The Hobbit (the Jackson films)

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I haven't gotten very far in the book, so it is quite possible that he does.  As I said, I am only to the point where they are in the burning tree and the eagles are just arriving.  I have a ways to go before the book ends.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Not 3, pretty sure as I've just seen it. In #1, maybe -- would be most logical place.

 

We should be seeing #3 again this coming week, so I'll keep my ears open for it.  Pretty sure it's not in #1, because it seems likely that if it were, it would have caught my attention well before this.

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, no "confusticates" or "bebothers" in (the theatrical release of) Battle of the Five Armies.  Either I imagined the whole thing or else it was in one of the other two movies (quite possibly an extended edition).

 

 

And if you haven't kept up with the "Martin Freeman News" thread, you may have missed the Hobbit / Office crossover video from Freeman's recent Saturday Night Live appearance.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Found the bebother & confusticate about 26:05 into the extended edition of Unexpected Journey.  It's right after the eating and doily bit and shortly before the cleaning up fun.

[Arcadia]

Well, bebother and confusticate these extended editions, I suppose that means I'll have to go out and buy them now ... although I think I'd prefer the shorter, fan-edited edition Carol was talking about... :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

Found the bebother & confusticate about 26:05 into the extended edition of Unexpected Journey.  It's right after the eating and doily bit and shortly before the cleaning up fun.

 

Thanks, CAMPer!

 

Well, bebother and confusticate these extended editions, I suppose that means I'll have to go out and buy them now ... although I think I'd prefer the shorter, fan-edited edition Carol was talking about... :P

 

Maybe it's also in the theatrical release, though?  Now that you know to look between the doily scene and "Blunt the Knives," it should be easy to find -- if it's there.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

It very well could be. I looked it up in the book so that I knew where to look in the movie.

[sittything]

So I finally watched the first Hobbit movie last night.  It was pretty good.  Although, I've never been a huge LoTR, Hobbit person to begin with.  Can I have Bilbo's/Frodo's house though?  So cozy, and all the books!  I also got super excited to see Frodo again, as well as Lord Elrond.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I love the books at Bag Ends too.  I may own more e-books than physical books, but I can guarantee you that I have read more of the physical books than the e-books.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The more I think about one oddity toward the end of Battle, the more I'm beginning to suspect that Jackson has more Middle Earth up his sleeve.

It immediately seemed odd to me that Thranduil advises Legolas to seek out a young Ranger going by the name of Strider, because according to Tolkien's Appendices to LotR, Aragorn was then only ten years old, and living in Rivendell under the name of Estel.  Furthermore, Jackson's modification goes nowhere in this movie -- so it makes sense only as a set-up for the next movie.  BUT that next movie does not seem to be Fellowship of the Ring, because I never had any impression that Legolas and Aragorn were well acquainted before the Council of Elrond.  Also, why does Legolas go off on his own in the first place?  That isn't a set-up for LotR either, because (at least in the book), he is introduced at the Council as a "messenger from his father, Thranduil."

 

 

All I can figure is that Jackson has some thoughts of doing one or more "bridge" movies after all, with

the adventures of Legolas and Aragorn as the unifying thread.

 

 

If he intends to have Aragorn back, he may have an uphill battle to persuade Viggo Mortensen to reprise the role.  In an interview earlier this year, Mortensen did not seem impressed by Jackson's evolving vision of Middle Earth:

 

"In the first movie ... there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10."

 

 

[Arcadia]

Well, I suppose that

Aragorn could have been such a prodigy that he was making a name for himself even at the age of 10! :D But yeah, the dates don't work out. I frankly just took that line as an attempt to tie the two sets of movies together. It wasn't explicitly said in movie-Fellowship that Legolas and Aragorn knew each other, but I thought it was implied when Legolas leapt to A's defense at the Council of Elrond. He knew who Aragorn really was, which was a closely guarded secret in the book.

 

 

I agree with Viggo, at least about LOTR. I haven't watched the Hobbit movies 40 times over yet, but I remember liking the scenes in Bag End just about better than anything else.

 

I don't know ... I suspect PJ is glad it's over, actually. Well, at least for now. He must have other worlds he wants to explore.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

The more I think about one oddity toward the end of Battle, the more I'm beginning to suspect that Jackson has more Middle Earth up his sleeve.

It immediately seemed odd to me that Thranduil advises Legolas to seek out a young Ranger going by the name of Strider, because according to Tolkien's Appendices to LotR, Aragorn was then only ten years old, and living in Rivendell under the name of Estel.  Furthermore, Jackson's modification goes nowhere in this movie -- so it makes sense only as a set-up for the next movie.  BUT that next movie does not seem to be Fellowship of the Ring, because I never had any impression that Legolas and Aragorn were well acquainted before the Council of Elrond.  Also, why does Legolas go off on his own in the first place?  That isn't a set-up for LotR either, because (at least in the book), he is introduced at the Council as a "messenger from his father, Thranduil."

 

 

 

 

 

But I thought Aragorn said he was 87 when he was talking with Eowyn en route to Helms Deep...of course that was the movie not the book and I haven't read LOTR yet. And if he was 87 that would have made him close to 30 by the time Legolas when searching for him.

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, I suppose that

Aragorn could have been such a prodigy that he was making a name for himself even at the age of 10! :D But yeah, the dates don't work out. I frankly just took that line as an attempt to tie the two sets of movies together. It wasn't explicitly said in movie-Fellowship that Legolas and Aragorn knew each other, but I thought it was implied when Legolas leapt to A's defense at the Council of Elrond. He knew who Aragorn really was, which was a closely guarded secret in the book.

 

 

Oh, OK.  I didn't remember that part in LotR.  But that scene in Battle would still be a decent set-up for a bridge movie.

