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

Thread: Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Should Legolas be in the Hobbit   << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>
[quote="inaholeintheground":w1w412p3]In reply to Eldorion: While I appreciate the depth of your knowledge of Tolkien's works, you are misinformed regarding the date of the last meeting of the White Council being 2941; I must tell you that [color=#FF0000:w1w412p3]you are wrong[/color:w1w412p3]: the last meeting of the White Council [color=#FF0000:w1w412p3]definitely[/color:w1w412p3] took place in 2953. At that time, Khamul the Easterling, Sauron's third-in-command, led Sauron's forces at Dol Guldur. Another important feature of this 2953 White Council meeting was that Gandalf at that time first began to suspect Saruman of coveting the One Ring for himself.[/quote:w1w412p3]

I didn't say that the last meeting of the White Council was in 2941, do not put words into my mouth. I said that I could not check if there had been a meeting in 2953, but that the one in 2941 was the one immediately followed by Sauron's departure from Dol Guldur to Mordor. Now that I am home again I can check Appendix B for this. As it turns out, you are partially right: the White Council's last meeting [i:w1w412p3]was[/i:w1w412p3] in 2953.

[quote="The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B":w1w412p3]2941 - ...The White Council meets; Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur , since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur....
2951 - Sauron declares himself openly and gathers power in Mordor. He begins the rebuilding of Barad-dur....
2953 - Last meeting of the White Council....[/quote:w1w412p3]

That's my source: Tolkien. What's yours?

[quote:w1w412p3]Are you an associate of the webmaster of tuckborough.net? You two really should correspond regarding this issue, and a collaboration is in order, I think[/quote:w1w412p3]

I have no idea who the webmaster of tuckborough.net is, nor why you brought this up.

[quote:w1w412p3]but just remember: the final authority in this matter has got to be Tolkien himself. I look forward to your [color=#BF0000:w1w412p3]detailed[/color:w1w412p3] and [color=#FF0000:w1w412p3]referenced[/color:w1w412p3] reply in furtherance of my education, and would only ask that you replace the space you waste quoting [i:w1w412p3][color=#004000:w1w412p3]me[/color:w1w412p3][/i:w1w412p3] with space instead devoted to quoting/referencing [i:w1w412p3][color=#004000:w1w412p3]Tolkien[/color:w1w412p3][/i:w1w412p3]; I already know what [i:w1w412p3]I [/i:w1w412p3]said, and I'm rather more interested in hearing your opinion of what [i:w1w412p3]Tolkien[/i:w1w412p3] said.[/quote:w1w412p3]

I know the authority on Middle-earth has to be Tolkien, which is why [i:w1w412p3]I[/i:w1w412p3] am the one who has cited him instead of repeating my own assertions without an iota of evidence. The onus is now on you to show your claims are supported by Tolkien. Also, I am not here to further your education, I am simply attempting to have a discussion. As for my posting style, I quote people in order to make point-by-point responses more easily. I have already explained why there were no specific citations in my last post. I now look forward to seeing what evidence you have.

[quote:w1w412p3]With regard to a third Hobbit, I am still of the opinion that a third "bridge" film may yet appear, especially if the planned two films are as wildly successful as the LOTR films, and because Tolkien created so much material to draw upon, even though that material exists only in the form of Tolkien's notes.[/quote:w1w412p3]

Did you read the link I gave in my last post? The two parties reached a settlement on the matter. A bridge film is still possible of course, but it's an entirely separate issue from the court case. Neither Peter Jackson nor Guillermo del Toro seem interested in working on one though.
EDIT: Technical problems caused me to post this twice but I've resolved it, sorry for the double post.
The writers of the film script have previously shown a few variations from what is strictly cannon (aka they gave Glorfindel's part in FotR to Arwen), so I fail to see why they should have a problem with doing something that would have been highly probable. As the only son of Thranduil that is mentioned by Tolkien, it would be a lot more odd if we did NOT see Legolas at least in a cameo than if we do see him.
There shouldn't be any problem with "Pirates 4" filming around the same time since he's not even going to be in "Pirates 4".
This is not really to do with casting issues but surely legolas would have been present at the battle of five armies seeing as its the main battle the mirkwood elves are involved in and he is a prince after all? or would he have been back at mirkwood looking after it while Thranduil led the army? just a query because in the books and mainly the films he is shown to be an extremely good fighter so just wondering where he would have learnt it all really, and the battle of five armies would have been a good place.
Hi Thranduil, welcome to the forum! :mrgreen:

[quote="Thranduil":3o765zvb]This is not really to do with casting issues but surely legolas would have been present at the battle of five armies seeing as its the main battle the mirkwood elves are involved in[/quote:3o765zvb]

Legolas isn't mentioned as being present at the battle, but of course that doesn't mean that he wasn't as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It does mean however that we can't say whether or not he was there. It's possible Thranduil would have brought along his son or that he would have left him behind, possibly to watch over the realm. Given the lack of textual evidence this is all just speculation however. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />

[quote:3o765zvb]and he is a prince after all[/quote:3o765zvb]

He was the son of the King, but that doesn't mean he was a prince. The English word "prince" actually has two distinct meanings. One refers to the son or other male relative of a reigning monarch and the other refers to a ruler who is sometimes subordinate to a King. To use real world examples: the Prince of Wales is the son of the Queen of the United Kingdom, whereas the Prince of Liechtenstein is the head of state of an independent nation.

Tolkien, in his writings about Middle-earth, consistently uses the second meaning of the word. There are various Princely rulers among the Noldor in the First Age, various Princes of Rhovanion in the Third Age, and also the Prince of Dol Amroth and later the Prince of Ithilien (Faramir). I cannot recall any consistent usage of the word "prince" to refer to the son of a King, and in fact, in Numenor at least, the son of the King was called the "King's Heir".

To bring this back to the original topic: calling Legolas a prince, while accurate in the common modern usage, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of Middle-earth. I don't believe that it is established if he has any importance in the governing of Mirkwood. It's confusing though.

[quote:3o765zvb]just wondering where he would have learnt it all really, and the battle of five armies would have been a good place.[/quote:3o765zvb]

Actually, the middle of a battle is not a good place for anyone to learn about fighting. If you're in a massive battle it's good to know how to fight or else you will probably find yourself dead or seriously wounded very quickly. What Legolas knew about combat he would have had to learn in a training setting.
My father fought in Papua New Guinea in the Second World War against the Japanese. He made an interesting comment to me once. He said that if you lived long enough in battle (or battles!) your training eventually became of value! I myself was caught in the middle of an incident once where four of my comrades were shot (I got lucky). I can now better see the point of my 'incident' training - but I'm not sure the training actually served much use in the heat of the moment. When bullets are flying, a lot of things do fly through your mind, but not necessarily what your training says you should actually be doing to save yourself. Of course, I hope to use my training better next time! Experience is often the best trainer of all, one thinks.

So guys, maybe I can agree with both of you. I must admit though, Eldarion, I can't imagine what kind of training Greenwood Elves would go through to prepare for battle, other than actually fighting in a battle?

Oh yes - and I see the logic for Legolas being around somewhere, but he wasn't mentioned in the book, so liberties will have to be taken if he's put in it, by Jove! And, by Jove, we all know by now that Del Toro is a Rampant Libertarian!

[quote="Odo Banks":60haeogx]Of course, I hope to use my training better next time! Experience is often the best trainer of all, one thinks.[/quote:60haeogx]

Good point, though I would think that Legolas, were he at the battle, would have had some training beforehand so that he knew what he was doing.

[quote:60haeogx]And, by Jove, we all know by now that Del Toro is a Rampant Libertarian![/quote:60haeogx]

:lol: :lol:
I'm with GB. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Thranduil had warriors in [i:33us23gc]The Hobbit[/i:33us23gc], and warriors have to learn how to fight somehow. I don't get the impression that they were merely hunters turned militia-elves.
GB, You raise an interesting point. Perhaps some writer should write a reasonably traditional kind of fairy-story sometime where the main character wants to be a plumber, not a hero, and goes to the toilet regularly (a constipated character might not be good tempered enough to be your good guy, I guess?!?!)

I suppose you'd only see this kind of thing in parodies - but why not in a reasonably serious fairy-story? Of course, you wouldn't want to put it in just to try and be dfferent, you'd put it in to give your fairies a sense of realism. They might even know what sex is. Hells bells!

Eldorion, I'm still interested in what the training would entail. If not a militia or a military academy, what then? How do they get the training?

I think Eldorion means "militia" in the sense of "irregulars". That is to say non-professional soldiers, farmers, cobblers, carpenters, plumbers ( <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ) etc. who band together simply for local defense.

