Pj and Tolkien's themes

This is a further reflection on the conversation/argument with Figg about Pj and  if he does or does not give an honest adaptation of the themes in Tolkien's work.

For the sake of minimum initial contention lets start with TH.

The main theme of TH seems failry clear. Greed.

In the book the set up is that Thorin and co wish to return to the mountain to steal back some treasure from Smaug to ease their hearts longing for their lost wealth.
Thorin is both desiring of some treasure, and has quite a big chip on his shoulder over having lost it. He is prideful, arrogant and covetous of the treasure. Or in short he starts off the story as the dwarf equivalent to Smaug but without the ability to fulfill it, and becomes as greedy as Smaug when the opportunity to fulfill it presents itself with Smaug's death.
There is no mention or desire to reclaim the mountain because its not considered by any of them to be within the realms of possibility. What they are at Bilbo's for is to hire a burglar to steal for them. There is nothing noble about the quest, or its aims.

In the film Thorin is presented completely differently. He is still a bit prideful and arrogant but he shows no initial desire to just get some treasure. Instead the film plays on the viewers sympathies, presenting us with a sort of Jewish forced exodus from the mountain, and it presents Thorin as trying to reclaim his homeland for his people. Firstly by trying to unite the dwarf tribes to retake the mountain, which fails because he lacks the Arkenstone which in the films (unoil they forget the idea anyway) is needed to unite the dwarves behind their king. Without he is just ignored. So instead they hire Bilbo to steal the Arkenstone so Thorin can unite the dwarves and retake the mountain from the dragon.

So from the outset this Thorin is not a counterpoint to Smaug- his initial reasons for the quest are largely altruistic, he is doing it for his people and to reclaim their homeland.

When the issue of greed finally does come up it is presented not as greed at all but as Dragon Sickness.
To be honest I was never really clear in the films what this is. In some cases it seems to be presented like an inherited disease, more akin to a mental illness than anything else and which Thorin is susceptible to because his forefathers were. Something to be fought and overcome- which is what happens in the film.
At other times it seems to be hinted that the treasure itself is cursed from having had Smaug sit on it (or under it in the films case) for years, hence the name Dragon sickness. And going on Balin's conversation to Bilbo it seems to be somehow also attached to the discovery of the Arkenstone, which somehow brought both increased wealth and the dragon sickness to Thrain.
I dont find any of it very clear in the films at all.
But which ever of these you take as the cause of the dragon sickness the one thing its not presented as is outright and simple greed and avarice.

Similarly in the book the battle at the end, pre the goblin arrival its a stupid pointless battle. Its a war of greed, everyone is there to fight for treasure, everyone makes a claim on some of it, some more genuine than others. But there is nothing about the battle that is necessary- had Thorin's pride and greed not been so great a settlement could have been easily reached.
The only thing that saves the good guys is the arrival of the goblins forcing them to set aside petty differences in the face of greater shared danger.
Thorin is only redeemed at the very last on his deathbed when he finally understands that his own avarice has led to not only his fall, but that of his family line. And he uses the final moments of his life to acknowledge this and make peace with it and with those his greed has wronged. In particular Bilbo.

In the film PJ presents the battle as not about greed at all. Thorin still refuses to strike a deal, but it is not attributed to his greed but to dragon sickness, something he succumbs to and overcomes in the space of a few days.
The battle itself is staged as a battle to save ME. PJ ties all the armies attacking to Sauron and the battle to a plan to gain control of the Mt as a strategic base of operations to rearm Angmar and take out Rivendell, the ElvenKings realm and apparently even the Shire, somehow. It is presented as a battle that has to be fought for the greater good, rather than a petty squabble over gold.

In making these changes, firstly to Thorin in presenting him in a heroic tragic romantic hero light, and secondly by presenting the battle as justified the entire message of greed in the book and its consequences, personal and global are completely obliterated.

I was surprised by how quickly Thorin descended into a jibbering, paranoid once he got into Erebor ? Mental health issues dont often come on THAT quick surely ? so what is it ? Dragon sickness ? that with a little time & effort Thorin should be his old self soon or, his own greed rising to the surface as fast as lightning ? Peejers went to far & over stepped the mark far earlier in the trilogy by bringing in ....dum dum darrrrrr...... a necromancer. Been said so you cant go back. You cant state theres a mysterious bad guy & then never mention it again ? stupid idea !

Is this Tokien a manga character or something?

I think that by making TH more than just an adventure for riches but rather a grand heroic quest PJ also undercuts another quite important message the hobbit and lotr try to convey. Which is the (rather philosophical) idea that the most insignificant people and events can change the course of history. Bilbo an insignificant hobbit stumbling upon the ring during what seems to be an insignificant quest.
Although I remember reading somewhere that Gandalf used Thorin's quest to get rid of Smaug in order to prevent Sauron from using Smaug in his assault on Middle Earth...But then again it still undermines Gandalf's role as a strategic mastermind

Welcome to Forumshire Maedhros.

