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]

Sorry Indis. My post (about orc versus goblin) was long and I was unhappy with the clarity so I deleted it and planned to post a shorter (and hopefully better) version back into this thread. I could have just edited it here but it was going to be such a notable revision I just decided to start from scratch...  

... but then I got distracted at another Tolkien forum! Apologies. The distraction concerned the name Celeborn and I couldn't resist!

No problem, I just thought it was a very interesting post! Too bad that Celebron had to interrupt you Smile Smilie

Back to the topic though... I'm wondering what else can be added to this part of The Hobbit, to make an extended version. There's a lot of additions already, and some scenes seem to be prolonged just for the sake of making the movie longer. I don't think I'd find something to add to it. What do you think? Was there anything you found missing?

Wow I typed out a hefty reply and the page reloaded so I lost it all, same with the Tolkien v Jackson thread. Shame. So I saw it again, 3rd time, and I loved it just as much. I would definitely recommend 2D over 3D though. You get to experience the movie more. With 3D you experience the visuals more. But only the visuals right in front of you, otherwise the backgrounds are kind of blurry and you'll be judging the 3D more than watching the movie. Not sure if 3D is different for people with different eye sights, but I have 20/20 vision, and the backgrounds with lots going on were blurry, no question about it. The only scene I found worthwhile in 3D was the last view of Rivendell. It was a still shot. But wow. Unrivaled. I also didn't notice much of a difference with the 48 fps, not sure what the big deal is there. It looked just like the LOTR movies (you can definitely tell it was PJ).

I think it makes sense to distinguish between the two types of orc, not even sure what that was about.

As for extended scenes, one I would like to see is Bilbo preparing to leave. They show him finding the note and then running out the door. No frantic gathering of his random supplies or discovering the mess left behind or emphasis on his on the spot decision. There was a whole segment inbetween what they ended up showing. Personally I think audiences would have loved and related to it, but oh well. They could also show a bit more of the beginning parts of Riddles In the Dark, before he see's Gollum. Also maybe another scene or two inside of Rivendell. Otherwise it was fairly accurate to the point they did a good job covering what WAS in the book, so I'm not sure where they could extend it much, though I'm sure they have some ideas for the added material too (like Radagast's scenes). Like FOTR which only had maybe 4 extended scenes, as opposed to the 9 or 10 in TT.

And I loved Cate Blanchett. Best acting in the movie. I've always like Galadriel and she conveys the character exactly as I did in my readings of her. Mysterious and powerful, loving but firm, understanding but wary. However I found out Ian Mckellan doesn't know much about Tolkien or the character he plays, which sort of put a damper on his performance. I feel like he should at least known what Gandalf was known as in The Undying Lands (Olorin), not like it's some hidden fact. 15 minutes of research would've shown this....though it is still a spot on Gandalf performance. To be fair he could've researched it so much he forgot little things that didn't concern The Hobbit/LOTR. But, I dunno..

Anyways, I highly recommend it. It is definitely more accurate than FOTR (not saying much) And I don't mind the Stone Giant scene. In fact, I enjoy it. I of course agree the fall was ridiculous, but it's SOMEWHAT possible (1% chance) considering there was so many, thus I'll let it slide in the movie. I've seen worse. But I thought the frantic scene itself was enough to make up for that 2 second scene. Can't wait to see it on BluRay.

I'm with you most of the way Balrogs, accept in regards to Sir Ian. I love the way he plays Gandalf and think its quiet deliberate that he underplays, lets say, the Maia in Gandalf.

Would love to have seen more of Imladris as well. I truly love the design of the Last Homely House. Just glorious and this time strong and guarded. Would have been nice to have met the twins tho, but you can't have everything.

Absolutely agreed Brego. I think you might have missed when I said...

"However I found out Ian Mckellan doesn't know much about Tolkien or the character he plays, which sort of put a damper on his performance........though it is still a spot on Gandalf performance."

So he plays an awesome Gandalf, he just doesn't know much about him. Which I suppose I understand but I can't help but be a little disappointed by. I'd just think playing the same character for a cumulative 3-7 years he'd at least know some trivial stuff, but he admitted he really didn't. Though it does prove he is quite literally the NATURAL choice to play Gandalf, because even though he doesn't actually know Gandalf, he clearly knows how Gandalf thinks.

Well I know via making of's and his blog The Grey Pilgrim that he has studied Tolkien. Perhaps he wanted the character when viewed over all six films (when finished) to appear to grown into the Maia we fans know and love ie/ Olorin, the greatest friend to The Children Of Illuvatar ever of the Maia. Well have to wait and see. However I see your point that perhaps he could have been slightly more, lets say obvious in his scenes regarding The White Council.

I didn't like the white council scene that much. Putting the scene in was a good idea in my opinion. It gave more background information about the later events of the story. I didn't really like how Sauruman was protrayed in that scene. To me it seemed that he wasn't "in character" with the Sauruman of the books nor of the LOTR movies.

 

As for goblins and orcs, I always thought that there was many breeds of orcs. Goblins and uri-kais are a specific type of orc. I remember reading somewhere that the uri-kais don't call themselves orcs. So I guess instead of comparing it to cats and dogs, a better comparison would be wolves and dogs.

There are different types of orcs Glorfindel, yes, but I don't think a goblin is a breed of orc however. 

Uruk-hai actually means 'Orc-folk' (or 'Goblin-folk' in full English) and in The Lord of the Rings (the books) Saruman's Uruk-hai are at one point referred to as 'goblin soldiers'.

Also in the books both Grishnákh and Azog are referred to with both terms at different points in the narrative (meaning Azog is called both an orc and a goblin for example), because there is no difference between these terms. Or also note that the goblins of Bilbo's adventure in the Misty Mountains are generally referred to as Orcs in The Lord of the Rings.

Actually, while doing some research (in order to repost the deleted post Indis noted) I learned some interesting things about orc and goblin 'through the years', but I'm still working on that.

Anyway Tolkien does invent words to make his distinctions (while goblin is a modern English word of course, and as such could not have been spoken back in Frodo's day): uruk versus snaga

Uruk 'goblin'...

... but in usage we have the word uruk taking on the meaning 'great soldier goblin' as opposed to the term snaga 'slave' used for lesser goblins.

One theory I heard is that goblin is just a word for orc in hobbits' language.

Indis to answer your question about bonus scenes for the extended movie, this is what I predict:

 1. Bilbo at Rivendell seeing the shards of Narsil. That was on the trailer and not in the movie. (unless I missed that part)

2. Longer fight scene in Moria

 

On a different note, I think the prologue for the Desolation of Smaug will be Gandalf's meeting of Thrain in Dol Guldur. We will just have to wait and see.

One theory I heard is that goblin is just a word for orc in hobbits' language.

That's a popular theory actually, but the Hobbits said the word orc rather. Tolkien's story takes place well before the language we call English arose in the world, so 'goblin' cannot be anything other than a word used by the modern translator (JRRT himself).

The theory is possible if English 'goblin' translates a word that only the Hobbits used for these creatures, but Tolkien relates that the word goblin is used to translate the word orc itself. And...

'Orc is the form of the name that other races had for these foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.' Appendix F

So orc was not simply a Hobbit word, but a word used by other races (plural) including the Men of Rohan.

I think this theory arises as some seem to remember the word goblin being spoken by Hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, and while this is true in some cases, the majority of the examples of goblin do not actually occur in Hobbit speech (meaning, when Hobbits are speaking or thinking).

At least the majority of those examples I'm aware of anyway, in The Lord of the Rings.

Here is another thing to ponder on. In FOTR when they enter moria, Legolas grabbed an arrow and said "goblins", but later in Balin's tomb when they hear the drums and screams, he said "orcs"

That's in the film (not that you said otherwise), as unless I've missed an instance, I don't think the word goblin appears in this section of the books.

In any case 'goblin' did occur in draft writing here, where Gandalf says:

'... there are goblins -- of very evil kind, larger than usual, real orcs.'

[revised to]

'There are goblins; very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: veritable Orcs'

[revised to]

'There are goblins; very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs.'

[revised to the final published text]

'There are Orcs, very many of them. And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor.'

The Fellowship of the Ring

So the seeming distinction between the words goblin and orc is eliminated in the final version, and the large and evil Orcs become black Uruks.

I believe Sam did say goblins in LOTR somewhere. So there is another mystery there.

But Sam can not have said the English word 'goblin' as English didn't exist at the time when the hobbits lived. Even 'Sam' is a translation, as he was really called Ban. 

Sam said the word Orc and the modern translator translated it with English 'goblin' -- the translator is JRR Tolkien according to the Elvish writing in the books (title page), in case anyone has never deciphered the runes and letters there.

[in runes] The Lord of the Rings translated from the Red Book [in letters] of Westmarch by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien herein is set forth the history of the War of the Ring and the Return of the King as seen by the Hobbits

Orc is not translated 'goblin' all the time, no, but most of the time in The Hobbit and a number of times in The Lord of the Rings.

Also, in The Lord of the Rings the word 'goblin' is not reserved for Hobbit speech or thought: Gimli uses it for example, and Gamling too, and there are a number of instances in simple narration.

Although again, Gimli and Gamling didn't actually speak this word back then, I mean the translation 'goblin' is found in examples other than Hobbit speech.

Language doesn't matter in this case. What matters is whether orc and goblin was referring to the same race or to two seperate race.

Language mattered greatly to Tolkien however, and I would say it matters here because it's the key to this question.

How about this Glorfindel: if you had an original text in German before you, and were hired to translate this text into English, when you arrived at the German word hund... would you translate this as 'dog' but think that a dog is different from a hund?

How about this Glorfindel: if you had an original text in German before you, and were hired to translate this text into English, when you arrived at the German word hund... would you translate this as 'dog' but think that a dog is different from a hund?

You proven my point that language doesn't matter. A hund is a dog not a cat. No matter what language you use, that animal is still a dog.

Language mattered greatly to Tolkien however, and I would say it matters here because it's the key to this question.

Tolkien's love for language doesn't have anything to do with this topic so it's pointless using it to answer the question of orcs and hobbits. But since you mentioned Tolkien, he translated the Hobbit and LOTR into English, then both orcs and goblins should've been used as the name of the same race or different race in the 2 books. Since the 2 books were written by hobbits of the shire. They both spoke the same language. So the simple answer here would be that Tolkien purposely used the words in each book for whatever reasons he had.

You proven my point that language doesn't matter. A hund is a dog not a cat. No matter what language you use, that animal is still a dog.

Right, so that animal is still a dog, by which I assume you mean a hund is a 'dog'. One word is a translation of the other...

... and Tolkien, as the translator of The Lord of the Rings, has the word Orc in the original (although his original is Westron not German of course), and he translates Orc with 'goblin'.

Tolkien's love for language doesn't have anything to do with this topic so it's pointless using it to answer the question of orcs and hobbits.

Tolkien ultimately preferred (at least usually) the sound and suitability of Orc rather than 'goblin', because Tolkien the philologist was very aware of his linguistic taste regarding sound and sense. He writes:

Orc This is supposed to be the Common Speech name of these creatures at that time; it should therefore according to the system be translated to English, or the language of translation. It was translated 'goblin' in The Hobbit, except in one place; but this word, and other words of similar sense in other European languages (as far as I know), are not really suitable. The orc in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, though of course partly made out of traditional features, is not really comparable in supposed origin, functions, and relation to the Elves. In any case orc seemed to me, and seems, in sound a good name for these creatures. It should be retained.'

JRRT Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings

This explanation was written to aid other translators of The Lord of the Rings, translating the English version into Swedish or German or whatever.

But since you mentioned Tolkien, he translated the Hobbit and LOTR into English, then both orcs and goblins should've been used as the name of the same race or different race in the 2 books.

And both words were used of the same beings in both books. Or at least, that's the ultimate decision from JRRT from about 1966 forward.

Note what JRRT is saying in my quote above: Orc should be translated to English 'goblin' according to the system -- but at the end Tolkien asks that translators not translate the word Orc, despite his own system.

Why? because he finds Orc generally more suitable and likes the sound.

Essentially Tolkien is telling other translators that technically it should always (or at least mostly) be 'dog' (goblin) like it was in his first book (mostly, as Orc occurs twice outside of Orcrist). But for his second book he asks that translators leave hund (Orc) where it is found in the text -- in other words, do not translate it: retain Orc.

'Dog' occurs now and then, but leave hund in any case.

To continue the comparison of course.

By the way when Tolkien says Orc was translated 'goblin' in The Hobbit except in one place, he is seemingly referring to the first edition, perhaps forgetting that he had added another instance of Orc in a later edition [again outside of Orcrist 'goblin cleaver'].

That's why I said twice, he said once, although his point remains the same.

For goodness sakes, Tolkien has used both Orc & Goblin in his books as well as his elite Urukai and PJ has simply stylised these as two or three groups who look slightly different. It's a non issue in my book.

If Aliens came to Earth would they not think that African, Anglo's, Red Heads, Joslin Wildenstein, Asians & Albinos were simply variants of the same species?

For the record I posted earlier in this thread.

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.

More recently however, Glorfindel and I have been discussing the matter of the books as well (as has Indis), as Tolkien's world has also been brought up in this thread concerning this.

I scanned the thread, everyone has very interesting points, but I'm not sure if anyone mentioned how ridiculous the goblin king looked? The whole gross goiter thing.... it made it comical. I was very disappointed in the goblin king. Also I understand why they added the counsel with Galadriel, to make the non-book reading movie goers view this as a true prequel, but in my eyes it's really not. It intertwines, but this really is Bilbo's own unique adventure.  That scene just really bothered me. 

...don't get me started on the thunder battle.

Azog was kind of like "uhhhh, where did they get that from?" and Radagast and the bunny sled was also slightly troubling.  I have to admit, I was hoping for a larger part for the Necromancer plot line for sure.

I saw it twice, I was so excited the first time and let down, the 2nd time I tried to reconcile my differenced with it, and I came out liking it better.

I do have to give praise for the part where Gollum and Bilbo have their contest of riddles, that scene I think is the most accurate part of the entire movie.

uhhh, how FAT Bombur is, is also nuts, I can't wait to see them carry him through Mirkwood.

I think the Dwarves should resemble Gimli more closely, but uhhh, Thorin is kind of sexy and I didn't expect that to be... so... maybe that's ok!

Yeah so I'm really in the minority of actually liking the White Council scene, then?? That's unfortunate cause I thought it was very well done. I think once we see the second and third film, people will appreciate the first more. I have a feeling all these little quirks will tie into the big picture somehow.

I do like some of the subtle PJ additions though. Like when Bombur (?) was asleep, and as he snored the little moths would go in and out of his breathing. Thought that was clever.

It's basically on par with LOTR for me. I like some things, I don't like others, but I still feel like I'm in ME. And that's all I really ask for....Also the more I watch it, the more I like it. You learn to appreciate other things that might've bothered you initially.

Yes Balrogs, there so much! I think film one is a set up volume. I've said it before PJ has to cram in a lot so that non readers will understand what going on.

Re the Whie Council scene, we need to remember that PJ was limited re the legal situation which is stupid in my book as it limits the great font of JRRT info we all know and love. I wanted more of the council and hope to get more in the next film. Some of the best quotes of all are in the Sil regarding The One Ring and PJ can't use them!!! Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman all in debate regarding the possibility of finding The Ring and the possibility of Sauron being back on the scene. PJ can't use any of this and has to skirt around it. As I said Dumb!

 

If the Hobbit is three movies and the second movie is titled The Desolation of Smaug that would indicate that it ended with the Death of Smaug (Fire and Water). That doesn’t leave much book left for movie 3. One of the things PJ could put in 3 is Sauron’s false defeat at Dol Guldur which if I remember that battle involved other members of the white council.

'The Council put forth its strength and drove the evil out of Mirkwood and that was in the very year of the finding of this Ring....’

‘In the late summer of... (2941) Gandalf had at last prevailed upon Saruman and the White Council to attack Dol Guldur, and Sauron retreated and went to Mordor, there to be secure, as he thought, from all his enemies.’

 Wow how interesting would that be on film! very cool to imagine   

Thanks Ainulindale. Now I'm excited! Totally agree. Battle of Five Armies although brief in the book will take some time I imagine. Also the trip home to Bagend and Gandalfs comings and goings explained.
That's what I think it's going to be in the third film as well. Like in ROTK, it took place in Gondor and Mordor. Maybe here it would be Dol Guldur and Erebor.

Well I just wanted to point out the Desolation of Smaug doesn't have to mean Smaug was desolated, but rather Smaug caused mass desolation....which I'm pretty sure is the case. I'm willing to bet it'll end after Mirkwood. Don't forget in ROTK, The Battle of Pellenor Fields was only like....and hour and a half into the movie or something, and the whole rest of the movie was Frodo's journey. So I don't think PJ will have any trouble turning short scenes into long scenes if he needed to.

Also people seem to keep forgetting these films involve the Appendices....which are rather extensive. Sure The Hobbit isn't long enough for 3 almost 3 hour movies, but with the Appendices and PJs influence I think it can easily be pulled off.

True Balrogs, the more the better in my book.  I just wish for some word to word script from the Sill regarding the Council and the lead up to the finding of the Ring.  We mostly cant get this thanks to the lawyers.......
 

True Balrogs, the more the better in my book.  I just wish for some word to word script from the Sill regarding the Council and the lead up to the finding of the Ring.  We mostly cant get this thanks to the lawyers.......
 

 

         During the live sneak peak on Sunday there was a lot of footage of Legolas and Tauriel fighting on a set that looked like Dol Guldur (with green screen behind) so maybe there is a big scene where the wood elves with Gandalf and others attack Dol Guldur.
       The reason I thought that Smaug might die in film 2 was because of the name of 2 in relation to the name of 3 but if Sauron’s false defeat at Dol Guldur is in film 2 that would make it unlikely that Smaug would die in 2 as well.
      There was also a spooky scene where Gandalf was investigating the empty tombs’ of the Nine in Barrow-Downs… PJ had said it was from the Appendix but I don’t know where

Yes I keep hearing about these tombs, but have no memory of reading about them in any of the books.  Its an interesting concept and I can only imagine that P.J will make it as spooky as possible.

Re Tauriel and Legolas fighting at Gol Dulgur, I always imagined a group from Lorien led by The Wise.  However I expect now we may see Elves from all remaining Elf houses left on ME (that we know of).

I suppose this will be interesting and sensible given that it would mean that the power of the Three Rings would be behind the assault.

  << [1] [2]