Clearly the kinds of skills Elvish warriors display would require extensive training.

Perhaps if he was a hunter, he would have picked up archery skills. And finishing off injured boars might have allowed him to use knife skills. But actual martial training? Would those ancient societies have trained for war? Maybe if there was a warrior elite? Perhaps, but Tolkien mentions no training camps.

He doesn't mention plumbing or toilet habits either though <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

GB, I sometimes feel that your knowledge of things runs deeper than some of us know!

I can imagine elvish carpenters and cobblers - but it's more difficult for me to think of elvish plumbers, it can be such an unsavory job at times and might seem below them.

We still haven't explained yet how the elves get trained for battle. Maybe it just comes natural, that wouldn't surprise me in the least, but then there would be no actual training required at all.

Eldorion, do you think it all comes natural, or do you think there's some kind of training involved? If so, how does this training manifest itself?

The Spartans are an extreme example of a Warrior Culture where All male children began training at 7 years old, but most Societies modern, medieval and ancient had a Warrior Class. In the middle ages, Knights (members of the ruling classes) were often tutored individually before taking their place in the military, while foot soldiers (lower classes) were often "drafted" and trained in brutal camps.

I prefer to think that Elven Martial Training was more like the Warrior Monks of the Orient, such as in Shaolin and Tibetan monasteries, or the Samurai. As such their Martial Training was to benefit Mind, Body, and Spirit as well as for Defense. If you want to see how they did it, just watch a few Historical Kung Fu dramas <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

We really have no idea, do we. For all my reading of The Silmarillion, TH and LOTR, I've never really thought of the elves as a culture. They just are, sort of, 'earth angels" to me.

That actually strikes me as odd :? . I couldn't help but think of them as various Elven Cultures when I read the books, what with their divergent languages and life-styles.

I suppose languages are a part of culture, you're right. I guess because I'm not someone good on languages (though I have a smattering of German), that part of their 'culture' has not sunk in with me. All I know of them is that they have a certain amount of "earthly" magic, sing a lot, and live forever, and are excellent at doing stuff like fighting. It's not much to go on. Mind you, some of the Mirkwood elves hunted and had butlers and dungeon keepers. So that's cultural I guess.

I feel that the beginning of the elves themselves is one thing that we will always know so little about. How and when were they born? how did they learn to be so skilled with the bow? There may be answers to these questions, but I'm not sure where...
I guess I can just accept them at face value, and if they remain somewhat 'other' (even mysterious), I guess that was T's intent.

[quote="Odo Banks":11anrfio]Eldorion, I'm still interested in what the training would entail. If not a militia or a military academy, what then? How do they get the training?[/quote:11anrfio]

[quote:11anrfio]Eldorion, do you think it all comes natural, or do you think there's some kind of training involved? If so, how does this training manifest itself?[/quote:11anrfio]

GB was right about what I meant by militia, I was drawing on the definition I've always heard used in the sense of "minutemen" and the like: ordinary citizens who take up arms and form a non-professional army to deal with an immediate threat. The Elven warriors seem to me to be more professional, or at least a standing force.

As for [i:11anrfio]how [/i:11anrfio]the training happens, I really wouldn't know. It could very well be a military academy of sorts or it could be less formal, maybe more like an apprenticeship. Just because I think training must happen doesn't mean I know the details though. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Yes, we could nly ever speculate as to what any tring might have been. But being elves and all, "must" they have had to have had any training in the first place?

[quote="Odo Banks":2qf075at]being elves and all, "must" they have had to have had any training in the first place?[/quote:2qf075at]

I don't think Elves are born with the ability to wield the sword, spear, or bow; and I still think that the demonstrate a level of professionalism and quickness of response that suggests they were a standing group with formal training of [i:2qf075at]some unknown sort[/i:2qf075at].
And judging by Legolas, they also Surfed, and had Extreme Sports Warrior Training 8-) :mrgreen: .

If the elves Surfed and had Extreme Sports Warrior Training, they kept it secret and that's why not even T knew about it. It was a very conservative time and other folk might have frowned at such new-fangled notions. Maybe they would have thought them works of the Dark Lord, who knows?


NB Have you heard of a show called The Mighty Boosh? (Hilarious!)
The answer to that question lies in the desires of the studio production team. If they wish to entice all of Orlando Bloom's fangirls into the theaters again, then yes, Legolas should make a brief appearance. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> It would also make the friendship between Gimli and him more remarkable in reference to the films. After all, the races of Dwarf and Elf have had some back history to overcome, and this would be some of it...
The book got by without all those fangirls! (Are fangirls anything like fandangles btw?)

