Just now getting into these movies.  A couple times a week I have to spend a couple hours straight in a car (luckily not driving) and have been putting movies on my phone to pass the time.

Randomly decided to watch The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, having not seen The Hobbit or any of the LOTR movies before.  Turns out I liked it, so I watched the first Hobbit movie.  Liked that one, and just started the first LOTR movie.  

All out of order, I know.  



So in The Hobbit, it shows Bilbo obtaining the ring when Golum dropped it in the cave.   But in the first LOTR movie, it shows Bilbo picking it up from a river bottom toward the beginning?  Im less than half way through this one.  Ive been watching all the movies broken up in 2 or 3 viewings per movie.

Did I miss something, has something not been explained yet at the point I am at, or what?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

In LOTR, that's Smeagol (or Deagol, can't remember) picking up the ring from the bottom of the river.













 

that wasn`t Bilbo Baggins pickin up the ring on the water bottom, it was Golum`s brother. Golum then killed
his brother for the ring.

Ah.  Got it.  Thanks.  I thought they talked about Bilbo finding the ring when they showed it being picked up from the river bottom.

This is what I get for watching movies in sections, trying to keep up sporadic convo with my coworker who is driving and watching them all out of order.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

+1 for reading the  books first.

Hopefully you noticed the irony of Smeagol/Gollum being a hobbit before finding the ring.

Here you go OP:





Encyclopedia of Arda

 

Read the books, then you will see how fucked up the movies are.

ETA: Encyclopedia of Arda is great.

The books are great.

The movies are great.

The movies differ from the books and aren't as "deep" but the movies are still great - all of them, including The Hobbit.

I recently read on TORN, a reference to a Tolkien Letter which states that Tolkien knew his works would be changed when they were adapted to other media (other than books).  I think that is important to know.



Deagol finds The One Ring at the bottom of the river.

Sméagol murders Deagol and takes The One Ring from him.  The One Ring corrupts Sméagol and turns him into the creature we see in the films whose "nickname" is Gollum.



Bilbo finds Gollum's ring (The One Ring) in the cave and keeps it for his own, telling no one about it, initially.  

Later on, Gandalf learns of Bilbo's ring and later still comes to suspect it is Sauron's One Ring.

The books are literature ... the movies are entertainment.

It would be interesting to see if people perceive the one they see or read first as better than the one they see or read second.

Do people who see The Hobbit movies first think less of the book because "so much got left out"?

LOTR movies, they tell you the story as in....this is the story that has been passed down...so it gets twisted. In the Hobbit, you are actually seeing how he got the ring...

My guess anyway.

I have probably watched the Hobbit 30 times. I keep putting it on in the afternoon before work. I really like the first 1/3 of the movie. Once they start running through the country side, with the screwed up perspective, it gets a little....meh. Never understood why the dwarfs started fighting the Orks after the dragon took over the kingdom. What was the purpose in fighting over the orks for a kingdom with a dragon sitting in the middle of it. Should have let the Orks fight the dragon....

Some folks really need to read the books.

Gandalf knew about Bilbo finding the ring in The Hobbit.  Note that (in the book) he comments that Bilbo's tale had the "ring" of truth to it.  He did not know it was The One Ring though. This was just after Bilbo rejoined the band after escaping the goblins inside the mountain.

Yes, he did ... after he threw it into the fire in Bilbo's fireplace.

Wrong book. I was referring to The Hobbit when Bilbo rejoined the group after their escape from the goblins inside the mountain.

Roger.

All caught up now, as of today.  Got the LOTR trilogy and both Hobbit movies under my belt.  Looking forward the part 3.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

No. NOT the most readily corrupted. Even though it took hold of him violently and he killed for it initially, he had it in his possession for untold many many many years, and still had shadows of his old, good self left and was not entirely evil in nature- Hence his inner conflict with Smeagol/Gollum... His only real desire was to be left alone to covet his precious Ring and had no great designs of power and influence such as would have occurred if a Dwarf, Human, or Elf might have come upon the thing. Smeagol was twisted, but extraordinarily resilient to the Ring's evil influences.
 

478 years. Link to LOTR timeline
For any being to possess the One Ring and not be totally destroyed by it is remarkable. Gollum DID become quite a loathesome character, but if, say, a Man had obtained it, he would have fallen much quicker to the Ring's power, likely testing his ability to control it and thus become under Sauron's power.

The perfect example of this is Boromir, a good man who was willing to kill Frodo to get the Ring.  Ostensibly, he wanted it to protect his City but he wanted it for its power.  He fell immediately, instantly.  

Remember the movie scene when Frodo slips on the snow and the Ring slips off his neck.  Boromir is the one who picks it up and holds it, a wee bit too long.  Note, Aragorn has his hand on his sword's hilt while Boromir is holding the Ring's chain.  Aragorn knows all too well of the weakness of men to the will and power of the Ring.

This is why the Ring chose to leave Sméagol and went to Bilbo.  It realized Gollum would keep it trapped under the mountain forever.  Bilbo was an poportuity to escape that fate and perhaps, somehow, find its way back to its master.

A fundamental concept, not necessarily apparent to readers and viewers, is the Ring has a will of its own.  It acts.

I generally approve of the LOTR movies, though there may be parts that I nit-pick.  The challenge that Jackson faced with LOTR was what to trim down so the rest could fit on film for the 3 movies.  This means that Jackson stayed fairly true to the story of LOTR.

Interestingly enough with The Hobbit movies, Jackson has taken the opposite approach.  Instead of trimming down to fit the material to film (which really isn't necessary with The Hobbit) Jackson has instead inflated the story to maximize the number of movies he can create from it.  The result are movies that are visually enjoyable, but the storyline is no longer coherent.  Roles have been usurped by newly created characters and circumstances, which in turn alters motives and choices entirely contrary to the story created by Tolkien.

I had hopes in the first movie that he would at least stay true to the spirit of the book.  After the second movie I've lost most of my hope.  If Jackson had remained anywhere near as true to The Hobbit as he was to the LOTR books, I'd be singing his praises.

The Bilbo and Smaug scene almost redeems the entire movie...until the dwarves barge in.  Until that point I thought Jackson had gotten Smaug right....

I wish I could have watched that scene in a theater, or at least somewhere with a nice sound system.  Sounded creepy as hell.

That scene is definitely worth a big screen experience.  It was extremely well done and I was basking in the glory of it...until the dwarves show up.  Then you might as well play the Benny Hill Theme.

One interesting feature of the books is the fact that the Valar, who aren't supposed to intervene (because doing so would disturb the natural order of things), do occasionally "nudge" people to do the right thing. One example is when Samwise is wearing the Ring, there's a still small voice telling him "Take it off! Take it off, fool!" Another (from the book) is where the Witch King, having heard Eowyn proclaim that she is a woman, waits in doubt for a moment; it was his mount (the winged monster) who decided things, becoming impatient and attacking. Eowyn hewed its head with a single stroke, and so pissed off the Witch King that he attacked, leaving himself open to a dorsal attack by a Hobbit of all people! I believe it was one of the Valar who caused this (but I have no proof).

Any time the giant eagles show up and get involved I see it as a form of intervention by Manwe.

 

They rescued the Bilbo, Gandalf and the Dwarves in The Hobbit.

They rescued Gandalf from the Tower of Orthanc.

They helped fight the Final Battle, and at Gandalf's bidding, rescued Frodo and Samwise.

Let's not forget that Gandalf is not a Man nor an Elf; he's a Vala (or a similar being). Gandalf is forbidden to go tete-a-tete with Sauron or his minions; in fact he was probably SEVERELY disobeying orders when he rescued the Men retreating from Osgiliath (he shot a beam of light at the Nazgul, you remember).

He's probably got a special pass from Manwe to call the Eagles when things get pressing and an Eagle is needed.

eta Manwe and Gandalf are, at some point, well-aquainted; a thousand years won't change that.

Those who dislike the changes/expansions to The Hobbit, relative to the book, should really think long and hard about the source of all the new material.  Most of it is from the Appendices of LOTR.

There are a lot of changes (dwarves being chased by Smaug inside the mountain, Tauriel, etc) that are pure Peter Jackson, however, he is making a movie intended for the broadest, general appeal.  He is trying to bring it out of the children's story genre and into the LOTR world.  

For me, as a purist, I initially rejected a lot of The Hobbit movie but I also found a lot to like - Gandalf at Dol Guldur and the High Fells of Rhudaur, for example.  

Then again, I have my limits.  The dwarves being chased really was a bit much.  The thing is, Smaug was just so well done, almost anything that increases his time on-screen is good.  


P.S. - I really like watching the movie in 2D 1080P.  You can see tremendous detail (of Smaug, for example) that just aren't there or as impactful in 3D in the theaters.

In the books, Gandalf snuck into Dol Guldur, snuck around, found Thrain, and snuck out again.  All before the "unexpected party" at Bilbo's home.  In the movie he goes around proclaiming his presence with great noise.  Completely unlike the book or appendix material.

In the books and appendices, Azog was decapitated by Dain more than 100 years before the events of The Hobbit.  How on earth was he going to chase around Thorin when Azog was dead for over a century before?

In the books Bilbo was the absolute savior of the dwarves from the spiders of Mirkwood.  It was really the moment when Bilbo became a surrogate leader in Gandalf's absence.  In the movie Bilbo becomes more of a side-story in that scene and Legolas and Tauriel become the saviors.

In the book there are really only two "chase scenes" involving the dwarves: being treed by the wargs after Goblin-Town and later the spiders trying to chase the dwarves after Bilbo freed them.  Both chase scenes were relatively short.  In the movie every transition/traveling scene is a chase scene.

I could go on, but it really isn't necessary.  the "Appendices" claim is just an excuse used to forgive Jackson for pulling stuff out of his butt to use as filler in the movie.  Azog wasn't around during Bilbo's lifetime in the appendices.  The dwarves weren't chased into Rivendell in the appendices.  The dwarves didn't sneak out of Rivendell in the appendices (they stayed for several days and left both well equipped and on good terms with Elrond).  The dwarves weren't chased to Beorn's home in the appendices.  The dwarves weren't chased by orcs when they escaped the woodland kingdom of the elves in the appendices.  There was no elf-elf-dwarf love triangle in the appendices.  There was no huge orc invasion of Laketown in the appendices.  Kili wasn't wounded while escaping the elf kingdom in the appendices.  There was no Benny Hill hide-and-go-seek scene with the dwarves and Smaug in the appendices, etc, etc.

In the final analysis, for purists, the movie only works if you think of it as an alternate reality to The Hobbit.

OK, that's an answer that I can appreciate.  If it's an "alternate reality to The Hobbit" then I can accept it as that.  It just bothers me when someone uses the "appendix" excuse when the only thing really taken from the appendix was Azog's name.  Beyond that it is all filler that Jackson essentially made up.

exactly.  if he had stuck to the original plan of making 2 movies, he wouldnt have had to make up all the filler.  it was greed that pushed him to make it a trilogy



 

Pretty much my thoughts too. The Hobbit stands on its own.



The extra stuff he's added to the movies don't really do anything to improve the story. And some of the stuff he left out really hurt it in my opinion. The story telling that allowed Gandalf, Bilbo and the dwarves to get Beorn to take them in is very entertaining and make it clear Beorn is temperamental and not to be trifled with. They gain entry into his home with guile and wit. In the movie they just run in and invade his home.



The meeting of Smaug and Bilbo was very well done right up until the stupidity with the dwarves starts.



 

This!     It's kinda the basis for the whole trilogy.  

No, the movie sucks.  There's no redeeming it from the perspective of someone who has read and enjoyed the book.

I see it as fan fiction.

I loved the LOTR movies but I have been extremely disappointed in the Hobbit.