PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit Film... trilogy.



Pages : 1 [2]

dehro
2012-08-24, 07:24 PM
I don't think Tolkien was a genuine pacifist. He didn't oppose his son fighting in WW2, for example. He was a strict Catholic and war fought 'right' in the name of what's right was a part of Catholic dogma in mid-20th century.

At the same time, the man had seen a lot of grim stuff in WW1 and knew exactly how ugly war could get. There's a strong sentiment in his stuff, especially in the Lord of the Rings, that armed conflict is a messy thing that can help bring about a resolution - but it's not the resolution itself, and a resolution can't come from war alone.

I think he was as much of a pacifist as the times and..well.. his personal history allowed for.
a war veteran who had been badly shaken in romantic notion of the glory of war, having faced the horror of the trenches; this however didn't diminish his sense of duty and I would think that his son going to war would fall under that.. he wouldn't oppose it but see it as his duty.
he may put his sentiments in his writing, but that's as far as a man of his breeding and generation would go.

Muz
2012-08-24, 07:45 PM
By "pacifist" I suppose I meant someone with a healthy respect for the horrors of war and combat. (I got lazy in my word choice.) :smallsmile:

WalkingTarget
2012-08-24, 10:38 PM
Wow, an actual conversation where Bombadil is pertinent that wasn't about him to begin with.

In my reading of LotR (with some circumstantial evidence from the Letters), Tom represents, in part, pacifism.

Something laudable, and something that it would be nice if we could all operate under, but ultimately something that cannot exist without others who are willing to fight to protect it (that is, Tom stands apart and takes no action regarding the Ring - and it has no power over him - but his approach cannot stand in the face of Sauron's aggression; without action by others there will be no place for Tom in Middle-earth).

At least, that reading is where I peg Tolkien's views on things. Of course, I have no special knowledge of the man beyond what I've read, so I could be wrong.

grimbold
2012-08-25, 07:26 AM
thats how i viewed it

if you take a LOTR=WWII analogy then the Old Forest (where tom lives) could very well be switzerland... a pacifist place where the evil is kept out by huge guns (or in bombadils case, Huorns, at least i THINK they're huorns)

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-25, 08:09 AM
thats how i viewed it

if you take a LOTR=WWII analogy then the Old Forest (where tom lives) could very well be switzerland... a pacifist place where the evil is kept out by huge guns (or in bombadils case, Huorns, at least i THINK they're huorns)

Just as general note with this line of thinking, that Tolkien was absolutely adamant on the record that LotR was not allogorical.


It is neither allegorical nor topical.... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.

Indeed It Is
2012-08-25, 08:22 AM
For what is it worth I believe Peter Jackson and friends only have film rights to the Hobbit and the LoTR trilogy. All other works by Tolkien and their material cannot be included... Now, how far they can stretch those rights remains to be seen..

Traab
2012-08-25, 10:13 AM
From what I remember of the story, Thorin and company virtually got recruited by gandalf, and not the other way around. Gandalf got them together, gandalf brought them to the shire, forced them to take bilbo, only at elronds house did he show off the fact that he had a map of the mountain with a secret entrance marked on it, etc etc etc. I get the feeling thorin and company werent even involved in the decision making for the most part. It was closer to, "Yo thorin, my names gandalf, call me G-Money. Get your peeps together, we are gonna mess up that dragon that dissed your clan 100 years ago. Ill explain how later."

Up until the last homely house, there was absolutely no plan other than "We are going to reclaim our old family home." Even then all they had was a secret door that blibo was expected to find and figure out how to open. They never once discussed what they would do when they found smaug, they never even considered that it wasnt likely they could fit their dwarven treasure hoard into a single sack. The fact that smaug wiped out 99% of their entire dwarven clan when he was WAY younger and weaker than he would be now wasnt even thought about. They showed all the strategic thinking and planning expertise of a group of 6 year olds.

Lack of weaponry was the least of their issues. And dont tell me they relied on gandalf to solve all their problems, gandalf specifically told them he wouldnt be with them for most of the journey. Hell, I think he intended to leave them before they finished crossing the damn misty mountains but couldnt just leave until he had them resupplied again.

hamishspence
2012-08-25, 10:38 AM
From what I remember of the story, Thorin and company virtually got recruited by gandalf, and not the other way around. Gandalf got them together, gandalf brought them to the shire, forced them to take bilbo, only at elronds house did he show off the fact that he had a map of the mountain with a secret entrance marked on it, etc etc etc. I get the feeling thorin and company werent even involved in the decision making for the most part. It was closer to, "Yo thorin, my names gandalf, call me G-Money. Get your peeps together, we are gonna mess up that dragon that dissed your clan 100 years ago. Ill explain how later."

Unfinished Tales (and one special edition version of The Hobbit) has the story of how Gandalf chose Bilbo, the difficulties he had convincing Thorin to accept Bilbo as a member of the party, and so forth. He is very much the prime mover of the quest.

VanBuren
2012-08-25, 11:48 AM
Just as general note with this line of thinking, that Tolkien was absolutely adamant on the record that LotR was not allogorical.

Applicability, on the other hand was another thing entirely.

Gnoman
2012-08-25, 12:02 PM
Exactly. He ever had a problem with using Sauron as an example of the dangers of autocracy, or the Ring as a cautionary tale against nuclear weapons. It was claiming that Sauron was Stalin/Hitler or that the Ring WAS a nuclear bomb that he despised.

Muz
2012-08-25, 12:11 PM
From what I remember of the story, Thorin and company virtually got recruited by gandalf, and not the other way around. Gandalf got them together, gandalf brought them to the shire, forced them to take bilbo, only at elronds house did he show off the fact that he had a map of the mountain with a secret entrance marked on it, etc etc etc. I get the feeling thorin and company werent even involved in the decision making for the most part. It was closer to, "Yo thorin, my names gandalf, call me G-Money. Get your peeps together, we are gonna mess up that dragon that dissed your clan 100 years ago. Ill explain how later."

Gandalf showed them the map at Bag End, and was actually quite annoyed to see that he didn't see the moon runes until Elrond spotted them. Of course, this is Gandalf, so maybe he was just playing dumb.

Traab
2012-08-25, 12:51 PM
Ah oops, I thought he had held onto the map until elronds. I knew the moon letters were spotted there, I just figured that was when the map got brought out for the first time. Its been a long time since I read the book.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-25, 01:24 PM
Exactly. He ever had a problem with using Sauron as an example of the dangers of autocracy, or the Ring as a cautionary tale against nuclear weapons. It was claiming that Sauron was Stalin/Hitler or that the Ring WAS a nuclear bomb that he despised.

Fair enough.


Gandalf showed them the map at Bag End, and was actually quite annoyed to see that he didn't see the moon runes until Elrond spotted them. Of course, this is Gandalf, so maybe he was just playing dumb.

Even Gandalf could roll open-ended low on his perception check...

(Heck, only Morgoth was immune to fumbling with the Iron Crown with the simirils in it, which one might suspect just might be the single most powerful bonus of that item...)

What? Middle-Earth is totally Rolemaster, and I have all the numerous source books to prove it...

Chromascope3D
2012-08-25, 03:22 PM
Why waste money on weapons? They weren't going to be any good against Smaug anyway. They were probably just expecting Gandalf to handle the first few mobs until they gained a few levels and some nice loot.

Still, not the worst planning I've ever seen for a raid.

"Alright, let's do this! BILBOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAGGINS!"

grimbold
2012-08-25, 04:53 PM
Applicability, on the other hand was another thing entirely.

exactly
his work was influenced by his life experience

i wasn't intending to make it look like i thought LOTR was wholly allegorical

t209
2012-08-26, 10:14 AM
How many of you think that Thorin Oakenshield is a jerk? I mean he's greedy, didn't care about Bilbo until Thorin's death, and refuse to pay Laketown survivors their compensation (well, Bilbo started a war between dwarfs and human-elves alliance). Except he go all badass on goblins during three army battle.

Gnoman
2012-08-26, 11:47 AM
He's proud, and doesn't exactly trust the random, barely-competant little fat dude that the wizard saddled him with. That's to be expected. His refusal to pay is a flaw in his race. Gold has a powerful hold over the hearts of all dwarves, and dragon-gold is suggested to inspire powerful greed in all creatures.

YOu have one thing wrong. Bilbo didn't start the almost-war. Thorin & Company's refusal to cooperate with the admittedly presumptious demands of the elves, and the more justified (but arrogantly demanded) requests of the Lake-Men was the source of the conflict. All Bilbo tried to do was to prevent the war by bribery.

MLai
2012-08-26, 12:00 PM
I was going to say, the elves and men had zero claim to Thorin's ancestral wealth. Thorin had 100% legal right, and barely any moral obligation. He didn't set the dragon onto the lake town, nor did he ever plan to, nor is the dragon a product of the dwarven kingdom, nor did any elves or men help the dwarves when the dragon was busy wiping them out.

Any moral empathy he might have had for the men, vanished the moment they started acting like *****.

Welf
2012-08-26, 12:15 PM
The dwarfs did cause the dragon attack on lake town; they sent Bilbo in to steal something. And Bilbo, who worked for them, give Smaug the hint that they got help from lake town. I call that negligence.
And Thorin and company got help at lake town, new inventory and were treated as guests of honour for quite a time. Without that help they wouldn't even got to the mountain and got the chance to steal from Smaug. Not to mention that it were the fighters from lake town who defeated Smaug, saving the treasure and their lives.
And finally, quite some part of the treasure was stolen from old Dale.
So Thorin did have legal and moral reason to share part of the treasure.

snoopy13a
2012-08-26, 12:24 PM
I was going to say, the elves and men had zero claim to Thorin's ancestral wealth. Thorin had 100% legal right, and barely any moral obligation. He didn't set the dragon onto the lake town, nor did he ever plan to, nor is the dragon a product of the dwarven kingdom, nor did any elves or men help the dwarves when the dragon was busy wiping them out.

Any moral empathy he might have had for the men, vanished the moment they started acting like *****.

1) Some of Smaug's treasure was stolen from the men of Dale--the ancestors of some of the Lake-men

2) The men fed, clothed, and supplied the Dwarves free of charge--granted, Thorin promised to repay that.

3) The men suffered from Smaug just as much as the dwarves did. Like the dwarves, Smaug destroyed their town, killed their citizens, and forced them from their homes.

4) The men, most specifically Bard the Bowman, killed Smaug

5) Smaug destroyed Lake-town.

6) Smaug killed about 1/4 of the people, either directly or indirectly, of Lake-town. These weren't all warriors but also women and children.

7) The men would have starved without the help of the Wood-elves.

8) Smaug would not have attacked Lake-town if Bilbo hadn't "stolen" (he didn't really steal it as it truly belonged to the dwarves) the cup.

All Bard wanted was 1/12 of the gold--some of it which belonged to his people anyway. This was to rebuild Lake-town and to compensate their friends--the wood-elves--who helped them. The Lake-men were the ones who actually killed Smaug and suffered greatly from it. Without their sacrifice, Thorin would have gotten nothing and starved to death in a cave or end up eaten by Smaug. The end result is that the men receive about 1/14th of the gold--Bilbo's share.

Anyway, Bilbo and the ravens thought Bard's request was reasonable.

MLai
2012-08-26, 12:52 PM
(1) If the men specifically asked for Dale gold stolen by Smaug, Thorin would have dealt with them reasonably. Because a treatise between businessmen is "fair and safe" (quotes because, relatively speaking). But when you march onto someone's home with an army and make vague demands to their wealth, anything can ensue if the "gates to the city" are just opened willy-nilly. See what happened to Constantinople during the Crusades. Thorin isn't naive.

(2) Room and board does not cost 1/12 of an entire city's treasury.

(3/4/5/6/7/8) Again, the dragon is not a product of the dwarven kingdom. Where it decides to fly is really none of the dwarves' business, as long as the dwarves didn't somehow magically direct it. None of the dwarves knew that Bilbo caused the dragon to think of Dale; even Bilbo didn't know.

Again, if Bard went alone or with a small party, and reasoned with Thorin like a civilized businessman would, you can't say Thorin would not have listened. One look at Dale coins/items and he'd know they're not of dwarven make. And he could also repay Bard for room and board. And he could also offer financial assistance to the town, after all that. But march onto a dwarf's ancestral home with an army (and your friend's army who also wants a share just because), and then start making vague demands on divvying up his treasury?

Bilbo and ravens are not dwarves (not a compliment), and obviously way too trusting of elves and men.

Gnoman
2012-08-26, 01:01 PM
The Men were perfectly reasonable, and had fair claim to a portion. The Elves had none whatsoever. It would be reasonable for the Men to pay them for aid, but that should have come out of whatever the Men got, not a share of their own. Besides this, showing up at the gates armed for war was not a good negotiating tactic. They should have said "Oh, cool, you're alive. We think some of that treasure was stolen from us by the dragon, maybe we could arrange to have that returned."

Starbuck_II
2012-08-26, 02:35 PM
The end result is that the men receive about 1/14th of the gold--Bilbo's share.

Anyway, Bilbo and the ravens thought Bard's request was reasonable.

And that was all they deserved as Bilbo caused thre dragon to attack Dale.
The town got greedy expecting more.

VanBuren
2012-08-26, 02:47 PM
Hah, Thorin wasn't going to give them a single gold piece. Reasonable or not, there was no way he was going to part with even a single piece of that treasure.

It was inevitable.

Zea mays
2012-08-26, 02:51 PM
The Men were perfectly reasonable, and had fair claim to a portion. The Elves had none whatsoever. It would be reasonable for the Men to pay them for aid, but that should have come out of whatever the Men got, not a share of their own. Besides this, showing up at the gates armed for war was not a good negotiating tactic. They should have said "Oh, cool, you're alive. We think some of that treasure was stolen from us by the dragon, maybe we could arrange to have that returned."

They didn't show up to negotiate though. They thought the dwarves had been wiped out by the dragon.

They came armed because a reasonable adventuring party (as discussed extensively upthread) does not venture unarmed into the wastelands.

I almost think we could do a read-along of the book in this thread. :smalltongue:

dehro
2012-08-26, 02:52 PM
And that was all they deserved as Bilbo caused thre dragon to attack Dale.
The town got greedy expecting more.

not that much more, really.. they asked for a 12th part instead of a 14th part.. big sums, but the principle of the thing was broadly the same. they asked recompensation for help freely granted, for the part of the hoard that had been plundered from Dale rather than from the Dwarves, for damages caused by the rousing of the dragon, which was undoubtedly a direct consequence of the actions of the Dwarves... Smaug had been quiet for decades..to the point that the younger generation wondered if stories about him were true. some form of reparation was probably due.
the trouble lay in the manner in which they put their requests down, and in the magically induced negative influence the dragon's hoard had on Thorin's disposition...

Gnoman
2012-08-26, 04:36 PM
They didn't show up to negotiate though. They thought the dwarves had been wiped out by the dragon.

They came armed because a reasonable adventuring party (as discussed extensively upthread) does not venture unarmed into the wastelands.

I almost think we could do a read-along of the book in this thread. :smalltongue:

If you reread what I said, I know that. Upon realizing the dwarves were alive, they should have acknowledged that they had thought the dwarves slain, retreated their armies, and attempted to barter. Instead, they used bluster and threats.

Xondoure
2012-08-26, 08:14 PM
Honestly if the Dwarves ever expected to make use of their wealth they should have been willing to deal with the men of Dale.

Traab
2012-08-26, 08:53 PM
The men of dale were owed a portion of the wealth. What size portion is open to negotiation, as the actual size of the dragon hoard is unknown to the men, and uncounted by the dwarves. The elves needed to gtfo. All they did was make a bad situation worse. Seriously, they imprisoned thorin for the crime of starving to death, and the rest of the dwarves? Meh, being dwarves in mirkwood was enough of a crime. Then they show up at this powder keg of a situation and act like they deserve a single clipped copper coin?

That being said, thorin was unreasonable. A more likely to get a reasonable response would have been something like. "The men of dale speak truly, a portion of this treasure WAS taken from dale. However, we ask that you approach us as friends, and not with an army at your back. Leave a delegation here to come to terms, and disband your army to show your peaceful intentions, and we will act accordingly. The elves however, have done nothing but earn out ire. They imprisoned us for daring to be caught starving and lost in their lands. They are not welcome on dwarven lands, and deserve nothing of this treasure."

Zea mays
2012-08-26, 09:52 PM
If you reread what I said, I know that. Upon realizing the dwarves were alive, they should have acknowledged that they had thought the dwarves slain, retreated their armies, and attempted to barter. Instead, they used bluster and threats.

Whoops, my apologies Gnoman, I indeed did not read your post closely enough.

MLai
2012-08-26, 10:35 PM
"The men of dale speak truly, a portion of this treasure WAS taken from dale. However, we ask that you approach us as friends, and not with an army at your back. Leave a delegation here to come to terms, and disband your army to show your peaceful intentions, and we will act accordingly. The elves however, have done nothing but earn our ire. They imprisoned us for daring to be caught starving and lost in their lands. They are not welcome on dwarven lands, and deserve nothing of this treasure."
Thorin should have taken you along.

Traab
2012-08-26, 10:55 PM
Thorin should have taken you along.

Heh, in all honesty, I never really understood the whole percentage thing. Bard and crew were asking for 1/12th of the treasure there (or whatever the exact terms were) without having any way of knowing exactly how much that WAS! It could have worked out to being 20x more money than it would take to rebuild all of laketown, and hire enough mail order brides and broodmares to replace the entire population! A better way to approach things on their side would have been to just say, "A portion of the treasure, to cover our losses and damages taken in slaying the dragon."

Although it wouldnt have made a difference, as far as I can remember, the only real problem thorin had was them showing up with an army, and walking together with the elves that had imprisoned him. He never outright denied that they had a reasonable claim, he just didnt like how they went about trying to get it. It was stupid, and stubborn, and really, the fault lay on thorin for being such an ass about things.

MLai
2012-08-27, 12:01 AM
I agree with you on certain things, disagree on others:

(1) The exact details of the claim is too vague.
Agree. That's a big problem when large sums of wealth are discussed; I'm not just saying that to be a miser. Vagueness in terms can easily lead to disagreements. And when a disagreement is raised by a party with an itchy army at its back, things can quickly get out of hand. S'why I raised a historical example.

(2) Thorin is an ass.
Disagree. Ppl assume he'd deny Bard no matter what, but we don't know that. Has Thorin shown anywhere in the story or the appendicies or Lost Tales whatever, that he is unreasonable to allies whenever gold is involved? What we do know is that he accepted Bard's hospitality, and he promised to repay Bard for that. Are we going to say he would have reneged on his promise even if Bard came peacefully and without an elven army?

I read Hobbit long ago... I don't remember any "dragon's gold curse" affecting Thorin's judgement. His only obsession was the Arkenstone, which is irrelevant to Bard's demand, except when it involves the danger I described in #1. At any rate, I don't accept handwaves like "dragon's curse" anyways.

dehro
2012-08-27, 04:31 AM
(2) Thorin is an ass.
Disagree. Ppl assume he'd deny Bard no matter what, but we don't know that.

he is a bit of an ass.. all through the book, with precious few exceptions, he's been acting as if he was due everything and needn't worry on how to actually get it or about doing his bit.
we know for a fact (word of god) that as soon as he heard his cousin was marching towards him, he was plotting to go back on his freshly crafted agreement to pay for the Arkenstone with Bilbo's share...
in other words, he'd get the Arkenstone and pay for it with money that wasn't his to begin with, as it belonged by rights (and written contract) to Bilbo... yet that wasn't enough because he wanted to use force of arms to keep even that share and still get the stone. (this is specifically stated, if not in so many words, by Tolkien in the book).

