Middle-earth Journeys

Just saw on TOR.n that the extended edition of the first Hobbit movie will be ready for holiday gift-giving. I don't know if you're going to get any more money from me this time, PJ!

I posted this over in The Hobbit thread at Viggo-Works and thought I'd share it here as well:

I confess to being more than a bit disappointed that PJ has gone the route of giving the Arkenstone magical or addictive properties like the Ring. It's quite clear in the Professor's story that the Arkenstone is an extremely beautiful and large gem, one with tremendous symbolic meaning to Thorin and the Dwarves, and that people are naturally drawn to its beauty. But I think it is a mistake to make it more than that, because to a certain extent it excuses Thorin's inexcusable behavior towards Bilbo and his willingness to go to war over the treasure. There are already enough reasons for the devolution of Thorin's behavior built into The Professor's story. We don't need a magical, shiny, addictive jewel to help us understand why Thorin does what he does. Besides -- been there, done that, gollum, gollum.

In a broader sense, it goes AGAINST the underlying purpose Tolkien had for writing these stories -- to provide a unique mythology for the British people. Thorin's story echoes other mythologies surrounding dragons and the lure of their treasure. In one mythology, the giant Fafnir turns into a dragon because of his obsession with guarding his hoard of Rhine gold, (including a magical Ring made from that gold!). Thorin's "dragon sickess" turns his kingly desire to return his people to their rightful home into a fever to keep the entire dragon hoard for himself without regard to what that might cost in terms of lives.

One has to wonder what would ultimately have become of Thorin if the goblins and wargs had not appeared and if he and Dain had succeeded in defending the dragon hoard. Would the next step have been a murderous falling out between Thorin and Dain? Would we eventually have the horrific vision of a paranoid Thorin killing his friends one by one to protect and keep his treasure? Is Thorin on the path to BECOMING a dragon himself?

Just a thought!

I haven't read anything about what PJ has done with the Arkenstone. Has there been something out on that, Lindariel? From the first movie, I didn't pick up anything except that it was coveted. Something doesn't need to be magical to be coveted or the object of addiction (as Real Life often teaches us, sadly). But we've seen PJ 'upsize' things before.

I guess it remains to be seen what PJ does with Thorin's character, and your predictions are interesting. If I had to make a prediction, I might say that I think PJ's writing crew will try to save Thorin as a romantic hero, if they can, which might mean that he is a little bad (times being what they are!), but not too bad. This might mean emphasizing the desire-for-home aspect and playing down the lust for gold, even as it is portrayed in the book.

But we really are all guessing, aren't we?

Merry, in the backstory about the Dwarves at the beginning of the movie, the Arkenstone is given a magical greenish glow, and Thorin's father (grandfather? -- I get them mixed up) is portrayed as being very preoccupied with it. There is that scene where he looks directly into the greenish glow and becomes entranced by it. Then later, when Smaug attacks, Thorin has to drag his father/grandfather away from the Arkenstone in order to get him to safety. THAT's what I mean by PJ giving the Arkenstone magical/addictive properties it did NOT have in the book. I have a bad feeling he's setting Thorin up for a similar addiction to the Arkenstone.

What's has always been interesting to me is that the Arkenstone, which is coveted by so many--the book says that even Bard felt its pull--is just buried with Thorin at the end. I guess so much death revealed that what they formerly would have died for isn't worth much.

Thank you Lindariel and Merry

you give much food for thought

I love MEJ for supporting Tolkien and his writing.

........though we all recognize the movies must take some "freedom" in their interpretation we still seek a true account because of our love for his work. I too "resent" some modifications but my delight in seeing the Professors work on film often makes me turn a blind eye. I will i'm sure enjoy an extended edition I am sorry but any extra is always welcome even if not correct.. I like both mediums for different reasons. BUT given the choice the written word with my imagined images in my head would always win hands down

what do you say?

I agree with your conclusions, hope!

