Continuity issues/unexplained inconsistencies in TH

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree and disagree. Yes, it is true that the first age stories were never published during Tolkien's lifetime, in large part because he was unable to reconcile the different versions. But I disagree with the statement that Tolkien spent a lifetime trying to remove any inconsistencies. I think if you look at his life work, just the opposite is true. He spent a lifetime creating new and greater inconsistencies. But that does not lessen what he achieved.

I certainly do not equate Peter Jackson with Tolkien, and I agree with some of the criticisms of his filmmaking in this thread. But I do think that, like with Tolkien, the chaotic nature of Jackson's creative process leads to some stunning results, which make the inconsistencies worthwhile. Though I don't expect anyone here to agree with me.

[kzer_za]

But I do think that, like with Tolkien, the chaotic nature of Jackson's creative process leads to some stunning results, which make the inconsistencies worthwhile. Though I don't expect anyone here to agree with me.

Why not? I do! Peter Jackson likes to do a little bit of everything in his movies, which pulls him in a number of different directions for both good and bad. I think the overall result works (except maybe AUJ - that movie is borderline), though some disagree. This is part of the reason the movies are so long, in addition to the story's complexity.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I agree with V that a chaotic or unruly creative process can yield more satisfying results than a more strategic one. IMO, Tolkien's sometimes aimless wanderings throughout his own stories, where he, like his characters, is not quite sure how they will end up, is partly why his stories appeal to me so much. History is messy too, after all.

And while I agree that PJ is far sloppier than Tolkien, and less of a creative talent (by a long shot) I prefer his messiness to a paint-by-numbers filmmaker like Ron Howard.

[Smaug's voice]

Tolkien had more inconsistencies in his writing than any
author I know of, because his writing was so vast. Was it Morgoth, or
Ungoliant, that struck down the Trees? Was it Maedhros and the other
sons of Fëanor that brought the news of their grandfather's death, or
some unnamed anonymous messenger? Did Maedhros and his army fall upon
the rear of the enemy assailing Fingon and his forces at the Fifth
Battle (as it states in the Silmarillion) or were they intercepted by
another force and the eastern and western conflicts completely separate
(as it states in The Children of Húrin). Was it Húrin, or Fingon, who
spoke against attacking the enemy in the plains to soon? Did the
Easterlings led by Uldor the Accursed betray Maedhros, or not? Did the
Dwarves play a heroic role, or a craven one? And on and on.

Most of those aren't inconsistencies though. More as different versions,
drafts and such.
In the films though, if you are showing something that directly
contradicts with what you showed before - especially if it is glaringly
obvious - those are inconsistencies that are jarring for a viewer. The
best example of such a case was the AUJ opening with Bilbo and Frodo.

ETA: V, I agreed with you on a lot many points before!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Why does the scene with Bilbo and Frodo present an inconsistency?

And I don't believe I was confusing inconsistencies with unexplained events in my first post (afterwards I was simply responding to Dave's point about the inexplicably convenient horse, which is another matter).

The individual cited in the OP felt that the motivations for the Quest of Erebor, as shown in AUJ and DOS, are inconsistent. My point is that there are various motivations, justifications, and arguments for the quest, used for different circumstances. Thorin's main motivation may be the Arkenstone, but that doesn't mean he can't use different arguments to persuade the dwarves! He is, after all, a political leader. Flexible persuasion techniques is part of the job description!

[Smaug's voice]

It is totally inconsistent with what we see in the FotR EE. The first lines, the description, the timing. Also, Bilbo himself sees Frodo off
in AUJ while in FotR he asks where had Frodo gone to? Since the whole purpose of that scene in AUJ was to bridge the two series that should
have been the one scene totally consistent with the pevious. And it is not for the most part.

ETA: I am not suppoeting the OP here. Most of those are indeed nit-picking. But a few of them were somewhat jarring I felt.

[Passdagas the Brown]

It is totally inconsistent with what we see in the FotR EE. The first lines, the description, the timing. Also, Bilbo himself sees Frodo off
in AUJ while in FotR he asks where had Frodo gone to? Since the whole purpose of that scene in AUJ was to bridge the two series that should
have been the one scene totally consistent with the pevious. And it is not for the most part.

ETA: I am not suppoeting the OP here. Most of those are indeed nit-picking. But a few of them were somewhat jarring I felt.

Old Bilbo comes across as a bit of scatter brain. A forgetful professor type.

Yes, he sees Frodo off in AUJ. But it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that in FOTR, he either:

A) Forgot about it

Or

B) Is simply wondering what is taking Frodo so long!

IMO, though unnecessary, this does add a bit of complexity and mystery to the whole affair. IMO, that's more interesting than a slavish consistency.

And even though Tolkien spent his later years trying to make his various works consistent, I don't at all feel that this was his most defining feature as an author. Frankly, I am quite glad that his "Niggling" was never fully completed. In particular, I am glad that he abandoned the LOTR-consistent Hobbit draft, which really was an inferior product, IMO.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Old Bilbo/Frodo scene may be bad, but it isn't really inconsistent (see Passdagas the Wise for why).

[kzer_za]

I'm not a fan of the Bilbo/Frodo scene at all, though not for reasons of consistency. I find it a really awkward and unnecessary bit of forced continuity, and the only real flaw in that movie's first act. And it just feels wrong to me for Bilbo to be finishing his part of the Red Book on the day of the party.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't think the scene was well-placed, but there's some great humor in that scene. I particularly love Bilbo's "nonsense!" response to Frodo telling him people believe he's becoming "unsociable," followed by him asking Frodo to place a "NO ADMITTANCE" sign on his front gate!

That jest is worth a thousand Goblintowns, and I'm glad it's in the movie.

In fact, I enjoy the whole scene quite a bit. It's just awkward to have two flashbacks back to back. The Erebor prologue should either have come later, perhaps narrated by Thorin, or they should have reconsidered the whole bookend concept.

[sauronsfinger]

The willing suspension of disbelief is a wonderful asset in viewing films.

As a kid I marveled at Superman being able to change his clothes in a cramped phone booth when it was obvious he was a pretty big guy and even somebody my size would have to step outside to remove his jacket.

A house inside a cyclone can travel to another world but is not destroyed by all that force let alone crashing to the ground from some obscene height.