The Hobbit

j00t

j00t

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,380
7,473
I remember reading an article with Viggo Mortenson. He said they asked him to be in the hobbit. His response? "You people know that aragorn wasn't in the hobbit, right? The hobbit happened 60 years before lotr. Aragorn would 20 years old and had absolutely no idea this was even occuring, much less the significance of the event until much later in his life. There's no reason why aragorn would be in the hobbit." So nice to see an actor care about the art instead of the pay check
 
McCheese

McCheese

SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
6,895
4,277
Yes, I think i would have had more nerd rage over shoehorning Aragorn into the movie than Legolas. At least Legolas has a logical reason to show up at some point, although I have a feeling he's going to play a much larger role than he should. He should just have a short walk-on cameo in the background, but...Hollywood! Love Story!
 
Phayd

Phayd

Golden Knight of the Realm
113
24
I hope they don't try to use Aragorn. I believe he was closer to 10 when Bilbo found the ring...
 
G

Grimey

Golden Knight of the Realm
335
159
Ashin_sl said:
nah he said to eowyn he was like 88(?)
Click to expand...
Aragorn was about 10 when The Hobbit happens. LOTR happens 60 years after the Hobbit and covers a time span of about 20 years. The hobbit begins on Bilbo's 50th year, and LOTR begins on his eleventy-first birthday (111). When LOTR ends Bilbo is 131 (older than the Old Took).
 
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
just got through reading most of this thread and the first few pages especially made me think that maybe the hobbit part1 isn't so bad. i should know better than to trust some of my friends. there is hope yet again.

but still should've been one movie. unless parts 2 and 3 are meant to show all the non-written bits (battle of five armies etc), in which case that is very cool.
 
Gamma Rays

Gamma Rays

Large sized member
3,961
9,482
Grimey_sl said:
Aragorn was about 10 when The Hobbit happens. LOTR happens 60 years after the Hobbit and covers a time span of about 20 years. The hobbit begins on Bilbo's 50th year, and LOTR begins on his eleventy-first birthday (111). When LOTR ends Bilbo is 131 (older than the Old Took).
Click to expand...
Re: the timeline of the LOTR books verses the movie. I read the LOTR books after having seen the movies. One of the big differences (timewise) is the time taken between Bilbo handing the ring over to Frodo and then how long Frodo waits before actually doing something to destroy it. There's no rush and it is something close to 15-16 yrs, the ring had done it's thing with Frodo and he hadn't aged. Then when he finally does leave, he goes through a lengthy process of selling Bagend and fabricating a whole story about moving to Bree (or somewhere that way)

It's an obvious choice that the film-makers made to speed up this section to give urgency to it.

I'm not saying this to point out that it's now a good opening to have Aragorn in the Hobbit films. No - don't want to do that. Just throwing in some trivia about the Book / Film differences.
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
14,675
10,240
Aragorn is 87 at the beginning of Lord of the rings.

Gamma is right, in the book, Frodo did take his time packing.

2931 Aragorn is born.
2941 is the start of the Hobbit.
2949 end of the Hobbit.
3001 Lotr starts, Bilbo's 111th birthday.
3018 Frodo leaves Bag end.
 
Siliconemelons

Siliconemelons

Avatar of War Slayer
11,016
15,497
Aye, the time that everything took was lost in the movies, it is hard to translate into three films- so I understand. But it does make it a bit more epic with the entire thing spanning years and years.
 
Blackyce

Blackyce

Silver Knight of the Realm
836
12
Ok, weren't Bilbo and Frodo about the same age when they started off on both their journeys? I remember reading something to that nature in LOTR.

One of the things though that also struck me was that one of the reasons other hobbits looked at Bilbo oddly was because he also didn't age much after coming back from his travels in the Hobbit.

So it felt a bit awkward when LOTR started and Bilbo looks like an older hobbit and Frodo is your young hobbit, when it reality, they should have more closely resembled each other in how they looked age wise.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
xadion_sl said:
The lore people will correct me, but Aragorn is of a certain blood line that are long lived humans - 80's are like late 30's or 40's or so- they are not "long lived" like elves that are naturally immortal in age.
Click to expand...
He is descended from Numenoreans, which translated is "the baller long-lived first men."
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
14,675
10,240
yeah. Aragorn lives to like 300-400. 88 is "prime".

Frodo was 33 at Bilbo's 111th. but as noted. 17years, he sat around, so 50 when leaving Bag end for Bree.


So yeah, the movies get a bit weird here.
As Elijah/frodo looks like 20 throughout the movies.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Blackyce_sl said:
Ok, weren't Bilbo and Frodo about the same age when they started off on both their journeys? I remember reading something to that nature in LOTR.

One of the things though that also struck me was that one of the reasons other hobbits looked at Bilbo oddly was because he also didn't age much after coming back from his travels in the Hobbit.

So it felt a bit awkward when LOTR started and Bilbo looks like an older hobbit and Frodo is your young hobbit, when it reality, they should have more closely resembled each other in how they looked age wise.
Click to expand...
No, pretty sure Bilbo was middle aged for a hobbit when he went on his adventure. Yes, he aged much more slowly after he returned, but he still aged. In LOTR it talks about how his 111th birthday is a big deal because that's quite old for Hobbits to even make it to, let alone as healthy and spry as he is. The Old Took lived to 130, for example. It's not that he didn't age, he just aged more slowly while he possessed the ring.

The movies did more or less skip over the 17 years that Frodo had the ring, making it seem like it was just a few months or weeks.
 
Gamma Rays

Gamma Rays

Large sized member
3,961
9,482
Eomer_sl said:
. . . he aged much more slowly after he returned, but he still aged. . . It's not that he didn't age, he just aged more slowly while he possessed the ring.
Click to expand...
That's true, the aging process is greatly slowed.

To add to the conversation and to help cite info from the books ( not posting this as a correction of your post ) it's important to remember also that the process is also a corrupting process. A "fuller" example of the rings effect is seen when we go back and view Smeagol's history as he held the ring way longer than anyone. The film version is very close to the book versionthe only real difference being that Smeagol had always been a peculiar River-folk and preferred to dig around in tree roots etc and was never on the little boat with his buddy when his buddy found the ring

So we see in the film that Smeagol's aging slowed but also that over the centuries he was transformed into something vile = Gollum.
 
P

Phoenix Prime_sl

shitlord
235
1
And the effect is reinforced in Fellowship of the ring when you see Bilbo partially corrupted for half a second as he tried to take the ring from Frodo in Rivendale.
 
McCheese

McCheese

SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
6,895
4,277
Phoenix Prime_sl said:
And the effect is reinforced in Fellowship of the ring when you see Bilbo partially corrupted for half a second as he tried to take the ring from Frodo in Rivendale.
Click to expand...
That scene scared the shit out of me! Calm, peaceful, safe Rivendell, the one place in Middle Earth where nothing bad can happ...HOLY SHIT WTF WAS THAT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.