It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:00 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:07 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
In The Hobbit as originally written, there was no One Ring. The Ring that Bilbo acquires in Goblin caves is simply a magic ring that makes him invisible. Indeed, in the first edition that was published, Gollum was perfectly willing to give it to Bilbo as his prize for winning the Riddle Game, and was mortified that he was unable to do so, and offered to show Bilbo the way out as a replacement prize, and actually did so. There was no moment of pity in which Bilbo spares Gollum's life.

When Tolkien had gotten a fair way into the sequel to The Hobbit, it became apparent that the Ring would become the link between the stories, and take on the significance of being The One Ring To Rule Them All, created by Sauron, who only appeared in The Hobbit as a mention of the shadowy Necromancer, no more than a plot point to justify Gandalf leaving the Company. Meanwhile, a second edition of The Hobbit was in the works, and in addition to making minor revisions, Tolkien played around with a new story regarding how Bilbo got the Ring, which was more consistent with the emerging nature of the Ring (and a much better and powerful story, in my opinion). He sent the new version to the publisher along with the revisions to be made for the second edition in order to get the publisher's opinion. But there was a miscommunication and without any further contact, the new story was incorporated into the text along with the revisions, as Tolkien learned to his surprise when he received the proofs for the second edition. At that point, however, he decided to let the new story go forward, which in my opinion was the right decision, both in order to make the older book more consistent with the emerging sequel (which still would not be published for almost another decade), and to make The Hobbit a better book on its own.

However, despite the change to Riddles in the Dark, the role of the Ring did not change at all for the rest of the book. It remains to this day in all published (and unpublished) versions of The Hobbit simply a magic ring that allows Bilbo to become invisible at convenient moments. It serves the purpose, as Tom Shippey points out, of evening the field, so to speak, to allow Bilbo to achieve his own special form of heroism.

Tolkien did, of course, begin a revision in 1960 with the purpose of bringing The Hobbit more in line with The Lord of the Rings. However, that revision only got part way through the third chapter, so we don't know what, if any, further changes he might have made to the fifth chapter, Riddles in the Dark (very few, I suspect), or to the role of the Ring in the further chapters.

However, while nowhere in any published (or unpublished) version The Hobbit does Tolkien describe or reference any effect that The Ring has on Bilbo, other than making him invisible, in The Lord of the Ring, he cleverly explains the existence different published versions of Bilbo obtaining the Ring by pointing out how out of character it was for Bilbo to tell a false version.

First in the Prologue:

Quote:
Gandalf, however, disbelieved Bilbo's first story, as soon as he heard it, and he continued to be very curious about the ring. Eventually he got the true tale out of Bilbo after much questioning, which for a while strained their friendship; but the wizard seemed to think the truth important. Though he did not say so to Bilbo, he also thought it important, and disturbing, to find that the good hobbit had not told the truth from the first: quite contrary to his habit. The idea of a 'present' was not mere hobbitlike invention, all the same. It was suggested to Bilbo, as he confessed, by Gollum's talk that he overheard; for Gollum did, in fact, call the ring his 'birthday present', many times. That also Gandalf thought strange and suspicious; but he did not discover the truth in this point for many more years, as will be seen in this book.


And then in conversation between Gandalf and Frodo at the end of the first chapter, before Gandalf goes off to find out the truth about the Ring:
Quote:
‘What do you know already?’
‘Only what Bilbo told me. I have heard his story: how he found it, and how he used it: on his journey, I mean.’
‘Which story, I wonder,’ said Gandalf.
‘Oh, not what he told the dwarves and put in his book,’ said Frodo. ‘He told me the true story soon after I came to live here. He said you had pestered him till he told you, so I had better know too. "No secrets between us, Frodo," he said; "but they are not to go any further. It’s mine anyway."‘
‘That’s interesting,’ said Gandalf. ‘Well, what did you think of it all?’
‘If you mean, inventing all that about a "present", well, I thought the true story much more likely, and I couldn’t see the point of altering it at all. It was very unlike Bilbo to do so, anyway; and I thought it rather odd.’


