7. Thorin's Timeline (Tolkien vs. Jackson)
After seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey three times and rereading The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien, I actually noticed a little difference. Thorin's life story and history was changed dramatically.
But, before I go off on my tangent, I'll give you both timelines next to each other so you can see the differences.
Timeline Timeline
(according to Tolkien) (according to LynZ, based on Jackson)
1. Erebor attacked by Smaug 1. Thrain captured by Sauron,
and taken to Dol Guldor
2. Dwarves go to reclaim Moria
2. Ring taken from Thrain
3. Thror killed by Azog
3. Thror "adopts" Thorin
4. Azog killed by Dain
4. Thrain rescued by Gandalf,
5. Thrain heads for Erebor Gandalf receives key and map
6. Thrain captured by Sauron 5. Thrain returns to Erebor
and taken to Dol Guldor
6. Erebor attacked by Smaug
7. Ring taken from Thrain
7. Dwarves go to reclaim Moria
8. Gandalf finds Thrain in Dol Guldor,
Thrain gives key and map to Gandalf 8. Thror killed by Azog
9. Thorin receives key and map 9. Thrain goes insane,
disappears
10. Thorin and Co. & Bilbo head for
Erebor 10. Azog injured by Thorin
11. Thorin receives key and map
12. Thorin and Co. & Bilbo head
for Erebor
for Erebor
You will probably notice that the movie's timeline is a little longer than the book's timeline.
My wonderful Pastor has a theory as to why these timelines look so different: "[Peter Jackson] wasn't making The Hobbit. He was making a prequel to Lord of the Rings."
Maybe this is true. The LOTR trilogy were a big industry when they were released to the world between 2001 and 2003. They still are a big industry today (with the lego sets, and the movies, and the swords, etc.). So, why wouldn't Mr. Jackson do his utmost to link The Hobbit to the already existing and popular Lord of the Rings?
My problem is that Mr. Jackson over did it a little. No, actually a lot. The Lord of the Rings was already heavily linked to The Hobbit long before Peter Jackson ever got his fingers on the copyrights.
First of all, the Ring is an instant link between Bilbo and Frodo's adventures. Bilbo found the Ring while journeying with Thorin and Company. Frodo goes on a journey to destroy the Ring. That should be enough to satisfy the audience.
Second, Gollum's back. When Bilbo takes the Ring, Gollum goes on a mission to find (and kill) Bilbo to get "the Precious" back. In the Lord of the Rings, Gollum shows up for the majority of The Two Towers, and part of The Return of the King, still on his mission to get "the Precious" back.
Third, in the Hobbit book and the Fellowship of the Ring book, we (as the reader) get a fully detailed account of how Thrain was imprisoned in Dol Guldor, and how Gandalf found him there (for more on this, see More Hobbitary Commentary, #5. Seven Rings for the Dwarf Lords).
Fourth, in the Fellowship of the Ring book, after Frodo is stabbed by the Black Rider's blade on Weathertop, he, Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn are journeying and begin talking about, "Hey, I think we're pretty close to the same road Bilbo and the Dwarves took all those years ago. Wouldn't it be cool if we found one of the places where his adventures took place?" And then, Pippin and Merry find the stone Trolls, who are obviously William, Bert, and Tom, the Trolls who were turned to stone while arguing over how to cook thirteen dwarves and a "burrahobbit". And, because Frodo isn't quite as sick and dying at that moment as Peter Jackson would have you believe in the movie, they sit around with the stone Trolls and eat, and tell stories, and take a look around the place before continuing their journey toward Rivendell.
Fifth, everyone remembers Sting, right? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the little "letter opener" sword Gandalf gives Bilbo is the same Sting that Bilbo will give to Frodo in The Fellowship, and the same Sting that will fight many Orcs and other baddies all the way from Rivendell to Mount Doom.
Finally, Thorin (although he doesn't show up himself) is mentioned multiple times in The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf seems to enjoy recounting Thorin's life, and Bilbo's adventures, especially in the Fellowship. In fact, if you were to search the index at the back of The Return of the King, you would find that Thorin Oakenshield is mentioned several times between pages 10 and 261. In fact, there's a whole appendix devoted to the line of Durin, to which Thorin belongs (anyone remember the real reason Azog wants Thorin's head so badly?).
All that aside, even if Peter Jackson was trying to make the prequel to his trilogy instead of The Hobbit, he kind of overdid it. We don't need to whole subtext about how all the orcs, goblins, and who knows what else is out to get Thorin's head in order to destroy the line of Durin. We don't even really need to see the whole Battle of Moria. I think those were added for drama, and for Peter Jackson's subtext, and to introduce us to Azog, so that Azog could then spend the rest of the trilogy chasing down Thorin, because - for some reason - the story wasn't exciting enough as it was. I understand that some things must be taken out due to time restrains, but that does not excuse adding an entire subtext to the story. The subtext takes up time too.
