Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

The forthcoming Hobbit movie
User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#51 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:56 pm

inaholeintheground wrote:In reply to Eldorion: While I appreciate the depth of your knowledge of Tolkien's works, you are misinformed regarding the date of the last meeting of the White Council being 2941; I must tell you that [color=#FF0000]you are wrong[/color]: the last meeting of the White Council [color=#FF0000]definitely[/color] took place in 2953. At that time, Khamul the Easterling, Sauron's third-in-command, led Sauron's forces at Dol Guldur. Another important feature of this 2953 White Council meeting was that Gandalf at that time first began to suspect Saruman of coveting the One Ring for himself.


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Did you read the link I gave in my last post? The two parties reached a settlement on the matter. A bridge film is still possible of course, but it's an entirely separate issue from the court case. Neither Peter Jackson nor Guillermo del Toro seem interested in working on one though.

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#52 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:57 pm

EDIT: Technical problems caused me to post this twice but I've resolved it, sorry for the double post.

TheLastAmigo
Posts: 1

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#53 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:28 pm

There shouldn't be any problem with "Pirates 4" filming around the same time since he's not even going to be in "Pirates 4".

Lanthirion
Posts: 5

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#54 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:47 pm

The writers of the film script have previously shown a few variations from what is strictly cannon (aka they gave Glorfindel's part in FotR to Arwen), so I fail to see why they should have a problem with doing something that would have been highly probable. As the only son of Thranduil that is mentioned by Tolkien, it would be a lot more odd if we did NOT see Legolas at least in a cameo than if we do see him.

Thranduil
Posts: 1

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#55 » Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:16 pm

This is not really to do with casting issues but surely legolas would have been present at the battle of five armies seeing as its the main battle the mirkwood elves are involved in and he is a prince after all? or would he have been back at mirkwood looking after it while Thranduil led the army? just a query because in the books and mainly the films he is shown to be an extremely good fighter so just wondering where he would have learnt it all really, and the battle of five armies would have been a good place.

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#56 » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:37 pm

Hi Thranduil, welcome to the forum! :mrgreen:

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

Legolas isn't mentioned as being present at the battle, but of course that doesn't mean that he wasn't as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It does mean however that we can't say whether or not he was there. It's possible Thranduil would have brought along his son or that he would have left him behind, possibly to watch over the realm. Given the lack of textual evidence this is all just speculation however. :)

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, the middle of a battle is not a good place for anyone to learn about fighting. If you're in a massive battle it's good to know how to fight or else you will probably find yourself dead or seriously wounded very quickly. What Legolas knew about combat he would have had to learn in a training setting.

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#57 » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:40 pm

My father fought in Papua New Guinea in the Second World War against the Japanese. He made an interesting comment to me once. He said that if you lived long enough in battle (or battles!) your training eventually became of value! I myself was caught in the middle of an incident once where four of my comrades were shot (I got lucky). I can now better see the point of my 'incident' training - but I'm not sure the training actually served much use in the heat of the moment. When bullets are flying, a lot of things do fly through your mind, but not necessarily what your training says you should actually be doing to save yourself. Of course, I hope to use my training better next time! Experience is often the best trainer of all, one thinks.

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

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

Odo

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#58 » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:31 pm

Odo Banks wrote:Of course, I hope to use my training better next time! Experience is often the best trainer of all, one thinks.


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

And, by Jove, we all know by now that Del Toro is a Rampant Libertarian!


:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#59 » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:50 am

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

Odo

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

Should Legolas be in the Hobbit

Post#60 » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:22 am

He doesn't mention plumbing or toilet habits either though ;) .

GB

Return to “The Hobbit (Movie)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron