The most insulting sentence in AUJ (for me).

Recently I've been trying to re-watch AUJ. This endeavor has taken place over the last two and a half weeks as I can only stomach a few minutes at a time. I've currently reached the moment where Azog & Friends discover Thorin & Company outside of the Misty Mountains. Ya know, that moment right before Thorin and Gandalf name-drop the chapter title? Yeah, so that's where I currently am.

I've been thinking back over the entire film and this sentence from the prologue really gets on my nerves: "I think it is time for you to know what really happened."

Seriously? What really happened? That sentence just reeks of self-importance. Like: "Oh, you may have read the book, but you didn't see the movie! It's what really happened!"

Put down that book, Frodo, and stare at this screen for nine hours, because you're about to hear the true story! It's like the screenwriters are trying to place their movie higher than the book. It's like they're trying to say that there is a definite series of events surrounding this fictional story, and that definite series of events are not all from the book/author! Good grief! They might as well put a "Based on a True Story" disclaimer at the beginning of the film. The true story that it's based on is the writers' need for self-aggrandizement!

I can just see it: cinema-goers who resemble neanderthals exiting the cinema, muttering to themselves in an uneducated hill-billy southern drawl: "Golly, Billy-Bob, sure glad we done gone and seen dat dere movin' picsher show! We weren't ev'r gettin' the whole story outta no book!"

 

I always interpreted that line as reference to Bilbo having written a partially false account of his adventure in the early drafts of the Red Book, but later having told Frodo the truth.  Tolkien devised this chain of events to explain the discrepancy between Bilbo's finding of the Ring in the original 1937 edition of The Hobbit and in the second edition written after The Lord of the Rings was nearly complete.  Because Tolkien was pretending to have discovered and translated the stories, he wanted an in-universe explanation for there being two different versions of the finding of the Ring.  So he had Bilbo lying about how he found the Ring to the Dwarves when he returned to them, as well as in his memoirs decades later, but privately telling the truth to his closest friends and allies.

Or that's Jackson subliminally trying to justify his changes right from the start. Just a thought.Personally I was rather let down with the over significance of the ring in the Hobbit AUJ. It was just like they were trying to hard to make it something that it wasn't at that time. Everyone who has seen Jackson's LOTR knows what the ring is we get a 15 minute prologue about what it is and who it belongs to. So for me all of Jackson's slow motion shots of the ring and rehashing the ring falling perfectly onto Bilbo's finger. Is all just a waste of time and unnecessary. Personally I felt they should have reenacted the finding of the ring from FOTR for continuity sake. But Jackson can't have that now. We have to go all new bigger and better than before. Bilbo being 6,000,000 dollar Hobbit, we can make him faster stronger and more confusing than ever before.

I didn't like the magnetic finger in FOTR, and I didn't like it in AUJ either, but I don't think the Ring really played that much of a role in AUJ. Granted, I haven't seen the film since January, but to my memory just about everything relating to Bilbo's story felt somewhat sidelined by the emphasis on Thorin, Azog, and the Dwarvish reclamation of Erebor that seemed to be taking center stage. I don't see anything subliminal or sinister (sorry) in this line.

Eldo, I am confused.

So Bilbo is telling Frodo the "real" version of the story, the one that Tolkien didn't "discover." But then we have Azog in the "real" version while the book, and appendices state that he was beheaded by Dain. So could Tolkien be wrong about the appendices? I really can't find a way to reconcile that line so it makes sense to me. My brain is just   .

Sin, agree completely about the ring scene. That's part of what I watched tonight and it just brings the entire scene to a halt. Oh, look at da shiny ring! Ooooooooh! Come on, we know what it is. Another thing that bothers me about that scene is the introduction of Gollum. I like in the book how Gollum sees Bilbo from his island and then approaches him. In the movie there's the double-back for him to get the goblin, take him back his island, and then come back to confront Bilbo. I think if it were him leaving the island and then jumping Bilbo, it makes the situation a little more frightening. Gollum jumping Bilbo form atop that rock is a more surpsing moment than him creeping around a corner to drag the goblin back to the island. But then again, if this were the case, we wouldn't get our ridiculous lovely shot of the ring.

