MovieChat Forums > The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) Discussion > Why so much corruption in Lake Town, the...

Why so much corruption in Lake Town, the police state?

posted 7 years ago by foebane72
21 replies | jump to latest

Was this what Tolkien wrote? Did he also write The Master and Alfred? I doubt it.

Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

No, that isn't quite how Tolkien wrote Lake-town. Esgaroth was still fairly prosperous, but not nearly as much as before the coming of Smaug. Tolkien's Master of Lake-town was a skilled, cunning politician who fell victim to dragon-sickness after Smaug was killed, stealing a large part of the treasure that Bard gave over for the rebuilding of Lake-town. Alfrid is an invented character created to give a face to the Master's counselors.

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

[–] syntinen 7 years ago

Alfrid is an invented character created to give a face to the Master's counselors.

That's what the production said, but they were lying. Tolkien gave the Master 'councillors', which means 'members of the town council', not 'counsellors'. It's not clear from the book how much authority the Master had - was he effectively a ruler in his own right, or just the chairman of the council, like a modern mayor? But whatever the precise set-up, the councillors would have been leading citizens, persons of dignity and importance, elected by districts or trades to represent them. (No councillor would ever empty the Master's chamber-pot.) Alfrid is obviously nothing of the kind; he's the Master's personal clerk, servant or hanger-on.

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

Yes, your description is more accurate. It is clear in the book that the Master is an elected official, essentially the Mayor of Esgaroth, though we don't know exactly how elections worked in Lake-town nor the limits of his authority. It's possible that only the Merchant Houses were allowed to vote as opposed to all free Men or even all Men of property.

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

[–] silverwhistle 7 years ago

was he effectively a ruler in his own right, or just the chairman of the council, like a modern mayor?

I suspect the template was the mediæval Novgorod Republic, which Laketown resembles in many respects. The Master would be the equivalent of the Posadnik:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic#Government
Even the film's depiction of Laketown reminded me strongly of the late 19/early 20C historical Russian cityscapes by Vasnetsov.

"Active but Odd"

[–] Costumer (1789) 5 years ago

>>>he effectively a ruler in his own right, or just the chairman of the council, like a modern mayor<<<

A clarification here. This definition of a mayor is highly dependent on the city in which you reside. In many cities the mayor is not the chairman of the city council or even on it.

In the city I live in, as well as most of the cities in the neighboring areas the mayor is equivalent to a president. The mayor is the executive. The City Council is a legislative branch. The council passes laws, determines zones and exceptions and so forth. Depending on the city structure the mayor may or may not have a veto power over the city council. (In my city, the mayor does)

In other cities there is no mayor. There may only be a City Council. Or there may be a city manager.

Or, the city may be arranged as you mentioned, with the mayor is chairman of the council. There is no standard; nor any right or wrong way to do it.

All of which doesn't answer this topic on whether the Master is only a council member or has power separate from the council.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otter 7 years ago

I honestly don't know why they had to throw in all that *beep* about Laketown being a police state - it was totally unnecessary in story terms. What does it accomplish, make Bard look more sympathetic and heroic by comparison? They could have just done what they did in the book - make everyone in town too interested in making a buck to worry about the dragon.

I also don't know why they killed off the Master of Laketown and gave his role to a second, less talented actor.

“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!

[–] syntinen 7 years ago

To be fair, I don't think acting talent came into it. Both actors were given ludicrously over-the-top pantomime characters to play and the direction clearly pushed them to do it as crudely as possible. I know Stephen Fry's work and knew he was being wasted in the role; I don't know Ryan Gage but I'm willing to believe that he can do a lot better than this.

But I absolutely agree that the 'tyranny' and 'popular resistance' elements were introduced quite unnecessarily. So was the dismal poverty. The interesting thing about the last section of the book is that Tolkien set up a situation in which everyone acts wrongly to some extent about the treasure; everyone is motivated by simple greed (though funnily enough, Thorin less than anyone else, although he usually gets most of the blame). The screenplay took 95% of the blame off the people of Laketown, by showing them so desperately poor that they really need treasure (whereas in the book they're perfectly prosperous, they just hear the word 'treasure' and want to be rich, rich, RICH! - and when their greed backfires on them in a wholly predictable way they instantly blame someone else) and 100% of it off Bard, who's just trying to save everyone (in the book he's a bully who's trying to become King of Dale and Godfather of Laketown). Bilbo and Thranduil are also given excuses for their behaviour that Tolkien never gave them. So the whole moral conundrum that Tolkien set up is removed.

