibly more appropriate for a movie. I love the Lotr books the most as a story, but possibly the Hobbit movies more as movies.
    Post edited by Aristillius on
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155

    I loved the movie! I agree that obviously there have bern taken quite a few liberties, but that's fine by me. In my eyes, the Hobbit has a story more moldable and possibly more appropriate for a movie. I love the Lotr books the most as a story, but possibly the Hobbit movies more as movies.

    Still thinking that The (Tale of the) Children of Húrin would make a MUCH better movie, MUCH more if done correctely as it is in the book, it has a romance so there is no need to add anything, and it will be the first drama movie I would like to see.
    Aristillius
  • OcculusXOcculusX Member Posts: 99
    CrevsDaak said:



    Still thinking that The (Tale of the) Children of Húrin would make a MUCH better movie, MUCH more if done correctely as it is in the book, it has a romance so there is no need to add anything, and it will be the first drama movie I would like to see.


    Yes, or a retelling of the Silmarrillion. The fall of Numenor. The story of Beren and Luthien. The introduction of Ancalagon the Black (he would make Smaug look like a puppy).
    CrevsDaak
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    OcculusX said:

    CrevsDaak said:



    Still thinking that The (Tale of the) Children of Húrin would make a MUCH better movie, MUCH more if done correctely as it is in the book, it has a romance so there is no need to add anything, and it will be the first drama movie I would like to see.


    Yes, or a retelling of the Silmarrillion. The fall of Numenor. The story of Beren and Luthien. The introduction of Ancalagon the Black (he would make Smaug look like a puppy).
    Yeah, but the Silmarillion as a movie.... they'll have to make like 7, it tells lots of different tales, all related, but they are, different, many things are told like little tales, and it will be very difficult to make a movie, because it has lots of content.
  • CamDawgCamDawg Member, Developer Posts: 3,438
    I enjoyed the movie, but I agree with a lot of what @OcculusX has to say. I feel like they substituted a lot of the depth of really important story elements with action sequences. E.g. I was really looking forward to Bilbo's interactions with Smaug, which is one of the better parts of the book, and I think we got a brief 'I smell you thief' before a 7 1/2 hour* action sequence. The rescue from the Elvenking and the spiders were a showcase of Bilbo's courage, ingenuity, and endurance in the books. In the movies, these were again substituted for long--and don't get me wrong, enjoyable--action sequences and Bilbo's character is not really explored.

    * This may be a slight exaggeration for effect--until the extended version DVDs at least.
    CrevsDaakKlonoa
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    I liked the movie for what it is.
    Aristillius
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    Yea I found it to be excessively drawn out. I mean its been awhile since I read the books, but the whole barrel escape from the elvish city/ entrance into the human city seemed really drawn out. I saw it in. 3D, so I get that they wanted to have certain scenes for that medium, but for the purposes of conveying the story it seemed unnecessary.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    CrevsDaak said:


    Yeah, but the Silmarillion as a movie.... they'll have to make like 7, it tells lots of different tales, all related, but they are, different, many things are told like little tales, and it will be very difficult to make a movie, because it has lots of content.

    And that's why I think they shoudl make the Silmarillion as an animated series. Outsource the job to Pixar or Disney quality animated feature. It doesn't have to be kiddie animated series either. You know Pixar does some good quality animated films that aren't ONLY for kids.

    It would work. Someone phone Peter Jackson and get him to cut me a royalty check for eleventy billion dollars.
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    edited December 2013
    If you think of the movie as really really really expensive cartoon that contains the characters from the hobbit, then it's not so bad. See the barrel scene, where a barrel with a dwarf in it flies out of the river and bounces for about a mile, landing on a Orc or two every time? It's not so bad that legolass or whatshername is in there, but a love triangle? Really? Come on guys, That just overdoing it.