You don't seriously think the filmmakers care about the book, do you Odo? :P
Yes Odo, but fangirls take a Geek-out Film and turn it into a blockbuster <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . Which is a good thing. Becasue then it makes gazillions of dollars, which means more awesome Fantasy Flms and thus possibly more Tolkien films 8-) .

GB, while LOTR (the book) is fantasy it's hardly a geek-only phenomenon. It's made hundreds of millions of dollars over decades (much of this before the films were even a twinkle in PJ's eyes. It also topped at least three book of the century polls in the UK alone and a Book of the [i:b5hivxzn]Millennium[/i:b5hivxzn] poll on Amazon.com, all before the films came out!
No I mean Geek-out as in Guy Talk, as in a CGI Action Heavy SuperHero Fantasy Sword & Sorcery Sci-Fi Kung Fu Films (and some of them even with PLOTS and Literary/Philosophical Cred <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ).

The Lasses need Hunks and Romance to bring them along to such films, and LotR (the films) had that in spades.

The books worked because they appealed first to Intellectuals/Artists and Hippies 8-) , then to D&D players :ugeek: , then to Heavy Metalers :mrgreen: :lol: , then it seeped into the general culture bit by bit until, it became a Global Icon.

Not being one of the ladies I can't really comment, but I would think that women (or at the very least [i:21wid5ni]some[/i:21wid5ni] women) are capable of watching and appreciating movies for reasons other than hunks and romance.
You would think so wouldn't you!?! <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

It takes a special sort of Fantasy Flick to draw screaming hordes of fan Girls :lol: .

But, but... :lol: Not all women are fangirls!
If you want a Super-Mega-Blockbuster you need Fan-Girls :lol: .

My response has grown really long, see my [url=http://the-hobbit-movie.com/forum/will-the-movies-need-to-cater-to-fangirls-406.html:2hl1bfmn]new thread[/url:2hl1bfmn]. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
I gotta go to work real soon... I'm doing a last rush through the forum... but I'm sure I'll be joining this discussion...!

I think it would be a smart move all the way around, as Legolas is a Green Elf of Mirkwood, and the company of Dwarves
do get captured by the Elves. You simply can't discount the popularity of the character Legolas from "Lord of the Rings," or Orlando Bloom's personal popularity. While it would not be as major of a role, its still a direct tie in with "Lord of the Rings." I got worried when I heard del Toro say his 'vision' for "The Hobbit" was different than Jackson's. What about the original vision that has been in print by Tolkein since 1936? The public can be very fickle about these things, and MGM is having money problems as is.
I think its a no brainer, bring Legolas back for however small the part might be. It cannot hurt, and might bring back a little chemistry from the original Fellowship actors. Jackson falling out with Newline did not help, and there is no such thing as a "sure thing."
Hi sorcerer_dolguldur, welcome to the forum!

[quote="sorcerer_dolguldur":3qrkucvv]What about the original vision that has been in print by Tolkein since 1936?[/quote:3qrkucvv]

That's a good question but in my consideration of it I've decided not to hold my breath hoping for them to be in line with Tolkien's [i:3qrkucvv]Hobbit[/i:3qrkucvv], what with the "expansion" of the story and its integration - to a degree - with PJ's films.

[quote:3qrkucvv]Jackson falling out with Newline did not help, and there is no such thing as a "sure thing."[/quote:3qrkucvv]

I rather disagree, I think that [i:3qrkucvv]The Hobbit[/i:3qrkucvv] films are more or less guaranteed to be successes like [i:3qrkucvv]Harry Potter[/i:3qrkucvv] and the [i:3qrkucvv]Star Wars[/i:3qrkucvv] Prequel Trilogy were, if for nor other reason than that they are part of an existing and very popular franchise. Jackson suing New Line didn't do much except make fans angry at New Line (deservedly since they've been sued by so many people including actors and the Tolkien Estate in addition to PJ), but with PJ back on board as Executive Producer/Writer I don't think that's cause for worry.

I agree that a Legolas cameo would be nice though. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
I'm sort of in the middle on this one. It's very true there is no such thing as a sure thing. But it's also true that this is a hugely popular franchise.