[–] silverwhistle 7 years ago

I don't know Ryan Gage but I'm willing to believe that he can do a lot better than this.

He was Louis XIII in the BBC's Musketeers recent series: I scarcely recognised him!

"Active but Odd"

[–] broc_2000 7 years ago

Tolkien gives a very clear explanation through many literary techniques of how Bilbo is not motivated by simple greed in any way (you can argue other potentially negative traits, but certainly not greed). You are quite right, though, that Thorin is definitely not the greediest character at this point in the story.

Thorin becomes a tragically greedy character AFTER the dragon is killed. At this point in the story, he is less greedy than anyone(except Bilbo). The people of Lake-town are certainly all for the rivers running with gold and re-establishing the even greater prosperity they once enjoyed. They are very clearly being motivated by simple greed since they were doing fine before Smaug razed their yacht club to the ground...err, water.

Interestingly, Bilbo is the only main character at any point in the book not motivated by a "return to glory" motif (which often is motivated by greed or, at least, greed is a concomitant motivation if not the direct cause). Thorin dreams of a re-established Erebor, Bard of a rebuilt Dale, the people of Lake-Town of an increased village, Thranduil of a comparable kingdom (or at least treasure) as more famous Elven kindgoms, etc. He's the only character to not be morally compromised by the time all parties stood before the gates of Erebor. He certainly went along with morally incorrect choices made by others (perhaps his main flaw being a sort of goofy ignorance to consequences), but his bringing the Arknstone to Bard (in a once-again goofy ignorance of its consequence) to help the people of Lake-Town out of their pitiable state shows he recognized the part (albeit small) he played in the town's loss and was trying to make amends.

[–] syntinen 7 years ago

Tolkien gives a very clear explanation through many literary techniques of how Bilbo is not motivated by simple greed in any way (you can argue other potentially negative traits, but certainly not greed).

Not true at all. While it's true that Bilbo isn't primarily motivated by greed, Tolkien makes clear that he has the characteristic hobbit tendency to opportunistic pilfering (many hobbits in Tolkien's work steal like monkeys or very small children, and tend to justify their thefts to themselves by cheap legalistic quibbles - something Bilbo also does), and that he does feel greed for the treasure. When Smaug points out that he has no way of getting a massive load of treasure home to Bag End, he is really shattered, and instantly suspects the dwarves of deliberately fooling him. Sure, Tolkien glosses this as 'the effect that dragon-talk has on the inexperienced', but he goes right on distrusting them after getting away from Smaug. As Tolkien says, 'the enchanted desire of the hoard had fallen from Bilbo' as soon as he realises he has no chance of getting his share of it home, and from then on he increasingly distances himself both from his comrades and from the enterprise. And, of course, he steals the Arkenstone out of pure, simple, hobbity greed. Sure, much later on he gives it up (the underlying purpose of the adventure is to purge him of greed, as much as to bring out his courage and resourcefulness) but his instinctive reaction to the sight of it is not actually that different from Smeagol's reaction to his first sight of the Ring. It belongs to his friend, but it's lovely and shiny and he wantss it, preciouss, so he takes it.

He's the only character to not be morally compromised by the time all parties stood before the gates of Erebor.

Sorry, that's nonsense. He has stolen his employer and friend's most sacred treasure, and is keeping it hidden from him in his pocket. (He has offered himself two feeble justifications, 'I'm only keeping it for a bit; I'll tell him - some time' and 'I consider this my share'; not only do these cancel each other out, but Tolkien makes clear that Bilbo doesn't really believe them himself.) If you don't think that amounts to morally compromising oneself, I'd like to know what you think would.

And - whatever you think of Thorin's behaviour during the parleys, and I know we disagree about that - Thorin is certainly not morally compromised before they start. His information is that an angry vindictive mob of Lake-men, whose leader is not to be trusted, are on the way to loot his treasure with a host of elves whose accompanying carrion birds are hoping for battle and slaughter; he has done the only sensible thing, which is to make Erebor defensible and call for help, so that this hostile army can't simply slaughter the Company and take what they like. He has not said - and in fact never does say - that he won't give/repay anything to the Lake-people at all.

his bringing the Arkenstone to Bard …. to help the people of Lake-Town out of their pitiable state shows he recognized the part (albeit small) he played in the town's loss and was trying to make amends.