    As for the Silmarilion, it could not be a movie. It's a history book. Imaging making a movie out of the bible, it just wouldn't work. It would be like those 60 second performances of hamlet, but last for 5 hours. Some of the stories in it are definitely meant to be movies, just like what Peter Jackson is trying to get out of the hobbit. Beren and lùthien, the children of hurin, all total epics, just begging for a multi-bajillion dollar movie to be made of them.
    The whole Silmarilion, should be a tv series. That would be brilliant. Each season could be a chapter. I would love to see that, and the Silmarilion is vague and obscure enough that they could pretty much add whatever the want. (Not that they would need to)

    I am a die hard Tolkien fan, and am pretty mad at the hobbit movies. But I will give you that it was fun to look at, and that's all it really needs to be, I guess.
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    I'm looking forward to someone editing down the Hobbit trilogy to a watchable 3-hour version in a few years time. If you prune away the elements related to the rise of Sauron, the bolted-on love triangle and trim a couple of minutes off every action sequence then I'm sure it could be done without losing character development for Bilbo, Thorin or most of the other Dwarves and maintaining the core plot.

    The Desolation of Smaug is no better or worse than most other films coming out of Hollywood studios at the moment. Unfortunately we live in a time where every film must be either a "Non-stop Thrill-ride", rom-com star vehicle or introspective lo-fi indie flick and the Hobbit films have been shoehorned into the "Non-stop Thrill-ride" section.
    elminsterCrevsDaakmeagloth
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    @Dee - a wild spammer has appeared!
    elminsterCrevsDaak
  • MetallomanMetalloman Member, Moderator, Translator (NDA) Posts: 3,975
    Banned.
    CrevsDaakCorvinoAristillius
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited January 2014
    Spoilers abound within:

    I agree with the sentiment that a precise page-by-page filmic retelling of the book would not work--at least not for most filmgoers. The Hobbit is a children's story written before the Lord of the Rings was conceived. I think the story is wonderful at creating a remarkable sense of magical place filled with various types of inhabitants, and at establishing the foundation for a fantasy world with what became some very basic fantasy conventions (eg, what became D&D classes/archetypes). But I want to see the tale woven into the greater fabric of the story's universe and epic story that Tolkien developed for Middle-Earth, i.e., the Ring War. I did particularly not want to see the children's tale, honestly. I'm much more interested in this story as a crucial part of the epic saga.

    In the 60's Tolkien began a major revision* of The Hobbit that he aborted, which is well enough. But I think it does signal a recognition and desire on his part to do more or less what Jackson has attempted, at least with respect to integration of the two tales.

    That said, it's more than fair to criticize the introduction of Tauriel and the romantic subplot of the attraction between her and Kili. More on that in a bit...

    But first, as to Legolas appearing in this film: Legolas is in fact a wood elf, no less than son of the king of the Mirkwood elves. It makes perfect sense for him to appear in any creative revision that seeks to meld the two stories. The main concern I have about his portrayal is that he was given the Mirkwood elven creepiness. He is eerie, vacant, stony, and robotic. His affect is very flat. Thranduil has a similar eeriness, and we even get a glimpse of some sort of (moral?) degradation process to him in a scene where his face morphs for just a second. Maybe he and all the wood elves are subtly afflicted by the dark spell that the Necomancer has placed over Mirkwood? Anyway, I hope there is a decent explanation for it in the third film.

    Note that Tauriel does not have that creepy quality at all, however. So at least one elf among the Mirkwood elves has some sort of softness of heart, and can relate emotionally.

    I'm not troubled by the introduction of Tauriel to the tale. She's a winning character, and I enjoyed her role. Evangeline Lily did a great job with her. But the attraction between Kili and Tauriel is a major gamble on Jackson's part. There is no mention of such a thing ever occurring in Tolkien's writings on Middle-Earth as far as I know. I can't help but think that this must figure in towards the larger problem that the forces of Good on Middle-Earth have in uniting to defeat Sauron. The elves and the dwarves truly hate one another, and must overcome their racial hatred in order to survive a global threat. (And at the White Council's level of intrigue, Smaug would be a devastating member of Sauron's army. Smaug has to be defeated.) I do find the Tauriel-Kili love story compelling on its own merits, actually. And I don't particularly mind that Jackson introduced it. But I'm really wondering how it will factor in to the eventual unification of dwarves and elves to battle Smaug. It may end up being an overreach.