I'm also responding here to Michka's comments about the Hobbit 2 trailer that came out a couple of weeks ago. I also think they need to do some work on the dragon. Some people have complained that it looks more like a dinosaur than I dragon. Having seen neither, I'm not sure! However, maybe the overall dark color seems unimaginative to me, after seeing Tolkien's own painting of Smaug as golden. We'll see!

hello, je dois avouer que je suis déçue du peu qui a été révélé de ce dragon Smaug, dans la bande-annonce du 2ème volet . A la fin du 1er Hobbit,il promettait bien plus, en voyant son oeil embrasé , convoitant, mystérieux. J'ai eu l'impression cette fois d'un objet en carton-pâte, encore moins réussi que les premiers balbutiements d'effets spéciaux du cinéma comme le génial ''Les voyages de Simbad, le marin'', un chef d'oeuvre pour l'époque. Les autres images aperçues sont magnifiques, exemple: les papillons autour de Bilbon, les fielleuses araignées , et j'espère que les ajouts de P.J ne nuiront pas au contenu de l'histoire. Parfois ils servent à mieux expliquer, parfois ils déroutent le spectateur avisé

D'accord, Michka! We can only hope that this Smaug was a teaser, just to get us all talking, and when we get to the theaters in December, something better will await us! Bilbo's face when he sees the butterflies is delightful, isn't it?

hello, avez-vous vu le clip de P.Jackson sur le tournage de la ''Désolation de Smaug''? Autant Gandalf et Elrond n'ont pas tellement changé de physionomie, (ils étaient déjà des anciens de toutes façons), autant notre Legolas, pauvre Orlando, a plutôt pris un coup de vieux!!ce n'est plus le fringant jeune elfe , inexpérimenté, d'accord, mais frais , avec un jeu naïf, et ses yeux qui passaient du bleu au marron d'une image à l'autre(?!), il faut admettre que 10 ans portent quand même beaucoup sur certains des personnages qui devraient au contraire paraître plus jeunes! à ce propos je suis bien contente qu'on n'ait pas fait revenir Viggo pour incarner un Aragorn de 60 ans de moins, mais peut-être aurait-on pu montrer les bouts de films abandonnés où il rencontrait la belle Arwen dans les forêts de Lothlorien?
J'ai vu que Riv RES déplore le choix du fils à Dale, il le juge un peu comme une 'poupée'. Que pensez-vous de tout çà?

Hi MIchka! I believe you have misinterpreted Riv's comments about Bard's son being "a doll." She is indicating that she thinks the young man who plays Bard's son is attractive, cute, personable, adorable. "He's a doll" equals "He's gorgeous."

I think we'll need to reserve judgment on Orlando's look in The Hobbit until we see the final film. Keep in mind that in LOTR, PJ & Co. used special effects to make all of the elves look more ethereal. More than likely, those effects have not yet been applied to the clips from "The Desolation of Smaug." I do think that Orlando is beefier (more muscled) now than he was during LOTR, which might contribute to him seeming older. Then again, it could also be a difference in costuming. His costume for The Hobbit might be more padded around the shoulders, etc. Also, his skin is less luminous because of all the sun exposure for those Pirates of the Caribbean films.

In addition, Legolas' eyes changing from blue to brown was a complaint folks had in LOTR. PJ & Co. weren't terribly consistent in making that change throughout the movies. We'll see if they're better at it for the final two Hobbit films. Again, I wouldn't judge that based on the clips we've had so far, because I don't think they've finished with special effects and "toning" the films.

I think if anyone could pull off looking YOUNGER than they did in LOTR (maybe with a little help from CGI), it would be Viggo Mortensen. We've seen him get shaggy, craggy, and grimy for a variety of movies (remember his look in The Road?) and then emerge later for premieres looking breathtakingly young and fabulous. If I didn't know better, I would suspect he had a nasty, mouldering portrait in the attic somewhere!

merci pour toutes ces précisions et attendons de voir, comme on dit...

For the record, I was the one who said the young man was a doll! Sorry for the unclear idiom.

If Orlando can act better than he did in LOTR, I won't mind much about his appearance!

I saw this at TOR.n today:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/07 ... s-day-pin/

These would both make nice little remembrances of the movie! I've been kind of appalled by the little figurines of Azog and the Goblin King--who would want those?

TOR.n has listed some spoilers about the next Hobbit movie gleaned from one of those tie-in books that are available:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/08 ... ug-annual/

There are some clues about how they will portray Thranduil--which differ significantly from the book!