Again, not true, on several counts:

- He doesn't do it to help the people of Lake-town. Tolkien repeatedly states that he does it because he's tired of sitting in a dank dark dragon-smelling mountain eating cram, he's dreaming of bacon and eggs, and because 'he felt that the adventure was, properly speaking, over with the death of the dragon .. and he would have given most of his share of the profits for the peaceful winding up of these affairs'. He's just had it up to here with the whole thing; he wants, in his own words, to 'buy peace and quiet'. There's no hint anywhere that pity for the Lake-men is on his mind.

- Bilbo's role in the destruction of Lake-town wasn't 'small'. It was crucial, because without his careless mention of barrels, there would have been nothing at all to cause Smaug to connect their party with Lake-town. There were no dwarves in Lake-town, nor do the Lake-men appear to have been in regular contact with any; the nearest dwarf settlement, as Smaug would surely know, was in the opposite direction in the Iron Hills, which is where he would logically have assumed that they came from. He went and torched the town only because Bilbo had given him a clue to the truth; it really was all Bilbo's fault.

- Bilbo knew from Smaug's reaction what he had done, but Balin comforted him kindly that anyone talking to a dragon could make that mistake, and Bilbo appears to have taken this as justification for forgiving himself and permanently forgetting his role in the disaster. When Bard is standing there shouting at Thorin that the ruin of Lake-town is all his fault and that he owes them, if he had wanted to make amends and break the deadlock, he could perfectly well have spoken up - 'No, it wasn't Thorin's fault, not any of the dwarves; it was mine, and so I cede to you my fourteenth of the treasure, which I really owe you'. But he doesn't. And afterwards, when everyone is awed by his generosity in giving up the Arkenstone, he never risks spoiling the awe and gratitude by admitting how badly he has harmed the Lake-people.

[–] broc_2000 7 years ago

I see you've at least avoided the unwinnable Thorin argument. As for Bilbo, I never once said he was perfect, but if we must...

"Not true at all"

Well, you admit right off the bat that Bilbo's primary motivation isn't greed, so the ship is already essentially sinking, but your life boat is that "Hobbits have a tendency to opportunistic pilfering", as if Lobelia S-B's taking a few silver spoons is somehow on par with stealing/illegally claiming an amount of gold so vast it could buy a kingdom that would make the Shire look like a shanty-town. I'm sorry but that is grasping at some very thin straws, even if we agree with your argument about petty pilfering (which I don't, to be honest). There is nothing to prove that he is even remotely motivated by greed. If you want one example to prove that Bilbo was always motivated by the "transitional character"(finding courage) motif and not by greed, re-read "Inside Information" and his thoughts and reactions after stealing the cup. Tolkien uses the character's own inner thoughts to convey this: "More like a grocer than a burglar indeed! Well, we'll hear no more of that". His only concern was proving to the Dwarves (and really himself) that he was more than just a mousy gentle Hobbit, but a courageous "hero". He shows no inclination of stealing the cup because if its worth.

"When Smaug points out that he has no way of getting a massive load of treasure home to Bag End, he is really shattered, and instantly suspects the dwarves of deliberately fooling him"

He was shattered by the betrayal of the Dwarves, not that he couldn't get the treasure home. The shipment of the treasure was just the specific tool used to convey this.

"and from then on he increasingly distances himself both from his comrades and from the enterprise."

Even though he volunteers to go first into the danger for his comrades after they were trapped? Even though he follows them to Ravenhill? Even though he returned to Erebor after delivering the Arkenstone with the direct words "But I don't think I ought to leave my friends like this, not after all we've gone through together", passing up the opportunity of warmth, a bed, food and honor to return to miserable Thorin and the comfortless stones of the mountain?

"And, of course, he steals the Arkenstone out of pure, simple, hobbity greed. Sure, much later on he gives it up (the underlying purpose of the adventure is to purge him of greed, as much as to bring out his courage and resourcefulness) but his instinctive reaction to the sight of it is not actually that different from Smeagol's reaction to his first sight of the Ring. It belongs to his friend, but it's lovely and shiny and he wantss it, preciouss, so he takes it. He has stolen his employer and friend's most sacred treasure, and is keeping it hidden from him in his pocket. (He has offered himself two feeble justifications, 'I'm only keeping it for a bit; I'll tell him - some time' and 'I consider this my share'; not only do these cancel each other out, but Tolkien makes clear that Bilbo doesn't really believe them himself.) If you don't think that amounts to morally compromising oneself, I'd like to know what you think would."

