Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Movie 1 The Hobbit

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Movie 1 The Hobbit   << [1] [2]

There is a thread about this goblin/orc thing, and I honestly can't remember where, but there was a sentence or a paragraph or something describing a difference between the two. I THINK I read it in Unfinished Tales, but admittedly I don't remember where or the specifics. I need to find it again because I distinctly remember some sort of comparison being made.

Considering the changes PJ made with LOTR, I wouldn't be surprised if he just used them interchangeably. His changes definitely try to appeal to the general audience and the audience knows orcs so...

It's true they can easily mess up Smaug. Buuuut with the technology today, and considering how good the balrog looked almost 10 years ago, I think it can be done. Plus I'm sure all the communication will be done telepathically, so you won't see him physically speak. And even though the movie sucked, the updated version of The Kracken looked pretty good.

I think The Hobbit will be infinitely easier to adapt. Even if it is just part 1, it can definitely be done in 3 hours. Or it can be done with only minor changes. Please don't suck PJ....PLEASE!!!

 (...) and changes were only made if they were necessary and didn't work well in the film.

 

But this is hugely subjective! One could argue that so many of Jackson's changes were not necessary because of the medium of film... and many have!

 

The scouring of the shire for example, to be honest i find this part in the book quite unnecessary, and imagine watching a three hour film that you think is just about to end, and then having to sit through another battle. 

 

Aside from whether or not one thinks the Scouring of the Shire is crucial or important (as I do) to the story, in any case we can't expect people who wanted the scouring in a film adaptation to just tack it onto Jackson's films as they were made.

This would arguably require a notable restructuring in the creative phase, before shooting, though obviously Jackson and team chose differently.

There is a thread about this goblin/orc thing, and I honestly can't remember where, but there was a sentence or a paragraph or something describing a difference between the two. 

 

I'm not sure what passage you refer to, but I take the position that there's no difference.

German hund: English translation 'dog'

Westron orc: English translation 'goblin'

Quenya Quendi: English translation 'Elves'

 

There are all kinds of dogs (orcs), but a 'dog' is no different from the original word it intends to translate. The word orc was usually translated 'goblin' in The Hobbbit, and often but not always, translated 'goblin' in The Lord of the Rings. The sword-name Orcrist is Elvish, translated as 'Goblin-cleaver'.

I will find this passage. I'm reading two other books right now, but I'll find it soon. I personally agree that it's interchangeable. But, like I said, I do remember something being mentioned in I think it was Unfinished Tales. I will find it.

Also, if I remember correctly, aside from Orcrist (which, like you said, orc translates to goblins), the word orc isn't used once in The Hobbit in reference to the "goblins." Definitely could be wrong, but I'm almost positive. Also isn't  orc used far more in LOTR than goblins? I don't want to cause trouble with this, just a thought...

There has to be something out there that clarifies this. You'd think they would be two different breeds of the same race, like dogs, but the fact it's used solely in The Hobbit to refer to what are obviously orcs throws off that logic by implying they are the same. I understand orc translates to goblin in elvish, but the story wasn't being told in elvish, it was being told by Bilbo, and even if it was that means he'd only be calling them orcs, so you'd think it'd be like LOTR where both were used. It just doesn't make sense!!! (just like that last sentence probably didn't to anyone else)

I think PJ will use both in The Hobbit though...probably just like he did with Moria.

Maybe Balrog is right, I also remember once reading something like that in any Tolkien's work (maybe yes, in Unfinished tales).
But he also wrote a lot of things suggesting they are the same. I remember he wrote in one of his letters that they were the same, but he preferred calling them Orcs in the Lord of the Rings.
 

And for the Hobbit... I also find difficult to understand why are they going to make it into two parts. I thing they are going to make up some sub-plots (specially a love story with the new elf character, but also they'll do something with Galadriel, Legolas, and other characters not in the book).
It's the most filmeable book, but it seems like they are going to make a lot of changes.

I will find this passage. I'm reading two other books right now, but I'll find it soon. I personally agree that it's interchangeable. But, like I said, I do remember something being mentioned in I think it was Unfinished Tales. I will find it.

 

Good luck! but the passages I recall (at the moment) that seem to imply a distinction are draft passages (at least one) for The Lord of the Rings and maybe some early 'Silmarillion' examples; and possibly an example in The Hobbit.

But in draft text Aragorn was once called Trotter; and in my opinion what matters is how Tolkien decided to ultimately explain the word 'goblin' and orc in published text (published by JRRT himself), reflecting his decision on the matter and arguably explaining all published instances.

 

Also, if I remember correctly, aside from Orcrist (which, like you said, orc translates to goblins), the word orc isn't used once in The Hobbit in reference to the "goblins." Definitely could be wrong, but I'm almost positive.

 

It occurs (in later editions) at least once outside of Orcrist, if I remember correctly.

Also isn't  orc used far more in LOTR than goblins? I don't want to cause trouble with this, just a thought...

 

No trouble! I once counted the instances (that I knew of) of 'goblin' in The Lord of the Rings. I never counted the instances of orc, but I'm guessing there are plenty more! Yet according to Tolkien's published explanation, the amount doesn't really matter I think.

There has to be something out there that clarifies this.

 

In the 1960s Tolkien added a note to editions of The Hobbit -- thus it was added to editions published after The Lord of the Rings was on bookshelves, and thus after Appendix F 'On Translation' was in print.

Translation is the key! Appendix F had paved the way and all instances could be explained by using this key, or explained well enough anyway. In this note JRRT explained that orc is:

: not English

: a word used by Hobbits

: importantly, a word used at that time by Hobbits -- that is, used in Frodo's day

: usually translated 'goblin' in this book

 

You'd think they would be two different breeds of the same race, like dogs, but the fact it's used solely in The Hobbit to refer to what are obviously orcs throws off that logic by implying they are the same. I understand orc translates to goblin in elvish, but the story wasn't being told in elvish, it was being told by Bilbo, and even if it was that means he'd only be calling them orcs, so you'd think it'd be like LOTR where both were used. It just doesn't make sense!!! (just like that last sentence probably didn't to anyone else) 

 

The story was being told in Westron as that was the language Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam spoke. The translator is Tolkien (so says the Elvish writing in the books), and it is only the modern translator who knows the modern word 'goblin', as no one spoke English in Frodo's day of course. Still, JRRT could have set up a scenario like he did with other words:

:kuduk translated 'Hobbit'

:kud-dukan translated (Old English) 'Holbytla, 'Hole- builder (or Hole-dweller)'

:banakil translated 'Halfling'

Even here note that a 'Hobbit' is not meant to be different from a kuduk. One word translates the other. Actually Sam (not his real name) would have no clue what a 'Hobbit' was, he would know the word kuduk rather. Anyway back to orc, in my opinion here's what we do not have:

:some unknown word -- translated 'goblin'

:a different unknown word -- translated 'orc'

 

Some seem to think this is the scenario, because they think 'goblin' translates a word used by Hobbits, and 'orc' translates another word used by Men. Not so, say I, the scenario Tolkien chose is simpler:

:orc translated 'goblin' ('hobgoblin' for larger kinds)

 

 

But both words are in the same story! It would be like using hund -- and sometimes 'dog' -- in the English translation of a German text! where one would always expect the word dog. With The Lord of the Rings we have an English translation of a largely Westron text, so we should really always, or at least mostly, expect 'goblin'. But JRRT decided otherwise after The Hobbit, although obviously he didn't go back and change all instances of goblin to orc in The Hobbit itself.

 

Tolkien even advises translators of The Lord of the Rings on the matter: although according to the system the word orc should be translated (like 'goblin' was usually employed in The Hobbit), since orc is fitter in Tolkien's opinion, he asks translators to simply leave it alone, despite the system -- in other words, he asks that translators do not translate orc with a word in the language of translation (Swedish or whatever).

 

So that part is unusual, I admit. Incidentally, Tolkien really didn't like 'Elves' as a translation because of its modern connotations, but he decided to stick with it.

By the way I know the above looks complicated, but it's really not when boiled down: when translating from one language to the next, why should there be any intended distinction? A hund is still a 'dog', lobo a 'wolf' (masculine)... and an orc is a 'goblin', and a large orc is a 'hobgoblin' in Tolkien's world.