I thought parts of RID was alright but like I said they over played the ring, and if I had filmed the scene.There would have been no slow motion ring drop, Bilbo would have found it just like in FOTR, Bilbo would have said that iconic line "Time, I need more Time" instead of Jackson's garbage line for Gollum, "Time's up"Then I would have had Gollum going on about his Birthday present and going back to his island for it, not finding it (off screen of course) He would have been screaming and rambling all the way back, in which we see Bilbo, looking in Gollum's direction, getting nervous and scared because Gollum seems really ticked off and psychotic. By the time Gollum gets back Bilbo would have slipped on the ring, Gollum would have looked for Bilbo as he showed back up assuming Bilbo tricked him and really knew the way out. Which Bilbo was sort of hiding but wondered why Gollum didn't see him, and then Bilbo invisible would have followed Gollum to the back door where there would have been at least a few goblins guarding the back door....

HEY THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE THE BOOK!!!!   

What a concept, I don't know why Jackson couldn't think of something like this since he is such a film making genius.   

bungobaggins wrote:Eldo, I am confused.

So Bilbo is telling Frodo the "real" version of the story, the one that Tolkien didn't "discover." But then we have Azog in the "real" version while the book, and appendices state that he was beheaded by Dain. So could Tolkien be wrong about the appendices? I really can't find a way to reconcile that line so it makes sense to me. My brain is just   .

Sorry, it's late and I'm tired, so perhaps I shouldn't be trying to explain myself at all right now. But anyway, my earlier post was discussing Tolkien's own conceit in his writing.  The idea that there was a false and a true account of Bilbo's finding of the Ring is an idea Tolkien came up with decades before the movies were a thing.  It's a story-internal concept.  It's important to remember that in many of his comments, Tolkien pretended that he was simply a translator and editor of ancient manuscripts which he had discovered.  The different accounts have nothing to do with the movies.

The movies are a completely different thing.  They touch very briefly on the discovery conceit by showing Bilbo and Frodo writing the Red Book.  I think that the line "it's time for you to know what really happened" is a statement by the character of movie!Bilbo that he had told Frodo an altered account of his adventure in the past, but that he would now tell him the whole truth.  Of course, all of the stories told by movie!Bilbo to other movie characters would be different from the stories told by the book characters, since the movies and books take place in their own, separate continuities.

If that doesn't make sense, please just say so and I'll try again when I'm fully awake.

I interpreted that line much the same way Eldo did. Bilbo left certain parts out of the story even to Frodo, and decided to let him in on the whole truth.

Bungo, have you seen Petty's edit of the Hobbit? If not, send him a PM and he'll be happy to help you. It is really a whole different film once most of Jackson's crap is taken out.

Yep, what Eldo said. When I first heard that line I was happy; made me feel the writers had done their research and were hinting to knowledgable readers that the movie that followed would be a fitting prelude to the Lord of the Rings.

Then the movie happened.  

Two other lines whch really f*cking p*ssed me off were:

'All Good Stories deserve embelishment'...or if they were that good they could be left alone more or less unchanged.

And the line where they refer to Bulroarer Tooks invention of Golf as being a myth, despite it being confimred in both the hobbit book and LOTR.

'And all the comforts of Home...'

WHAT is up with the utterly pointless changes??? DO PJ and Co think they can better each and very sentence by tweaking it slighty???

I agree Malickfan, most of the dialogue seems tweeked, amped up or modernized. Why mess with Tolkiens original?
But the lines that irk me most is PJs made up crap. The WC springs to mind, why the hell would Bilbo give Gandalf courage? the delivery of Gandalfs dialogue seems far too luvvy theatrical, and empty. Maybe later on in the story Bilbo could give Gandalf the sense that his moral courage helped save the Dwarves and Elves from all out war by him stealing the Arkenstone and giving it to Thranduil, that kind of courage, not physical courage, and certainly not this early in the tale.

Thanks, Eldo, that clears it up for me. I must admit I was tired as well, and a little loopy.  

I have not seen Petty's edit yet. I will look into it.

bungobaggins wrote:Thanks, Eldo, that clears it up for me. I must admit I was tired as well, and a little loopy.  

Thanks, glad I was able to be clearer.

malickfan wrote:'All Good Stories deserve embelishment'...or if they were that good they could be left alone more or less unchanged.

Okay, on this one, I will agree with what Sinister said about it feeling like a preemptive justification for the changes in the movie.  I too was not fond of this line.

I think the part that baffled me most was them changing the second part of the "In a hole in a ground there lived a Hobbit" line. No idea what they were going for there.

That's a thing that bothers me a little with the LotR films too, all these minor but pointless and unnecessary changes to the Tolkien dialogue they actually include. Never understood that

Jackson doesn't care for the original dialogue all that much probably. That's my guess anyways.

I agree RA- it goes way beyond just shortening sentences, or compounding speeches for adaptation purposes, its the removal entirely of dialogue and its wholesale replacement- and that to me displays an active dislike of the style of Tolkien.

I've wondered about this too. It's as if the writers had read the book, then closed it and tried to reconstruct the dialog from memory.

It's as if the writers had read the book, then closed it and tried to reconstruct the dialog from memory. - David

Thats the best description of their writing Ive heard yet David. Spot on!

Recoveryanonymous wrote:Jackson doesn't care for the original dialogue all that much probably. That's my guess anyways.

I doubt Jackson would even recognize if it's original dialogue, but the writers would. Not to defend the writers, but I would think the minor changes are due to first compressing the dialogue as needed to fit the film timing, then adjusting it so it seems (to their ears) to flow more naturally after the compression. But that only explains about 50% of the changes. In many other places there are well known passages which stand independently of any dialogue, and should not need such adjustment.

I don't expect the writers to necessarily copy lots of dialogue from the books verbatim. That's a really superficial thing and I think there are far greater issues at stake in an adaptation. Actually, I'd argue that PJ and Co. were much better at the superficial stuff then the deeper points of the story. But if you're going to include an iconic line, especially if you retain the original context, then it makes no sense to me to slightly rewrite it. It's not a big deal, but I just don't understand what their goal was since the original line is so well-known and the new version doesn't add much additional information anyway.

I have noticed the Hobbit has far more modern sounding dialogue, and contemporary physical mannerisms which take me out of the moment. The most glaring bit being Bilbo, Kili and Fili before the Troll scenes, and of course the infamous chips/green food garbage, also the bit in Riddles when Gollum tells Bilbo he will eat him Whole, the head snap Gollum does is pure yo wassup. Some of the Dwarves and Bilbo are too ironic in their delivery. In contrast I found the delivery in LOTR to be fully steeped in ME.

I found the delivery in LOTR to be fully steeped in ME.- Mrs Figg

What you mean besides 90% of it being rewritten and it being filled with a selection of anachronistic words and structuring Tolkien would have rather gnawed off his own arms than use?

I really don't see much, if any difference between LotR's and TH in this respect- both hate the original dialogue, both avoid it like the plague, both introduce modern words and sentences, and both are piss poor in comparison to the original source material.

I see a huge difference, I never felt taken out of the moment by LOTR, whereas in AUJ it was every 5 minutes.

Both have similar problems, but it's worse in the Hobbit as Co-ed Figg pointed out. The dwarves are being posed as lower class Brits to the Elves upper class pan-European. Some of that with Hobbits and Dwarves still went on in LoTR, but it wasn't as constant or glaring.

I agree Halfy, the Whole World of ME in LOTR felt more authentic, the dialogue never screamed at me as being bad, I found it wonderful, for eg, I listen to Theoden at Helms Deep and feel a real respect for the original coming from the Writers, its a pity that was thrown out in AUJ. I have a horrible feeling DOS is going to be even more fauxME.