Moreover, The Hobbit as published is purportedly Bilbo's memoir, the first part of The Red Book. As Gandalf is quoted as saying in "The Quest of Erebor," "But you know how things went, at any rate as Bilbo saw them. The story would sound rather different, if I had written it." He was talking specifically about how fatuous the Dwarves found Bilbo, and how angry they were at Gandalf for springing this ridiculous Hobbit on them, but I believe that he equally could have been talking about the negative effect that using the Ring would have had on Bilbo. Not, of course, nearly as strong of an effect as it later had on Frodo as Sauron regained his strength, and Frodo approached Mordor, but I don't buy that it would not have had any effect on him at all, even though in his own version of the story, he understandably does not report it having any.

Which brings us to the films (remember the films? this is after all the forum dedicated to the films). In An Unexpected Journey, we saw some signs of the filmmakers ramping up the emphasis on the Ring, primarily with the heavy handed view of the Ring leaving Gollum, and the (fairly ridiculous) reprising of the scene in which the Ring drops onto Bilbo's finger, mimicking the scene in which the same thing happened to Frodo in Bree, in the FOTR film. They also showed a version of the "Ring World" but as Jackson acknowledged in the commentary, it was a less intense and less threatening version of the Ring World, as befitting the lesser threat that The Ring and its Master represent at this point. And there is also the scene in the extended edition in which Bilbo sees the Ring on Sauron's hand in the mural at Rivendell.

Now we have a number of reports about DoS which suggest that a large part of the characterization of Bilbo is related to the pull that the Ring exerts on him. In a straight adaptation of The Hobbit, this would obviously be inappropriate, but in the type of adaptation that the filmmakers are doing, which attempts to place the story more firmly in the same world of LOTR, it is more apt. We saw in the first film that Bilbo's "arc" in which he goes from the fairly inept Hobbit to someone that Dwarves rely on is compressed into a shorter timeline, and has largely already been accomplished. In this film, it sounds like the emphasis with regard to his characterization is more about the Ring. A lot of people find this worrisome, and I can understand why, but I see a couple of reasons why it could be very effective. First of all, some of the most moving parts of the LOTR films was the effect that the Ring had on Frodo, particularly in Mordor. I think in the hands of Martin Freeman (who I consider a much superior actor than Elijah Wood) and with a more subtle narrative (since the Ring effect can mot be nearly as severe), it could really be compelling. Plus, I can see it providing an interesting counterpoint to the developing dragon sickness in Thorin, as portrayed by the also-excellent Richard Armitage. And, as I have tried to point out in this post, such an idea seems like the natural progression in the continuing journey of The One Ring in The Hobbit.

Obviously, I reserve judgment until I see the film, but I am hopeful that this will provide a compelling storyline in this film.

What say you?

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Last edited by Voronwë the Faithful on Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:16 am 
Offline
Nibonto Aagun
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:21 am
Posts: 995
Great post V!
Have you read some of the spoiler reviews as to how the scene plays? It doesn't sound exactly subtle but I will judge that myself on seeing it.

I think showing the Ring's effect on Bilbo (although to a lesser effect than what was on Frodo) is keeping with the continuity. I always read the book as a story from Bilbo's POV and it seems natural for him to not think of the Ring anything more than a magic trinket.

Moreover, the Necromancer was very vague in the book. The first time I read it (after LotR) I had no idea it was Sauron. But since the film is
the story of what really happened rather than what really happened according to Bilbo, it fits. Seeing that Bilbo lied to Gandalf about the
Ring means it already had a hold on Bilbo. So why not show the effects of it on Bilbo too? This fits. Though I would prefer to keep it under
control.

Additionally, it will be interesting to see Sauron's rise to power go parallely with the increasing hold of the Ring on Bilbo.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:31 pm
Posts: 3154
There is one huge problem with using the Ring to drive Bilbo's characterization in these films: there is no pay-off.

The effect of the Ring on Frodo builds and builds until culminating in his decision, within the bowels of Mt. Doom, to keep it. The Ring, in LOTR, is central to Frodo's arc, and is of course central to the story being told.

In the Hobbit, the Ring is a very bit part in Bilbo's story, even if its role is expanded. As a character, Bilbo goes from bumbling and inept, to capable, witty and wise, culminating in the very smart decision to bring the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil. The Ring has nothing to do with this process (apart from making it easier for him to be a competent burglar), the effect of the Ring has nothing to do with the conclusion of Bilbo's arc, and the Ring has nothing to do with the conclusion of the film's narrative, which concerns the resolution of a three-way conflict by the arrival of a common enemy in the form of an orc army (in the film, likely to be Sauron's army).