Yeah, not so much, but I won't deny he takes it with less than 100% pure intention, with Bilbo admitting, as you mention, with his inner thought that it was probably not meant to be part of the divvied-up treasure. However, he WAS due one-fourteenth share and technically his taking of the Arkenstone was not unjust. What you call "feeble justifications" are actually 100% (even legally, per a contract) legitimate. At least taking it was 100% legitimate...it was his hiding of it that was not right. However, not being 100% morally pure is much different from being morally compromised, especially since his taking of the Arkenstone in no way adversely affects anyone else around him to the point of their lives or livelihood being endangered. Morally compromised is withholding gold from people who had already helped you themselves and who are dying or will die without it. Not preventing death when you had the power to stop it...that is my definition of morally compromised...but also I would put in that category the putting of people in danger to achieve a goal (Gandalf) and the willingness to starve out (Bard) or potentially starve out (Elvenking, potentially only due to his presence, though he states openly he will not go to war for the gold) people who are in their homes.

"And - whatever you think of Thorin's behaviour during the parleys, and I know we disagree about that - Thorin is certainly not morally compromised before they start. His information is that an angry vindictive mob of Lake-men, whose leader is not to be trusted, are on the way to loot his treasure with a host of elves whose accompanying carrion birds are hoping for battle and slaughter; he has done the only sensible thing, which is to make Erebor defensible and call for help, so that this hostile army can't simply slaughter the Company and take what they like. He has not said - and in fact never does say - that he won't give/repay anything to the Lake-people at all."

Thorin is the most morally compromised as he has already decided before even the first parley to deny any gold to anyone, even those who helped him in his own need. He actually says several times that he will not pay. In no way does Roac refer to the Lake-men as an angry vindictive mob. He merely says they blame the Dwarves for their sorrow (100% true), they at homeless and many have died (which should have created a reaction of sympathy, not armament)and they seek to find amends from the treasure (which is 100% reasonable). Roac merely mentions carrion birds. In no way does he say that the hosts are intending to attack the dwarves. The carrion birds follow any armed host, guessing (since they are, you know, birds and stuff...and not too bright) by mere instinct that battle may occur any time an armed host is on the move.

"He doesn't do it to help the people of Lake-town. Tolkien repeatedly states that he does it because he's tired of sitting in a dank dark dragon-smelling mountain"

You are right. There is no outward mention of his having pity for Lake-Town and this is my Bilbo-support creating things that aren't directly stated. And you are right that part of his motivation was his being tired sitting int he Mountain. However, it's noted in the text that he didn't start to ponder his plan until Thorin became dangerous in his desire for the Arkenstone, and a survival instinct probably also forced his hand. We don't know what might have happened if Thorin didn't have the tragic fall of his character.

"Bilbo's role in the destruction of Lake-town wasn't 'small'. It was crucial, because without his careless mention of barrels, there would have been nothing at all to cause Smaug to connect their party with Lake-town"

You are wrong on this. Smaug already guessed Lake-Town was involved before Bilbo had even spoken to him. In "Inside Information": "He guessed from the ponies, and from traces of the camps he had discovered, that men had come up from the river and the lake"...so there was a lot for Smaug to connect to Lake-town, apparently. If the quote isn't enough (empirical evidence should be), it's pretty much a guarantee that Lake-Town would have to be involved as the distance from any other habitation would most likely require re-supply there. So, not only was it not "really all Bilbo's fault", it was actually almost not an ounce of Bilbo's fault.

"Bilbo knew from Smaug's reaction what he had done, but Balin comforted him kindly that anyone talking to a dragon could make that mistake, and Bilbo appears to have taken this as justification for forgiving himself and permanently forgetting his role in the disaster. When Bard is standing there shouting at Thorin that the ruin of Lake-town is all his fault and that he owes them, if he had wanted to make amends and break the deadlock, he could perfectly well have spoken up - 'No, it wasn't Thorin's fault, not any of the dwarves; it was mine, and so I cede to you my fourteenth of the treasure, which I really owe you'. But he doesn't. And afterwards, when everyone is awed by his generosity in giving up the Arkenstone, he never risks spoiling the awe and gratitude by admitting how badly he has harmed the Lake-people."

We've already defeated the argument (with direct evidence from the book no less) that Bilbo had almost no fault in Smaug knowing Lake-Town was involved. True, Bilbo himself thinks this but Tolkien lets us know well beforehand that Smaug already knew Lake-Town was involved. So, even if Bilbo never said "Barrel-rider", Smaug would have known about Lake-Town. Therefore, his attack on lake-Town was not Bilbo's fault. Smaug being killed, thereby saving Lake-Town, was, however, Bilbo's fault. He indirectly saved the people of Lake-Town after Thorin forced him to rouse the dragon. Thorin harms the people of Lake-town both by causing the dragon attack and then refusing to help in its aftermath. Even when Bilbo thinks it is his actions (proven not to be true) that may cause the dragon to attack Lake-Town, none of the Dwarves seem terribly concerned...only the hero of the story, Bilbo, cared.

[–] syntinen 7 years ago

Well, you admit right off the bat that Bilbo's primary motivation isn't greed, so the ship is already essentially sinking

Nonsense. There's a huge middle term between being primarily motivated by greed and not being motivated by greed at all. People whose primary motivation isn't greed can be motivated secondarily by it, or motivated by it often in a small way or a whole lot sometimes. As first introduced to us, Bilbo doesn’t appear to be greedy for wealth (greedy for food is another matter entirely): but then, if all your life you've been one of the richest people you know, and have never seen anything to want that you couldn't buy, that's no great merit. When he does encounter treasure, or anything attractively shiny, Tolkien is clear that he does feel greed for it, and acts accordingly. He feels greed for the Arkenstone right to the end: he finally gives it up 'not without a shudder, not without a glance of longing'.

He was shattered by the betrayal of the Dwarves, not that he couldn't get the treasure home. The shipment of the treasure was just the specific tool used to convey this.

But what Tolkien shows is just the opposite - that the realisation that he can have no (or not much) treasure throws him so badly that he instantly seeks for someone to blame, and seizes on the idea (his own, quite unfounded idea) that the Dwarves must have meant to cheat him.

Even though he volunteers to go first into the danger for his comrades after they were trapped? Even though he follows them to Ravenhill?

What else could he do - sit in the tunnel for ever? Walk off into Wilderland by himself?

I grant you, he goes back after handing over the Arkenstone. But his impulse for handing over the Arkenstone is largely to justify to himself his stealing it from Thorin in the first place, and he can't feel justified if he hides from Thorin.

as if Lobelia S-B's taking a few silver spoons is somehow on par with stealing/illegally claiming an amount of gold so vast it could buy a kingdom that would make the Shire look like a shanty-town.

But I didn't say or even imply that, did I? I said that it is characteristic of Tolkien's hobbits to pilfer, and it is. It's not just the Sackville-Bagginses; in FotR, we learn that hobbits will not only crash a birthday party as a matter of course, they will also sneak out of the party and back in again to score a second birthday present. And that the residents of Hobbiton are quite prepared to turn up with barrows and handcarts to ransack the home of a friend and neighbour, and when prevented by his heir, resort to pocketing whatever portable items they can get away with. Others start digging holes in the house on the ground that legendary gold 'is anyone's for the finding', even if it belongs to their cousin. Even legitimate legatees squabble over what they have been given. And this popular thievery apparently is perfectly normal behaviour; Frodo is annoyed but nobody is in the least surprised. It seems that the only thing unusual about the Sackville-Bagginses is their ability to be jolly about their greed. Gandalf bears this out; when Frodo objects to the suggestion that Smeagol and Deagol were of hobbit-kind, he says 'I think it is a sad story, and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.' In other words, Gandalf doesn't consider instant greed for something shiny and precious, the murder of a friend for it, and the justifying of the murder by a specious quibble, in any way unhobbitlike.

We know also that several of Bilbo's neighbours found it quite reasonable to look him in the face and say 'You're officially dead, so I don't have to give you back your favourite chair unless you pay me a lot more than I bought it for'.

He shows no inclination of stealing the cup because if its worth.

Actually he does. Sure, afterwards he thinks only of how impressed the dwarves will be. But Tolkien tells us that his thoughts and reactions before stealing the cup were:

Bilbo had heard tell and sing of dragon-hoards before, but the splendour, the lust, the glory of such treasure had never yet come home to him. His heart was filled and pierced with enchantment and with the desire of dwarves; and he gazed motionless, almost forgetting the frightful guardian, at the gold beyond price and count. He gazed for what seemed an age, before, drawn almost against his will, he stole from the shadow of the doorway, across the floor to the nearest edge of the mounds of treasure.

In other words, for the first time in his life he sees real treasure - and only minutes after having said huffily to himself "I have absolutely no use for dragon-guarded treasures, and the whole lot could stay here for ever, if only I could wake up and find this beastly tunnel was my own front-hall at home!" he instantly wantss it, very much.

He was shattered by the betrayal of the Dwarves, not that he couldn't get the treasure home. The shipment of the treasure was just the specific tool used to convey this.

But what Tolkien shows is just the opposite - that the realisation that he can have no (or not much) treasure is such a blow that he instantly seeks for someone to blame, and seizes on the idea (his own, quite unfounded idea) that the Dwarves must have meant to cheat him.

However, he WAS due one-fourteenth share and technically his taking of the Arkenstone was not unjust.

Yes, it was. He knows he has no right to it; he actually says so to Bard. The contract clearly stated that he was entitled to "cash … up to and not exceeding one fourteenth of total profits (if any)". Thorin had verbally amended this from 'cash' by saying that he can choose his own fourteenth, "as soon as we have anything to divide". But when Bilbo takes the stone there aren't yet any profits and they aren't yet in a position to divide anything, because the quest is not yet over. For all they know Smaug is still alive and will be able to chase them out again:in which case the total take will be only the Arkenstone and one gold cup. Also, for all he knows the Arkenstone may be worth more than one fourteenth of the total treasure; it's almost certainly worth more than one fourteenth of the profits, given that any part of it that came originally from Dale will obviously have to be subtracted, as will any reward paid to Bard as the dragon-slayer, anything originally coming from Lake-town that can be recognised descendants of the owners, et cetera.

And even if his legal quibble had been sound, it would still have been a morally compromising, indeed downright sh*tty act to take advantage of a generous promise to deprive Thorin of his most sacred heirloom, knowing full well that Thorin never would have made it if he had dreamt that Bilbo would take such mean advantage. It's on a par with someone saying to you 'What's mine is yours. Take anything you like!' and replying 'Thanks, I'll shag your wife then.'

Morally compromised is withholding gold from people who had already helped you themselves and who are dying or will die without it.

There are no such people. The wood-elves have already succoured the survivors with shelter, medical care and plenty of food and comforts. The book makes clear that Bard and Thranduil lead a party to loot the Mountain because they want to get to it before anyone else does, not because they think it will help sick people.

Thorin … has already decided before even the first parley to deny any gold to anyone, even those who helped him in his own need. He actually says several times that he will not pay.

No he hasn't, and no he doesn’t. He only ever says that he won't let anyone steal or coerce anything from him by force or threat of force, and later that he won't parley with Thranduil.

In no way does Roac refer to the Lake-men as an angry vindictive mob

True: Tolkien does that as narrator - Roac just heavily implies it. But the dwarves have seen the greedy, fickle, thoughtless Lake-man, and they're perfectly able to imagine how they are likely to behave when they want someone to blame for their misfortunes. (Which, by the way, they have no right to do. They haven't a shred of a legal claim against the dwarves for compensation.)

In no way does he say that the hosts are intending to attack the dwarves.

He doesn’t outright say it, but his whole speech implies it.

The carrion birds follow any armed host, guessing (since they are, you know, birds and stuff...and not too bright) by mere instinct that battle may occur any time an armed host is on the move.

Not true. In the book all the species of bird we meet - thrushes, crows, ravens, eagles - understand human and elvish speech, and many of them also speak it. (Thranduil only left Mirkwood in the first place because the birds came and told him of Smaug's death.) If the carrion birds are expecting battle and slaughter, it's because the talk in the host indicates that.

it's noted in the text that he didn't start to ponder his plan until Thorin became dangerous in his desire for the Arkenstone

Actually, what is specifically noted in the text is that the plan came into his head 'as the weariness of the days grew heavier' - of a piece with all the remarks about being 'sick of cram' and 'stairs and stone passages', and 'dreaming of eggs and bacon'. It is also made clear that Thorin intuited - absolutely correctly - that one of his sworn and trusted companions has stolen his sacred heirloom; an appallingly painful and stressful conviction to have to bear.

We don't know what might have happened if Thorin didn't have the tragic fall of his character.

What we don't know is what would have happened if -
(a) Roac hadn't poisoned the dwarves' whole perception of the situation
(b) Bilbo hadn't stolen the Arkenstone and subjected Thorin to this stress
(c) Bard, backed up by Thranduil, hadn't chosen to approach Thorin with threats and insults rather than friendship and a plea for generosity.

Smaug already guessed Lake-Town was involved before Bilbo had even spoken to him

He knew that they had made the final approach to the Mountain from the lake, but had nothing to connect them directly to Lake-town. Only after Bilbo dropped his clanger did he say to himself 'I knew it!', as one does. In any case, Bilbo himself is convinced that it was his fault, and for him to let Thorin take the rap for it is dishonest and cowardly.

Even when Bilbo thinks it is his actions … that may cause the dragon to attack Lake-Town, none of the Dwarves seem terribly concerned

True (which may be because they know hardly anybody cares for the sufferings of dwarves, and they are far more aware than Bilbo is how little the Lake-men would care if they all got toasted).

...only the hero of the story, Bilbo, cared.

But not enough to confess, and avert the accusation from Thorin while Bard is berating him for it. Had he done so, the standoff might have been averted.

[–] broc_2000 7 years ago

Well, it's pointless to keep arguing. If someone keeps saying the sky is green and continues to do so after you bring them out from indoors and show them the blue sky, then it becomes a meaningless exercise to convince them.

You are fighting a battle that can't be won and making an argument that is unwinnable. The author, i.e., the creator of the characters you are arguing about(and hence knows whether they are the heroes or not),has made Bilbo the hero of the story (through countless methods and examples) and Thorin the tragic hero (through countless methods and examples) who most definitely is in the wrong once he re-enters Erebor. You are literally arguing against the author himself which is rather absurd and something you literally (pun intended)can't win. However, I understand that sometimes passion (for Dwarves) overrules rationality so my unwinnable scenario is trying to defeat that passion you have. I guess it is rather criminal to quell passion anyway. So keep stoking passion...even if misguided, the world is a lesser place without it.

Onward.

[–] chilone 7 years ago

The town was clearly run by democrats and the master was previously an official in Detroit.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

It's been a while, but some time in the last few IMDB-free months the following answer occurred to me: They made the Laketown government as horrible as they could, so that when Bard takes over and becomes king, it comes across as a good thing. We live in a democratic age, and replacing a mayor and town council with a monarchy wouldn't be considered a good thing in the real world, and wouldn't necessarily pass if PJ had shown the mildly unpleasant Master of the books.

Which is an okay idea, but of course it was terribly realized and took far too much screen time. Like everything else in these movies.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I think I finally came up with the real answer: in the story, Bard replaces the elected government if the Master and his counselors with a hereditary monarchy.

This doesn't necessarily fly in today's world, where not everyone likes hereditary monarchy as much as Prof. Tolkien did. So for the monarchy to look good, they had to make the previous government look bad!

Which isn't actually a terrible idea, but it was so badly executed.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12386) 5 years ago

I don't remember anything in the book describing Lake Town being so corrupt or such a craphole, though Tolkien did make it clear the place had not been doing so well economically after Smaug stole the mountain from the dwarves. They changed the local political and economical situation in Lake Town to make things more dramatic for the movie.

Lake Town was a much more peaceful place in the book, and despite the dragon's destruction, it was eventually rebuilt, and Bard became king there.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 3 years ago

While that's true, I definitely got the vibe that Tolkien was mocking or even satirising the buffonery of politics with the Master of Laketown. He did create the most horrid amalgam of self-important, fair-weather, bloviators who find their stumbling way to the voters' ticket.

Tolkien was a monarchist and I think he could clearly see what goes wrong in democratic processes (sycophants, liars, etc.), and while I prefer democracy to monarchy, I don't say he was too far off the mark in his critique; I just think it's the best system we've come up with thus-far.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12386) 3 years ago

I never really thought of it that way, but I can see where you'd get that idea. You can also see it going on in Rohan with the King under Saruman's control, and Wormtongue having too much influence on leadership in the kingdom.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 3 years ago

I'm not sure I'd have thought of it if I hadn't seen interviews and read letters where he talks about his admiration for monarchy and order in that regard. Sometimes it's difficult to tell if he's speaking just for Middle Earth or for our society as well, but I think he's talking real life. If you want I can try to find the interview again.