    The liberties Jackson took with the dwarvers (Thorin in particular) within Erebor didn't really bother me. I think it made for a more rousing adventure for Thorin to behave heroically than to remain back at the entrance and let the hired thief do all the dirty work (of simply stealing the Arkenstone).

    I think the scene with Gandalf at Dol-Guldur is well realized, although it arguably missed an opportunity to have some dialogue between Gandalf and Sauron. But perhaps Jackson felt it ultimately works better psychologically to have Sauron remain an indistinct, shadowy presence that engulfs and overwhelms (and by being formless therefore harder to fight).



    * That is, beyond the rewrite Tolkien did of Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum from first to second editions of The Hobbit. Tolkien decided after the first edition of the Hobbit that he wanted what was originally just a magical ring to be the One Ring at the center of the Lord of the Rings. So the conversation between Bilbo and Gollum is changed accordingly.
    Post edited by Lemernis on
    Aristillius
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    After hearing of a Hobbit movie, I thought it would be hard to realize, knowing the content of the book it was based on. After hearing of a Hobbit movie being split in three movies, I've thought of it as a nothing more than a cash grab. So, after watching two movies, what I can say?

    The first movie was decent, but is has nothing that could make me watch it more than once. Fortunately, the second movie was better, even thought it still has it's shortcomings. Due to content of the thrid movie, I feel like the second one will be my favourite.

    I am aware that some scenes had to be changed in comparison to the book, so that they would fit a movie better. As much as I appreciate Tolkien with his imagination and creativity, he was pretty bad at setting the mood and pacing the action of his stories. The movie had improved these aspects of the story, but everything has it's drawbacks. Involving Legolas was one of said drawbacks. While I am ok with Tauriel as she is nice and fresh character, mr. gary-stu feels unnecesary. He (Legolas) already had 3 movies he could shine in and recieve my dissaproval for being too perfect to be likeable.

    Other drawbacks? Since it's ought to be stand-alone movie, some comical scenes were required. And that's ok, but again, mr. Jackson evidently hates everyone from Gimli's lineage, seeing how he stubbornly refuses to show us his father's dignity. Yet again, redhead dwarf has been included as a merely comic relief.

    But what I like about the newest movie? Tauriel, that's one. Beside attempt on "love triangle" in Desolation of Smaug, she feels decent character on her own. Reasonable, sometimes rebelious, badass elfish heroine.

    The other reason and the star of the entire movie is Smaug himself. At first I've thought that making him (a giant dragon, that is) showing human-like facial expression was risky, but it worked in the end. At times, they managed to make him look really, really evil. Basides, I love his voice acting and the way he moves. Also, how it was useless to slay him in the mountain. I was relieved that they didn't decide to design him 100% from the book, since with
    him wearing his underbelly armor that's made from diamonds/other trasures, he would sparkle like Edward Cullen. The desing always seemed funny to me
    .

    Also, what else Hobbit movies did well is a Bilbo character. The best Hobbit character presented so far.
    Aristillius
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    All of the Middle Earth movies highlight the problem inherent in trying to translate any book into a movie: a book can capture a broader range of details, such as how something feels or smells, but a movie is able to portray only visual things (well, it can portray things via sound, as well, to a slightly lesser degree)--if it isn't capturing your attention visually (or through sound) then it isn't capturing your attention at all. How does Mirkwood smell? The movie can't tell us but the book can.

    This isn't to say that the movies are not worth watching because they are, especially the extended editions with all the extra content put back in. There are movies which, due to their visual or action-packed nature, would translate quite poorly into novelized versions--consider most martial-arts movies or movies with quirky scenes or characters such as Cherry Darling from Planet Terror. This applies to musicals, as well--both The Saddest Music in the World and Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge are great to watch but they would make for extremely boring and lackluster novels because the songs are so central to the plot.
    O_BruceLemernis
  • IsandirIsandir Member Posts: 458
    I've been a LotR fan since I was in the womb, when my father apparently read the books to me. I had gone through the whole series by the time I was eight and read them annually for almost fifteen years after that. Upon hearing that the trilogy would be made into films, I was fully prepared to assassinate anyone who screwed them up. In short, I was and am an ardent fan of Tolkien's writings.

