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

Thread: Thoughts on added material?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Thoughts on added material?   [1] [2] >>
There might be a SPOILER or two here, so if you haven't yet seen the film, read no further. Let me start off by saying that the acting, scenery, and special effects in the film are all top-notch and paint a beautiful picture of Middle-Earth and it's inhabitants. Any complaints are in no way related to the wonderful job that the actors and CGI-artists did. I did enjoy the film thoroughly for what it was. That said, I do take a bit of an issue with some of the story-telling - for those of us that know the book well, it is hard not to notice that A LOT has been added or changed by Peter Jackson and the writing team. Some of it I can understand, while some if it was unnecessary and completely baffled me. I can understand why they portrayed the White Council bit the way they did, since there were already so many flashback scenes already. It would have been annoying to see yet another one just to explain Saruman's intransigence and the discovery of an evil power in Dol Guldur (since Sauron's presence was discovered 90 years before the events of The Hobbit). But why on earth did they decide to insert Azog into the story? First of all, there are no orcs hunting the dwarves in the book nor in any of the Appendix material. Second, Azog is supposed to be long-dead by this time, killed by Thorin's more heroic and less greedy cousin Dain Ironfoot II. Third, the whole "revenge" sub-plot was totally unnecessary and basically only served to pad out the film by an extra 45 minutes (and including a chase scene involving a rabbit-drawn sled). I'm not totally against the revenge sub-plot; if Jackson had made Bolg the antagonist instead of his father Azog, it would have been more acceptable (since Bolg is actually in the book). It seems like Jackson needs to learn a bit of restraint - three 2-hour films would have been more than enough time to tell the full story without all the non-Tolkien embellishing. Anyway, as fans of Tolkien, what are your thoughts on all the made-up stuff included in the film?

I was very unhappy with some of these changes. The ones that immediately stood out to me were:

 

1) Azog. As soon as he was presented as being in this film I stopped taking it seriously, because as you stated, he's be dead a while, and I don't think zombies were ever featured in Tolkien's books haha.

2) The butchery of the history of the Dwarves. I was annoyed that Thror's death was depicted at the battle of azanulbizar. We both know his death was what caused the war of the dwarves and orcs and culminated in that battle (7?) years later.

3) Radagast discovering the evil in Mirkwood/White council not already knowing (or suspecting) that the necromancer was Sauron/Radagast's bunny driven sleigh saving the day against the zombie orc, Azog after sleighing all the way from Mirkwood to the Trollshaws to warn Gandalf in what was depicted as a VERY short trip....Geographical continuity bugs me.

4) The stone giant scene was ridiculous. Reminded me of Rock 'em Sock 'em robots and I literally laughed when I saw it.

I'm totally fine with all of the stuff that didn't appear in the book. For the first time in years, I'm reading The Hobbit through again and I must say that the events differ a lot from the movie, but like I said. It's all fine.

I'm not taking part in endless discussions about how the film could've been better. It's good the way it is and I'll gladly await for the other two movies.

But I must say that Radagast was awesome. He was just like good wizards should be. A bit crazy, carefree and full of strange ideas, but still able to handle tough situations.

I praise Peter Jackson for creating such good movies. Even all of his splatter styled movies are awesome.

To add something more, I think that all of those comedy/funny parts were a good extra to the overall experience. That's all.

I'm with Oerath on this one. I'd say the only change that really bothered me was the eunanimous one, aka Azog. All they had to do was make it Bolg instead. That's it. Just change the name in the script. The audience wouldn't know any better and the purists would've been way happier. It also baffles me.

Regardless, I freakin' loved it. Some of my favorite "little things" from the book aren't in the movie, but the way they captured certain scenes make up for anything that might've bothered me. Can't wait for number 2. If it's anything like the LOTR trilogy, it's set to just get better and better....as long as accuracy isn't your main appeal.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the hell out of the film, enough to see it 3 times. And bird-crap-on-the-face and rabbit-drawn sleds notwithstanding, I LIKED Radagast, and I totally support his role being expanded (so long as they keep it to a bare minimum).

 

Like I said, the White Council/Dol Guldur/Radagast stuff was totally not true to lore, but I liked it - 1. because it's cool to see Radagast on film, and 2. we need an introduction to the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur. It would have been pretty ridiculous if we got to the edge of the forest and all of a sudden Gandalf leaves with some vague explanation (like what happened in the book). Plus, the majority of the information regarding Gandalf's interest in dealing with Smaug would have come from Unfinished Tales, which Peter Jackson does not have film rights for. He would have been treading a slippery slope had he been too accurate there. So I'm fine with the way they handled that.

 

Most of the dwarves were awesome - Dwalin, Balin, Gloin, and even axe-in-the-head Bifur looked awesome. Bombur looked perfect. Thorin and, especially, Kili looked like freakin Dunedain Rangers, but I take it that PJ made Kili look that way because he was the youngest of the bunch and hadn't yet developed his dwarven features. I also liked the stone giants. Not at all what I pictured when reading the book, but a creative take on it. It DID look like rock 'em sock 'em robots though LOL.  

 

I do think that they used a bit too much CGI, especially with the orcs/goblins. Peter Jackson already established a certain visual aesthetic with the LOTR films, so he should have stuck with people in orc costumes instead of the totally fake-looking CGI-rendered orcs. And don't get me started on the goblins - they looked like something out of a Harry Potter film. But it was the Azog sub-plot that just took it over the line for me. If the film was shorter, it wouldn't have been such a big deal. But the film was almost 3 hours long, and a good half hour of that was stuff that had nothing to do with Tolkien's writing. I just don't see their point in adding that in when we would have gotten a much more accurate 2 hour-plus film without it.

 

Guess you can't please everybody all the time. It's still WAY better than the average crap out there, but it is nowhere near as good a trilogy opener as Fellowship of the Ring was. The PJ fan-fiction didn't quite ruin it, but it kept the film from being as great as it could have been.

Ugh. What did that so called "galadriel" think, telling Gandalf what to do... Who is the oldest of the two? She shouldn't even be allowed to tie his shoes...

From what I can recall, don't the istari come to Middle Earth with very little to no memory and have to start all over? Or something like that.

The Istari don't come into ME until the third age, whereas Galadriel has not only been in ME since the First Age but was born in Valinor. Also there isn't really an authority when it comes to the good guys, it's almost always....strong suggestions from a council of some sort. So I'm sure Gandalf wouldn't even think twice of doing something Galadriel said to do. In fact, he'd be a fool not to!

Oh and keep in mind there have been several elves who fought against Maiar or Vala and sort of won. Of course you have Isildur, a man, defeating Sauron. And I can't think of who it was (Maedros perhaps? I know it was an M name...), but he challenged Morgoth to single combat right outside of Angband. He very possibly would've won if Morgoth wasn't so evil and called out his minions to fight for him when he started losing.

So moral of the story is don't discredit the power of the elves!!

I think the 1984 cartoon is better. Adding content to someone else's universe really bugs me. We lost Star Wars to Disney, now we are losing Tolkien to franchise... Same thing is happening to The Elder Scrolls. I guess I'm just getting old

Yes, I always found it odd how easily Sauron and Morgoth always seemed to get their asses handed to them in single-combat, by supposedly lesser beings.

 

In any case, Tolkien made abundantly clear that Saruman was the chief of the White Council, but that Galadriel secretly wanted Gandalf to be the chief. What happened in the film was that half of the writing team are females who were a bit dismayed with the lack of female characters in the story, so they decided to portray Galadriel as more powerful than she was. This is also the reason they invented Evangeline Lilly's character "Tauriel". I'm not against the invention of Tauriel, just as long as she's not made into a crucial part of the story.

Honestly I didn't get the impression that Galadriel was made more powerful than she was. Maybe the whole disappering/teleportation was a little iffy, but she was pretty powerful. Of course in ME powerful is an extremely subjective term. One could argue Galadriel is over 10,000 years old, I think I read an estimate of almost 15,000. That's a long time. And considering elves are already enchanted, mystical creatures, and she had one of the rings of power, I wouldn't write her off so easily.

It's also possible she wasn't actually there. She undoubtedly has the power to tap into people's minds and I could've sworn I read somewhere that Galadriel has communicated with other elves long distance using telepathy. So maybe she just implanted herself in everybody's mind so she seemed real...

...at least that's what I tell myself at night.

Of course, Galadriel is one of the most powerful, maybe the most powerful Elves. But, Gandalf is a Maia, so he was alive before even the first Elves were sang about [is that ven a sentence? Hope so Smile Smilie]. And, Gandalf too has a ring of power...

The Istari, however, were deliberately given the flesh of men so that they would better understand the limitations of people. Gandalf the Istari was not the same as Olorin the Maiar (at least not Gandalf the Grey, although Gandalf the White may have been closer). Gandalf succeeded in his tasks because he worked with the free people of Middle Earth rather than trying to dominate them. As such he worked with the likes of Galadrial, Elrond, Thorin, Bilbo/Frodo, Aragorn, Theoden etc as their friend and mentor rather than their lord. He may have been more powerful than Galadrial, but he knew he needed her assistance. She was a queen, a high-born Noldor. They could be arrogant and impetuous. Olorin would have known that. He knew he would get more assistance from Galadrial by using a little humility and genuine friendship than by demands and power. The latter approach was Saruman's and look what happened to him.

Very interesting posts, everyone.

I loved Witch King and Dol Guldur parts. I was very curious after I saw the trailer and I was waiting to see how they will show this part.

I wasn't satisfied with making Azog main antagonist of the movie. I don't understand why there has to be a fake enemy, under a wrong name, with wrong identity just because it's too early to meet Smaug. I didn't like how they messed up the story.

I loved Radagast, but since I have the same name (not first name though of course) as him I may be biased. maybe the scene when he smokes pot was too much of childish and silly humour, but the rest was fine in my opinion. I understand why the made him discover Necromancer.

Indalas, I think you give the Maia too much credit and the elves not enough. I confirmed it was actually Fingolfin who fought Morgoth. Morgoth being a Vala, Fingolfin being an elf. Fingolfin basically won. Thus, an elf defeats a god. That of course is assuming it would come down to hand to hand combat. However, that's not how either Gandalf or Galadriel worked.

Firstly, do not forget Saruman and our dear friend Wormtongue. All it took was a knife to the neck from behind and a mortal man had defeated one of the most powerful Maia Middle Earth had known. Not through brute strength, but through cunning. Galadriel was smart enough that, HYPOTHETICALLY WERE THEY ENEMIES, she would never have put herself in a position of face to face combat with a wizard. And when it comes to the whole "who came first" thing, while Olorin the Maia had been in the Undying Lands since, arguably, the beginning of time, Gandalf had not been in ME half as long as Galadriel. It's not like they had TV in Valinor and all the Maia sat around watching breaking news from ME, ya know? I would trust her opinion over Gandalf's almost any day of the week. What if somebody from Russia came to America and started telling everyone what to do because they read a US history book? No good.

Also telepathy is quite a power, one that Gandalf did not have. We only see her using it for good guy communication, but I do not doubt for a second that should it come down to it, she could invade your mind with disturbing thoughts of fear and confusion, possibly even control you completely. In that split moment all she has to do is grab a bow and shoot an arrow. And yes I assume all elves were master marksmen :p

The "authoritarian" complex of power you refer to, as in how dare she tell him what to do, is what turned Saruman into a villain. It was because he stopped listening and started giving orders that he turned to the dark side. It really doesn't work that way in this world. The only people who give orders are the villains. Even King Thingol would always consult or be swayed by Melian. Thus, even if Galadriel DID give an "order," Gandalf wouldn't think of it as an order, but rather a good suggestion. If he thought he had a better solution, he would say so.

But like I said, I did not even get this impression at all. Galadriel told Gandalf what she knew to be truth because he didn't know. I do believe Galadriel had infinitely more knowledge of how ME worked than Gandalf, just because she's been through it all, whereas he's just heard it all before. For example, Gandalf had to do a bit of research into the ring that Frodo acquired from Bilbo. Had Galadriel been there, I'd be willing to bet instead of riding to ancient libraries for hours of research, she would've instantly said "throw it in the fire and see what happens." Does any of this make sense lol?

 

Edit: Sorry for the long post. I get so carried away when talking hypothetically about Middle Earth, I can't help it!!

Loving loving loving the restart of historical discussion thanks to this new film. Seeing it tomorow so ill wait till then to return and post.

Regarding Galadrial she is the most powerful child of illuvatar on Earth. We need to remember that its not only her age which gives her power. She was taught lore and possibly leant power, by Melian in the ancient days, when the Sun and the Moon were young and she lived in the light of The Two Trees in the Lands Undying. Tolkien himself mentions that when she unveiled her power, the walls of Gol Dulgur were shaken.

Chat soon.

Indalas, I think you give the Maia too much credit and the elves not enough. I confirmed it was actually Fingolfin who fought Morgoth. Morgoth being a Vala, Fingolfin being an elf. Fingolfin basically won. Thus, an elf defeats a god...

Yes, but (and I know I'm "wrong" here) that's exactly what I don't like. But of course, Tolkien wrote it that way..

...And when it comes to the whole "who came first" thing, while Olorin the Maia had been in the Undying Lands since, arguably, the beginning of time, Gandalf had not been in ME half as long as Galadriel...

Why arguably? I am quiet sure in the "Ainulindalë" it says the Ainur were there from the beginning of time...

...It's not like they had TV in Valinor and all the Maia sat around watching breaking news from ME, ya know? I would trust her opinion over Gandalf's almost any day of the week. What if somebody from Russia came to America and started telling everyone what to do because they read a US history book? No good...

Firstly, I don't like comparing Arda and the real world. That's just an opinion though.

Secondly, I wouldn't trust Galadriel over Gandalf. But again, these are just opinions.

...Also telepathy is quite a power, one that Gandalf did not have...

Did not use*. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall writing about the powers of the average Maia. And, mybe Gandalf could use magic to do something like telepathy?

...The "authoritarian" complex of power you refer to, as in how dare she tell him what to do, is what turned Saruman into a villain. It was because he stopped listening and started giving orders that he turned to the dark side. It really doesn't work that way in this world. The only people who give orders are the villains...

Ah! The first time I can honestly say you're wrong. For an example (actually, the only one I can think of) the Dwarven Kings. You can say they were stupid, stubborn and things like that, but they weren't villains/evil. And they sure gave orders.

...But like I said, I did not even get this impression at all. Galadriel told Gandalf what she knew to be truth because he didn't know. I do believe Galadriel had infinitely more knowledge of how ME worked than Gandalf, just because she's been through it all, whereas he's just heard it all before. For example, Gandalf had to do a bit of research into the ring that Frodo acquired from Bilbo. Had Galadriel been there, I'd be willing to bet instead of riding to ancient libraries for hours of research, she would've instantly said "throw it in the fire and see what happens." Does any of this make sense lol?...

Hadn't the ring already fallen in the fire? Galadriel would have known it was The One Ring though, I think. But Gandalf was pretty sure about that too, he just wanted to check it, because a mistake could cost quiet a bit of lives. And yes, you make a lot of sense, I just disagree .

 

And this also is a very long post! And Balrogs, I'm not trying to be rude or anything like that Smile Smilie

Balrogs, Indalas,  I love your discussion. Really intriguing. Keep talking, please Wink Smilie

Secondly, I wouldn't trust Galadriel over Gandalf. But again, these are just opinions.

I agree with you completely, Indalas. But I'm not Gandalf, I'm not Istari so I would have to trust my instincts. I believe that his wisdom is also the reason why he makes good choices, he somehow knows who to trust. He is aware of the others, their fears, weaknesses, their strengths.

And I believe his humility has a great impact on his behaviour. He's certainly aware of his own limits, he knows his task can be only fulfilled with the help of those, who live in Middle Earth. I would pick Galadriel if I were him, considering her power and knowledge, and his gift of empathy and intuition. Also - we shouldn't forget about his power to foresee.

One last thing - both of them are Ring bearers, I can see how their fates are tied together. They are basically following each other's tracks somehow. If you know what I mean.

You do not come off as rude friend. But to be completely honest I don't even know where to go from here. Lol mostly because I'm not sure if the question has become who would win in a fight? Or why should Gandalf take orders from Galadriel? But I'll do my best...

Keep in mind a lot of the reason Fingolfin was able to wound Morgoth was his resolve, not his strength. Morgoth was arrogant, Fingolfin was confident. And out for justice. And those traits can go a loooong way in a fight.

"Why arguably? I am quiet sure in the "Ainulindalë" it says the Ainur were there from the beginning of time..."

You know I have no idea! I'm pretty sure I was originally getting at another point and forgot to take that part out when I moved the sentence around. My bad!!

"Secondly, I wouldn't trust Galadriel over Gandalf. But again, these are just opinions."

Hm, do not mistake "trust" for "trust  an opinion." Gandalf was not all knowing, particularly when it came to Middle Earth. Galadriel undoubtedly had a much greater knowledge of the land, history, peoples, and philosophies of Middle Earth. Emphasis on history. Gandalf knew all he did by asking questions from people like Galadriel. Thus, if I had a problem that concerned an object and its history in ME and how it could be where it is, I would go to Galadriel first. If I wanted to know more about the history of the Maia and they're initial creation, I'd ask Gandalf first. Even though Galadriel has read the Silmarillion and HOME dozens of times.

Indis' second paragraph is a great way of putting it. Gandalf's strongest power was getting the help of others. He'd be a fool to not seek it from Galadriel. If she offered her advice Gandalf would not mistake it for an order, but as progress in the journey.

"Did not use*. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall writing about the powers of the average Maia. And, mybe Gandalf could use magic to do something like telepathy?"

Now that's just a little unfair in my opinion. I guess this goes to the whole "who would win in a fight" question. Yes, Gandalf is a "powerful" wizard. But in the same sense of how the three rings of power aren't really rings of power. We don't have a lot about the "average" powers of an elf either, and as Brego mentioned, we do have an example of Galadriel's full power, which supposedly caused a minor earthquake. It's also said her ring of power specifically contained the light of Arda, and it could sometimes only be seen as a bright light in her hand. So MAYBE she had the same ability as Gandalf to create those blinding lights of power. Maybe she could call upon ME to bring a thunderstorm and strike Gandalf with lightning. However we know FOR SURE she has telepathy and that apparently she CAN tap into Gandalf's mind. BUT, bottom line, if they were to fight, meaning if they were enemies, Galadriel would never put herself in a position to just face Gandalf. She would make him come to her, probably in some dark forest cave somewhere, and confuse him momentarily to get a finishing blow. If it came down to the two of them being in an open field, I still think Galadriel would have more than a few tricks up her sleeve, but Gandalf would probably come out on top. I wouldn't write it off as easy as wizard beating elf though.

Of course this is all terrible to think about and would NEVER happen, but, hey....

"Hadn't the ring already fallen in the fire? Galadriel would have known it was The One Ring though, I think. But Gandalf was pretty sure about that too, he just wanted to check it, because a mistake could cost quiet a bit of lives. And yes, you make a lot of sense, I just disagree"

Again I'm sorry but what exactly is it that you disagree with? Her having more knowledge of ME? The part about her giving orders or the part about her potentially winning in a fight?

I agree with you about the dwarves though....to an extent :p  Dwarves do not share the same....standards as us. Like you said, they are known for their stubborness and are extremely mistrustful. It's a negative trait they inherited from their early creation. Also dwarves did hate elves for awhile (still don't like 'em) and are very, very mistrustful of humans. There are also evil dwarves out there. So you're definitely right they're not villains, buuut they're not really good guys either. Elves/Men/Orcs are all from the same pool of Illuvatar, the dwarves are always the exception :p

I'll just add that Gandalf has the power of thought transference, as does Galadriel, and it should not be thought (not that anyone thinks so) that Galadriel can simply read Gandalf's mind at her will.

Tolkien actually wrote an interesting essay on the subject, which was published in an issue of Vinyar Tengwar. Part of it goes...

Pengolodh says that all minds (sáma, pl. sámar) are equal in status, though they differ in capacity and strength. A mind by its nature perceives another mind directly. But it cannot perceive more than the existence of another mind (as something other than itself, though of the same order) except by the will of both parties (Note 1). The degree of will, however, need not be the same in both parties. If we call one mind G (for guest or comer) and the other H (for host or receiver), then G must have full intention to inspect H or to inform it. But knowledge may be gained or imparted by G, even when H is not seeking or intending to impart or to learn: the act of G will be effective, if H is simply open (láta, látie openness). This distinction, he says, is of the greatest importance. Openness is the natural or simple state (indo) of a mind that is not otherwise engaged (...)

A closed mind will not allow another's thoughts to enter...

(...) These causes may strengthen the thought to pass the veils and reach a recipient mind. But that mind must remain open, and at the least passive. If, being aware that it is addressed, it then closes, no urgency or affinity will enable the sender's thought to enter.

Even Melkor could not force a mind to open to him...

There is indeed no axan that the barrier should not be forced, for it is únat, a thing impossible to be or to be done, and the greater the force exerted, the greater the resistance of the unwill. But it is an axan universal that none shall directly by force or indirectly by fraud take from another what he has a right to hold and keep as his own.
 

Melkor repudiated all axani. He would also abolish (for himself) all únati if he could. Indeed in his beginning and the days of his great might the most ruinous of his violences came from his endeavour so to order Ea that there were no limits or obstacles to his will. But this he could not do. The únati remained, a perpetual reminder of the existence of Eru and His invincibility, a reminder also of the co-existence with himself of other beings (equal in descent if not in power) impregnable by force. From this proceeds his unceasing and unappeasable rage.

But obviously willing minds could engage in this sort of communication... but it might be added that in Incarnates language was held to be clearer and more precise than thought reception. 

Lastly, tengwesta has also become an impediment. It is in Incarnates clearer and more precise than their direct reception of thought. By it also they can communicate easily with others, when no strength is added to their thought: as, for example, when strangers first meet. And, as we have seen, the use of language soon becomes habitual, so that the practice of ósanwe (interchange of thought) is neglected and becomes more difficult...


All citations from Osanwe-Kenta, Enquiry into the Communication of Thought, by JRR Tolkien.

Very, very interesting Galin. I will have to look into this whole essay sometime. And out of curiosity where do we have a reference that Gandalf also has the ability of thought transference?

Question, do you know of any essays or quotes that refer to the more abnormal abilities of elves? Something that perhaps a powerful elf could use against a maia? Or what are your thoughts on Fingolfin being able to wound Morgoth?

And out of curiosity where do we have a reference that Gandalf also has the ability of thought transference?

I can't think of a direct statement, but I would assume this nonetheless, since Gandalf is an incarnate Maia. Also, it seems (to me) clearly enough implied that Gandalf takes part in this type of communication in the chapter Many Partings.

Question, do you know of any essays or quotes that refer to the more abnormal abilities of elves?

Yes Smile Smilie

Or what are your thoughts on Fingolfin being able to wound Morgoth?

Sam defeated Shelob. Pippin a Troll. Ecthelion a Balrog. Beren and Luthien wrested a Silmaril from Morgoth's crown. Eowyn (and Merry) took out the Lord of the Nazgul.

Finwe Nolofinwe, especially in the mood he was in, wounding Morgoth doesn't seem too far fetched to me, if that's what you mean.

Do we have other examples of maiar using telepathy? Or is it purely speculation? I mean it makes sense but...

Where can I find these writings? I'd be interested in reading them...

And I didn't really "mean" anything by that question. I just thought it was interesting that that was an aspect Indalas didn't like and wanted to hear your thoughts on it. I think it fits nicely into the whole Tolkien theme, especially in pretty much all those instances mentioned, where it emphasizes determination over strength or ability.

Interesting stuff though....

Having just seen the film I was left thinking that only Gandalf and Elrond were physically in Imladris and that Galadrial and Saruman were actually there in Mind and or spirit alone. This of course is only what I felt whilst viewing.

The only written segment I can remember from Tolkien regarding telepathy is in TROTK during Manny Partings were I think Frodo sees the Senior Elves with Mithradir sitting silently in thought. From memory Tolkien tells us that like the Valar, some Elves have the power to commune with mind alone.

I find this all very interesting as obviously PJ does..

Do we have other examples of maiar using telepathy? Or is it purely speculation? I mean it makes sense but...

We have the opening of Osanwe-Kenta (I added the paragraph break), in which the Maiar are generally included:

'At the end of the Lammas Pengolodh discusses briefly direct thought-transmission [sanwe-latya 'thought-opening'], making several assertions about it, which are evidently dependent upon theories and observations of the Eldar elsewhere treated at length by Elvish loremasters.'

'They are concerned primarily with the Eldar and the Valar (including the lesser Maiar of the same order). Men are not specially concerned, except in so far as they are included in general statements about the Incarnates (Mirroanwi). Of them Pengolodh says only: 'Men have the same faculty as the Quendi, but it is in itself weaker, and is weaker in operation owing to the strength of the hroa, over which most men have small control by the will.'

The Incarnates have hroar of course, and the perception is dimmed by the hroa, which roughly translates as 'body'. Gandalf, I assume, would have found this communication different once he became an incarnate Istar (compared to instances when Olorin was not arrayed in a body), but this was not a full impediment...

'The dimming is indeed double; for the thought has to pass one mantle of hroa and penetrate another. For this reason in Incarnates transmission of thought requires strengthening to be affective.'

Plus Gandalf could speak Wink Smilie

Anyway, the essay is published in Vinyar Tengwar 39, July 1998.

Interesting...

I wonder if it's possible to "strengthen" these abilities. Crude analogy, but like a Jedi with the Force. You have a basic grasp early on, but through years of meditation and training you understand these energies more, thus making you more "powerful." I'd say Galadriel has had more experience of telepathic communication, particularly in ME, so I wonder if that would factor in at all.

What about the elves though? We all know Maia are powerful, I'd like to know more about inherent elven abilities.

Strengthening is also revealed in Tolkien's Osanwe-Kenta essay.

My quotes have to stop somewhere so I didn't go into that aspect Smile Smilie 

But this way you can be more surprised if you buy VT 39.

I suppose another example of this is Sauron's ability to add power to all of his rings of power, so that he knew ( while wearing his ring ) and in some ways controlled the thoughts and actions of those wearing the other rings. I think this is related to the Telepathy of the Valar, Maia and Elves. The Elves of course, as we all know, knew or felt Sauron as soon as he put his ring on and that they had been fooled. Was it the power of their rings, or was it the telepathy which alerted them to the plan of Sauron to corrupt and control from afar?

Where to begin...? Ah, I know!

 

Concerning Azog....

 

i thought he looked a bit none-orcish, if you know what i mean.

he just was a bit too tall and his face looked...strange.

Though i felt the same about the orc king.

They just look so weird being so tall.

And that tiny wee orc who seemed to be a messenger? The one the king sends away after catching the dwarves? i laughed when i spotted him because he looked so tiny and not dangerous at all. And that being said by a hobbit lass!

 

But i can very well live with these strange orcs. They are strange but i'll just get used to their looks.

 

Now to the best moment: bunny sleigh!!!!! i want one too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am now convinced that Radagast is Santa! Who else rides a sleigh like that?

Absolutely loved it!

As for distances crossed with that sleigh and the time between places - i just think there are time frames that pass that we don't really notice, so all is well.

 

i loved that we got to see the whole part of how Smaug came to Erebor and how the distrust between elves and dwarves sparked from the moment where the elves could have helped but refused to. i was so mad and sad! That moment when Thorin looked to the elven king with this disappointment in his eyes? i just wanted to run up to Thorin and offer him a cookie and a hug.

 

i was a bit confused by the Necromancer scenes. i somehow figured it should have been known to the Council what was going on but i thought maybe this is already Saruman trying to shroud things?

 

Either way, i loved all the editional scenes and i think they work really well and i can't wait for what else might be on the dvd. From what cast members tell in interviews, i get a feeling we're in for some more treats... Let's see.

^^^ This.

Yes Lilia. I noticed the little Goblin in the flying fox! He had weird shrunken legs. ^^^ Mountains Balrogs?

Sorry Brego, ^^^^ actually meant arrows referencing the post above mine :p

I suppose mountains are always appropriate on a Tolkien forum though...

Right, Brego, goblin, not orc. I keep mixing those up, I somehow feel they are one and the same. I know they're not exactly but they all are mean and ugly, so... hehehehe.

 

But what surprises me is that such a tiny goblin could make it in the horde. That no one tries to eat him or whatever it is they do to each other. He must be quite important to the king if no one eats him, right? Just my thought.

Lilia I suppose that the Orcs and or Goblins are as varied and diverse as any of the other breeds and races of Niddle Earth. Variety is a natural part of nature and there's no reason that there would be different kinds and sizes of the Evil characters if ME as anyone else.

I just saw The Hobbit again, this time in 2d and found it much more enjoyable.

Did anyone else notice that when The Great Gobblin laughed, it sounded just like Dame Edna Everidge!? Love Barry Humphrey's "that'll do it" indeed.

(...) goblin, not orc. I keep mixing those up, I somehow feel they are one and the same. I know they're not exactly but they all are mean and ugly, so... hehehehe.

You were fine with orc in any case Lilia, as orcs and goblins are exactly the same thing.

Your feeling was correct Smile Smilie

What's interesting is in the movie PJ makes a clear distinction of the two. The goblins are tiny and have pointed noses and all that, basically those who live in the misty mountains under the rule of the Goblin King; whereas, "orcs" are the orcs we know and love from the LOTR movies.

In Tolkien's world they are seemingly the same thing, but in PJs world goblins are smaller. Kind of like in Moria from FoTR, that seemed to be a mix of goblins and orcs. Another distinction he made I think to appeal to more audiences instead of confuse the hell out of them.

Agreed Brego. I liked it a lot more the second time and in 2D. Not sure if it was because it was in 2D, and I sill loved it the first time in 3D, but it just seemed more....."welcoming" in 2D....if that makes sense.

To both avoid confusion in the films and keep in line with Tolkien's world, Jackson could have stuck with Orc for both sets of films, for example.

Well, he could have Wink Smilie

I think PJ has split Orc kind into manageable types or kinds for the films.

It seems that the Goblins are always inside caves and mountains and do indeed seem smaller and paler.  Perhaps as they never come outside.  His Orcs seem to mostly be covered up by armor and can manage to move around outside, so far mostly seen in TLOTR films and in the start of AUJ and of course along with Azog chasing the Company. 

I actually like how he distinguishes between the two. I think it makes sense theres sort of a "lesser" orc out there. After all there are "greater" orcs. But damn that would have been a really tough decision to make for the writers. I think going with both makes the most sense, appeals to fans of The Hobbit who know and love Goblin but also to those who haven't read any of the books but liked the movies. Or just know what an orc is.

i was enjoying it to the max , little changes here and there are what you expect. and then the troll scene happened and it went down hill, once they were in the Goblin caves it picked up again.

My girlfriend who has not read the books and isn't into the genre said the same thing. why mess with perfection.

we both thought the over all quality of the film was poor , like something from the 80s. I gave it 7/10 she gave it 5/10.

at least Billy connolly is in it

I actually like how he distinguishes between the two. I think it makes sense theres sort of a "lesser" orc out there. After all there are "greater" orcs.

Oh I agree that much makes sense. And we could call lesser Orcs... lesser Orcs Smile Smilie

For an actual distinction in Tolkien's world (and Peter Jackson had the right to use both these terms if he wanted to), one could use uruk 'great soldier goblin' in contrast to snaga...

The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-Hai, snaga 'slave'.

Appendix F

Or again one could just call them all Orcs. I call large dogs and small dogs... dogs Wink Smilie

But would you call a cat a dog too?

And call me crazy but the "Lesser Orc" King doesn't sound nearly as appealing as Goblin King.

But would you call a cat a dog too?

Well I don't think a cat is a lesser dog. You said it makes sense that there are lesser orcs if there are greater orcs. It makes sense in Tolkien's world too that they are all orcs (dogs in the comparison) ... or if you like the English word better... they are all goblins (still dogs, not cats).

And call me crazy but the "Lesser Orc" King doesn't sound nearly as appealing as Goblin King.

Oh I agree... but that reminds me: is Jackson's 'Goblin King' notably small compared to Jackson's Orcs? Or is he an Orc who is king of Jackson's goblins? Or just a really big Jacksonian goblin maybe.

Wink Smilie

Dude, you gotta see the movie before you comment. They are two very distinct looking creatures (cats in the comparison). They even sound different. All I'm saying is it makes sense to distinguish between the two in the movie.

And he's a really big creature that looks more like a bull frog. Fitting neither traditional orc nor goblin descriptions. Which really gives more reason to show a different looking type of orc to help explain why he's called the Goblin King and not the Orc King.

I don't think I need to see the film to comment about this Balrogs, as I am talking about Tolkien's world when I say that goblins and orcs are 'all dogs', while aware that Jackson has seemingly created 'cats and dogs'.

And when you say it makes sense to distinguish them in the film, I can certainly see why you say so. But I assume you might also agree with at least this much: that different kinds of dogs also makes sense.

I'll add that considering the confusion among Tolkien readers, it's hard to blame Peter Jackson for making his film world consist of cats and dogs, even if he thinks it is so, or believes Tolkien never explained the matter. 

Or to put it another way, I am not jumping all over the filmmakers for this choice. I do think it will add to the existing confusion when discussing this matter in the context of Tolkien's world, but again, considering that discussion already... 

And with respect to the confusion in Tolkien circles, stripped down at least, in my opinion the matter is simple enough and makes perfect sense. The ultimate explanation is even elegant I think, making the relationship comparable to Quendi and 'Elves' for instance, to my mind making all textual examples secondary to JRRT's note in the third edition of The Hobbit.

At least I have yet to see someone suggest that, within Tolkien's world, 'Elves' are lesser, smaller versions of Quendi!

Wink Smilie

Yes it is very clear what you think. However the title of the thread = "Thoughts on Added Material" in the film. Not "Comparison of movies and books." And yes, they are very distinct topics we should not muddle together. We are not talking about Tolkien's world, we are talking about PJs world in reference to Tolkien's. Thus, it makes sense to distinguish between the two. The goblin/orc thing is a worn out argument you probably have memorized and this is not what that's about.

And really you shouldn't be playing devil's advocate towards anything in this thread until you know for sure what you're talking about. Feel free to start a new thread about this very topic, it would probably generate a lot of interest.

Cats =/= dogs just because they walk on four legs, have fur and a tail. In any case, there are tons of different class of dog. So if you insist on sticking with a dog analogy, then these goblins are part of the Toy group while your orcs are part of the Hunting group. Very distinct. They can't even be shown together in dog shows. Happy? See the movie, then I'll take your opinion seriously. Though after all this I'm sure you'll just be looking for reasons as to why they should be called "lesser orcs" and not goblins.

This is hopeless at this point so it'll be my last attempt at helping you understand (in large part because this drawn out argument is probably warding off other's from posting). Your elf analogy is completely ridiculous and proves you're still missing the point entirely. And just fyi, it's comments like this one which make you come off as a massive purist. If you still can't figure out why, then don't worry about it. You certainly seem old enough to know how to move on if you can't accept someone else's thoughts towards you.

Looking at this thread Balrogs, when I posted about Osanwe-kenta, you responded with questions that were seemingly looking for more information about Tolkien's world. And in any case Lilia and Brego brought up the orc versus goblin point with respect to the books, so I see nothing wrong with commenting on it here. And you engaged with my post above at least, with your...

But would you call a cat a dog too?

And I responded and so on. And actually I thought you were having a bit of fun with the cats and dogs thing. Perhaps not, but again it's sometimes hard to tell in this medium.

Also my Elf example is not ridiculous within the context of my post. If you don't want to talk about the orc versus goblin matter that's fine of course, but I don't see a reason to call my illustration ridiculous because you think I am missing some other point.

I just posted: 'And when you say it makes sense to distinguish them in the film, I can certainly see why you say so.'

And just fyi, it's comments like this one which make you come off as a massive purist. If you still can't figure out why, then don't worry about it. You certainly seem old enough to know how to move on if you can't accept someone else's thoughts towards you.

I simply asked what you meant by the term purist. I didn't accept the definition of 'purist' that I pointed out, as it's just not true that I:  '... adamantly detest the Peter Jackson-directed trilogy for deviating even in minor detail from the original text.'

But that wasn't your definition anyway, unless you agree with it.

Moreover I noted that I'm not jumping on Jackson about this, so I'm not sure why my comment about 'Elves' and Quendi to try to illustrate the relationship between 'goblin' and Orc should be seen as a purist comment necessarily.

I havent made my mind up yet about the extra material. In one respect it is good because let's face it the unfinished tales and appendices are never going to get made into films so it does allow for a bit more tolkien on the big screen...however....it does take away from a quite simple, children's adventure story to go kill a dragon so im torn on the issue. I hated the white council scene, it was boring and slow and not at all relevant to the plot, christopher lee seemed to have a cgi face for some reason too that looked awful. Such a shame that jackson is using more cgi...azog would have looked so much better as a person in prosthetics. I cant remember were all the orcs and goblins cgi? Is this something to expect for the next two?

I remember discussing the goblins/orcs issue on some Polish website a few weeks ago and I needed to do some research myself. I don't know why, I thought goblins are earlier forms of... well... creatures, and they aren't related to orcs. But as I was reading about it, I came to conclusion, that they are orcs too. Plus thinking "goblins" would be earlier species doesn't make much sense, since since first orcs were created by torturing first Elves, and there's no room from goblins being earlier than that. So I believe that goblins are "specialized" orcs. I guess it's like ponies and horses. (and now I'm thinking if I don't make a huge mistake right now due to my little knowledge about biological systematics Wink Smilie)

Galin, what happened to the post you wrote after mine in this thread?

  [1] [2] >>