In UT Gandalf puts the whole thing down to chance of a sort. But hints that he had a sort of intuition- not of what would happen, just that directed his actions subconsciously (because whilst Istari he does not have access to his otherworldy knowledge whilst in the mortal world and in a mortal body).
Bilbo found the Ring because he was sent on the quest, he was sent on the quest because Gandalf remembered him and had liked him, and the quest happened at all because Gandalf met Thorin by chance on the road near Bree.
Also this is Gandalf reflecting back after the event, and after his time is done, and after he has returned for a period of time as the White, and can see clearer what he could not see at the time.
When he helped the dwarves he feared the dragon could be used in the future but probably not directly by Sauron- Tolkien was a big fan of the idea of independent evil acting on its own without it being tied to 'the devil' as he put it. He stated this in response to an earlier draft of an adaptation of his work. And you can see it in his work- Old Man Willow, the trolls, black hearted Huorns, the goblin/dwarf wars ect are all independent of any greater evil or masterplan.

Its also worth noting that Gandalf has done this sort of thing before without world changing results- when Bilbo remembers who Gandalf is one of the things he says is that Gandalf was responsible for previous hobbits (presumably Tooks) going off on adventures.
So from Gandalf's point of view there is probably no reason to consciously assume this time is any different from those times.


Is this Tokien a manga character or something?- Forest

I should ask Eldo, he'd know! (Fixed it)

I think this discussion highlights a very interesting point about Jacksons adaption of Tolkiens work. In that he in adapting LotRs while staying closer to the original story, failed to grasp and include the subtleties found in the original. And when adapting the Hobbit he tried to make it in the image, not of Tolkiens LotRs, but his adaptation. Again failing to grasp the deapth subtlety of Tolkiens work.

In other words, he turned both books into something they are not. The straight forward heroic tales many imagine fantasy to be, but which it, in good cases as Tolkien and George RR Martin, is not..

oh I think he got the subtlety in LOTR alright.

But in TH not only did they compromise the theme of Greed they compromised on the Wizardry of Wizards, ie the mystery of Gandalf. The spelt out everything for the audience, as if they needed to know where he went when he was not with the Dwarves and Bilbo. They made up cack handed WC/Dooglydoor/Radagast nonsense to explain his movements. So the theme (if that's the right term) of faerie, was removed wholesale. they also removed Elven lights in the forest. They replaced the theme of Greed with banal, tragic hero character, they sterilize the magic out, theres no growth.

Some things were subtle Figgs but if you watch as the films go on he was kind of subtle in FOTR, and then less subtle in TTT and far less subtle in ROTK. Nowhere near the level of the Hobbit films not even in the same world of closeness but there were some things that were quite so subtle. They just weren't as abundant as the hobbit either.

maybe. but I still rate ROTK as a masterpiece in its own right.

I was with you for the first part of the OP, Petty, but I think you're needless over-complicating the whole dragon-sickness thing.  I think its presentation in the film is fairly straightforward, but the meaning is even more clear if you think back to its usage in the book.  (Yes, the phrase "dragon-sickness" is a Tolkienian invention, not a PJ one.)

The Last Stage wrote:They fell to talking of their times together, of course, and Bilbo asked how things were going in the lands of the Mountain....

The old Master had come to a bad end.  Bard had given him much gold for the help of the Lake-people, but being of the kind that easily catches such disease he fell under dragon-sickness, and took most of the gold and fled with it, and died of starvation in the Waste, deserted by his companions.

The phrase's use here is, I think, pretty clearly just a fanciful term for greed, and I think the film's usage is the same.  It clearly is not caused by dragons, because Thror started to succumb to dragon-sickness before Smaug arrived.  There are a couple of lines that imply a supernatural element at play (which is indirectly supported by Thorin's quite sudden descent into greed when it had not been a significant motivation for him before), but thematically speaking, it's still quite clearly about greed.  And greed is what brings everyone to a standoff at the Lonely Mountain prior to the battle in both of the book and the film.

I do agree that the theme becomes lost in the confusion once the battle starts, due to the emphasis on Sauron's involvement.  But the battle in the book isn't really about greed either, not once the goblin's arrive and the elves, dwarves, and men put aside their differences (all of which occurs before the actual fighting starts).  The goblins in the book went to battle to seek revenge for the death of the Great Goblin and because of their long-standing conflict with the Dwarves, which (aside from the Sauron/Dol Guldur angle, which is of course significant) is not that different from Azog's motivation in the films.

I'm still put off by the feeling that the filmmakers felt that the original story "wasn't good enough" and "needed to be spiced up." As someone who really enjoyed the book, that comes off as really insulting to me. "What you liked wasn't entertaining enough. It was too simple. So we're going to make it better."

I don think the dragon sickness use in the film Eldo is the same as in the book. Its more like the were-worm thing where they have taken a phrase and made it into something else.

I just dont think the script or the character of Thorin in the film supports it just being greed.
In the book Thorin's greed, his dragon sickness is present from the start as part of his personality, he wants some treasure back and is willing to go on a long dangerous journey to steal from a dragon just to get some.
In the film he is not and the dragon sickness doesn't start to effect him until he reaches the mountain, giving the impression proximity and exposure to the treasure is a factor.