    Despite the changes in LotR, I loved the films and the interpretation Jackson chose to apply. Similarly, I have enjoyed The Hobbit film(s) thus far, even with the occasional eyebrow raise over an absurd action scene. I'm even willing to accept the flirtation between Kili and the non-existent elf (provided it doesn't get taken any further in that last movie). The one thing that has really bothered me, however, is Gandalf's discovery of the necromancer being Sauron. Why? It negates the whole @#%! section of The Fellowship of the Ring in which Gandalf rides all the way to Minas Tirith, finds out about the One Ring, discovers that Sauron has returned and rides all the way to Isengard to tell Saruman about it! Yes, I know. He could be surprised that Sauron came back a second time, but that just feels like an excuse...
    O_BruceCrevsDaakmeaglothCorvino
  • civian1991civian1991 Member Posts: 57
    I personally liked this film much more than The Hobbit movie. I dunno, it was like, the movie ended, and then you realised you'd been sitting there for 3 hours and eaten a whole bag of M&M's. It didn't captivate me like this movie did.

    And word on Legolas looking weird.

    All in all, Stephen Colbert has a cameo, so it couldn't have been all bad right? After all, he is King Nerd.
    http://biosquare.tumblr.com/post/44695425358/stephen-colbert-king-of-nerds
    CrevsDaakNight_WatchIsandir
  • OcculusXOcculusX Member Posts: 99
    edited January 2014

    How does Mirkwood smell? The movie can't tell us but the book can.

    Even when I'm reading the book I really don't want to spend too much energy thinking about how a goblin infested tunnel smells. I have no doubt that a little chemical synthesis machine could be made to simulate and poof out a huge range of smells... I just don't see how anyone sane would buy such a thing to put it in theaters. Give you the *complete* experience.
    Isandir said:

    The one thing that has really bothered me, however, is Gandalf's discovery of the necromancer being Sauron. Why? It negates the whole @#%! section of The Fellowship of the Ring in which Gandalf rides all the way to Minas Tirith, finds out about the One Ring, discovers that Sauron has returned and rides all the way to Isengard to tell Saruman about it! Yes, I know. He could be surprised that Sauron came back a second time, but that just feels like an excuse...

    You know, I forgot about that detail. In the books Gandalf did confront the necromancer in mirkwood, but he didn't know that the necromancer was Sauron at that time. Long story short, the necromancer fled to Mordor. Much cozier place for a black wizard anyways.
    Isandir
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    OcculusX said:

    I really don't want to spend too much energy thinking about how a goblin infested tunnel smells

    Venture to any subway, bus, or railway terminal...preferrably in a large, metropolitan downtown area...at night...then venture into the men's room and stay there for 15 minutes soaking in the aroma.

  • Night_WatchNight_Watch Member Posts: 514
    edited January 2014
    Rather than a book to movie adaptation, I wouldn't mind seeing Jackson present a briefly mentioned story or piece of Middle Earth history, like how Balin tried to retake Moria after that business with Smaug. I think there's plenty room in there for him to play with ideas without detracting too much from Tolkien lore.

    The movies weren't bad. I thought they were entertaining and and if anything, may serve as an inspiration for people to actually go pick up the books and read them. One can only hope =)
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    Isandir said:

    I've been a LotR fan since I was in the womb, when my father apparently read the books to me. I had gone through the whole series by the time I was eight and read them annually for almost fifteen years after that. Upon hearing that the trilogy would be made into films, I was fully prepared to assassinate anyone who screwed them up. In short, I was and am an ardent fan of Tolkien's writings.

    Despite the changes in LotR, I loved the films and the interpretation Jackson chose to apply. Similarly, I have enjoyed The Hobbit film(s) thus far, even with the occasional eyebrow raise over an absurd action scene. I'm even willing to accept the flirtation between Kili and the non-existent elf (provided it doesn't get taken any further in that last movie). The one thing that has really bothered me, however, is Gandalf's discovery of the necromancer being Sauron. Why? It negates the whole @#%! section of The Fellowship of the Ring in which Gandalf rides all the way to Minas Tirith, finds out about the One Ring, discovers that Sauron has returned and rides all the way to Isengard to tell Saruman about it! Yes, I know. He could be surprised that Sauron came back a second time, but that just feels like an excuse...