In short, the Ring is only a small part of Bilbo's evolution as a character, and a very small part of the story being told in the Hobbit. It is tangential, even in the films thus far.

Emphasizing it too much in the development of Bilbo's character will seem strangely inconsistent with the primary "Bildungsroman" nature of the story, and will lead to no satisfying payoff in the way that Frodo's journey with the Ring does.

So unless PJ radically alters the storyline of TABA, wherein the Ring will play a prominent part in the resolution of the film and in the resolution of Bilbo's character arc, it will be a serious mistake to emphasize it too much.

The big problem here, IMO, is PJ's decision to make this trio of films a slave to LOTR. It is essentially becoming a story about the Ring, which Bilbo Baggins happens to be in. That's not a very interesting story, in my view, because it doesn't say much about the human condition. It just tells us "this is how the Ring was found, and here are its early effects on Bilbo Baggins." Well, we already got that story in FOTR. And in a much shorter, more concise and compelling fashion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:46 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
Passdagas the Brown wrote:
There is one huge problem with using the Ring to drive Bilbo's characterization in these films: there is no pay-off.


To me, that is not a problem at all. I'm not looking for a "pay-off".

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:31 pm
Posts: 3154
Oh, come now. The rest of my post describes what I mean by "pay-off."

Why make the Ring a central part of Bilbo's characterization if that generally leads nowhere, neither for Bilbo's character nor the broader narrative?

Why is allowing the Ring to drive his characterization more appropriate than portraying a more gradual maturing of Bilbo's character, which leads to his fateful decision to hand over the Arkenstone to Thorin's perceived enemies?

The scenario you lay out threatens to seriously confuse what is otherwise a compelling human story. In this set up, the Bildungsroman is over in AUJ, and the next two films are essentially, in terms of Bilbo, a bridge film to LOTR.

If the next two movies are going to chart Bilbo's progression from decent, humble and wise hobbit helping the dwarves, to irritable, dishonest and mean Bilbo, deceiving the dwarves and giving into greed, I will write them off as an even bigger disaster than I could have imagined.

We already got that story in LOTR. Why turn Bilbo into just another Frodo, just without a consequential conclusion ala Mt. Doom? Is there a compelling reason to watch Bilbo become Frodo-lite? What is the point of watching Bilbo go from sheltered to competent to mean and dishonest, apart from "setting up LOTR?" What will be the narrative value of that progression, and won't it fundamentally disrupt Bilbo's book arc from Baggins to Baggins-Took? Are we being set up to dislike Bilbo at the end of this, and to dislike everything he has done?

I understand that this may be what PJ is doing, and understand the logic behind it. But I strongly believe that this will make for a much weaker story that fundamentally undermines the message of the book.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:03 am 
Offline
Nibonto Aagun
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:21 am
Posts: 995
Yes. As I said, the Ring must not be central to his characterization. Neither a driving force of the story.
I will not be having any problem showing its effect on Bilbo, in keeping that it stays subtle and not over-used.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:31 pm
Posts: 3154
Smaug's voice wrote:
Yes. As I said, the Ring must not be central to his characterization. Neither a driving force of the story.
I will not be having any problem showing its effect on Bilbo, in keeping that it stays subtle and not over-used.


Agreed. But if mine and Voronwë's sense of Bilbo's characterization is correct (as gleaned only from reviews thus far) this may very well be the only thing driving Bilbo's characterization.

The main problem, IMO, is that Bilbo has essentially completed his arc from bumbling hobbit viewed skeptically by the dwarves, to helpful and essential hobbit viewed warmly by the dwarves. PJ completed that process in a rush job that ends at the Carrock in AUJ.

Now Bilbo has two more films to...do what, exactly? Simply prove over and over again that he's still useful? Looks like it.

And that is what may be behind PJ and co's decision to beef up the Ring's role in Bilbo's characterization...

The three-film decision strikes again! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:53 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
Passdagas the Brown wrote:
Oh, come now. The rest of my post describes what I mean by "pay-off."

Why make the Ring a central part of Bilbo's characterization if that generally leads nowhere, neither for Bilbo's character nor the broader narrative?