The film also plays up and emphasizes the seeming inherited nature of dragon sickness as early as at Rivendell in AUJ, and this theme is further repeated in all three films through Gandalf, Thrain and Balin.

In BOFA Balin then adds the Akenstone into the mix by implying that it was its arrival which both brought vast treasure to the mountain and pushed Thrain over the edge into his madness. And that Thorin rediscovering it would make his dragon sickness even worse and push him beyond saving too.
And there is one further conversation in which the gold itself is said to be cursed just to further confuse the matter.

Thorin's reaction to the sickness is also completely different from that of greed- he gets much worse with it at the mountain, but then has a coming to his senses and throws it off again before going into battle.
Book Thorin only repents and comes to an understanding about where his own greed has led him on his deathbed, not at any point before, nor is it something he can just shake off but rather acknowledge, because its a part of his personality. He dies just as greedy as he started, the  difference is he can finally now recognise it in himself, see the harm it has done and repent of it before he dies- typically very Catholic of Tolkien.

The film presents it much more like an outside force which negatively impacts, more akin to the Ring or mental illness than ones own blind greed as a personality flaw.

'the battle in the book isn't really about greed either, not once the goblin's arrive and the elves, dwarves, and men put aside their differences '

Which is why I said it was about greed 'pre-goblin arrival'.

I think making Azog's motivations carrying out Sauron's orders fundamentally changes it.

There are perfectly good legitimate themes that could have been used based on the book- Bolg in the book has three personal reasons for his actions if you want to look for them- revenge for the loss of his kin, vengeance on the dwarven people as a whole for all the territory lost to the dwarves in the wars, and lastly political- taking back all that territory lost would most certainly secure his position at the top of the goblin hierarchy as the new Great Goblin.
By making the battle a battle to save all of ME again the pointlessness of the series of events- greed and seeking revenge for past wrongs are buried as themes and replaced with another representation of a 'just war' scenario fighting against the devil.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: There are perfectly good legitimate themes that could have been used based on the book- Bolg in the book has three personal reasons for his actions if you want to look for them- revenge for the loss of his kin, vengeance on the dwarven people as a whole for all the territory lost to the dwarves in the wars, and lastly political- taking back all that territory lost would most certainly secure his position at the top of the goblin hierarchy as the new Great Goblin.
By making the battle a battle to save all of ME again the pointlessness of the series of events- greed and seeking revenge for past wrongs are buried as themes and replaced with another representation of a 'just war' scenario fighting against the devil.

Yah, I think the reduction of the Hobbit to LoTR lite was a profound disservice to the themes in the book, and completely unnecessary to boot. But..but..but...if Jackson hadn't made it abundantly clear that we're back in MIDDLE EARTH by including Sauron and the Nazgul and everything else, the stupid dumb audience would never have worked it out

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I just dont think the script or the character of Thorin in the film supports it just being greed.
In the book Thorin's greed, his dragon sickness is present from the start as part of his personality, he wants some treasure back and is willing to go on a long dangerous journey to steal from a dragon just to get some.

Well this is an interesting point Petty. I think, in your appreciation of Tolkien, you over-emphasize the continuity of Thorin and Co.'s plans in the book. Tolkien is simply not logically consistent on this point, and that's fine! I think the fact that the dwarves don't have a plan to actually kill or defeat Smaug means less that they only intend to get away with stealing treasure, and more that the dwarves' plans are not really the point of the story.

"The dragon always was the weak point in their plan" (to paraphrase) and several other passages from the book always gave me the sense that the dwarves simply aren't meant to have thoroughly planned ahead. I don't mean of course that they are simpletons (although they can be fairly thick at times) but that the question of how some dwarves and a hobbit could kill the "chiefest and greatest of calamities" is necessarily avoided by Tolkien for the sake of Bilbo's development as a character. He is a peaceful and simple hobbit that has no right to be off fighting dragons with dwarves.

So the story invents the role of burglar with a party of dwarves so as to get him out the door, so to speak. But the story is not about a small hobbit in the midst of an army, so there are only 13 dwarves. They have no chance of defeating Smaug, but this doesn't mean that the dwarves intend merely to steal what a hobbit could make off with. They know that it is a physical impossibility for Bilbo to make off with anything like a sizable portion of the gold and jewels, and one of their stated goals is to "bring their curses home to Smaug." This might be pretty-speak for "rob the bugger for whatever we can get" but I don't see the story this way.

Petty's point stands about the book's central theme of the evil greed inspires, but I do not think we should so clearly delineate the plans of the movie dwarves and the book dwarves. The reason that the dwarves appear to only wish to steal from Smaug in the book is that this allows for Bilbo to develop as a meaningful character (and member of the party). The reason that the dwarves appear to only wish to defeat Smaug and recapture the mountain in the movie is to allow Thorin to develop as a meaningful character. The latter obviously sidelines Bilbo, decreases his relevance in the story, and superfluates (sp?) his role in the group.

Sure, the filmmakers attempt to validate him with the ridiculous Arkenstone scheme, but this simply falls to the wayside once Thorin's arc comes to fruition, like the pointless subplot that it is.