    I think the way the movie has it actually is Tolkien canon, believe it or not. Just a couple days ago a friend of mine showed me an an article by a Tolkien scholar (Glen Gill), which I did read, and this guy said that scene was in line with Tolkien's notes. Sauron is driven out of Dol Guldur to regather strength in Mordor. I think Gandalf suspects it is Sauron in the Fellowship and he goes to confirm it.

    There's a scene at the beginning of the Fellowship where Gandalf puts the ring in the fire and reads the inscription. But one would have thought he knew that the ring was the One Ring from when Bilbo first shared that he had it. But I guess not.
  • OcculusXOcculusX Member Posts: 99
    edited January 2014


    Venture to any subway, bus, or railway terminal...preferrably in a large, metropolitan downtown area...at night...then venture into the men's room and stay there for 15 minutes soaking in the aroma.

    That's a bit too vivid. I don't think I'll try that.
    Lemernis said:


    Just a couple days ago a friend of mine showed me an an article by a Tolkien scholar (Glen Gill), which I did read, and this guy said that scene was in line with Tolkien's notes.

    You take your entertainment like an academic. :)

    Post edited by OcculusX on
  • IsandirIsandir Member Posts: 458
    edited January 2014
    Lemernis said:


    I think the way the movie has it actually is Tolkien canon, believe it or not. Just a couple days ago a friend of mine showed me an an article by a Tolkien scholar (Glen Gill), which I did read, and this guy said that scene was in line with Tolkien's notes. Sauron is driven out of Dol Guldur to regather strength in Mordor. I think Gandalf suspects it is Sauron in the Fellowship and he goes to confirm it.

    There's a scene at the beginning of the Fellowship where Gandalf puts the ring in the fire and reads the inscription. But one would have thought he knew that the ring was the One Ring from when Bilbo first shared that he had it. But I guess not.

    It is canon, but what bothered me was the inconsistency that was then built into the structure of the films. Jackson spent so much time building a wonderful series of scenes in LotR showing Gandalf doing the research and having his "OMG! Sauron is alive!" moment when Tolkien specified that the White Council didn't act against the Necromancer based on Saruman's recommendation (as he was already aware of the One Ring and was aiming to get it for himself) well before the events of The Hobbit. As a result Sauron was able to simply flee back to Mordor and rebuild again.

    Edit: Now that I think back on it, Jackson can remain consistent I suppose as long as Gandalf believes the Necromancer/Sauron is in fact defeated in the third film. I certainly hope he does in that case...


  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    OcculusX said:



    Just a couple days ago a friend of mine showed me an an article by a Tolkien scholar (Glen Gill), which I did read, and this guy said that scene was in line with Tolkien's notes.

    You take your entertainment like an academic. :)

    erm...I didn't say that. @Lemernis did.
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited January 2014
    @Isandir

    Yeah, but this is not really Jackson's fault--at least not too much. He has to condense into an action film narrative what Tolkien wrote in later writings (eg, "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in the Silmarillion and "The Istari" and "The Quest of Erebor" in Unfinished Tales) as he developed various details to the Ring saga. The Wikipedia entry on Gandalf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf) actually looks pretty well researched, and outlines out a chronology to what we're discussing here.

    By the way, I think it it is obvious from the following details from Tolkien's subsequent writings that the first edition telling of The Hobbit would not do justice to the Ring War story that he later developed.