 

 

But I thought Aragorn said he was 87 when he was talking with Eowyn en route to Helms Deep...of course that was the movie not the book and I haven't read LOTR yet. And if he was 87 that would have made him close to 30 by the time Legolas when searching for him.

 

There may (or may not) be a timeline discrepancy between the books and the movies. In the books, Bilbo returns from Erebor at roughly age 51, and his big birthday bash is 60 years later, when he turns 111 and Frodo coincidentally turns 33. But then Frodo hangs around Bag End till he's around 50 -- which is not all that clear in the movie. And

10 + 60 + 17 = 87.

 

[Arcadia]

And according to the Tale of Years, Aragorn was born in 2931 and met Eowyn in 3019, which made him 88, not 87, but close enough.

 

So yeah, something's weird with the movie time, basically they have Aragorn being born earlier and Frodo leaving the Shire earlier than Tolkien did. That's fine, me no mind.

 

By the way

I also note in the appendix that Aragorn had already performed "great deeds" by the time he was twenty, so maybe my "prodigy" remark wasn't that far off!

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe.  :D   But I still suspect Jackson is leaving the door ajar....

[Carol the Dabbler]

And according to the Tale of Years, Aragorn was born in 2931 and met Eowyn in 3019, which made him 88, not 87, but close enough.

 

If I'm reading it correctly, they met just a few days past his birthday, and things were pretty hectic, so maybe it just hadn't occurred to him that he was a year older.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Glad I saw them all, but if I had editing capabilities, I'd make it into one 3 hour movie.

 

You (and I) are not alone:

 

I still maintain that it would be worthwhile to re-edit the trilogy; if one were to cut out all the extraneous blockbuster-mongering action and romance, you would be left with a pretty darn accurate rendition of Tolkien's story. A lot of work for some fan out there, but if you ever pull it off let me know. I want to watch that cut.

 

That blog entry also makes the same point we were discussing regarding the time line (and several other comments on the movies vs. the books).

[Arcadia]

Maybe.  :D   But I still suspect Jackson is leaving the door ajar....

I suspect you are right ... although I'm inclined to spot the shadow of some studio exec hovering in the background, like an undead wraith....

[Arcadia]

 

Glad I saw them all, but if I had editing capabilities, I'd make it into one 3 hour movie.

 

You (and I) are not alone:

 

I still maintain that it would be worthwhile to re-edit the trilogy; if one were to cut out all the extraneous blockbuster-mongering action and romance, you would be left with a pretty darn accurate rendition of Tolkien's story. A lot of work for some fan out there, but if you ever pull it off let me know. I want to watch that cut.

 

That blog entry also makes the same point we were discussing regarding the time line (and several other comments on the movies vs. the books).

 

He made some good points, and in particular

about Bilbo's role in the death of Smaug. I remembered the raven but I'd forgotten it was Bilbo who discovered the "weak spot." That should have been left in!!!!!

 

I sometimes got the impression that PJ didn't find Bilbo a very compelling character and it shows on the screen.

 

I actually didn't mind the direction he took with Thorin, though; it was visually interesting and suitably heroic. I mean, geez, he had to fill all that movie time somehow..... :p

[sittything]

Martin Freeman is just too adorable and self-deprecating.  We've been watching some of the xtras this AM from the first Hobbit movie.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

He made some good points, and in particular

about Bilbo's role in the death of Smaug. I remembered the raven but I'd forgotten it was Bilbo who discovered the "weak spot." That should have been left in!!!!!

 

I sometimes got the impression that PJ didn't find Bilbo a very compelling character and it shows on the screen.

At least lack of respect for Bilbo is canon!  I never thought that Tolkien's third-person narrator gave him half the respect he deserved either -- more like "look at the cute little hobbit."

 

Your spoiler isn't actually a spoiler for anyone who's seen "Desolation," since

they telegraphed Bilbo's loss of yet another hero moment well ahead of time, by making Smaug's weak spot common knowledge in Lake Town.

  But that didn't make it any easier to take.

 

[Arcadia]

Well, since the third-person narrator is supposedly Bilbo himself, I'll just take that as a further example of how self-deprecating he is! :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

You've got to consider that (although that portion of the Red Book was purportedly written by Bilbo) we're clearly not reading the original version.  The story has been translated, at the very least.  Translators often attempt to "clarify" things, and may end up inserting their own point of view.

 

It just occurs to me that the difference in tone between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings may not be due to the differing writing styles of Bilbo and Frodo, as much as to having two different translators.  The first one thought of it as a children's tale and cutesy-fyed it, whereas the second one looked at it as a heroic saga.

 

[Arcadia]

That's a good "in-story" explanation, so sure, why not!

 

If I recall correctly, Tolkien wrote the hobbits to resemble what he considered the average, small-town, small-minded British public, whom he found to be rather parochial (but extraordinarily courageous and resilient when put to the test.) So your observation is probably pretty accurate.

[Carol the Dabbler]

You've got to consider that (although the Hobbit portion of the Red Book was purportedly written by Bilbo) we're clearly not reading the original version.  At the very least, the story has been translated from the original Westron into English.  Translators often attempt to "clarify" things, and may end up inserting their own point of view.

 

It just occurs to me that the difference in tone between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings may not be due to the differing writing styles of Bilbo and Frodo, as much as to having two different translators.  The first one thought of it as a children's tale and cutesy-fyed it, whereas the second one looked at it as a heroic saga.

 

And furthermore (I'm on a roll!), that could explain Beorn's magical beasties (mercifully absent from the movie) -- the translator was thinking of The Hobbit as a fairy tale, and maybe felt that that chapter needed a little spicing up -- kind of like

Jackson and the sand worms!