Thread: The Desolation Of Smaug
   >>
Good Afternoon Brego. From what I understand, the 3rd installment will not be part of the Hobbit story line, correct?? If that be the case, then I agree with you. I too, am very interested in the Green Elves. I also wouldn't mind seeing more of the story behind Celeborn and Galadriel.
Aylee I think the second movie will end with the destruction of Smaug and Lake Town. The third will therefore be mostly about The Battle of Five Armies.
I'm hoping to see more about the history of the Nazgul, the regrowth of Sauron and The Council of The Wise's assault upon The Soucerer of Dol Guldur. Also what Gandalf is upto during his disapearences during The Hobbit book.
Due to the ridiculous limitations put upon PJ by CT and co, PJ will need to be creative without straying too far from Canon, as he is strictly forbidden from using info from The Sil. Silly really as this forces non cannon rewrites, which truly is not what we and possibly PJ want.
Ill be interested to see how PJ shows the Dearves first vision of the Woofland Elves. In the book of course the Dwarves stumble across a festive gathering at night. Lights and music in the dark forest which "pop" disappears into the dark as soon as the Dwarves make themselves known.
I wonder if we'll see this?
Enter Peter Jackson first, from his latest interview with Empire Magazine:
Those intimate with The Hobbit might be wondering what Legolas and, for that matter, a stinking orc are doing at Laketown. We are deep into the expanded universe of Jackson's trilogy now, and as the Dwarves arrive, by barrel, at the waterborne human habitation within trading distance of Erebor, so the orcs have tracked them, pursued in turn by our nimble elf, having made his entrance in the elven halls of Mirkwood.
'This will probably get me struck off The One Ring party list, but I am enjoying deviating from the book,' says Jackson, his ranks of Middle-earth artisans re-setting for the next orc-hunt through Lake Town.
"We introduce a lot of Appendices material, more than in the first film. We introduce Legolas and Tauriel, who are not characters from the book. In fact Tauriel is not even a character from Tolkien. But as a filmmaker that is a refreshing thing. We are able to go places which ultimately will be surprising.'
Peter Jackson, Empire Magazine
Jackson doesn't seem too worried about deviating from the book in any case.
Maybe he can likewise enjoy the freedom that copyright has given him, with respect to anything in The Silmarillion.
Though he's also not too worried about pleasing purists and just wants to make an entertaining movie that all.........most can enjoy.
Given the following description of 'purist' that I found on the web [at least Wikipedia currently states]...
The Lord of the Rings purists are fans of J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings who dislike changes in New Line Cinema's film trilogy adaptation. Again, the use of the term varies extremely widely; it may be used offensively, in a complimentary way, or neutrally. The term may be meant to connote more sophisticated appreciation than that of "fangirls."
The definition especially refers to those who adamantly detest the Peter Jackson directed trilogy for deviating even in minor detail from the original text.
... if I was a film director I wouldn't be worried about pleasing anyone who took this stance either!
Then again I'm not currently aware of anyone who has taken such a position.
Not really sure why you felt the need to post a general definition of what a purist is. Pretty sure anyone who frequents Tolkien forums knows what a purist is. But thanks anyways I suppose...
Edit: In fact, I'm not really sure the purpose of your initial post before my last one. Are you saying PJ won't show what Brego asked because he "doesn't seem too worried about deviating from the book?"
I wouldn't class myself as a purist, as I understand the necessity of deviating from the book. However, I think adding in new, completely fabricated, characters is taking it a little too far.
I've asked for a definition of purist before, and here [so far anyway] we seem to have agreement that this bit from Wikipedia is accurate enough.
If so I'm certainly not a purist, and neither are some of Jackson's most ardent detractors. Actually I can't remember reading anyone who takes such an [in my opinion] unyielding stance.
Who actually _detests_ [a pretty strong word] Jackson's films for deviating even in _minor detail_ from the books? If this is the accepted description of a purist, to me it seems to describe a very rare person; at least in my experience so far.
Irrelevant post. Nobody called you a purist Galin. Stop thinking everyone is out to get you. This is not a thread for what you've asked in the past (which is still a stupid question because it's such a subjective term, hence never getting an answer). Move on.
I am disappointed Tauriel was added but it doesn't mean I won't still enjoy it. I'm more disappointed they barely touched Bane's backstory in The Dark Knight Rises, or how they ruined Venom in the third Spiderman movie. Those types of things really took away from the experience. It ruined the entire purpose Bane was created and Venom is one of the greatest anti-hero villains ever, but you'd think he was just the alter ego of some emo teenager. As long as Tauriel doesn't end up changing the whole Tolkien universe like those changes, I think she'll be great. Plus I'm in love with Evangeline Lily...
Irrelevant post. Nobody called you a purist Galin. Stop thinking everyone is out to get you.
I don't think so Balrogs, but I'll note that I included Jackson's most ardent detractors as not being purists in response to your comment about Jackson not being too worried about pleasing purists.
And Gwindor noted that he wasn't a purist -- nobody called Gwindor one either. And by the way, if there's a question about a subjective term then one might reasonably expect multiple subjective answers.
Anyway, I hope now we can get back to this thread, which is about who we are in love with
Wow dude, I give up. To avoid any future nonsensical confusion I'm never going to respond to you again. For whatever reason you seem to have it out for me. I've considered going to another Tolkien forum, but since you pretty much act the exact same way on literally every single one of them I don't see the point. Take this as you will, and you're best off doing the same and not writing a multi-paragraph argument using ridiculous technicalities in phrasing to try to come out on top. Sometimes common sense answers 100 more questions than book smarts ever could. Sorry and good luck. Kthxbye
I do agree about the part of getting back to the thread. And yes, I think Evangeline Lily is a fine actress and believe she'll do the role justice.
No, I don't 'have it out' for you Balrogs.
And if you want to ignore me or not respond to me, fine. Of course you had to tell me that, and try to cast me in some negative light, here and at other forums... but anyway.
I also wouldn't mind seeing more of the story behind Celeborn and Galadriel.
By the way I find this interesting. I haven't seen the first Hobbit film yet [only parts of it]: is Celeborn in it, or mentioned [something more than just a brief reference]? Or perhaps you mean more compared to the adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, I guess.
Good Morning Planet Tolkien peeps. Hi Galin. I apologize for any confusion. I should have been a little more clear in my post. No, Celeborn does not appear in the movie. I figured that since Galadriel did not appear in the book and does in the movie, why not put Celeborn in there too? I have always found Celeborn and Galdriel to be an interesting couple. I read that Tolkien found their relationship to be very complicated to work out. Just curious what PJ's perspective on it would be.
However, I do understand that Celeborn is not the most popular of Middle Earth characters. I do understand that Legolas, Galadriel, and Sauraman were popular characters and why PJ felt the need to bring them back in the Hobbit. I don't mind some of the changes PJ has made, but also get why there are people that are upset by the changes. I am a bigger fan of the Silmarillion than I am of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings (although I love them as well). I wonder how I would feel if a movie was made of my favorite book and many liberties were taken, I believe the story is perfect the way it is and needs no embellishment. So I understand why there are a few peeps who take more of a purist stance on this.
I have a friend who most definitely is a purist. He is a bigger fan of Tolkien than anyone I know (esteemed people here excluded of course). He waited until a few months ago to see the Hobbit movie. He really didn't comment on his thoughts on the movie, but I have a pretty good guess. When I asked him what he thought he said "it is what it is." He did say that he will see the Desolation of Smaug because he is hoping to see Beorn, Mirkwood, King Thranduil, and the conversation between Bilbo and Smaug.
Are you planning on watching the Hobbit in its entirety anytime soon? I will be curious to see your thoughts on it once you do. Wow, sorry! This post went a little longer than expected...
Thanks for the informative answer Aylee. The history of Galadriel and Celeborn is one of my favorite Tolkien subjects, although tangled in some ways. Regarding your question: I plan to wait until the film is free in any case [on television I guess], and then, probably.
Generally speaking, for instance I don't mind the addition of a White Council scene [or scenes], and certainly don't mind a scene with Legolas in Mirkwood for another example, but I'll emphasize generally speaking, as in theory a number of given directors could add these things in very different ways of course.
I feel that C.T has shot himself in the foot as we are all forced to see a certain amount of skirting around the edges of cannon.
I truly believe that PJ is a Tolkien Fan and that he is under immense pressure by legalese to forfeit cannon.
What a shame.
Especially if the matter is one of outlining actions present in The Silmarillion, what actions are being referred to? Just wondering, but for example, Appendix B outlines plenty of action as far as the White Council is concerned.
The following is from The Silmarillion [Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age] beginning with: 'Now of old the name of that forest was Greenwood the Great...' and after this  mark, to help distinguish the different source, I'll put what we learn as outlined in Appendix B or elsewhere.