Although some seem to think Westron is English, it is only represented by English by way of translation. Thus in my opinion in The Hobbit we 'really' have the word orc all over the place! in Bilbo's original manuscript that is -- or to indulge Tolkien further -- in Bilba's original, as Bilba was Bilbo's real name back then, as the 'translator' changed the ending.

 

What about the films? I'm not sure Jackson would know about, or care about, or even agree with, what I've just posted -- but even though I'm not a Jackson fan, whether he uses orc or goblin or both, he can't really be wrong in my opinion unless he tries to indicate some distinction!

'Goblin' may seem to fit The Hobbit better because readers found it there -- and to some this word seems to fit the style of The Hobbit nicely, perhaps for some even 'better' than orc in some sense (at least for the beginning of the book).

But is Jackson going to attempt a lighter tone for The Hobbit in any case?

I must agree with Karia. I believe passionately that much of that was influenced by Professor Tolkien's horrible experiences in battle, and the fact that the little club that he and his friends had set up where they would have their tea and talk and dream and such was the Shire life, simple , full of fun little moments and whatever goodies they could aquire. Then, just like that nearly all of them were killed after only such very short spaces of time following their enlisting. He saw first hand how that war touched his little corner of the world , shattered it forever in his mind.

After what PJ did to LOTR, I am afraid to see what he does to The Hobbit.

Call me a purist if you want. Maybe I am. I don't actually mind small, minor changes made to cut the length of a movie, or to make it filmable. What I object to is when a group of screen writers decide that they could write a better story than Tolkien did, and completely rewrite the story.

If PJ wants a script for The Hobbit, I suggest he buy it at a book store, either paperback or hardback. It's already written. It's not like LOTR where it would end up being a 30 hour movie if you were true to the book. The Hobbit should fit nicely into a decent movie length without "improvements" from the peanut gallery.

I always thought that Orc came from the Elvish Orch and that in Westron Goblin was a popular translation...

I always thought that Orc came from the Elvish Orch...

 

This would make sense to me, especially given (see Cirion And Eorl, note 49) that the Common Speech did not possess the sound -ch- as heard in Sindarin orch (the sound is like that heard in Welsh loch), and in pronouncing Sindarin, the people of Gondor, unless learned, pronounced this ch at the end of words as -k.

They also altered -ch- in the middle of words to -h- which is why we have Rohan and Rohirrim instead of Rochan, Rochirrim, as the actual Grey-elven word for 'horse' is roch. Include Elro(c)hir I would guess.

 

Essentially these people would say orc when pronouncing Sindarin orch, and if this -ch- is not found in Westron, why not make Westron orc a simple borrowing from Sindarin? But in Quendi and Eldar Tolkien mused that Adunaic urku, urkhu: 'underlies the words for Orc in the languages of Men of the North-west in the Second and Third Ages.'

So JRRT didn't seem to take that path, at least here; though this text doesn't necessarily represent his final thoughts on the word orc itself for example, since the edition of The Hobbit in which Tolkien added his note on orc is later than Quendi And Eldar.

 

... and that in Westron Goblin was a popular translation.

 

'Goblin' is a translation as you say -- it has to be because the word didn't exist in Frodo's day. Orc existed back then, and any of the Elvish forms of course, like orch; noting the sword-name Orc(h)rist 'Goblin-cleaver' too. The words uruk and snaga are examples of actual words spoken in Middle-earth as well, although uruk came to mean not simply 'goblin' but 'great soldier goblin' as distinct from snaga.

 

This may all seem pedantic but to Tolkien a sensible linguistic scenario was important.

So the cameras starting rolling on production of The Hobbit today. I certainly hope Peter is feeling up to it, he had a serious enough surgery. We shall see.

Excited as the cameras roll.....

There is already an image floating around of Thror and Thrain and what looks to be Thorin, however I think this is an old pick (fantastic as it is) from the filming of The Council of Elrond....

Its here-  http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/03/20/42798-kiwi-actors-jeffrey-thomas-and-mike-mizrahi-cast-as-thror-and-thrain/dwarves-3/

  << [1] [2]