A missing Arkenstone

I don't know if it is just me, but "The Battle of the Five Armies" seems to be missing a crucial scene at the end of the film. We never actually see the Arkenstone restored to the Dwarf throne and as far as I can tell, Bard from Lake Town has run off with it.
In place of that scene is an awkward bit of dialogue between the Elf king and Legolas. The king says goodbye to Legolas and tells him of a ranger in the north known as "Strider". He is of course referring to Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings who, at the time of these events at which Bilbo Baggins is still relatively young, would not have been born yet.

Welcome to Forumshire Armchair (great name makes me want to rummage down your sides for loose change).  

So pointing out glaring errors in PJ's Tolkien films then is it?  
You'll fit right in here

But yes the fate of the Arkenstone along with many other story threads that go nowhere (Gandalfs staff, the morgul blade, the funerals, Dains coronation, what happens to Bard, Beorn ect) is another clumsy bit of scripting in these just make it up as you shoot them and hope it all miraculously works out in the editing room films (sadly it didn't work out, not even close).

I thought I remembered one narrated scene with Thorin's tomb, but it may just be my feverous hopeful imagination.

Armchair wrote:I don't know if it is just me, but "The Battle of the Five Armies" seems to be missing a crucial scene at the end of the film. We never actually see the Arkenstone restored to the Dwarf throne and as far as I can tell, Bard from Lake Town has run off with it.
In place of that scene is an awkward bit of dialogue between the Elf king and Legolas. The king says goodbye to Legolas and tells him of a ranger in the north known as "Strider". He is of course referring to Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings who, at the time of these events at which Bilbo Baggins is still relatively young, would not have been born yet.

Welcome Armchair, but to get technical, Aragorn would have been 10 years old and living in Rivendell at the time. Known as Estel. However in Peter Jackson's messed up version they left out the 17 year gap in Frodo leaving the shire. So in Jackson's interpretation he would have been 27 or so. Still not really that old but IMHO a very un-thought out mistake on Jackson's part.

I think it was rather useless and stupid for them to have to name drop Aragorn none the less. But common sense was never Jackson's suit with these Hobbit films, it was always all about cramming in as many of his LOTR references as humanly possible. Most of which felt out of place and forced. The Hobbit was just filled with fan fiction and unnecessary plot changes, and after looking at it realistically was never going to be Tolkien's Hobbit

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Welcome to Forumshire Armchair (great name makes me want to rummage down your sides for loose change).  

You sure hit the nail on the head of adorably creepy there Petty.

But welcome to the forum Armchair! I also like your name, makes me want to read books.

I'm a Scotshobbit! I hear armchair I automatically think loose change=free money= free buckie

Sinister71 wrote:

Armchair wrote:I don't know if it is just me, but "The Battle of the Five Armies" seems to be missing a crucial scene at the end of the film. We never actually see the Arkenstone restored to the Dwarf throne and as far as I can tell, Bard from Lake Town has run off with it.
In place of that scene is an awkward bit of dialogue between the Elf king and Legolas. The king says goodbye to Legolas and tells him of a ranger in the north known as "Strider". He is of course referring to Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings who, at the time of these events at which Bilbo Baggins is still relatively young, would not have been born yet.

Welcome Armchair, but to get technical, Aragorn would have been 10 years old and living in Rivendell at the time. Known as Estel. However in Peter Jackson's messed up version they left out the 17 year gap in Frodo leaving the shire. So in Jackson's interpretation he would have been 27 or so. Still not really that old but IMHO a very un-thought out mistake on Jackson's part.

I think it was rather useless and stupid for them to have to name drop Aragorn none the less. But common sense was never Jackson's suit with these Hobbit films, it was always all about cramming in as many of his LOTR references as humanly possible. Most of which felt out of place and forced. The Hobbit was just filled with fan fiction and unnecessary plot changes, and after looking at it realistically was never going to be Tolkien's Hobbit

surely pj and co's ultimate piss take was the masters line in bofa when he says "never mind the books" when he is gathering treasure to evacuate

Elendil: good observation. Up there with "all good tales deserve embellishment" or whatever it was from AUJ.

Armchair: the abbreviation of the ending was one of my biggest pet peeves with BOFA.  It's like the removal of Christopher Lee from ROTK all over again; don't tell only part of the story because you assume that people will buy the EE later.  (That's the most charitable assumption I can imagine, the less charitable assumption is that PJ didn't think any of the concluding stuff was important enough to be part of the story proper.)  But I suppose that appearing in the EE eventually is better than not appearing at all, and I have heard that Thorin's funeral and Dain's coronation will both show up there.

"It is time for you to know what rrreeaaeally happened."

Eldorion wrote:Armchair: the abbreviation of the ending was one of my biggest pet peeves with BOFA.  It's like the removal of Christopher Lee from ROTK all over again; don't tell only part of the story because you assume that people will buy the EE later.  (That's the most charitable assumption I can imagine, the less charitable assumption is that PJ didn't think any of the concluding stuff was important enough to be part of the story proper.)  But I suppose that appearing in the EE eventually is better than not appearing at all, and I have heard that Thorin's funeral and Dain's coronation will both show up there.

Yeah, it felt like they went "Let's wrap this up already." Without a proper ending it fell very flat.

I wonder how much of that had to do with this whole movie being made up in the editing room, and the lack of the possibility to film aditional material and doing reshoots.