OTROP: A darkness falls on Greenwood, renamed Mirkwood. Whence it came few could tell, and it was long ere the Wise could discover it. Sauron becomes the Sorcerer of Dol Guldur [revealed to the reader at this point]  Appendix B 1050: the Shadow falls on Greenwood, Men begin to call it Mirkwood. C. 1100, the Wise discover that an evil power has made a stronghold at Dol Guldur. It is thought to be a Nazgul.
OTROP: The Istari appear [general description of Gandalf, Saruman and Radagast]  Appendix B, see description before the list of years [for the Third Age] begin.
OTROP: Gandalf doubts the Darkness is due to a Ringwraith and fears it is Sauron. He goes to Dol Guldur, the Sorcerer flees, a watchful peace begins  Appendix B 2060 The Wise fear that the power may be Sauron 2063 Gandalf goes to Dol Guldur, Sauron retreats. The Watchful Peace begins.
OTROP: Shadow returns, the White Council is formed, Saruman chosen as its chief. Galadriel wished Mithrandir to be the chief. Saruman begins to study the lore of the Rings.  Appendix B 2460 Watchful Peace ends. Sauron returns to Dol Guldur 2463 White Council is formed 2841 Thrain imprisoned in Dol Guldur, the last of the Seven is taken from him. The Lord of the Rings Galadriel desired Gandalf to be the head of the Council.
OTROP: Gandalf once again goes to Dol Guldur 'and the pits of the Sorcerer' and discovers that this is Sauron, not a Ringwraith.  Appendix B, Gandalf again enters Dol Guldur, discovers that Sauron is the Sorcerer, finds Thrain and receives the key of Erebor.
OTROP: White Council summoned, Gandalf urges them to swift action, but Saruman counsels otherwise.  Appendix B 2851 White Council meets. Gandalf urges attack, Saruman overrules him -- footnote to text informing reader of Saruman's desire to posses the One.
OTROP: Saruman revealed [to the reader] as a traitor, and sets a watch upon the Gladden Fields.  Appendix B, footnote to text as mentioned above 2851 Saruman begins to search near Gladden Fields.
OTROP: White Council summoned again and Saruman now assents to strike: 'Therefore, for the last time, he aided the Council, and they put forth their strength; and they assailed Dol Guldur, and drove Sauron from his hold, and Mirkwood for a brief while was made wholesome again.'  Appendix B 2941 White Council meets, Saruman agrees to the attack, since he wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron abandons Dol Guldur.
OTROP: Stroke was too late. Sauron returns to Mordor.  Appendix B, Sauron returns to Mordor.
Actually, with respect to Thrain anyway, Appendix B injects a little more than OTROP here.
The only reference to Celeborn in OTROP is that Galadriel was 'the wife of Celeborn of Doriath', and we learn relatively very little of Celeborn from the Quenta Silmarillion itself: basically that he was Sindarin [agrees with The Lord of the Rings], was wedded to Galadriel and remained in Middle-earth after the Fall of Morgoth, and that Nimloth was a kinswoman of Celeborn, a prince of Doriath.
I can't agree that Christopher Tolkien is the author of his own misfortune, as for one thing, from his perspective, concerning which many agree, Peter Jackson was given full access to The Lord of the Rings and he [Jackson] still could not, or did not, render a faithful enough adaptation of the books.
Jackson has illustrated [to people of this opinion] that he will mess with plenty, by choosing to, even though his usual explanation [considering being 'forced' to alter things] is the subjective needs of film. Emphasis on subjective.
And I keep in mind the larger scenario that Peter Jackson had full access to The Hobbit but chose to go beyond that for his own reasons, which nobody forced him to do in the first place.
For myself I don't recall Jackson commenting about the lack of The Silmarillion. Has he? But I am aware that he has included at least one detail from Unfinished Tales, a detail that someone on his team [at least, if not Jackson himself] was told was off limits due to copyright.
I'm really exited about hearing Smaug talk, also in the trailer it looked like legolas was in the movie so I am curios about that
I am curious: what do you folk think about Jackson adding Tauriel's romance with Kili the Dwarf? I have read that she was to have a romance that is NOT WITH LEGOLAS, and early on there was a rumour that it would be with said dwarf instead.
From my understanding after reading a few interviews, the "love interest" has been blown WAY out of proportion. It will most likely be more along the lines of what we saw with Gimli/Galadriel in the first LOTR movie. More of an enamored fascination and not so much an actual "love interest."
The speculation seems to be based on something in a TotalFilm magazine feature [here Aidan Turner's part begins with 'I guess...' while before that is the part of the reporter]:
'Kili's part has been expanded from the novel; as well as chasing treasure, he's also pursuing female elf Tauriel. But is he setting his sights too high? 'I guess he knows nothing can ever happen,' he explains. 'She's about 20ft tall and he's only two!'
But who knows what Turner really means here, or what his tongue-in-cheek ending is really meant to say about knowing 'nothing can ever happen', if anything [after all it's only a height difference, and obviously not as drastic as 20 feet to 2 too].
In any case even 'pursuing', if accurate, doesn't necessarily mean catching
Ah...so this is where the speculation comes from. My purist friend Ryan had told me that Kili was to have a love interest. I did not ask him to expand on the subject, because any deviation from Tolkien's book is cause for a total melt down I didn't want to be responsible for my friend's head exploding.
I am not sure how I feel about this. I am going to wait and see the movie and reserve judgment until then.
Yeah, I realized that regardless of any Kili romance or addition of elves, as long as the movie feels like Middle Earth and creates a stunning spectacle of what I've always imagined, like all the other movies did, then I'm going to love them all and can't wait to see the extended editions.
And if what Brego said is true, then I'm more excited than ever before. I'd love to see more about Thrain. Maybe see more of the INSIDE of Moria...
Also [to Aylee or Asea], while not about Kili specifically, I recently found out that Lilly [Tauriel] was quoted as saying the following in Entertainment Weekly:
'She will definitely have a love story. I can't give away too much about it. It's not a huge focus but it is there and it is important and it does drive Tauriel and her story and her actions.'
And when asked if Legolas was part of this 'love story' she would not confirm nor deny, but said that her relationship with Legolas is 'significant' in part of her comment.
I would link to the full article but I'm not sure if it's allowed here. Anyway, there is this much too, however one interprets it.
I remember some people freaking out after the trailer for AUJ came out, carrying on about a love affair between Gangalf and Galadrial....... So lets wait and see. I'm sick of hearing speculation about Tauriel.
Hi Galin! I read the article that you referred to, so thank you very much for the information. She is rather mysterious about who this love affair will be with, isn't she? I must confess I am rather curious about it all. I think it is rather fun to speculate. I do understand how it can be irritating to some though. I drive my husband crazy with speculations over who will win the Iron Throne in Game of Thrones.
Today I'm guessing Daenerys Stormborn Aylee -- although I reserve the right to change my mind later today even [and I never read these books myself].
Ah yes Galin, I would be inclined to agree with you! I just love her. Lately though, my thoughts have been turning to Stannis Baratheon...just maybe, just maybe it will be him! I have read the books, but the series is not yet completed so there is much to speculate about here too. I also reserve the right to change my mind!
I think it's way too early to speculate on something like that. Will just create more rumors and thus more drama...
People saw Elijah Wood in the Hobbit cast years before it came out and freaked out, but that was before we knew for sure that scenes from the appendices, which include Frodo, would be included. And so far I actually really enjoyed it!
Well, as speculation makes conversation too, on 7 November 2011, TORN reported that:
An actor named Robin Kerr has seemingly been cast in the role of Elros. We don’t suppose this is the character who, according to the books, is Elrond’s brother (who wasn’t an Elf anyway).
We feel rather that the name Elros is just being reused for a hero Elf, similar to how the name Morwen was used for a woman of Rohan in The Two Towers.
Now there is this on an Elros Wiki, as Glorfindel noted:
'It as been announced that Elros will be played by Robin Kerr in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Despite the character being long deceased by the time of The Hobbit (Presumably this character will be under the influence of the Necromancer)'
But it doesn't say what this 'presumably' is based on, other than the fact that Elros is dead at the time of Bilbo's adventure, if this is all that it's 'based on' that is. The same Wiki currently says that Elros means 'Elf of the spray' incidentally, and...
... it seemingly did, at one point [according to a letter], but in my opinion Tolkien later revised this to 'Star-foam, starlit foam' [see Quendi And Eldar, and even later, The Shibboleth of Feanor].
Be careful of Wiki-stuff in general [not that anyone isn't being careful]. Or of stuff on the web.
And this post is on the web
Hmmm. As Elrond and Elros were twins, Im sure that if it is indeed Elrond brother than surely they would simply have Hugo Weaving play both parts.
My problem with this idea is that it is PJ once again interpreting Tolkien far from Tolkien's intent. And we can know Tolkien's intent because there is plenty of his writing around to find it in. In this instance, Elros was not only the twin of Elrond, but also the first king of Numenor. From his line was descended Elendil who led the Faithful back to ME at the downfall of Numenor when Ar Pharazon attacked Valinor. If PJ is really using this character for his own purposes, then it significantly changes Tolkien's mythology. If he is merely using the name, it still would be confusing.
There is already a problem with the idea that the Necromancer is the sole cause of the darkening of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood, the cause of the appearance of giant spiders, etc. But that is perhaps matter for a different thread.
Hi Gandalf. Im sure that this will simply turn out to be simply an Elf or a Man who happens to be named after the great Lord and King Elros.
Re the return of darkness to ME and Greenwood the great, Im not following you. Indeed it was the return of Sauron's Spirit (The Necromancer), and his Minions The Nazgul who were causing this evil darkness. Im not sure who or what else could cause this kind of trouble. The Spiders and some other beasties as well simply live and breed in the comfort of the Dark. This darkness, Tolkien states, started as a shadow and grew into a menace which could be felt in all the regions around Mirkwood.
And just a friendly reminder not to get too worked up. If someone appears in a movie, they have to include them in the cast listing. So sure we can see Elros will be in it, but he might be in some sort of quick flash back scene, like Isildur in the LOTR movies who only has...what? 2 scenes? Even though the whole story revolves around his lineage. So don't get those torches and pitch forks out just yet...
Let us not forget there was basically an entire thread, full of ridiculous drama and arguing, dedicated to the potential romance between Gandalf and Galadriel because they stared deeply into each other's eyes in the preview. This is not friendly speculation, this is people out just looking for reasons to criticize Peter Jackson. Speculation is wonderful, but do keep an open mind...
Well it was because Galadriel fiddled with Gandalf's hair as well, which at least some perceive as a notably intimate gesture (if not necessarily romantic). And even some of Jackson's fans saw this gesture as significant enough to try to explain beyond an average friendship, even to the point of suggesting a 'possible' former relationship in Aman.
Actually I wonder if the filmmakers were wholly surprised at some of the reaction.
As for Elros: for myself I see no great problem with using this name for a different character, nor having a flashback with Elros brother of Elrond -- well, no great problem within the context of the decision [already made of course] to add plenty of stuff that isn't actually in the Hobbit.
That's a different discussion.
And Galin, a lit of people got hot under the collar about that beutiful scene between Galadriel and Gandalf. You included.
Brego wrote: I think the collective name as a whole for the Mirkwood Elved were the Green Elves. And indeed the ruling families were Silvan. Could be wrong.
As pointed out by our new member Gothmog, the Elves of Mirkwood were the Silvan Elves, or the East Elves for instance, generally speaking. The term Green Elves [Laegrim] refers to the 'Nandor' of Ossiriand. Oropher and Thranduil were Sindarin.
The Silvan Elves of Mirkwood outnumbered the Sindarin Elves there. Oropher had come among them with only a 'handful' of Sindarin folk, according to a late text.
And Brego, I took part in the discussion about the scene between Ian McKellen and Cate Blanchett, yes, as did you and a number of people here and on the web, but at no time was I 'hot under the collar' however.
And at the very least Balrogs posted that there was a reaction because these two people 'stared deeply into each others eyes', but as I stated, the gesture Balrogs forgot to mention is seen as notably intimate by some.
I also said, from the start, that this gesture does not necessarily mean 'romance', nor did I ever think Jackson was actually going to portray a romance between Galadriel and Gandalf.
Pardon me for interjecting, I have become a bit confused. Reading the books, I was under the impression that the elves of Mirkwood were Silvan. I was also under the impression that the elves of Lothlorien were Green Elves. Am I incorrect in my assumptions? I apologize in advance for adding any further confusion.
No problem at all Aylee, I for one enjoy discussing Tolkien's sometimes confusing terms.
Most of the Elves of Mirkwood and Lorien were East Elves. We can call these Elves Silvan Elves too, which just basically means Wood Elves of course.
With respect to some Elvish terms, the Lorien Elves for instance were called the Galadhrim or 'Tree People'. More generally speaking, in Unfinished Tales we have a word Tawarwaith which appears to mean 'Wood Elves, Wood People'. Mirkwood and Lorien included some Sindar of course, with some Noldor in Lorien.
However the Green Elves or Laegrim are those Elves who ultimately made it to Ossiriand in the First Age. They were given this name by the Sindar both because of the clothes they wore [Silmarillion] and the green of the land [Quendi And Eldar]
Galin, thank you so much for clearing that up. I appreciate it. I am definitely a newb here so I understand that some of my questions and confusion is under your guys level of understanding of Middle Earth. Again, thank you.