Why is allowing the Ring to drive his characterization more appropriate than portraying a more gradual maturing of Bilbo's character, which leads to his fateful decision to hand over the Arkenstone to Thorin's perceived enemies?

The scenario you lay out threatens to seriously confuse what is otherwise a compelling human story. In this set up, the Bildungsroman is over in AUJ, and the next two films are essentially, in terms of Bilbo, a bridge film to LOTR.

If the next two movies are going to chart Bilbo's progression from decent, humble and wise hobbit helping the dwarves, to irritable, dishonest and mean Bilbo, deceiving the dwarves and giving into greed, I will write them off as an even bigger disaster than I could have imagined.

We already got that story in LOTR. Why turn Bilbo into just another Frodo, just without a consequential conclusion ala Mt. Doom? Is there a compelling reason to watch Bilbo become Frodo-lite? What is the point of watching Bilbo go from sheltered to competent to mean and dishonest, apart from "setting up LOTR?" What will be the narrative value of that progression, and won't it fundamentally disrupt Bilbo's book arc from Baggins to Baggins-Took? Are we being set up to dislike Bilbo at the end of this, and to dislike everything he has done?

I understand that this may be what PJ is doing, and understand the logic behind it. But I strongly believe that this will make for a much weaker story that fundamentally undermines the message of the book.


You miss the point of my post, which I'm sure is my fault, despite the rather considerable time and effort that I put it into (which I am beginning to regret). I do not want or expect Bilbo to turn into another Frodo, nor do I think that showing the Ring's effect upon him necessitates that result. The pay-off (if you insist on having one), is that Bilbo maintains his fundamentally good nature despite the influence of the Ring. That is what I hope for, and that is what I expect.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:31 pm
Posts: 3154
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Passdagas the Brown wrote:
Oh, come now. The rest of my post describes what I mean by "pay-off."

Why make the Ring a central part of Bilbo's characterization if that generally leads nowhere, neither for Bilbo's character nor the broader narrative?

Why is allowing the Ring to drive his characterization more appropriate than portraying a more gradual maturing of Bilbo's character, which leads to his fateful decision to hand over the Arkenstone to Thorin's perceived enemies?

The scenario you lay out threatens to seriously confuse what is otherwise a compelling human story. In this set up, the Bildungsroman is over in AUJ, and the next two films are essentially, in terms of Bilbo, a bridge film to LOTR.

If the next two movies are going to chart Bilbo's progression from decent, humble and wise hobbit helping the dwarves, to irritable, dishonest and mean Bilbo, deceiving the dwarves and giving into greed, I will write them off as an even bigger disaster than I could have imagined.

We already got that story in LOTR. Why turn Bilbo into just another Frodo, just without a consequential conclusion ala Mt. Doom? Is there a compelling reason to watch Bilbo become Frodo-lite? What is the point of watching Bilbo go from sheltered to competent to mean and dishonest, apart from "setting up LOTR?" What will be the narrative value of that progression, and won't it fundamentally disrupt Bilbo's book arc from Baggins to Baggins-Took? Are we being set up to dislike Bilbo at the end of this, and to dislike everything he has done?

I understand that this may be what PJ is doing, and understand the logic behind it. But I strongly believe that this will make for a much weaker story that fundamentally undermines the message of the book.


You miss the point of my post, which I'm sure is my fault, despite the rather considerable time and effort that I put it into (which I am beginning to regret). I do not want or expect Bilbo to turn into another Frodo, nor do I think that showing the Ring's effect upon him necessitates that result. The pay-off (if you insist on having one), is that Bilbo maintains his fundamentally good nature despite the influence of the Ring. That is what I hope for, and that is what I expect.


I don't understand why you regret the time and effort you put into your post. It's a very good one, and I perfectly understand what you are saying.

I am simply arguing that Bilbo's battle with the Ring, as opposed to his conflict with Thorin, is not the story I want to see.

The Hobbit is a great pride vs. humility story. The Ring, if emphasized overmuch, muddles that.

That said, I think you are probably right about where PJ is taking us, but believe the tone will be different than you suggest. My guess is that TABA will end on a dark note (with Bilbo fondling the Ring, or something), rather than a "Bilbo perseveres despite the Ring" happy ending. This will complete its primary role as a prequel, leading into the FOTR EE's early scenes of Bilbo frantically seeking the Ring...

Also, you said:

Quote:
First of all, some of the most moving parts of the LOTR films was the effect that the Ring had on Frodo, particularly in Mordor. I think in the hands of Martin Freeman (who I consider a much superior actor than Elijah Wood) and with a more subtle narrative (since the Ring effect can mot be nearly as severe), it could really be compelling.


I responded, appropriately I believe, by asking why you would want Frodo-lite. I understand (and agree) that Freeman is a better actor, and that the Ring's more subtle influence could make for good drama, but why tell a similar story again, when there is so much potential for great drama between Bilbo and the dwarves?

Lastly, the decision to focus on the Ring may also, unfortunately, render all the dwarves except for Thorin largely irrelevant.

I just wish PJ focused his "expansionist" designs on fleshing out the dwarves. I've had enough of rings and elves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:20 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
Passdagas the Brown wrote:
I am simply arguing that Bilbo's battle with the Ring, as opposed to his conflict with Thorin, is not the story I want to see.


There is no question that we will get an emphasis on Bilbo's conflict with Thorin. We have seen enough in the trailers, and in interviews particularly with Armitage, to know that. I we have seen enough to know that the Ring is not likely to take away Bilbo's basic goodness, like the scene where Balin tells him that he doesn't need to go face the dragon, and he replies that no, he thinks he has to try. If you are right, and TABA ends with Bilbo fondling the Ring a la Frodo, then I will admit that I was wrong. But I don't believe that it will happen that way, based on what I have seen thus far, and what I have read (and, perhaps, what I hope for).

What I meant to suggest is that showing the Ring's influence on Bilbo, if done correctly, could enhance the basic narrative of the book. Not replace it.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:03 pm
Posts: 5199
Location: Green Hill Country
VtF wrote:
if done correctly, could enhance the basic narrative of the book. Not replace it.


Quite possibly it could...but only if it is done subtly - which is often not PJ's forte. In the book of TH, the only real influence of the Ring seems to be the need to lie about how it came into both Gollum and Bilbo's possession - ie it is always a "present" despite the real circumstances - and in Bilbo's case, a reluctance to reveal it to begin with. The thing is, if we see Bilbo struggling against the lure of the Ring too much in this trilogy, how come 60 years later Bilbo seems to be suffering only a minor enslavement to the Ring, in terms of possessiveness, and that he is able to give up the Ring fairly freely? The Mirkwood incident seems to be turning him into a Ring junkie when he's only had it 5 minutes...

OTOH, if we get scenes where Bilbo is able to shrug off the pull of the Ring and carry on as normal then that would help show how Hobbits are better able to resist its effects than other species.

_________________
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:35 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
I agree that subtly is not always Jackson's forte! Although Freeman certainly has the acting chops to pull it off.

Quote:
In the book of TH, the only real influence of the Ring seems to be the need to lie about how it came into both Gollum and Bilbo's possession - ie it is always a "present" despite the real circumstances - and in Bilbo's case, a reluctance to reveal it to begin with.


Well, again, an argument can be made that that is only Bilbo's version of events (despite the intrusive and un-Bilbo-like narrator), and that a more objective telling of the tale would reveal more of an influence

Quote:
The thing is, if we see Bilbo struggling against the lure of the Ring too much in this trilogy, how come 60 years later Bilbo seems to be suffering only a minor enslavement to the Ring, in terms of possessiveness, and that he is able to give up the Ring fairly freely?


Presumably, other than an occasional effort to escape the unwanted visitor, so to speak (e.g., the Sackville-Bagginses), he would not have used the Ring very much during those 60 years, and never for very long, or under very intense circumstances. And I wouldn't say he gave up the Ring fairly freely; it took a tremendous effort of will on his part, helped with a big push by Gandalf. And when he then saw the Ring again 17 years later, it almost drove him to attack the dearest person to him in all of the world.

In any event, I'll be interested to see how this plays out in DoS, but as PtB suggests, we won't know for sure how the filmmakers are going to portray this until after we have seen TaBA.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:37 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 7913
Location: Ireland
Dammit, I wrote a decent sized post in response to Elens. Must've hit "preview" instead of "submit". :(

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
Nibonto Aagun
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:21 am
Posts: 995
Elentári wrote:
VtF wrote:
if done correctly, could enhance the basic narrative of the book. Not replace it.