Has Thorin shown anywhere in the story or the appendicies or Lost Tales whatever, that he is unreasonable to allies whenever gold is involved?
see above.. also, when Bilbo revealed he'd given the stone to Bard, he would have killed the Hobbit were it not for Gandalf's intervention... despite owing him his life, freedom and the success of his endeavour..many times over.


What we do know is that he accepted Bard's hospitality, and he promised to repay Bard for that. Are we going to say he would have reneged on his promise even if Bard came peacefully and without an elven army?
no..because it never came to that. So we don't know.


I read Hobbit long ago... I don't remember any "dragon's gold curse" affecting Thorin's judgement. His only obsession was the Arkenstone, which is irrelevant to Bard's demand, except when it involves the danger I described in #1. At any rate, I don't accept handwaves like "dragon's curse" anyways.
I re-read it over the weekend and if you call dragon's curse a handwave and take the liberty of not accepting it..you might want to read the book again. it's not really a handwave when it's stated directly and several times over, that
1) Gold and treasure, but specifically gold and "what is wrongfully taken from them" is what the Dwarves are all about and can become an obsession to them.
2) Gold that has been part of a Dragon's hoard for decades has a dweomer/charme that is unique and a bit mind-addling.. more so with Dwarves, even more so if the gold was originally theirs.
3) Thorin was rather bitter about having to work for his keep for most of his life and having to run for his life from Smaug. More than once his behaviour was arrogant and steeped in a sense of entitlement... once he was under the charm of his newfound riches, even the other dwarves didn't agree with his conduct but didn't dare speak up against him for fear of his reaction.

MLai
2012-08-27, 06:45 AM
he is a bit of an ass.. all through the book, with precious few exceptions, he's been acting as if he was due everything and needn't worry on how to actually get it or about doing his bit.
This is true. But being haughty about his lineage is different from going back on his word to cheat an ally.


we know for a fact (word of god) that as soon as he heard his cousin was marching towards him, he was plotting to go back on his freshly crafted agreement to pay for the Arkenstone with Bilbo's share...
in other words, he'd get the Arkenstone and pay for it with money that wasn't his to begin with, as it belonged by rights (and written contract) to Bilbo... yet that wasn't enough because he wanted to use force of arms to keep even that share and still get the stone.
You're taking this segment of plot completely out of context. I remember this part, at least.
(1) Bilbo stole the Arkenstone and betrayed Thorin, giving it to his enemies. Doesn't matter what Bilbo's reasoning was, that was what happened.
(2) As such, ofc Thorin tied him up and the contract between him and Bilbo instantly became null and void.
(3) As such, Thorin can do whatever he wants with what was Bilbo's share.

I agree that Bilbo was trying to do the right thing, etc etc. But you made it sound like Thorin was being a backstabbing schemer without scruples, when in fact he only treated Bilbo that way because Bilbo betrayed him.

Bard & friends came up to the gate and tried to intimidate Thorin into handing over a vague amount of gold. That had already understandably set Thorin onto a single-track dwarven frame of mind: "No one browbeats a dwarf! My honour shall not permit this!" That was bad enough, and then his friend betrays him by handing over the national treasure to be ransomed against him. Do you think he'd "see reason" after that?

There's the correct way to deal with a royal dwarf's sensibilities that would have seen Thorin voluntarily give a portion of gold to Bard. Bard started off on the wrong foot, and then the subsequent developments just made things worse and worse (until the Battle).


I re-read it over the weekend and if you call dragon's curse a handwave and take the liberty of not accepting it..you might want to read the book again. it's not really a handwave when it's stated directly and several times over,
I'll take your word for it about the dragon curse part; I don't remember it.

dehro
2012-08-27, 06:54 AM
This is true. But being haughty about his lineage is different from going back on his word to cheat an ally.


You're taking this segment of plot completely out of context. I remember this part, at least.
(1) Bilbo stole the Arkenstone and betrayed Thorin, giving it to his enemies. Doesn't matter what Bilbo's reasoning was, that was what happened.
(2) As such, ofc Thorin tied him up and the contract between him and Bilbo instantly became null and void.
(3) As such, Thorin can do whatever he wants with what was Bilbo's share.

I agree that Bilbo was trying to do the right thing, etc etc. But you made it sound like Thorin was being a backstabbing schemer without scruples, when in fact he only treated Bilbo that way because Bilbo betrayed him.

that may be, but it still doesn't change the fact that Tolkien explicitly states that Thorin was thinking to use his cousin's forces to firstly go through with the deal with Bard and then, once the Arkenstone was safely recovered, force Bard to relinquish the share of loot.
however you look at it, this is not a conduct becoming to a king and an honourable person, which is what Thorin sees himself as.
As a matter of fact, when he's on his deadbed, the grasp the gold has on his hearth is gone, and his right frame of mind restored.. which is when he acknowledges that Bilbo did the right thing and regrets his actions and words.

pendell
2012-08-27, 09:52 AM
Hah, Thorin wasn't going to give them a single gold piece. Reasonable or not, there was no way he was going to part with even a single piece of that treasure.

It was inevitable.

Again, the attitude of Mim the Petty-Dwarf in the "Tale of the Children of Hurin" is instructive. "I do not love to be parted even with a shoelace by force of the wicked".

There are a couple of factors at work here:

1) Thorin and Company are the ones who went into the dragon's lair and stirred him after decades or centuries of inactivity. They therefore must bear some share of the blame for Laketown's destruction.

2) They wouldn't have a thing if Bard hadn't killed the dragon for them. They owe him personally for that.

3) Thorin is much more likely to deal kindly with humble men. But when an army shows up at his door like so many thieves or vultures around the carcass, it gets his Mim-the-petty-dwarf back up. He won't give a single copper under threat of force. And nothing at all to the elves, whom he owes nothing and has small reason to remember with kindness.

The men don't care. As they calculate it, 13 dwarves can't hold the mountain against them forever, and they have no food. They'll wait 'em out. While Bard would deal fairly, other men such as the master of laketown might take it all and push the dwarves out to starve. So it's quite reasonable to bar his doors to them.

4) There is a heavy dragon-spell on the entire treasure , and Thorin is not the most generous of dwarves under the best of conditions. Centuries of dragonish presence in the cave is affecting Thorin, making him more inclined to greed than he normally is.

And so between the greed of the men, the greed of the elves, and the greed of the dwarves Smaug comes very close to having the last laugh as they all kill each other over the mountains' gold. Good thing Tolkien brought in goblin ex machina to give these three a common foe, and then Eagle Ex Machina to save the day when things looked bleak.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

MLai
2012-08-27, 11:22 AM
that may be, but it still doesn't change the fact that Tolkien explicitly states that Thorin was thinking to use his cousin's forces to firstly go through with the deal with Bard and then, once the Arkenstone was safely recovered, force Bard to relinquish the share of loot.
however you look at it, this is not a conduct becoming to a king and an honourable person, which is what Thorin sees himself as.
Why is it unbecoming? In this case Bard and his friends are trying to ransom gold out of Thorin with the Arkenstone which they clearly have no claim over. An honourable dwarf does not need to deal honourably with thieves and criminals.

If Bard approached Thorin legitimately (peacefully, treat Thorin as a king and rightful owner of the mountain), he has a strong case for receiving a portion of the spoils, as has been discussed. By using the Arkenstone as ransom, he has forfeited all legal claim or appeal to honour.

Technically Thorin is not wrong. But ofc acting the way he did is not wise. So there is cause for his deathbed regret.

Muz
2012-08-27, 11:26 AM
Basically, it was a cocked-up situation and mistakes were made all around. Sorta like life.

'Cept with a dragon.

Traab
2012-08-27, 11:51 AM
Basically, it was a cocked-up situation and mistakes were made all around. Sorta like life.

'Cept with a dragon.

Pretty much this. Thorin was a bossy ass acting as if he was in a position of strength when he wasnt, and Bard should have realized that his army was only exacerbating the situation, which the elves were making a whole other magnitude worse. The elves were idiots. Once they realized who the dwarves were, they really should have just backed off. "Hey Bard, me and my homies are heading back to laketown to start work on rebuilding. Let us know what happens up here." Nobody was willing to be reasonable, nobody was willing to back down, everyone was being stubborn and stupid, and the gobbos are the only reason this didnt turn into a general war between elves dwarves and men.

grimbold
2012-08-27, 11:59 AM
(2) Thorin is an ass.


for me this is the crux of the entire novel :smalltongue:

dehro
2012-08-27, 12:08 PM
If Bard approached Thorin legitimately (peacefully, treat Thorin as a king and rightful owner of the mountain), he has a strong case for receiving a portion of the spoils, as has been discussed.

he did.. trouble is he got there followed by scores of people who wanted to take a looksie.. and who were perceived by Thorin, whose mind already was a bit addled by the dragon-dweomer, as an armed force out to steal everything from him again..
basically the lake people acted rashly, the elves poked their noses where it didn't belong, and Thoring took it in the worst possible way..and then some.

snoopy13a
2012-08-27, 07:09 PM
I wonder what the goblins' endgame was.

Gold, after all, isn't useful by itself--at least at the technology levels of Middle Earth. Thus, it must be traded for useful materials such as food, weapons, etc. So, the goblins would need a trading partner.

The goblins weren't on friendly terms with the elves, nor were they friendly with the men who lived in the forest south of Beorn (in fact, they were planning to kill them). They haven't encountered hobbits since Bullroarer Took invented golf. The men of Rohan are to the south and the men/hobbits of Bree are to the far west. Neither of whom would want to trade with goblins.

So, what would the goblins do with the gold? One possibility is trade with the Dunlanders, who live in the hills between Bree and Rohan. Another option is with some of the more "evil" dwarves. Tolkien mentioned that some dwarves traded with goblins in the past but memories of the goblin-dwarf war are likely still strong. So, dwarves are probably out for the short-term.

Mordor seems a bit far, and there are too many free peoples between that land and the Misty Mountains. The necromancer (Sauron, of course) controlled lands in the south of Mirkwood but it is questionable whether or not he had contact with those goblins (and he was just recently driven out by the White Council). The final option would be trolls, such as the estimable William Huggins, who live in the northern mountains. While they may be amiable to trade, who would the trolls unload the gold on?

Obviously, we're not supposed to analyze things this far, but how do you think the goblins would unload the gold?

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-27, 07:24 PM
Obviously, we're not supposed to analyze things this far, but how do you think the goblins would unload the gold?

Rationally, I am aware that this is the incorrect answer. But my gut tells me as Bling. Goblins with gold teeth, sovreign rings and disco medalions.

Gnoman
2012-08-27, 07:53 PM
I wonder what the goblins' endgame was.

Gold, after all, isn't useful by itself--at least at the technology levels of Middle Earth. Thus, it must be traded for useful materials such as food, weapons, etc. So, the goblins would need a trading partner.

The goblins weren't on friendly terms with the elves, nor were they friendly with the men who lived in the forest south of Beorn (in fact, they were planning to kill them). They haven't encountered hobbits since Bullroarer Took invented golf. The men of Rohan are to the south and the men/hobbits of Bree are to the far west. Neither of whom would want to trade with goblins.

So, what would the goblins do with the gold? One possibility is trade with the Dunlanders, who live in the hills between Bree and Rohan. Another option is with some of the more "evil" dwarves. Tolkien mentioned that some dwarves traded with goblins in the past but memories of the goblin-dwarf war are likely still strong. So, dwarves are probably out for the short-term.

Mordor seems a bit far, and there are too many free peoples between that land and the Misty Mountains. The necromancer (Sauron, of course) controlled lands in the south of Mirkwood but it is questionable whether or not he had contact with those goblins (and he was just recently driven out by the White Council). The final option would be trolls, such as the estimable William Huggins, who live in the northern mountains. While they may be amiable to trade, who would the trolls unload the gold on?

Obviously, we're not supposed to analyze things this far, but how do you think the goblins would unload the gold?

First, the gold was a secondary concern. The orcs of the Misty Mountains wanted revenge for the slaughter that Thorin & Company had dealt them, while their champion had fought with Thorin's people at the gates of Moria, where Thorin killed his father.

Second, the hoard held far more than mere gold. The mithril shirt gifted to Bilbo was but one of the many fine suits of armor that dwelt there. The armor Gimli wore as part of the Fellowship was superior to any that could have been found in the armories of Rohan or Gondor, and was either part of the hoard, or was made afterward by lesser smiths. Orc eqipment was always described as somewhat crude, however deadly. Being able to fit out a warband in dwarven gear would make the orcs formidable indeed.

Third, Sauron had still his lesser fortress in Mirkwood, under the guise of the Necromancer, and would have been quite pleased with the fall of the Mountain to forces that would later flock to him.. a victory there would not only gain him a strong fortress, but enough elves might have been destroyed in the battle that the ancient wood-elven fortress might be ripe to fall. Whatever slaves or goods that the orcs hoped to buy with the gold, he would have sold them eagerly.

MLai
2012-08-27, 08:32 PM
This goblin-gold question raises another question in my mind... Assuming we look at the map during Bilbo's time and think of it in realistic terms, are the goblin populations self-sufficient enough to survive while being surrounded by hostile factions who are, if not allied with each other, at least neutral to each other and would unite to turn on the goblins on a dime?

My memory of the map in the book kind of shows small centers of goblin power, surrounded all around by elves, men, and dwarves. How do they survive??? Or am I remembering it wrong?

I tend to call them goblins instead of orcs, after watching the PJ movie. I also ascribe to that depiction that they're a stuntier variety of orcs, dwarf-sized rather than human-sized.

Traab
2012-08-27, 09:11 PM
The thing is, the great alliance of men and elves is gone. Each race has fallen back into their own strongholds, kept their own council, and only worried over their own affairs. The goblins and orcs are in decently fortified, highly dangerous defensive positions. Its HARD to commit genocide on a underground race. You dont know where all the tunnels lead, you cant surround the enemy, but they can ambush the hell out of you. Theoretically any of the races could move enmasse into the mountains to wipe out the goblins, but they would take crippling losses themselves. In general I think it was accepted as better to basically keep a strong defense to avoid goblin armies forming, and to deal with raids when they happened. Think of it as a fantasy world version of MAD. if either side moved too strongly against another, their enemies would finish them off while they were weakened.

The whole situation with the battle of the 5 armies was the goblins and such taking a big risk to attack everyone while they were away from their respective territories. The elves were out of mirkwood, the dwarves where out of their hills, the men had nowhere to go. Had any part of the good guys efforts not been done, like linking up and working together, of beorn showing up, or the eagles, then the goblins would have crushed a significant force and gained a huge victory.

Now, let me include this. I havent read the similarion, or any of the other stuff, so I may be wrong, and tolkein may have explained things differently, but thats my working theory on events.

dehro
2012-08-28, 05:48 AM
more to the point..there was very little to gain from taking the battle to the orcs/goblins.
the only thing these had that was of interest to (only) the Dwarves, was access and control over Khazad Dum.. and to get that back, especially being on their own, the Dwarves needed to build up their numbers and equipment again.. which they did once they recovered their primary objective.. the Kingdom under the Mountain and it's treasuries.
Of course we all know just how badly they underestimated the challenge, but that's a story for later in the middle-earth calendar.

P.S. I just realized that Billy Connolly is going to play Dain Ironfoot..
I really can't wait to see that.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-28, 06:16 AM
I wonder what the goblins' endgame was.

Gold, after all, isn't useful by itself--at least at the technology levels of Middle Earth. Thus, it must be traded for useful materials such as food, weapons, etc. So, the goblins would need a trading partner.

Yeah, but this question applies just as equally to pretty much every gaming world out there - with the possible odd exception like OotS world, and even then only for some of the humanoid races. Even the legendary hordes of dragons follow the same lack of logic - if the dragon's horde is never used for anything, it has no inherent (monetary) value to the dragon; it's just shiny rocks, at the end of the day. So the goblins wanting the gold makes no more or less sense than Smaug himself, come to that. Presumably, it basically boils down to what amounts to shiny things and bragging rights, rather than any meaningful economic wotsits. Plus, for the goblins, the slim chance of any usable magical (or mithril) gear.

pendell
2012-08-28, 07:58 AM
I wonder what the goblins' endgame was.

Gold, after all, isn't useful by itself--at least at the technology levels of Middle Earth. Thus, it must be traded for useful materials such as food, weapons, etc. So, the goblins would need a trading partner.


They have one. Mordor/Dol Guldur. Also the human nations to the east and south, the Haradrim and the Easterlings. There are plenty of humans willing to ally with goblins and presumably trade with them. That's mentioned in the Return of the King -- most of the Hobbits' adventures deal with the "teeth" of the armies of evil, so they mostly encounter soldiers. But there's an entire economy of plunder and tribute and slavery and wealth which are only touched on in the books.

The goblins of the hobbit are not barbarians. They make cunning and dreadful weapons, they employ slaves because they don't believe in doing any more work than they have to. They are a civilization with currency and ironworking and all the rest of it. Naturally they have use for gold just as the Spanish conquistadores did in our world. Even without partners, they can still use gold in their own economy.

ETA: It's also mentioned in the Hobbit that in some parts of the world wicked dwarves, of a different sort entirely from Thorin and co., allied with goblins. There's another venue for trade relations. Naturally gold would come in useful for purchasing smithcraft and so forth from these dwarves.

ETA: WRT isolated goblins, remember that they have tunnels and tunnels and tunnels all through the misty mountains and the iron mountains to the north. There are whole highways and kingdoms under the mountains that don't show up on the map. So what we see of the goblins is only the tip of the iceberg -- they are a powerful force and a viable civilization until the war of the Ring.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

MLai
2012-08-28, 10:45 AM
In current LOTR rpgs and mmos, is it assumed that unlike how the novels depict, after Sauron fell the orcs/goblins/trolls never magically died out?

Or are the games simply always set before/during the War of the Ring?

grimbold
2012-08-29, 02:58 PM
they never did die out
they were cast out to their holes in the mountains

oblivion6
2012-08-29, 06:29 PM
yeah i believe the orcs and all the rest just scattered back to their holes after the war but still remain in scattered tribes here and there.

i believe all the games take place during the war. the exception to this is the MMO which takes place early in the 3rd age before the war?

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-30, 01:30 AM
In current LOTR rpgs and mmos, is it assumed that unlike how the novels depict, after Sauron fell the orcs/goblins/trolls never magically died out?

Or are the games simply always set before/during the War of the Ring?

I remember that in Bilbo it was heavily implied that Orcs and Gobins simply faded away, but are not completely gone, and simply became the trolls and goblins of modern fairytales in "modern" England.

In LOTR I think it is described a little differently, but basically their will to fight was broken, some just laid down to die, some ran away, some tried to fight but was cut down... etc. But yes, they breed like normal mammals, so they didn't just die out because Sauron wasn't around anymore.

grimbold
2012-09-01, 06:22 AM
Avilan, how do you know that orcs breed as normal mammals?

VanBuren
2012-09-01, 06:29 AM
Avilan, how do you know that orcs breed as normal mammals?

I'd say because half-orcs wouldn't make sense otherwise, but we all know that sort of thing is hardly an impediment.

Orcs get Darkvision, Elves get Low-light vision, Humans get... that. We're such a weird race.

Avilan the Grey
2012-09-01, 08:19 AM
Avilan, how do you know that orcs breed as normal mammals?

Because Tolkien said so.

t209
2012-09-01, 10:29 AM
for me this is the crux of the entire novel :smalltongue:
In addition,
he managed to get badass and redeem himself before his death.

Gnoman
2012-09-01, 01:32 PM
Avilan, how do you know that orcs breed as normal mammals?

Orcs are simply a degenerate breed of elves ruined by Morgoth. Elves breed like any other animal, thus Orcs do. That pod nonsense in the Two Towers film had no basis in the books.

grimbold
2012-09-01, 01:54 PM
well...
does that imply there are female orcs? (thats what always confused me TBH)

Gnoman
2012-09-01, 02:32 PM
In theory, yes. We never see any female dwarves either, yet they canonically exist.

snoopy13a
2012-09-01, 03:25 PM
Orcs are simply a degenerate breed of elves ruined by Morgoth. Elves breed like any other animal, thus Orcs do. That pod nonsense in the Two Towers film had no basis in the books.

The corrupted elf theory is in The Silmarillion but it is unclear whether Tolkien changed his mind about it.

Avilan the Grey
2012-09-01, 03:29 PM
The corrupted elf theory is in The Silmarillion but it is unclear whether Tolkien changed his mind about i't.

In this discussion that is rather irrelevant; whether they came from Elves or Men, they still breed like mammals. And besides, (though I can't find the exact quote, Tolkien himself said in a direct response to this question that yes, they breed like "all the other peoples of Middle Earth".

Welf
2012-09-01, 05:12 PM
also, the last thing Gollum used the ring for in Hobbit was to steal a orc baby from his mother and eat it

grimbold
2012-09-02, 07:07 AM
good points all around

i learned something new about lotr

didn't think that was a possibility :P

Karoht
2012-09-03, 07:32 AM
In theory, yes. We never see any female dwarves either, yet they canonically exist.
I suddenly hope that we get to see a Female Dwarf somewhere.
Maybe as Peter Jackson's cameo?
This is not a knock at Jackson, I think he would be thrilled to do it.

Avilan the Grey
2012-09-03, 12:19 PM
I suddenly hope that we get to see a Female Dwarf somewhere.
Maybe as Peter Jackson's cameo?
This is not a knock at Jackson, I think he would be thrilled to do it.

Discworld. Dwarf with a beard. And heels.

Karoht
2012-09-03, 12:24 PM
Discworld. Dwarf with a beard. And heels.
If Peter Jackson decides to cameo as such in The Hobbit, I think my respect for the man will hit a new all time high.

VanBuren
2012-09-03, 01:14 PM
Discworld. Dwarf with a beard. And heels.

Gender is more or less optional.

Traab
2012-09-03, 06:01 PM
If Peter Jackson decides to cameo as such in The Hobbit, I think my respect for the man will hit a new all time high.

I will want his babies if he convinces stan lee to do a cameo just for the "did I really just see that?!" factor. :p Suddenly we see a suspiciously familiar old hobbit in the background smoking a pipe.

KnightDisciple
2012-09-03, 06:37 PM
I'm still irritated by "dwarf women have beards!", because that's nowhere in LOTR or anything. :smallannoyed:

Traab
2012-09-03, 08:06 PM
I'm still irritated by "dwarf women have beards!", because that's nowhere in LOTR or anything. :smallannoyed:

Neither is legolas sledding down staircases riding shields as he shoots several orcs on the way down. Artistic license to make things more entertaining for the masses that didnt go there hoping to see an identical reading of the books put on films. I dont mind those things too much because at least they are just little bits of frippery added to the movie to make things more interesting without blatantly contradicting canon events. Well, anymore than gimli being comedy relief period was.

Blue Bandit
2012-09-03, 08:13 PM
I'm still irritated by "dwarf women have beards!", because that's nowhere in LOTR or anything. :smallannoyed:

If your referring to the joke that Aragorn made in The Two Towers when Gimli was describing dwarf women, I always interpreted it to be just that, a joke. Just like when someone jokes about how elf men look like women , some people joke about dwarf women having beards. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

VanBuren
2012-09-03, 09:38 PM
I'm still irritated by "dwarf women have beards!", because that's nowhere in LOTR or anything. :smallannoyed:

The Balrog didn't have wings either.


...or did he?

WalkingTarget
2012-09-03, 10:11 PM
If your referring to the joke that Aragorn made in The Two Towers when Gimli was describing dwarf women, I always interpreted it to be just that, a joke. Just like when someone jokes about how elf men look like women , some people joke about dwarf women having beards. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Gimli's line directly before that regarding Dwarf women being so like the men in voice and appearance that they're often mistaken for them is right out of the appendices - and since all dwarf men we're given descriptions for mention long beards, it's not that far of a jump to make.

snoopy13a
2012-09-03, 10:27 PM
From Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings:


[T]here are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart.

From this passage, it is commonly inferred that dwarf-women have beards. Another possible inference is that dwarf-women do not have beards but don fake beards when traveling.

dehro
2012-09-04, 12:23 AM
From Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings:



From this passage, it is commonly inferred that dwarf-women have beards. Another possible inference is that dwarf-women do not have beards but don fake beards when traveling.

and when stoning other dwarves of course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI)

Rules Lawyer #1
2012-09-04, 02:11 AM
My personal take on the LotR book(s) is: boring :smallsigh:

The movie version LotR is awesome, particularly the extended version DVDs :smallcool:


That actually makes a lot of sense. Movie theaters like shorter movies because they charge per showing, not per minute of film, and a shorter film can have more showings per day. I seem to recall, they struggled to get Return of the King under three hours for it's theatrical release.


I think he did a fantastic job! Yes, he cut things out of the book and moved things around, but I forgive those things. Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire simply didn't fit the pacing of a movie. And I think he did wonders with Arwen's and Aragorn's relationship which Tolkien did not.

In my mind the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire was the biggest mistake in LotR because the Scouring of the Shire actually gives reason for the movie not to end with Frodo on the Volcano. By eliminating the Scouring of the Shire, they effectively destroyed the ending for The Return of the King and now it shall live in infamy: *fade to black* 'well that was a good movie' *fades back in* 'No, wait there's more' *fade to black* '…Okaaay' *fades back in* 'Oh, there's more' *fades to black* '…ummm' *fades back in* 'Is this movie going to end?' *end movie* '…' *waits* 'okaay so that's the end? Why do I feel like I just lost the last five minutes of my life?'

The Hobbit: There and Back Again book version is awesome. The Hobbit differs from LotR in that the Hobbit is a book of action where the LotR is a trilogy of plodding Doom. Also, Peter Jackson can streeeeetch a movie out (do not watch The Lovely Bones, a very slooooww pace movie over two hours long directed by Peter Jackson).

On the other hand, one of the reasons I think Peter Jackson did so well with LotR is because JRR Tolkien produced enough material to create another world entirely. Because Peter Jackson likes to do a lot of build up, having the extra material actually gives him something to do in LotR. The extra material in the Hobbit is a potential plot destroyer. Is the extra material really relevant to The Hobbit? By splitting The Hobbit into more than one part, I worry that Peter Jackson may destroy what makes The Hobbit what it is. Regardless of how awesome the filler material is (and yes, I would love to see the filler material), the Hobbit becomes a LotR style presentation: still cool, but definitely not cool in the way the book was cool. Since this is clearly his intent, it will be interesting to see how well he pulls it off. And besides, JRR Tolkien would've liked to have changed The Hobbit to include more of the material he generated while writing LotR. Regardless, I think these will be world-class movies on a par with Peter Jackson's LotR.


Don't be silly people. This is clearly the Star Wars model of film making.

First you make the concluding trilogy.

Then you make the prequel trilogy that most peoplefind awkward.

Except that The Hobbit was actually written before LotR… whereas the Star Wars prequel was concept only and the "concluding" trilogy hasn't been written and quite possibly never will be (the original Star Wars trilogy is the "middle" trilogy).


So, apparently they've been shooting the movies at a higher framerate than... all other movies that've come out ever. Apparently a lot of people don't like it, saying that it feels like a soap opera set (AKA, completely unrealistic.)

So apparently now the 48 FPS version is just going to be a limited release.

Links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_n_1452391.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-48-fps-warner-bros-peter-jackson_n_1755388.html

Actually, critics are saying 48 FPS is uncenematic (i.e. more realistic) and that's bad because… because you can tell that sets are sets (just like you can tell that sets in soap operas are sets when watching your TV at home)… the audience shouldn't be able to see everything so clearly! Yeah! It has absolutely nothing to do with theaters not wanting to upgrade their equipment… Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! lol :smallamused:


See, your problem is you assume the dwarves are just packing musical instruments instead of weapons:
Real dwarves understand how to pack sensibly with limited luggage space. You don't pack your instrument or your axe.

http://www.kramermaniaxe.com/AXES.JPG

You pack your instrument and your axe.

+1 :smallcool:


"Alright, let's do this! BILBOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAGGINS!"

+1 :smallsmile:


Thorin should have taken you along.

+1 :smallbiggrin: He should have taken me along!


Rationally, I am aware that this is the incorrect answer. But my gut tells me as Bling. Goblins with gold teeth, sovreign rings and disco medalions.

+1, goblins don't trade with other races.
No. No, they don't, not even with Mordor. Okay, okay, maybe evil dwarves. Maybe. :smalltongue: They do, however, trade with other goblins :smallsmile:


Orcs are simply a degenerate breed of elves ruined by Morgoth. Elves breed like any other animal, thus Orcs do. That pod nonsense in the Two Towers film had no basis in the books.

Except that these are no "ordinary" orcs. They are Uruk-Hai. Their shields are broad, their armor thick. Moreover, they are specially "bred" to be more resistant to sunlight by Saruman and Sauron. The movie takes some creative license in showing what Saruman is doing. The book doesn't exactly describe what Saruman does to create them, yet that doesn't make the pod theory nonsense. After all, Saruman is a wizard. So how does a wizard make stronger orcs?

MLai
2012-09-04, 04:40 AM
By eliminating the Scouring of the Shire, they effectively destroyed the ending for The Return of the King and now it shall live in infamy
I'm the type of person who watches the end credits of a movie even without the bait of a post-credits extra scene (Marvel movies), so I was fine with the trilogy's "multiple endings." I for one was glad the SotS was removed. It's an anti-climax.