But, my Pastor can be more of an LOTR nerd than I am. He's actually read the appendixes at the back of The Return of the King, so he's got a huge problem with how Azog could be chasing Thorin's company if Azog was killed years ago by Thorin's relative, Dain (who will show up later).
The last thing I have to point out is that in the book, Gandalf leaves no room for assumption. He flat out tells us Thrain was captured by Sauron after the Battle of Moria. But, in the movie, Balin tells Bilbo and the rest of the Company that Thrain went mad with grief and disappeared after Thror was murdered by Azog. This isn't the hugest deal in the world, unless you're me and you pay attention to details like this.
Personally, I like the concept (however vague) that Thrain was emotionally unstable and that Thorin was raised by his grandfather (as this would explain why he seems so close to his grandfather in the movie). But, sadly, it just isn't accurate to the book.
Maybe this is true. The LOTR trilogy were a big industry when they were released to the world between 2001 and 2003. They still are a big industry today (with the lego sets, and the movies, and the swords, etc.). So, why wouldn't Mr. Jackson do his utmost to link The Hobbit to the already existing and popular Lord of the Rings?
My problem is that Mr. Jackson over did it a little. No, actually a lot. The Lord of the Rings was already heavily linked to The Hobbit long before Peter Jackson ever got his fingers on the copyrights.
First of all, the Ring is an instant link between Bilbo and Frodo's adventures. Bilbo found the Ring while journeying with Thorin and Company. Frodo goes on a journey to destroy the Ring. That should be enough to satisfy the audience.
Second, Gollum's back. When Bilbo takes the Ring, Gollum goes on a mission to find (and kill) Bilbo to get "the Precious" back. In the Lord of the Rings, Gollum shows up for the majority of The Two Towers, and part of The Return of the King, still on his mission to get "the Precious" back.
Third, in the Hobbit book and the Fellowship of the Ring book, we (as the reader) get a fully detailed account of how Thrain was imprisoned in Dol Guldor, and how Gandalf found him there (for more on this, see More Hobbitary Commentary, #5. Seven Rings for the Dwarf Lords).
Fourth, in the Fellowship of the Ring book, after Frodo is stabbed by the Black Rider's blade on Weathertop, he, Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn are journeying and begin talking about, "Hey, I think we're pretty close to the same road Bilbo and the Dwarves took all those years ago. Wouldn't it be cool if we found one of the places where his adventures took place?" And then, Pippin and Merry find the stone Trolls, who are obviously William, Bert, and Tom, the Trolls who were turned to stone while arguing over how to cook thirteen dwarves and a "burrahobbit". And, because Frodo isn't quite as sick and dying at that moment as Peter Jackson would have you believe in the movie, they sit around with the stone Trolls and eat, and tell stories, and take a look around the place before continuing their journey toward Rivendell.
Fifth, everyone remembers Sting, right? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the little "letter opener" sword Gandalf gives Bilbo is the same Sting that Bilbo will give to Frodo in The Fellowship, and the same Sting that will fight many Orcs and other baddies all the way from Rivendell to Mount Doom.
Finally, Thorin (although he doesn't show up himself) is mentioned multiple times in The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf seems to enjoy recounting Thorin's life, and Bilbo's adventures, especially in the Fellowship. In fact, if you were to search the index at the back of The Return of the King, you would find that Thorin Oakenshield is mentioned several times between pages 10 and 261. In fact, there's a whole appendix devoted to the line of Durin, to which Thorin belongs (anyone remember the real reason Azog wants Thorin's head so badly?).
All that aside, even if Peter Jackson was trying to make the prequel to his trilogy instead of The Hobbit, he kind of overdid it. We don't need to whole subtext about how all the orcs, goblins, and who knows what else is out to get Thorin's head in order to destroy the line of Durin. We don't even really need to see the whole Battle of Moria. I think those were added for drama, and for Peter Jackson's subtext, and to introduce us to Azog, so that Azog could then spend the rest of the trilogy chasing down Thorin, because - for some reason - the story wasn't exciting enough as it was. I understand that some things must be taken out due to time restrains, but that does not excuse adding an entire subtext to the story. The subtext takes up time too.
But, my Pastor can be more of an LOTR nerd than I am. He's actually read the appendixes at the back of The Return of the King, so he's got a huge problem with how Azog could be chasing Thorin's company if Azog was killed years ago by Thorin's relative, Dain (who will show up later).
The last thing I have to point out is that in the book, Gandalf leaves no room for assumption. He flat out tells us Thrain was captured by Sauron after the Battle of Moria. But, in the movie, Balin tells Bilbo and the rest of the Company that Thrain went mad with grief and disappeared after Thror was murdered by Azog. This isn't the hugest deal in the world, unless you're me and you pay attention to details like this.
Personally, I like the concept (however vague) that Thrain was emotionally unstable and that Thorin was raised by his grandfather (as this would explain why he seems so close to his grandfather in the movie). But, sadly, it just isn't accurate to the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment