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

Thread: The Hobbit 12/12/12

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > The Hobbit 12/12/12   << [1] [2] [3] >>

Forgive me for sounding harsh Balrogs, I am sorry. And Smeagol, Bilbo does the right thing by not killing Gollum. I personally wanted to cry when I saw his face when he realized his precious was lost.

The thing about that is that Smeagol hasn't been tortured yet- he's slightly more humane, or, at least, Gollum hasn't wholly taken over him yet.

I think the big difference between Gollum in the Hobbit and Gollum in LotR is that up until the Hobbit he had got the ring with him. Although it had corrupted him, he still had it for comfort. By the time of LotR he had gone a good many years tortured by its absence. The effects of the ring are like a terribly addictive drug with no chance of a detox. In addition to being tortured by Sauron, which I imagine wasn't pleasant, he had all those years craving for the ring which must have driven him mad.

The animated version from 1984 is better, even though they left out some parts. At least in that version they didn't add countless erroneous info to make more money... At least Jackson is turning a new Tolkien craze.

I hate those effects when people are falling from great heights and nothing happens. I know, it's fantasy, I know it's based on a story for kids, but it's getting boring and silly.

I saw opinions about colours being a bit too intense, too bright at some scene and I kind of agree with it. I mean - yes, Rivendell is supposed to be stunning, but when you have all the colours of the rainbow on Gandalf's face when he's talking to Galadriel it just looks really really fake.

I loved the part with Gollum and Bilbo. Crucial scene, the heart of the Ring's story. Amazing animation of Gollum, much better than in LOTR. I was nearly crying at the moment, when Bilbo wants to escape and considers whether to kill this poor creature or not. Those big blue eyes probably saved the guy. I was thinking about the beautiful sentence, when Gandalf said that it is more important to know how to spare someone's life than to know how to take it. Beautiful. I could just saw on Bilbo's face that he's thinking about those words.

I skipped through everyone's thought because I'm seeing The Hobbit tomorrow and can't wait!!!! Ill have to come back and delve in to the posts and get back to you all

Haven't had the chance to see the movie yet. Maybe next year if i find time Sad Smilie

Saw it on the spare of the moment last night, didn't realize it was the 3D version until the girl handed me the glasses. I've heard a lot of negative comments on the 3d system and I'd pretty much agree with them. I just couldn't get used to it, and spent most of the movie taking them on and off. Prolly won't take the trouble to watch the 2D version, too hard to find baby sitters and to be honest it'd prolly bore me to death a second time.  Over all it was OK I guess but as I've gotten older and life's daily grind has worn down my imagination and sense of magic I just find this high fantasy stuff over the top, like it takes itself far to seriously IMHO. Give me Game of thrones anyday, at least that still has a sense of realism.

That's not to say i didn't like it, Riddles in the dark was awesome.

But as someone else mentioned, I hate how in movies someone can fall from several hundred feet onto a rocky precipice and just stand up and brush themselves off, all that sort of thing including unrealistic fighting sequences just make me less likely to take it seriously and give it a fair go.

Prolly give it a 6 out of 10

Hail good friends. I finally saw the movie a couple of days ago and have been meaning to say hi and let you know what I thought.

Over all I have to say that the experience of returning to a fabulous vision of the Third Age (and earlier) was gloriously wonderful. My eyes, ears and other senses thrilled to the opulence, characters and soundscapes. I was however slightly disappointed though I don't know why. The acting was great, it stuck to the book more than I thought it would, the screen writing was interesting, it was funny, but still I was left a little disappointed.

Things I loved.

Elven minstrels serenading the carnivorous Dwarves.

Bilbo. Old and young.

Frodo's inclusion.

The White Council ( We're they actually there or was it telepathic? )

Ancient Erebor and the History of the Heart Of The Mountain.

Dale.

Radagast healing the hedgehog with Wizardry

Bilbo's tension when he has Gollum at swords length.

Hearing the Shire and Imladris themes again.

Gandalf scaring Bilbo through his window.

I cried when the Eagles came and the gentle way they picked up the Dwarves.

The Carrock.

The characters and comradery of the Dwarf company.

......I guess I've just realised why I feel odd about the movie as a whole. I loved the little things, which touch the heart and soul and not the over the top action. Don't get me wrong it is incredibly well done, its just that I enjoyed the quiet moments more.

Interesting things I noticed.

Only Sting Glows.

Two depictions of Bilbo's finding of the ring.

Gandalf mentioning the Blue Wizards, forgetting they're names.

Radagast owns giant rabbits!! (kidding)

Regarding changes. I wasn't overly upset about the PJ changes and additions. Azog, Radagast, Orcs v Goblins. If anything Radagast obtaining the Morgil knife was a little silly and unnecessary however I believe in the next instalment we will see further extension of the back story. I noted that the scene of Gandalf in Dol Guldur was missing from the film, so I expect we will see this in part 2. Perhaps then the changes will make more sense. Friends of mine who have not read Tolkien loved these parts as it seemed to them that it made more sense than what actually happens in the book, as I afterwards explained.

Overall ill give part ~ 8 out of 10 Mithril pieces.

Oh I forgot something. Did anyone else notice the female, bearded Dwarves escaping the sac of Erebor in the film? My eagle eye and ear also saw a couple of Dwarflings.

Yes Brego, that only Sting glows was one of the first things I really noticed. Wink Smilie

 

 

About all the 3D thingy. I liked the 3D version, but I haven't seen the 2D one yet. Most people I know of my age liked the 3D version, but others(mostly older ones ) didn't really liked it!!!

What are you trying to say lovely Arwen?........................ Big Smile Smilie

Lol, yeah...I'm only 24 and I didn't like it all that much. Then again I'm often told I have an old soul so...

And don't get me wrong, it wasn't terrible nor did it ruin the movie, it just seemed like background stuff was blurry when there was a lot of movement. I noticed it most with the goblins. The still shots were amazing though, particularly Rivendell.

All 3d looks blurry to me. Have to also say that I loved Thranduil on his stag!

The female Dwarves of the film are Jackson's invention (not that anyone said otherwise), as Tolkien's female Dwarves are not simply bearded in some measure, but cannot easily be told apart from male Dwarves [by other peoples]. I think the reasonable inference is that they are very much bearded, for example...

... but here I can see that the filmmakers have an arguably good reason to alter Tolkien's notion, as the average person watching the film wouldn't notice any 'female' Dwarves otherwise of course, nor would the Tolkien reader actually.

Concerning the term 'Blue Wizards' (mentioned above in the thread), although a small enough detail in a long film, this actually hails from Unfinished Tales, and Janet Croft (advisor to the filmmakers) has noted that she advised that a mention of the Blue Wizards not be included, as this source is technically not available for adaptation.

Of course from The Lord of the Rings we know that there are more than three wizards, but Ithryn Luin itself hails from posthumously published sources.

Galin do you know where it was Ms. Croft said this? All I can find is an uncited reference on Tolkien Gateway?

But because these are such high stake films, I doubt PJ would just sneak the term in without telling anybody. It's more than entirely possible, but if she had explicitly said to not use it, there has to be more to the story what we don't know...or maybe I'm just in PJ denial...

Yes Balrogs, she posted this on the list for the Mythopoeic Society [described as: an international literary and educational organization devoted to the study, discussion, and enjoyment of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and related authors of fantasy literature].
 
Currently the list appears on a page that says yahoo! groups... whatever that is. She posted the following on 17 Dec 2012:
 
 

As David Bratman said, they had the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but not to any other material. The “Blue Wizards” line is an example of something I told them they shouldn’t use since it’s from Unfinished Tales – I don’t know why they used it anyway, but I get the feeling that Peter Jackson is similar to Tolkien in one respect – he seems about as easy to influence as a Bandersnatch!

Some of the things I commented on were titles for Sauron which were used only in The Silmarillion, a name for an invented character that was a variation of a name used only in Unfinished Tales, or an invocation of a Vala whose name did not appear in H or LotR. There were also continuity issues, like Sméagol’s name – Bilbo should not know his original name, because it has to come as a surprise to Frodo in the first LotR movie, so the two-sided conversation had to be played without separate names for each side of Gollum. And I made comments on incongruities, like crossbows or printed calendars or impossible behaviors of the moon. I did not do any work on the languages – they had a separate expert for those – except when I saw something that was clearly a name of a person or place in the dialogue.

As the other two movies have not been released (not to mention the inevitable extended editions), I can’t go into a great deal of detail at this point. (Except to say it might have been worse – to my own sensibilities, each successive script was a great improvement over its predecessors.)

I only communicated with a single direct contact at the studio, so I don’t know exactly how they used or discussed my comments. I have visions of a production team sitting around a table grumbling “Drat that Croft, she never lets us have any fun.”

JB Croft [editor of Mythlore]

Legally using the words "the blue wizards" in this film means nothing as they are indeed mentioned within TLOTR, might be within the Apendices, but its there. Gandalf not remembering their names was obviously intentional.

Re the Dwarves Galin. Where does Tolkien actually state that they are identical to the males? Interested in reading more about them.

Brego wrote: Legally using the words "the blue wizards" in this film means nothing as they are indeed mentioned within TLOTR, might be within the Apendices, but its there. Gandalf not remembering their names was obviously intentional.

I agree with Janet Croft Brego, meaning neither the term 'Blue Wizards' nor its Elvish equivalent appears in The Lord of the Rings, including the Appendices.

Re the Dwarves Galin. Where does Tolkien actually state that they are identical to the males? Interested in reading more about them.

The word identical is not used in The Lord of the Rings, but as I say above, Tolkien's female Dwarves cannot easily be told apart by peoples other than Dwarves. This much is revealed in Appendix A, in the section about Dwarves.

Well that will be an interesting waste of the courts time. Sued over the words The Blue Wizards in a movie. I can't see it happening and would be highly surprised if the T Society could actually bother.

I'm familiar with the Dwarves as mentioned in all published works and still don't see where it's stated that female Dwarves cannot be told apart from the males. Perhaps it's an Elvish put down as to their unlovelyness. I can't imagine that Tolkien would have dressed or imagined that females of any of Eru's children would appear and live with a masculine slant. Even perhaps the Orcs. Just doesn't fit in with the rest of ME.

Brego wrote: Well that will be an interesting waste of the courts time. Sued over the words The Blue Wizards in a movie. I can't see it happening and would be highly surprised if the T Society could actually bother.

Well, no one yet said the Estate is bothering in any case, and the issue is the term 'Blue Wizards' appearing or not in sources Peter Jackson had a legal right to.

I assume by your response here that you agree the term Blue Wizards does not appear in the sources Jackson can legally employ.

I'm familiar with the Dwarves as mentioned in all published works and still don't see where it's stated that female Dwarves cannot be told apart from the males.

Above in this thread I directed you to the text in which the following description can be found. With respect to Dwarf women it's said... 

'They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart.'

Appendix A, III Durin's Folk

Jackson did have legal right to this of course, although as I say above, he changed things for his film.

To the eyes of Men Galin..... As usual very vague from the professor. I still cannot believe that Dwarven female folk walked around like Transexuals. Bearded and gruff yes, but Aule would have know the difference in the appearance of the fairer sex of the other Children of Eru. The Valar based there physical visions on Masculine and Feminine as per their temper and mind. Why then would Aule have made the Dwarves all look male? I'm not arguing with the facts as mentioned by Tolkien, I just don't like the idea of it.

Re legals. I'm sure they won't pursue legal action. But what I'm saying is that if they did they would stand a chance of winning because indeed the Blue Wizards are mentioned. You are correct that I was wrong in saying the actual words Blue Wizards are not used, (I checked last night) however by mentioning them within the pages of TLOTR they would be covered by the current copyright and rights by the producers. Just like The Necromancer, The Orc Dwarf Wars, White Council etc etc.

The sad fact of the matter is that if the threat of legal action wasn't there, we may have had a correct and proper back history without certain silly changes.

To the eyes of Men Galin..... As usual very vague from the professor.

What is it very vague about?

That other peoples (not just Men) can't tell them apart was the whole reason I brought it up. Even Christopher Tolkien, when comparing a passage in Quenta Silmarillion to Appendix A here, remarks about the: '... indistinguishability of Dwarf-women from Dwarf-men to people of other races.'

And at least in the unused passages published in The War of the Jewels Tolkien appears to have had no problem with Aule making beings: 'like to them but of female kind to be their mates'.

Although in one passage he imagined that possibly Eru made the female dwarves, yet Eru '... would not amend the work of Aule, and Aule had yet made only things of male form'

 

Yes the other wizards are mentioned in the book, as I noted earlier, but I'm guessing Janet Croft's point was that the concept of them being the 'Blue Wizards' is the problem. And I don't see that it is just like the Necromancer and The White Council for examples, as these things are named exactly that in the books Jackson has legal access too.

I'm no lawyer, so I can't say that simply mentioning the same characters gives one legal right to what is described about them in another work that the filmmakers have no right to employ, but if that were so I would wonder why Jackson cannot claim the rights to the tale of Beren and Luthien in detail.

As an aside, as far as I recall, Tolkien appears to have abandoned this 'Blue Wizards' terminology anyway -- although I could have forgotten or missed a late reference somewhere, there is a letter in which JRRT says he doubts the other two had distinctive colours.

I really need to check this better some day!

Anyway, I would have advised that Jackson not use the term for two reasons... well again I would have checked the texts better first, but as I say, at the moment I'm not sure JRRT ever again refers to any Blue Wizards after this letter.

Vague means what it states. Christopher Tolkien had trouble with publishing the Sil because of His great Fathers vague references and multiple epic changes of mind, rewriting and simply running out of time fulfilling the multiple story line which he took decades to create. I believe that given time JRRT would have fleshed out and defined the Dwarves in more of a believable and logical manner as he did with Men and Women. I stand by what I have in my minds eye re female Dwarves. And I have to say that the quick glimpse from PJ is pretty much what I had in mind whilst reading Tolkien. Bearded, female Dwarf women.

Re legals. Well I do have experience in the arena and can assure you that the idea of suing over three words in a film is simply silly.

I hope that in the future the Tolkien Family works with producers of film. The companies will find a way to create these film eventually without them, to the detriment of the great written word of JRRT and the only winners will be the banks. This in my eyes is far worse than simply choosing a film company in which they can trust the legacy of Tolkien. Then we all may be happy.

The Tolkien Family need to perhaps arms themselves with legal representation regarding future renderings of the works of JRRT, I would be surprised if the haven't already, given the fact that the previous contracts obviously were useless. It's no use trying to redifine contracts written and signed some decades ago. Look to the future to ensure the legacy is handled correctly.

Brego wrote: Vague means what it states. Christopher Tolkien had trouble with publishing the Sil because of His great Fathers vague references and multiple epic changes of mind, rewriting and simply running out of time fulfilling the multiple story line which he took decades to create. I believe that given time JRRT would have fleshed out and defined the Dwarves in more of a believable and logical manner as he did with Men and Women.

Yet all of this has nothing to do with how the statement in Appendix A is very vague, a description written and published by JRR Tolkien himself, and never revised. 

I stand by what I have in my minds eye re female Dwarves. And I have to say that the quick glimpse from PJ is pretty much what I had in mind whilst reading Tolkien. Bearded, female Dwarf women.

Well, then it appears that you stand by this by ignoring author published description, and by raising a speculative notion that Tolkien might have revised the idea, despite that it already appeared in print and is supported in his unfinished Silmarillion.

And I'm sorry if that doesn't sound nice (that you are ignoring text), but since you can tell Jackson's female dwarves from his male dwarves, you must be ignoring the description in Appendix A by posting as you did here.

Plus, where did you get the idea, in the first place, that Tolkien's female Dwarves were bearded in any measure? Appendix A?

Galin its one line and I'm not ignoring it. I'm stating that I don't agree with it, even though as you state the line was written by JRRT himself. I think, as I stated above that given time JRRT would have clarified and expanded. I stated that its how I felt about the Dwarves years before the movie was thought of, and I can't be dissuaded by 1 line from the Proff. It doesn't make sense. It goes against all other biological renderings of all other speaking people's of ME. It's just like him line/lines regarding all Elves being beardless and have ageless faces, yet we have Cirdan.

Ok, all I wanna say/ask is....

Galin- "Well, then it appears that you stand by this by ignoring author published description, and by raising a speculative notion that Tolkien might have revised the idea, despite that it already appeared in print and is supported in his unfinished Silmarillion."

I try not to drag one thread into another, but I'm having trouble seeing how that's any different from your speculative notion that Tolkien has vague quotes that you believe suggest at one point he may or may not have gone back and completely redone the origin of orcs, having them coming specifically from men. Regardless of all the vague references that suggest otherwise.

I assume it's because there's no vague and obscure quote that says dwarven women looked distinct, which of course I don't know for sure.  However saying dwarvish women were made "so like in appearance" of males really isn't much different than saying orcs were made in mockery of elves. That is, in context it has a pretty strong suggestion of what he meant. Does it mean they literally looked just like men? Or does it mean they were stocky and scruffy looking? Does it mean they were made from elves? Or that they came elsewhere and were designed to mock elves? Having said all that I agree that I think dwarvish women probably looked very similar to men because of Appendix A. I'll have to keep an eye out for these dwarf women next time I see The Hobbit.

And on that note, would it be dwarven women? Or dwarf women? Or dwarvish women?

Very well Brego you are 'disagreeing' with a statement from JRR Tolkien. But I see no reason to doubt that the idea makes sense to Tolkien, and no reason to disagree with it.

If there is another reasonable way to interpret this passage, or a reason to cast doubt on it from an external perspective, then that's different, but that has to be illustrated, and a general vagueness within the Silmarillion in no way means that specific descriptions published by the author (and there are very many obviously) can also be stamped as vague.  

And  I can't agree that this is like the matter of Elves and beards, as Appendix A was published by the author. 

I've seen people try to reconcile the various posthumously published statements about Elves and beards, but in my opinion it's not very compelling to argue that Cirdan has no beard, the author published example of these quotes.

Also, again, since you imagined Dwarf-women as bearded before this matter arose, where did this idea come from? You don't seem to have based this upon Appendix A for example... or did you?

This is interesting to me as texts that describe or suggest female Dwarves are bearded likewise note that they look like male Dwarves, again, so much so that other peoples cannot tell them apart.

I try not to drag one thread into another, but I'm having trouble seeing how that's any different from your speculative notion that Tolkien has vague quotes that you believe suggest at one point he may or may not have gone back and completely redone the origin of orcs, having them coming specifically from men. Regardless of all the vague references that suggest otherwise.

Drag away Smile Smilie

For clarity some orc quotes themselves are not vague: I can post, for example, an explicit note from JRRT that says Alter this, orcs are not Elvish [that's from memory but I'm pretty sure it's accurate], and for instance, the orcs from Men essay is a very finished essay.

But there is plenty of inconsistency with respect to ideas about orcs, and more importantly, Tolkien himself never published any orc-origins. 

One might wonder why a similar description of female Dwarves appears to have fallen out of the QS rewrite that Christopher Tolkien employed for the 1977 Silmarillion, so yes, that much could be seen as adding at least a measure of 'vagueness' in a Silmarillion context [not that Brego raised this as a specific argument in any case], but that noted...

... Brego is yet 'disagreeing' with text, no matter that it is brief, that is just as much in print as Hobbits having hair on their feet.

And as no other race has hair on their feet (well not like Hobbits anyway), would you find it compelling to then say that this doesn't make sense to you, and thus you will disagree with it? And can you provide any indication that Tolkien was thinking of revising hairy Hobbit feet?

Well not 'you' Balrogs... but just to give an example you understand Smile Smilie

Well put Balrogs. So many small things the Proff wrote cannot be taken literally as there are many areas within his vast world which he simply didnt have time to flesh out. I believe the line in question is an off the cuff remark and perhaps even comments more that its the men of the time who couldn't tell them apart simpy because they didnt know Dwarven folk and possibly didnt care.

Galin I admire you incredible knowledge on lore and history in regards to ME. I however think it important to read between the lines sometimes and use ones imagination and knowledge in a more artistic and less bookish way.

Brego, you keep stating 'Men' within your argument, but the text refers to other peoples, not just Men.

Galin I admire you incredible knowledge on lore and history in regards to ME. I however think it important to read between the lines sometimes and use ones imagination and knowledge in a more artistic and less bookish way.

So disagreeing with Tolkien's clear statement -- one that Christopher Tolkien himself comments on in the exact same way as I have... is more artistic?

I use plenty of imagination Brego, what I try not to do however, is disagree with Tolkien's published descriptions because I don't like an idea.

And I assume, at this point, that you will not answer my question about how you arrived at bearded female Dwarves, seemingly without Appendix A.

Appendix a Appendix b this and that. Use your imagination and intellect Galin. These stories are boundless and mean different things to different readers. Perhaps you just don't understand that other may have a different understanding than you do. You are exhaustive and dogmatic in your arguements and as I've said on numerous occasions, this is all probably very boring for other members so Ill not keep this going any further.

Brego wrote: Appendix a Appendix b this and that. Use your imagination and intellect Galin. These stories are boundless and mean different things to different readers. Perhaps you just don't understand that other may have a different understanding than you do.

Are you sure this doesn't contain any implied insults Brego?  Smile Smilie

And you can generalize about the stories as you like, but things are really rather simple here.

There is a clear statement found in the Appendices that female dwarves look so much like male dwarves that other folk cannot tell them apart -- a prime source for Tolkien discussion of course, and I don't see that it would be overly 'bookish' to say so, nor that to point this out would somehow demonstrate one is not employing one's imagination or intellect well enough.

And Christopher Tolkien characterizes this statement in Appendix A exactly as I did.

Hey Brego?Not to be rude but I disagree. I find Galin's post very interesting and thought provoking. I firmly stand on his side in this argument, meaning no disrespect to you of course, but in my life I have come to value intelligence and a love of studying things more than anything else. To me, a well written persuasive essay is of more value than all the Mithril in Moria.     (by the way, i like your choice of name. I am not very well informed of Brego himself other than being Aragorns steed in the movies, but I believe he was an Elvish King? Correct me if i am wrong.)

I'm happy that you agree Durin. Perhaps if you read and or understand my posts re Galin, you will see that I respect his and everyone's opinion regarding any issues. Galin's habit in taking it upon himself to critique other members opinions on their ideas and renderings of the written word verges on bullying. If he can dish it out, he should be able to take it. I don't like agueing about Tolkien. I simply enjoy commenting on the stories I love, without having every post picked apart, quoted and attacked. He, others and I have been warned by moderators about taking things too far and as above I don't intend to argue any more.

Galin's habit in taking it upon himself to critique other members opinions on their ideas and renderings of the written word verges on bullying.

I don't agree of course.

If he can dish it out, he should be able to take it.

Huh? Dish out? And 'dish out' what, civil conversation about Tolkien or his works? I invite it rather. But you can post as you like obviously, I don't mind anyway; it's just that I would rather chat about Tolkien in any case.

If you would simply stick to Dwarves and Wizards, for recent examples, none of this would be in the thread.

I'm sorry Galin. I didn't realise that you run this site. I was under the impression that you were a member, as I am.

For the record I have answered your questions. I don't need to constantly clarify my opinion because you seem to not understand the artistic, poetic side of Tolkien, only the language/anylitical side. That's fine. But I'll tell you now. Please don't bother picking at my comments or asking your dogmatic questions any more as I'm simply not interested.

You have been responsible for good member leaving this site. Members who felt bullied and belittled by your seemingly gigantic computer like interlect. I've kept in touch with some of these good people. I'm too old and have a thick skin so I won't be leaving.

Dear other members and moderators, I apologise for this outburst and for previous boring arguments. It certainly won't happen again.

I'm sorry Galin. I didn't realise that you run this site. I was under the impression that you were a member, as I am.

Just friendly advice Brego. If you want to chat about Tolkien why don't you do so instead of all this?  

For the record I have answered your questions. I don't need to constantly clarify my opinion because you seem to not understand the artistic, poetic side of Tolkien, only the language/anylitical side. That's fine. But I'll tell you now. Please don't bother picking at my comments or asking your dogmatic questions any more as I'm simply not interested.

I asked the question: where did you get the idea while reading (as you say) that female Dwarves were bearded? You didn't answer that, not that I can see anyway.

You have been responsible for good member leaving this site. Members who felt bullied and belittled by your seemingly gigantic computer like interlect. I've kept in touch with some of these good people. I'm too old and have a thick skin so I won't be leaving.

Disagreeing with someone and backing up my opinions with both text and civil commentary is not bullying and belittling people Brego, and if you or anyone else feel differently for some reason, I can't agree.

And I've never received a single PM about any such thing from a moderator, incidentally. And I've been posting here for years now.

Durin, Tolkien's Brego was the son of Eorl the Young.

JRRT invented so many names I can't recall at the moment if there's an Elvish King with a similar sounding name, but anyway, there's this Brego at least. 

I have also checked Tolkien experts Hammond and Scull's comments about the 'Blue Wizards' and Tolkien's letter, and they note that Tolkien seems to have forgotten about the designation when he wrote that he doubts the other two had distinctive colours.

Possible of course, and in any case I'm guessing that they might have mentioned a late reference to the Blue Wizards if they were aware of one (although admittedly, not necessarily).

Durin, thanks re my name, I actually did choose it because of the fictitious name of Price Eumund's horse from the movie. I love horses and thought that Brego was magnificent. Did you know that Vigo Mortensen bought him after the films completion and took him back to his ranch, I think in America somewhere. Lucky horse

Rho I'm sorry. I just don't know why this constantly seems to happen. I guess I don't like my buttons pushed. As I mentioned in this thread, I'm not here to argue and I regret cracking it. It won't happen again.

Ayup All...

Not been for a while, but I was disappointed with the Hobbit. It ws so close to being very good, but when PJ 'Left the Path' some of it was Awful. That, plus the Terrible Goblin King. Truly Awful. Loved the Bunnies though !

I didn't get around to fully responding to the earlier suggestion that the description of female Dwarves is possibly to be taken as more of a comment that the men of the period (who couldn't tell males from females) didn't know Dwarves well enough, and possibly didn't care enough.

Tolkien reveals that Appendix A, III, Durin's Line, is probably derived from Gimli, and moreover, the section about dwarf-women includes...

'It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance... '

And so on, as I already quoted, but finishing with...

'This has given rise to the foolish opinion among Men that there are no Dwarf-women, and that the Dwarves 'grow out of stone'

So the information that the female Dwarves look so amazingly much like the males (again from the perspective of other folk) is part of the reason for the foolish notions of Men.

Tolkien is essentially explaining how the wrong Mannish notions arose by explaining the real story, and in a general way connects a familiar character to this Appendix (even if 'probably' at this point), again noting him in the section on Dwarf-women, someone who could tell the reader things about Dwarves that could be relied upon (Gimli is also noted in this section as setting out the information that appears on the page showing the Line of the Dwarves of Erebor).

I also think that this notion is an imaginative one, and even somewhat bold, and it helps set apart this relatively secretive race in a notable way, along with other details.  

And I guess that helps answer your question too, Balrogs Smile Smilie

And on that note, would it be dwarven women? Or dwarf women? Or dwarvish women?