Actually, critics are saying 48 FPS is uncenematic (i.e. more realistic) and that's bad because… because you can tell that sets are sets (just like you can tell that sets in soap operas are sets when watching your TV at home)… the audience shouldn't be able to see everything so clearly! Yeah! It has absolutely nothing to do with theaters not wanting to upgrade their equipment…
+1
I remember all the naysaying back when digital was first introduced. "Oh noes! The quality is so clear now, you can see the imperfections on the actresses' faces!"
Fact of the matter is. Just like digital was the future, 48 FPS is the future. 3D is not, and was never, the future (maybe the far future).
Also, I don't get how the heck does a faster frame rate make the sets look fake? Last I checked, backgrounds don't move around.


+1, goblins don't trade with other races.
No. No, they don't, not even with Mordor. Okay, okay, maybe evil dwarves. Maybe. :smalltongue: They do, however, trade with other goblins
I also agree that goblins (and orcs) are totally into bling. Just look at how they fought over a shiny mithril shirt that was 6 sizes too small for them.

VanBuren
2012-09-04, 05:07 AM
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that it's a vast departure from the framerates of other movies, while coming closer to the framerate of what soap operas operate at. So anything at that speed gets associated with the general low-quality of soap operas, which are low-quality for completely different reasons that involve not having enough time to build great sets or set up cinematic-level lighting.

grimbold
2012-09-04, 06:08 AM
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that it's a vast departure from the framerates of other movies, while coming closer to the framerate of what soap operas operate at. So anything at that speed gets associated with the general low-quality of soap operas, which are low-quality for completely different reasons that involve not having enough time to build great sets or set up cinematic-level lighting.

this

of course... now that we have the technology... movies are going to HAVE to get better :smallcool:

Parra
2012-09-04, 06:24 AM
My, probably limited, understanding of the FPS issue was to do with how the Human eye worked.
At the 24FPS cinema is normally shot in the human eye fills in the 'blanks' giving a fluid motion with a lot of flaws being smoothed out simply by how our eye works.
But at the 48FPS the Hobbit is being shot in some of those 'blanks' are now filled in for us, which can potentially draw attention to those flaws that our eyes previously glossed over. Essentially sharpening any imperfections in the set.

At least that's how it was explained to me

MLai
2012-09-04, 09:46 AM
If 48 FPS is so new-fangled/ high-quality/ experimental... why the heck are low-budget soap operas using it, but yet Hollywood movies are using old tech running at half the speed???

I do not follow soap opera culture at all, so pardon me if it's well-known knowledge or something.

Xondoure
2012-09-04, 01:15 PM
If 48 FPS is so new-fangled/ high-quality/ experimental... why the heck are low-budget soap operas using it, but yet Hollywood movies are using old tech running at half the speed???

I do not follow soap opera culture at all, so pardon me if it's well-known knowledge or something.

Because films have been stuck in 24 fps forever while the home video camera shot straight past. This leaves us with the unfortunate implication that good framerates look like home videos.

Karoht
2012-09-04, 01:57 PM
Because films have been stuck in 24 fps forever while the home video camera shot straight past. This leaves us with the unfortunate implication that good framerates look like home videos.Yeah, I noticed that with some films in HD on a proper HDTV. It's almost surreal, but indeed, makes anything fake look really fake.

Gnoman
2012-09-04, 06:13 PM
Except that these are no "ordinary" orcs. They are Uruk-Hai. Their shields are broad, their armor thick. Moreover, they are specially "bred" to be more resistant to sunlight by Saruman and Sauron. The movie takes some creative license in showing what Saruman is doing. The book doesn't exactly describe what Saruman does to create them, yet that doesn't make the pod theory nonsense. After all, Saruman is a wizard. So how does a wizard make stronger orcs?

That doesn't change the fact that that method was invented for the movies, as the method by which they were bred is never mentioned. I didn't say it was a horrible depiction, I actually kind of liked it as a concept. I referred to it as nonsense because I'm sick of so many people insisting that all orcs are born that way, when none are in the source material.

Zea mays
2012-09-04, 06:33 PM
As I recall, in the book, Gandalf mentions in a random aside that he suspects Saruman has been breeding Orc-human hybrids.
And then they moved on to other topics.

Leaving the teenage me to ponder the utterly horrific implications. :smalleek:


Now I prefer to think the Uruk-Hai came into being exactly the way the movie depicted it.

snoopy13a
2012-09-04, 09:42 PM
As I recall, in the book, Gandalf mentions in a random aside that he suspects Saruman has been breeding Orc-human hybrids.
And then they moved on to other topics.

Leaving the teenage me to ponder the utterly horrific implications. :smalleek:


Now I prefer to think the Uruk-Hai came into being exactly the way the movie depicted it.

Like this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html

dehro
2012-09-05, 02:40 AM
stuff

I disagree with almost everything you say in this post except for the +1 on the guitaraxe..
but it mostly comes down to personal preference, so I'll keep it at that without going on a point by point rebuttal/reply.

hamishspence
2012-09-05, 06:39 AM
That doesn't change the fact that that method was invented for the movies, as the method by which they were bred is never mentioned. I didn't say it was a horrible depiction, I actually kind of liked it as a concept. I referred to it as nonsense because I'm sick of so many people insisting that all orcs are born that way, when none are in the source material.

"bred from the heats and slimes of the earth" was used very early on in Tolkien's writings, but he moved on from it fairly quickly.

There were a lot of origins he speculated on- uplifted animals, men, elves, incarnate Maiar, and so forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)

Gnoman
2012-09-05, 04:13 PM
Anything outside the Silmarillion (which was mostly completed before Christopher Tolkein got ahold of it) or LOTR/Hobbit proper, must be considered as canonical as Trotter or Bungo, son of Bilbo. The fragments of writing that C used in the History of Middle Earth series were just that. Fragments. According to the prefaces, it was often impossible to tell how old a given fragment was, let alone how seriously his father considered the idea.

Fangorn describes trolls as "only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves." This suggests the "corrupted elves" version, even without resorting to the Silmarillion. Once you go to that book, it's explicit.

pendell
2012-09-05, 06:01 PM
I had always assumed Saruman had perfected some Middle-earth version of the cloning facilities seen in Star Wars. Clones, after all, are made from humans that can reproduce naturally but that doesn't stop an evil supervillain in need of an army from cloning mass numbers of them.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Karoht
2012-09-05, 06:30 PM
The theme of Saruman was that he had shifted his focus from natural things, and towards industrial things.
While it is entirely possible that he represents the industrial method of producing soldiers (highly regimented lives), it is possible that he represents the industrial methods applied to the production of soldiers. Not stated directly of course, but implied. Think factory as opposed to natural development. So cloning 'pods' or anything similar does sound like it fits the character's theme.

(I may be applying more of Peter Jacksons' interpretation of Saruman rather than Tolkien's, it has been quite a few years since I read any of the books)

Traab
2012-09-05, 07:21 PM
The theme of Saruman was that he had shifted his focus from natural things, and towards industrial things.
While it is entirely possible that he represents the industrial method of producing soldiers (highly regimented lives), it is possible that he represents the industrial methods applied to the production of soldiers. Not stated directly of course, but implied. Think factory as opposed to natural development. So cloning 'pods' or anything similar does sound like it fits the character's theme.

(I may be applying more of Peter Jacksons' interpretation of Saruman rather than Tolkien's, it has been quite a few years since I read any of the books)

Im pretty sure in the books treebeard talks about how saruman has changed, where he once walked the entwood and appreciated nature, his mind is now focused on metal and machinery, or something to that effect. The status of orthanc and its surrounding land is more proof, it wasnt just in the movies that saruman basically had his troops tear down everything and even start chopping up fangorn forest. He went full industrial effort and destroyed all nature around him. He clear cut the trees, dammed the river, His underground caverns vented steam and fumes at all hours of the day and night, likely poisoning the earth and sky around him.

Karoht
2012-09-05, 07:41 PM
Im pretty sure in the books treebeard talks about how saruman has changed, where he once walked the entwood and appreciated nature, his mind is now focused on metal and machinery, or something to that effect.Ah. I was uncertain if that was movie treebeard or book treebeard at that point.



The status of orthanc and its surrounding land is more proof, it wasnt just in the movies that saruman basically had his troops tear down everything and even start chopping up fangorn forest. He went full industrial effort and destroyed all nature around him. He clear cut the trees, dammed the river, His underground caverns vented steam and fumes at all hours of the day and night, likely poisoning the earth and sky around him.Exactly.
So my figuring based on that theme is that maybe Tolkien left the orc production vague on purpose. Maybe he wanted us to imagine some industrial Sci-fi horror (vat grown soldiers) on our own. Leaving it to our imagination is sometimes the book equivilant to "show, don't tell" as it were.

Traab
2012-09-05, 09:16 PM
Yeah I am honestly unsure if all the destruction saruman caused to his area was solely to setup his war machine. Meaning he needed to make enough armor and weaponry for his vast army, and making 10k swords, 10k breastplates, 10k etc etc etc, takes either a lot of time, or a lot of people working together. He had a lot of people working for him, but had to bring in an insane amount of raw materials and create a lot of space for them to work in. So he strip mined the surrounding area for every resource and then spread out into fangorn when that wasnt enough. Which is what led to his downfall since it was cutting down fangorn forest trees that pissed off the ents so much.

I dont know if his uruk hai were suggested to be created by some pod person process or just some insane cross breeding experiment that involved using thousands of slaves and such.

pendell
2012-09-05, 10:16 PM
To my mind Saruman in the movie is a thoroughly modern villain. He uses genetic engineering to create the 'perfect' soldier. He mass-produces both the soldiers themselves through cloning and their equipment through industry. His troops are trained in regiments and are equipped with plate armor as well as Falchions -- weapons that are very simple, very intuitive, but very powerful in the hnads of the Uruk-hai. They carry crossbows and they carry black powder, technological wonder weapons.

Saruman, in other words, represents a particular approach to the power of the Ring. Someone so consumed with monsters that they have become the monster themselves. It's precisely this attitude Gandalf warns against when he cautions that one who took the ring to use as a weapon would become so much like the Dark Lord it would make no difference to the peoples of the world.

Saruman didn't need a ring to become corrupt. Instead, he chose the path of wisdom over faith. He selected only those tactics, strategies, and purposes most likely to gain a martial victory over the Enemy, which meant he adopted pretty much all the Enemy's methods. Rather than place his hope in hobbit friendship and a fool's hope, he carefully calculated the probabilities and made what we might call a scientific strategy. It was overthrown because of things he had completely left out of his mechanistic, industrial mindset.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

mangosta71
2012-09-05, 10:18 PM
Aside from needing room and iron ore, making enough steel to outfit that army would require massive amounts of charcoal, which in turn requires even more massive amounts of hardwood. So there are plenty of good reasons he needed to bulldoze Fangorn.

grimbold
2012-09-06, 02:02 PM
To my mind Saruman in the movie is a thoroughly modern villain. He uses genetic engineering to create the 'perfect' soldier. He mass-produces both the soldiers themselves through cloning and their equipment through industry. His troops are trained in regiments and are equipped with plate armor as well as Falchions -- weapons that are very simple, very intuitive, but very powerful in the hnads of the Uruk-hai. They carry crossbows and they carry black powder, technological wonder weapons.

Saruman, in other words, represents a particular approach to the power of the Ring. Someone so consumed with monsters that they have become the monster themselves. It's precisely this attitude Gandalf warns against when he cautions that one who took the ring to use as a weapon would become so much like the Dark Lord it would make no difference to the peoples of the world.

Saruman didn't need a ring to become corrupt. Instead, he chose the path of wisdom over faith. He selected only those tactics, strategies, and purposes most likely to gain a martial victory over the Enemy, which meant he adopted pretty much all the Enemy's methods. Rather than place his hope in hobbit friendship and a fool's hope, he carefully calculated the probabilities and made what we might call a scientific strategy. It was overthrown because of things he had completely left out of his mechanistic, industrial mindset.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
this is one of the reasons that LOTr always appealed to me! it still relevant!

Traab
2012-09-06, 02:16 PM
Aside from needing room and iron ore, making enough steel to outfit that army would require massive amounts of charcoal, which in turn requires even more massive amounts of hardwood. So there are plenty of good reasons he needed to bulldoze Fangorn.

There is never a good enough reason to chop down trees that may randomly decide to step on you if you try. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2012-09-06, 02:44 PM
Fangorn describes trolls as "only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves." This suggests the "corrupted elves" version, even without resorting to the Silmarillion. Once you go to that book, it's explicit.

With the proviso that "This is held by the Wise" - it's an in-universe view, not "direct author statement".

Frodo says "I don't think it (The Shadow) created the orcs- only ruined and twisted them"- first allusion to the idea that the orcs weren't "made in mockery of the elves" but are actually "ruined and twisted" from what they originally were.

Which the Silmarillion continues.

MLai
2012-09-07, 06:25 AM
When Frodo said that, I think the implication is that Tolkien doesn't want readers to think that his Satan-equivalent is capable of creating anything, even twisted abominations. The creation of life must be the providence of his Abrahmic-God-equivalent.

But I never had the feeling that he meant every orc was born an elf; there wouldn't be enough elves in ME to make that many orcs. They must have reproduced sexually.

But I don't think female orcs exist. I personally think orcs are all male, and propagate their peculiar species via impregnating other humanoid females. Goblins too. Trolls... even I don't want to think about...

dehro
2012-09-07, 07:02 AM
When Frodo said that, I think the implication is that Tolkien doesn't want readers to think that his Satan-equivalent is capable of creating anything, even twisted abominations. The creation of life must be the providence of his Abrahmic-God-equivalent.

But I never had the feeling that he meant every orc was born an elf; there wouldn't be enough elves in ME to make that many orcs. They must have reproduced sexually.

But I don't think female orcs exist. I personally think orcs are all male, and propagate their peculiar species via impregnating other humanoid females. Goblins too. Trolls... even I don't want to think about...
I'm thinking that we're underestimating the passing of time
my guess is that orcs and such have been around for a couple of centuries..which does mean that at the very least the "current" (to LOTR) generations are orcs, offspring of other orcs.

pendell
2012-09-07, 08:32 AM
When Frodo said that, I think the implication is that Tolkien doesn't want readers to think that his Satan-equivalent is capable of creating anything, even twisted abominations. The creation of life must be the providence of his Abrahmic-God-equivalent.

But I never had the feeling that he meant every orc was born an elf; there wouldn't be enough elves in ME to make that many orcs. They must have reproduced sexually.


I don't think so either. I think orcs bear the same relationship to elves that Pit Bulls due to Golden Retrievers -- they are both the same species, but through careful breeding for selected traits one is a dedicated killer attack machine (although it can, with effort, be trained NOT to rip your throat out all in one go) while the other is a somewhat floppy creature which is capable of hunting and killing but is more than that.

Tolkien predates genetic enhancement and genetic engineering, but farmers have been doing that sort of thing for millenia before the letters DNA meant anything. Race horses are bred for speed while workhorses are bred for power, dogs can be bred for hunting or as housepets or as guide animals, pigs are bred to have no tusks but to yield more meat, and so on.

I think it's the same thing. Perhaps orcs and elves once had a common ancestor, as all the different breeds of horse descend from Equus Ferus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_horse). Perhaps elves ARE the common ancestor. But just because they are so closely genetically related that they can produce fertile offspring does not mean there are no differences in physical ability and temperament between them.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

WalkingTarget
2012-09-07, 10:07 AM
I'm thinking that we're underestimating the passing of time
my guess is that orcs and such have been around for a couple of centuries..which does mean that at the very least the "current" (to LOTR) generations are orcs, offspring of other orcs.

LotR happens ~7000 years after the Sun first rose and Orcs had been around for quite some time before that (~400 "Valian Years", but it's hard to gauge how long that is exactly since we don't have a frame of reference before the Years of the Sun began - generally, Tolkien's references to them indicate that Valian Years are longer than Solar Years; anywhere from about 10 times to 144 times as long).

Chromascope3D
2012-09-07, 10:31 AM
I don't remember exactly where (Might've been LOTRO, now that I think about it), but I remember reading that orcs (read: goblins) were elves that had been captured by the Enemy long, long ago and tortured until they'd lost their purity, to fill the ranks of the Enemy's army. All orcs of today are descendants of these original orcs. Even if it's not canon, it is supported by (as was stated earlier) Fangorn/Treebeard explaining that trolls were created by the Enemy to challenge the strength of Ents.

hamishspence
2012-09-07, 11:14 AM
I like the notion that most of the origin stories are true in part- there are Maiar orc captains (or at least, descendants of Maiar/orc breeding) among them- and the rank-and-file are part-elf, part-human (with the Uruk-hai having a higher proportion of human blood than most)- and so forth.

Not sure about trolls- those could be the descendants of corrupted Ents? Or something along those lines.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-09-07, 11:16 AM
Worth noting that I do believe the Enemy in question is not Sauron, but Sauron's boss Morgoth who was Melkor, back in the Silmarillion: Sauron was just Morgoth's lieutenant back then. Fairly certain that the orcs and such descend from one of Morgoth's creations, rather than Sauron's....

hamishspence
2012-09-07, 11:23 AM
Yup. I think there might have been notes that suggested that Sauron played a big part in the project, on Morgoth's orders, though.

The idea that Morgoth could create nothing that had life of its own (or even the semblance of life) and could only "ruin and twist" is voiced by Frodo in LoTR and repeated (with the proviso "so say the wise") in The Silmarillion.

mangosta71
2012-09-07, 11:39 AM
Sounds like the Dothraki refrain "It is known." Which generally means that it has no basis in reality.

Bulldog Psion
2012-09-07, 11:40 AM
Quote from Fangorn here:


He [Saruman] has taken up with foul folk, with orcs. Worse than that: he has been doing something with them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil."

So, by speculation of a creature who is presumably quite knowledgeable in the ways of his world, the two most likely hypotheses were:

1. The Uruk-Hai were humans twisted into monsters by dark magic, like the Elves were when Morgoth made the first orcs;

2. There was a forced interbreeding program between slaves (since the orcs are all essentially slaves, too) -- the 'black evil' part of Treebeard's speech. Though there would presumably be "Therkla" scenarios in the long run, Saruman was out to make an army of thousands in a generation or two. The only possible scenario for that is forced interbreeding between male humans and female orcs, and female humans and male orcs. It's the most efficient if you dispense with all morality (as Saruman clearly had) and just order your slaves to mate, under threat of torture or death.

I think the movie's "pod people" explanation was to bypass something (scenario 2) that would have been very uncomfortable, even though it would have underlined how far Saruman had fallen. Treebeard clearly considered Scenario 2 to be even more villainous than Scenario 1, so it seems likely to be biological rather than magical -- "blended" means "forced reproduction" rather than "reassembled by magic", because Scenario 1 is already clearly "reassembled by magic" and is considered to be evil, but less evil than Scenario 2.

We need to recognize that Tolkien operates by a very different method of thinking and writing than the "show everything in graphic detail" that we have today. Forcible interbreeding, torture, and slaughter are all viewed as utter abominations by him, yet he would never describe them overtly in the narrative. So these oblique hints are about as close as you're going to get to an out and out description.

Similarly, I think that female orcs are implied by the fact that Elves were twisted into orcs initially. We can see during the sack of Nargothrond that Morgoth's warriors drove a huge mass of Elven women off into captivity while Glaurung held Turin helpless with his dragon-gaze. One has to assume that they were also turned into orcs with dark magic, then propagated the species with male orcs in the standard manner, since the Darkness "cannot create, it can only twist and ruin". Unless we assume an infinite supply of elves over thousands of years, the orcs had be self-propagating, meaning they had to "orc-ize" both male and female elves at the start.