    All dates (except the first?) are Third Age (T.A.):
    • ? date: The angelic being Orolin, who in Middle-Earth took the name Gandalf, is sent by his patron deity Nienna to Middle-Earth clothed (in humility) in the form of an old man to assist men, dwarves, and elves against the threat of Sauron.
    • 2063: Gandalf suspects that the Nercromancer of Dol Gulder is Sauron. The Necromancer withdraws rather than reveal himself.
    • 2460: The Necromancer (Sauron) returns to Dol Guldur with greater force.
    • 2463: The White Council (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Radagast, Cirdan the Shipwright of the Grey Havens, and unnamed chiefs and rulers of the Eldar) is formed in response to the return of the Necromancer to Dol Guldur. Gandalf declines the leadership position and Saruman assumes leadership of the White Council.
    • 2850: Gandalf returns to Dol Gulder and ascertains that the Necomancer is indeed Sauron. During this mission he finds dwarven King Thrain II (Thorin's father) imprisoned by Sauron at Dol Guldur and obtains from him the map and key to Erebor featured in The Hobbit quest (Thrain dies however).
    • 2851: The White Council is summoned and Gandalf exhorts them to drive Sauron from Dol Guldur. Saruman convinces the White Council that this is unnecessary since the One Ring that Sauron requires to reconstitute himself should have been carried by the River Anduin to the sea. This is a deception by Saruman, however, since he is actively searching the Gladden Fields not far from Dol Guldur (where Isildur was killed) for the One Ring.
    • shortly before or during 2491: Gandalf has a "chance meeting" with Thorin at the Prancing Pony in Bree and persuades him to initiate the quest to reclaim Mount Erebor from Smaug.
    • 2491: Thorin's quest to reclaim the Arkenstone from Smaug begins. The thirteen dwarves and Bilbo head to Mount Erebor. (Gandalf recruited Bilbo because partly because he knew Smaug would be unfamiliar with the smell of a hobbit.) After Smaug is killed by Bard the Bowman, the Battle of the Five Armies ensues (men and elves are about to go to war against dwarves over Smaug's treasure; they then unite to defeat a vast goblin and warg horde from the Misty Mountains, attacking in retribution for Gandalf's slaying of the goblin king).
    • between 2941 and 3001: Bilbo doesn't tell the entire truth to Gandalf about how he obtained his magic ring, explaining simply that it was a "present" from Gollum. Gandalf grows increasingly suspicious of Saruman. He befriends Aragorn, and cultivates a close relationship with Bilbo and Frodo, spending much time in the Shire.
    • 3001: Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday party. Bilbo uses the ring to disappear at the end of his birthday party. Gandalf convinces Bilbo to give the ring to Frodo for safekeeping. Bilbo departs the Shire to live at Rivendell.
    • 3001 to 3018: Gandalf researches and gathers information. He and Aragorn track down Gollum and learn from him that Sauron tortured information about the ring out of Gollum at Barad-dûr. Gandalf now suspects Bilbo's ring may be the One Ring.
    • 3018: Gandalf returns to the Shire. He places Bilbo's ring into the hearth fire, revealing the elven script on it that positively identifies it as the One Ring. Gandalf instructs Frodo (and Sam) to make preparations to take the ring to Rivendell, since believes the Shire is no longer a safe hiding place for it because Saurun's servants are actively searching for it. Gandalf departs the Shire (reason unknown?) but tells Frodo that he will try to return on Frodo's 50th birthday in order to accompany him to Rivendell. However, when Gandalf leaves the Shire he encounters Radagast, who informs him that the Ringwaiths are closing in on the Shire and that Saruman has summoned Gandalf to Isengard immediately. Gandalf complies but first leaves a letter for Frodo at the inn at Bree. Gandalf is imprisoned by Saruman on the top of Orthanc but escapes via a giant eagle. The eagle takes him to Rohan where Wormtongue convinces Theodin not to trust Gandalf and to leave Rohan. Gandalf finds and tames Shadowfax and rides back to the Shire to discover that Frodo and Sam have already left.

    Post edited by Lemernis on
    CrevsDaakmeagloth
  • IsandirIsandir Member Posts: 458
    I definitely don't blame Jackson. As I said, I actually like his ability to translate rich text into a more visual format. I just don't think it was a great idea to stretch The Hobbit into three films by bringing in all of the notes compiled by Tolkien's son, particularly when you've already made what comes next.

    As I said, I hope he does indicate that Gandalf believes the Necromancer to be destroyed, in which case it will still make narrative sense in the context of the films.
Sign In or Register to comment.