As here we have the attested form 'dwarf-women' at least, if not also some other way to write it, somewhere else.

Arwen wrote (first post in the thread): If there comes a real discussion which belongs in another topic, we just move it. (...) Enjoy Namarie, Arwen.

By the way Arwen, for myself I have no problem if you want to move the Dwarf-women and Blue Wizard chat to different threads. I haven't seen the film yet, so unfortunately I am a bit limited about that so far.

 

And with respect to (essentially) being told to 'grow up' or 'let it go' or similar (as has been posted here but deleted) I'll just add: adults debate and disagree, and as long as they do it in a civil manner, or even have a little fun with it which can calm things hopefully (if not taken in a way other than intended), there is nothing childish about it in my opinion.

Some even enjoy it. And no one here is forcing anyone to debate or answer any questions, but when someone posts one or three ideas to back up their statements those ideas are up for discussion too, even disagreement. Happens every day on the web.

I come here to post about Tolkien. I don't post in any games or engage in any fan fiction, and there's nothing wrong with these things obviously, I'm just not interested in them. Part of my participation here includes simply commenting on things, adding to a discussion, or yes, disagreeing with people at times.

Agreeing with others also gives me a chance to participate here of course, but to simply say 'I agree' all the times when I do, if I can't think of anything meaningful to add, could itself be a little boring.

Again Brego, i disagree. I don't think that Galin is a bully or anything even close to it. And as polite as i try to be I was shocked and somewhat put out by your comment about "I didn't realize you run this sight. i thought you were a member here such as I am." now there was no need for that. Galin, in Brego's defense I do agree that your post do tend to run on a bit, but there is nothing wrong with it. I propose that we all just drop the issue and put it behind us. We are all brothers and sisters here. Would you care to know the true reason i turned to this sight? Because here in America, at my school, I am constantly scorned and made fun of for reading Tolkien and also writing stories and such. On this sight i found that I am not the only one who enjoys Tolkien and that others out there like talking about it. And so it upsets me greatly to see any strife among us. Brego, you are a very intelligent and thoughtful member, Galin you are a studious and competent member. Both of you are influential to this sight. And think of the new members! if a new member comes on here and sees you biting each other's heads off, they will be less willing to spend time here. So please, own up to the fact that you are differing opinions and act like the men you are. Leave the bickering to the young and foolish.

Durin said:

(....)Leave the bickering to the young and foolish.

But I'm young! Or at least I consider myself as young.  But yes to the foolish. And I don't think I may say I'm foolish!

As Bilbo would say, Foolish is as Foolish Does! Lets all move on people's. I've said all I need to say te all the drama.

I have to say that I've seen the movie only once a d will go again to the Cinema before its released on disk. I'm looking at the first film as a set up for films 2 & 3. Hopefully these will be a little more, lets say lineal.

Bring on Beorn, Thranduil and the Spiders I say!

Yeay, I was just joking! Wink Smilie

I will be waiting for the DVD, unless I change my mind. But then again it's rare for me to go to the theater. My TV is large enough, and there aren't people kicking my chair, chatting too loudly during the film...

... or being even taller than I am in the seat ahead of me Wink Smilie

I also rarely go to movies. Last movie I saw was I think the last Terminator movie which was in like....2010.

I would say Hobbit is worth it for the cinematic experience. It's one of those movies that's, IMO, at a different level on a theater screen. It'll be the same movie on a big screen TV, but it just isn't quite the same. Not at all telling or saying you have to see it, but just a thought. There are quite a few other movies from the past I regret not seeing in theaters just for that cinematic experience. I think The Hobbit is one of those, though I would see it in 2D. And this is the first film to shoot in 48 fps, a historic moment for cinema indeed!

We also have a $1 theater near my house, so I'll undoubtedly be seeing it there. If the seats were comfortable enough I'd probably go every day, but I don't know how much of those I can handle...

I saw the first Narnia film at theaters... when was that? Nothing since though, unless I've forgotten one.

  << [1] [2] [3] >>