Quite possibly it could...but only if it is done subtly - which is often not PJ's forte.


Yes, it isn't. But there have been many instances where I was surprised by the subtlety of a scene. The latest I think is the "Pity of Gollum" scene in AUJ. I was quite certain that the "courage is ..." quote by Gandalf would be recapped in that scene. But it wasn't. And as Voronwë said, Freeman hit each and every subtle note in that scene perfectly.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
Al, I hope that you can recover at least the gist of it! I hate when that happens. :x And I am quite interested to get your take (both now, and after tomorrow, assuming things go as planned).

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:51 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 12881
Location: Florida
I only skimmed the thread and won't comment much until after seeing the movie but my thought is that IMO it would be somewhat absurd to make a Hobbit movie after a LOTR movie without putting at least a little emphasis on the significance of the ring. It's not just some handy invisi-ring and we all know it so it'd be silly to act otherwise.

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:00 pm
Posts: 522
yovargas wrote:
I only skimmed the thread and won't comment much until after seeing the movie but my thought is that IMO it would be somewhat absurd to make a Hobbit movie after a LOTR movie without putting at least a little emphasis on the significance of the ring. It's not just some handy invisi-ring and we all know it so it'd be silly to act otherwise.

I agree - it's inevitable with LotR being made first; any writer/director would do it. Even Tolkien retconned Bilbo to lying.

It is possible that PJ may go too far, but I'll reserve judgment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:56 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 7913
Location: Ireland
Elentári wrote:
Quite possibly it could...but only if it is done subtly - which is often not PJ's forte. In the book of TH, the only real influence of the Ring seems to be the need to lie about how it came into both Gollum and Bilbo's possession - ie it is always a "present" despite the real circumstances - and in Bilbo's case, a reluctance to reveal it to begin with. The thing is, if we see Bilbo struggling against the lure of the Ring too much in this trilogy, how come 60 years later Bilbo seems to be suffering only a minor enslavement to the Ring, in terms of possessiveness, and that he is able to give up the Ring fairly freely? The Mirkwood incident seems to be turning him into a Ring junkie when he's only had it 5 minutes...

OTOH, if we get scenes where Bilbo is able to shrug off the pull of the Ring and carry on as normal then that would help show how Hobbits are better able to resist its effects than other species.


See, the thing is that literally the first thing that happens when Sméagol and Déagol find the Ring is that they fight to the death over it, and let's remember, they were Hobbits too. People zone in on the fact that Sméagol was an evil character who murdered the innocent Déagol, but Déagol also was unwilling to give up this trinket, even when he saw how much Sméagol wanted it. Isildur himself cannot give it up. Bilbo's first action on receiving the Ring is to lie about it (about 5 minutes after getting it, to use Elens phrase) and only reveals it when he has no choice. Whats more, it obviously has enough of an effect that Gandalf knows he's lying and is concerned by that. How much more concerned should he be about losing it when its the only thing keeping him alive in the face of horrific spiders.

In over 12 hours of movieverse, and more importantly, in the public consciousness, the Ring has been built up into the crack cocaine of Jewelry. Bilbo can't be unaffected. PJ & Co have to tread a fine line, and from everything I've heard so far, appear to be doing just that.

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:04 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32717
kzer_za wrote:
It is possible that PJ may go too far, but I'll reserve judgment.


It certainly is possible! It is also possible that he will tread a fine line in which he approaches going too far, but manages to pull back.

At least in the subjective view of some people. :)

ETA: From a review from The Mirror:

Quote:
Martin Freeman is still wonderfully subtle and nuanced as Bilbo, gradually discovering his own courage while also dealing with the magical temptations of the ‘ring’, which turns him invisible but also brings him closer to a dread darkness.


That certainly sounds encouraging. To me, at least.

And from an otherwise poorly written (though positive) review from The Evening Standard:

Quote:
Where Frodo was always a touch ethereal, Bilbo is as solid as cheese. Which actually makes his trips into the ring's twilight zone far more affecting. Whilst wearing the gold band he can think quicker, kill quicker, and solid objects are reduced to a liquid, feathery blur. Thanks to Freeman's lovely performance, we understand exactly why the little hobbit feels both thrilled, and nauseous, as a result.

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:06 pm 
Offline
Nibonto Aagun
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:21 am
Posts: 995
What Alatar said.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group