The Hobbit

Sadly, the third movie + fics have put me in over-protective mode over the Dwarfs, so much so that now I do not think the movies overextended it so much. Now, I actually feel "more please?"

The first movie (on rewatch) seems so shiny to me now. I honestly did not care this much when I first read the book many years ago nor when I first watched the movies 1 and 2 in 2012, 2013.

I actually now care enough that I kept repeating the part wherein one of the eagles picked Thorin up, trying to figure out how it also picked up the sword.

It's tiring feeling this bad for fictional characters. Movie 1 rewatch made it seem even more tragic that Thorin and his nephews died because according to Balin, Thorin had already resettled his people in the Blue Mountains - even said it was "peaceful and plentiful", too. Goddamit.

Although the catch is Thorin reclaiming Erebor would later be responsible for the defeat of Sauron. In the books, Erebor is just as crucicial to the war of the Ring as Minas Tirith. The Battle of Dale (waged by Dáin Ironfoot, King under the Mountain) is pretty much Sauron's Battle of Stalingrad.

That wasn't it. The key was that Smaug needed to be removed. Sauron could have utilized Smaug to devastate the North.

The strategic location of Erebor was just another reason but yes, Smaug would have willingly joined Sauron, and if he can devastate two of the most powerful kingdoms in the North in the space of a day, Minas Tirith and Rohan wouldn't have stood a chance.

Why would Smaug join Sauron? He doesn't exactly seem like the "team-player" type.

For the promise of murder. Basically for the evulz.

And the promise of gold.

I mean, couldn't he just do that anyway? In fact, if he's that into murder, why's he just sitting on a pile of gold when he could be burninating the countryside?

EDIT: Okay, that makes some more sense.

edited 21st Jan '15 5:09:49 PM by Zarek

How long ago was the attack on Erebor? A century at most? Given how long dragons live his long period of inactivity could have just been him taking a break after decimating a country or two. Maybe in another decade or two he would have gotten bored and decided to go terrorize someone else.

edited 21st Jan '15 5:16:28 PM by Kostya

Even if Smaug just sat on his ass until the War began, all it took for him to go out and reduce Laketown to a pile of steaming rubbble was some talking with Bilbo. Imagine when word reached him that all of Middle Earth had entered a violent war.

...Man, how does life still even exist in Middle-Earth when creatures like dragons inhabit it?

I never got the impression there were that many dragons. Maybe a dozen at most and Smaug is the only one still in the area.

They did say the dragons "bred" in the Withered Heath, implying enough of them to make a small community. Morgoth bred many of them, and perhaps the few that survived his downfall wandered the world for an age and a half before a breeding pair found each other in the Withered Heath and hatched one last brood, responsible for driving the Dwarves out of the Grey Mountains. The question is if Smaug was the only survivor of that brood. The only other alluded to by name is Scatha, though there were probably at least two others, assuming one a piece for the four destroyed Dwarf rings.

Well, if those eagles were a bit more proactive for the good side, dragons wouldn't be so overpowering for the evil side.

I know I'm "doomed" when my rewatch of the first movie had me feeling "glad" when those eagles showed up. I think my first reaction before included a raised eyebrow and a mental joke about how Gandalf was cheating because they have to get to a griffon check point first before they can use them eagles.

It's probably irrelevant but BFME 2 had a dragon named Dragoth, I think, who had been given one of the remaining dwarven rings and had an army of goblins at his disposal. He died though.

If by pro-active you mean "serving man and elf and dwarf", don't count on it. They obey to no man, elf or dwarf, and will only help if someone like Gandalf or Radagast (Maia) asks them for help.

Presumably in a polite manner or when they have orders from beyond Middle Earth.

edited 22nd Jan '15 7:15:59 AM by Quag15

It's been a long time since I've read the book, but the film just refers to Smaug as "a fire drake from the North", and the later scene with Thranduil has him reveal his dragon scar. They seem to imply that there are plenty more dragons up north that Sauron could use.

Also, I am really hoping Peter Jackson doesn't know what the word "drake" means and thinks it's just a cool sounding synonym for dragon, because in that context, the term is typically used to refer to a small, immature dragon, implying horrific things about the rest of Smaug's kind.

edited 22nd Jan '15 8:14:01 AM by TobiasDrake

The use of drake vs dragon varies with the Universe. Sometimes it means a young dragon, a male dragon, a young male dragon or it is just synonymous.

The Book claimed he grew much larger after he seized Erabor.

There are quite a few dragons left but they are all far away from the main conflict. One of them was featured in one of the noncanon recent games(Sauron tried to convince it to join his side to replace Smaug but didn't offer enough to convince it and the heroes pretty much give it the capital of Angmar after they kill the villain to keep him from going on a rampage IIRC).

The largest dragon by Tolkien puts pretty much all other fictional dragons to shame by being pretty much a mountain.◊

edited 22nd Jan '15 8:54:10 AM by LordofLore

I mean Fire Emblem has dragons that are basically gods so I feel like "puts all other fictional dragons to shame" is a bit presumptuous.

Dragon Age also has dragons who are gods, but they're not nearly as big, so that's a toss-up.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dragons

Yeah, Smaug's small or a dragon. Some were... VERY large.

x3 Grima is pretty strong but in terms of size he is more like Glaurung than Ancalagon.

I do believe somewhere in the first two movies someone (Gandalf, I think) dubs Smaug as "The Last Firedrake of the North"

x9

I will correct. Not just that the eagles were a bit more proactive, but the higher-level beings in Middle Earth (on the good side) were a bit more proactive. Instead of well... letting their mortal creations do most of the work in keeping the balance or whatever it is they're trying to keep.

Yes, I am very aware that good has to do the "reacting" part and evil to do the "acting" part to get an interesting enough story going.