There are several factors to take into consideration: The Return of the King was released in 2003, by the time The Hobbit is released 8 or 9 years will have passed (8 if 2011 as planned). A long gap between installments can sometimes kill a franchise. Though Indiana Jones and Star Wars both survived, so it can be done.

Also, The Hobbit is as well-known as LotR, no-doubt. But it's reputation as more of a "children's story" could put off a lot of the Young Adult crowd who liked the Action/Heavy Metal aspects of LotR.

Then, as seen with the Narnia franchise, Prince Caspian pulled in only half as much as LWW due to poor marketing and a bad release date between two Action Blockbusters. The Narnia series doesn't have quite as much of the Icon Factor as LotR in the USA except among Christians, but it is nearly as well-known as LotR globally. If VoDT doesn't pull as much as LWW there is talk of scuttling the series...so even phenomenal popularity is no guarantee. If a movie company doesn't make as much as they think they should, then bye, bye franchise <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' /> . Considering PC still pulled in over $400 million it seems ridiculous, but it cost $200 million to make.

So, What To Do to mitigate a possible disaster? Well for one, you want to keep as many of the original Fans as possible:

This means as many returning cast members as possible. And for Screaming Fangirls that means [b:3eif06e3]Legolas/Orlando Bloom[/b:3eif06e3] for the Tweens to Twenty-somethings (preferably shirtless <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ), and Viggo for the Ladies. And a Romance wouldn't hurt either (though for us Hobbit "Purists" <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> , a romance would be totally unnecessary). But perhaps in The Hobbit part 2 a glimpse of Aragorn/Arwen will suffice.
it makes complete sense to see legolas play some part alongside thranduil....and when i say legolas i also meen Bloom playing legolas.

in the same way that many tolkien fans will hate the idea of another face playing bilbo instead of Holm's, i would hate to see them cast a different legolas....if bloom cant do it then leave legolas out.

i think if Bloom does do it then credit to him as it will obviosly be a small role and he'l be showing alot passion for the whole tolkien story by getting involved again...and not just because of pay check
Yeah I would definitely be okay with Legolas being in The Hobbit. It makes complete sense as he Thranduil's son and would obviously be an important figure. I also agree that if Bloom won't play him, leave him out. We're already going to have to learn to live with a different bilbo and most likely a new Saruman, so hopefully we won't be forced into learning to except a new Legolas. Continuity is important!
I think Legolas would be an easy fit without mucking about with the story very much at all.

I think a bit part would work out, he is the son of the Elvin King after all...
He Did one other good film that deserves mention. ahem Kingdom of Heaven! Probably good because of Ridley Scott but still he did well.
Well, after reading GB's story [u:27rg52w8]The Adventures of Bilbo and Itaril[/u:27rg52w8] it seemed he had quite a bit of a role :roll: :lol: :mrgreen:
None the less, he would've been an important character had he been created. And if not him being there in person (perhaps he's on a quest somewhere) his existance should be noticed.
I would definetly have to say "YES!". Although the charachter was not in The Hobbit, it wasn't because Tolkien had purposefully left him out. The Hobbit was written long before the LOTR, and the character of Legolas was not full developed until the LOTR. I am a quite a purist when it come to sticking to what Tolkien intended, except in this instance. It just doesn't make sense for him not to be there. We know that Legolas is at least older than Aragorn (because he refers to him and Gimli as "children" and stating that he had seen many an oak treen from nut until ruin.) which would make him alive durning the events of The Hobbit. As the son of King Thranduril, and hence the Prince of Mirkwood, it can be assumed that he would have been present during any significant events.

**On a personal note, I think that if Tolkien would have thought of the character sooner he would have included him in The Hobbit! Haha, maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part! <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Yeah I agree with you Tintalle, I feel like if The Hobbit had been written closer to LotR and the character of Legolas was more developed, he most likely would have been in the hobbit.
I think the issue of 'would Tolkien have included Legolas' is impossible to answer since there is only even the possibility if you change the circumstances of Tolkien's writing significantly. The character of Legolas was developed in the course of writing LotR, which Tolkien began work on after his publisher asked him for another hobbit story, which they only did after [i:m3k1o3po]The Hobbit[/i:m3k1o3po] had been published and met success.
I don't want to see Legolas in the hobbit, in lotr he constantly out shined gimli and the hobbit focuses on the dwarves more so than elves, so I'd be disappointed to see the dwarves lose their thunder. This movie should show the dwarves the credit they missed out in the lotr film.
  << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>