WalkingTarget
2012-09-07, 12:17 PM
I think the movie's "pod people" explanation was to bypass something (scenario 2) that would have been very uncomfortable, even though it would have underlined how far Saruman had fallen.

Agreed, but I think it's worth noting that "pod people" could also be a result in needing to compress all of the time frames in the film versions. The movies seem to go from the Long-Expected Party to Frodo leaving the Shire in a matter of months (if not weeks), not the 17 years that pass in the novel.

I don't know if we have a lot of detail on when Saruman's bad projects began, but if we can assume it was sometime early in the ~78 years between the Quest of Erebor and the War of the Ring, there's enough time for a breeding program to get a generation (or two) of fighters.

hamishspence
2012-09-07, 12:23 PM
I wondered if Sauron simply sent Saruman a big division of his Uruk-hai the moment he "turned".

With Saruman modifying them a bit more (taller, straighter legs) and breeding some Half-Orcs- which Aragorn mentions by name in conversation with Merry about Saruman's troops.

Zea mays
2012-09-07, 01:59 PM
Thank you for the quote Bulldog Psion

I think one thing to consider when pondering the nature of orcs and goblins is that Tolkien was probably not up to date on his biology (It's understandable - the man was a linguist, up to his ears in medieval literature).
For instance, in his cave beneath the Misty Mountains, Gollum eats "fish whose fathers swam in, goodness knows how many years ago and never swam out again, while their eyes grew bigger and bigger from trying to see in the blackness". That doesn't sound quite right from a Darwinian perspective.
I think there's a good chance man was thinking heredity worked the way Lamarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) described it. If it does work that way in Middle Earth, than "modifying" Orcs wouldn't take too many generations.

VanBuren
2012-09-07, 02:18 PM
Sounds like the Dothraki refrain "It is known." Which generally means that it has no basis in reality.

Tolkien isn't Martin, not by a long stretch. Plus, the idea that evil cannot create, but only pervert strikes enough theological chords that I'm willing to bet that it's how Tolkien actually had the universe arranged.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-09-07, 02:59 PM
Tolkien isn't Martin, not by a long stretch. Plus, the idea that evil cannot create, but only pervert strikes enough theological chords that I'm willing to bet that it's how Tolkien actually had the universe arranged.

It's also a theme that is explored over and over again in the Silmarillion, which is a LOT more objective than Lord of the Rings, by virtue of being more world-building than novel, really. The LotR, we get exposition from characters who, however wise they may be, could be mistaken, where in the Silmarillion more often than not we're told outright this is how it is.

WalkingTarget
2012-09-07, 03:26 PM
It's also a theme that is explored over and over again in the Silmarillion, which is a LOT more objective than Lord of the Rings, by virtue of being more world-building than novel, really. The LotR, we get exposition from characters who, however wise they may be, could be mistaken, where in the Silmarillion more often than not we're told outright this is how it is.

Kind of.

The Silmarillion is the Elves' own myths/history/what'sthedifference (i.e. Bilbo's Translations from the Elvish).

Still closer to "objective" scholarship maybe than some Hobbits' memoirs, but still in-universe. Not saying that Tolkien wasn't trying to just lay things out for readers, though.

pendell
2012-09-07, 04:57 PM
Also bear in mind that the Silmarrillion is not a finished work, not a definitive "Guide to Middle Earth" by J.R.R. Tolkien. It's a digest of Tolkien's notes an ideas put in readable form by his son. Useful to see what Tolkien was thinking about, but I don't think it's necessary to include it is canonically what Tolkien wanted and believed when he wrote LOTR. Just because the Silmarrillion says that Melkor made orcs from elves in Utumno does not mean it was settled in the imagination of the author as an immutable truth.

Tolkien wasn't above retconning when the facts didn't suit the story. Case in point: The finding of the ring in the Hobbit.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gnoman
2012-09-07, 05:53 PM
I think you're confusing the Silmarillion and the History of Middle Earth series there. The Silmarillion was largely completed, and C only had to do some cleaning up and editing (or, as C put it "Collecting and arranging". It was, of course, presented as a compilation of sources rather than a literal Word of God narration. The History of Middle Earth is the series which C scavanged and arranged from his father's scraps, attemptiong to show some of the evolution of the tales. More to the point at hand, the chapters regarding the Orcs are among those which C mentions his father writing earliest, but expounding upon in the other writings more than any other.

Welf
2012-09-08, 07:21 PM
Similarly, I think that female orcs are implied by the fact that Elves were twisted into orcs initially. We can see during the sack of Nargothrond that Morgoth's warriors drove a huge mass of Elven women off into captivity while Glaurung held Turin helpless with his dragon-gaze. One has to assume that they were also turned into orcs with dark magic, then propagated the species with male orcs in the standard manner, since the Darkness "cannot create, it can only twist and ruin". Unless we assume an infinite supply of elves over thousands of years, the orcs had be self-propagating, meaning they had to "orc-ize" both male and female elves at the start.

When I first read the Simarillion I didn't get that this would be the fate of the captured elves. Suddenly that story is even darker.

grimbold
2012-09-09, 05:02 AM
Kind of.

The Silmarillion is the Elves' own myths/history/what'sthedifference (i.e. Bilbo's Translations from the Elvish).

Still closer to "objective" scholarship maybe than some Hobbits' memoirs, but still in-universe. Not saying that Tolkien wasn't trying to just lay things out for readers, though.

and tat is why
even though it can be plotless and dull
the silmarillion is awesome :smallsmile:

ThisGuysAJerk
2012-09-09, 06:49 PM
I wanted to throw out some info on the Uruk-hai/Orc question. There's some interesting stuff in the Appendices.

In Appendix F in the section about Orcs it states that "The Orcs were first bred by the Dark Power of the North in the Elder Days" which I always took to mean that there had to have been some sort of existing genetic stock from which all Orcs descend. They weren't created out of whole cloth; they were selectively bred. I think that statement lends credence to the debased Elf theory, but one sentence is also a mighty thin peg to hang your hat on.

We're told in Appendix A that "In the last years of Denethor I, the race of Uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath" which means the Uruk-hai existed for 540+ years before LOTR. That means there would have been a large existing population of Uruk-hai when Saruman needed them (Christopher Tolkien stated that men who followed Morgoth would eventually be reduced to behaving like Orcs. These men could then be bred with Orcs to produce creatures that were more human and that this is the process Saruman used. However, I think it's best if we treat Chris' writings as possibilities and not hard rules.) We're also told in LOTR that the Isengard Uruks are different than the Mordor Uruks. Mordor's have bent legs and long arms and are still affected by sunlight, although to a lesser extent than the Orcs. The Isengard Uruks are more human in appearance and are not affected by sunlight, meaning there are some pretty major physiological differences.

Here's my personal thoughts on the process, and feel free to eviscerate it if you're so inclined :smallsmile:

We're told that Saruman uses the palantir 17-18 years before LOTR and this is when he is thoroughly corrupted by Sauron. 17-18 years isn't enough time to breed a new supped-up Uruk, even if we assume Uruks grow quickly and mature at 9 or 10 years. If Saruman started his breeding program 60 years earlier when he first walled off Orthanc, that strains credulity. A breeding program certainly would have attracted the attention of the White Council and they would have taken steps to neutralize Saruman before he became a threat. The time frame is a massive hole in the Uruk-hai breeding theory and I think Peter Jackson used the pod people device as a way around it.

Eldan
2012-09-09, 08:16 PM
I'm reasonably sure that Uruk and Uruk-hai are not the same thing. Uruk is just the elven word for orc.

Chromascope3D
2012-09-09, 09:09 PM
But I thought "orc" was the elvish word for goblin? Like, "Orcrist" translates to "Goblin Cleaver."

WalkingTarget
2012-09-09, 10:33 PM
"Yrch" is Elvish (Sindarin at least) for "orcs"

"Uruk" is in the Black Tongue, but yeah, it just means "orc".

"Goblin" is English and probably represents the Common speech word unrelated to the Numenoean/Elvish influenced gloss "Orc".

hamishspence
2012-09-10, 02:40 PM
I'm reasonably sure that Uruk and Uruk-hai are not the same thing. Uruk is just the elven word for orc.

Hai is just the word for "people".

"I am an Uruk"
"They are Uruks"
"We are the Uruk-Hai"

Avilan the Grey
2012-09-12, 02:06 AM
Hai is just the word for "people".

"I am an Uruk"
"They are Uruks"
"We are the Uruk-Hai"

This makes me think that this is also what defines the Ologs. They are the first trolls smart enough to view themselves as an actual people in their own righ. The Olog-Hai.

grimbold
2012-09-13, 11:34 AM
"Yrch" is Elvish (Sindarin at least) for "orcs"

"Uruk" is in the Black Tongue, but yeah, it just means "orc".

"Goblin" is English and probably represents the Common speech word unrelated to the Numenoean/Elvish influenced gloss "Orc".

this...
explains a lot

GM.Casper
2012-09-16, 11:35 AM
Hm, if I had to split it in 3 movies:

History of the Lonely Mountain, show Smoug sacking the city.
Gandalf obtains the map from the dying dwarf king and escapes the Necromancer's dungeon.
Tea party at Bilbo's, trolls, Rivendel, orcs, Golum, etc.
Movie ends with the eagles rescuing them.

They stop at Beorn's place, then trek into the forest.
Meanwhile Gandalf & White Council sack Dol Guldur.
Movie ends with the dwarves climbing out of the barrels at Lake city, while the Lonely Mountain looms at the distance.

Third movie covers Smoug's death and the Battle of Five Armies.

Welf
2012-09-16, 03:23 PM
I wouldn't know how to split the movie in three parts. I would let the first one end with Bilbo escaping through the door of the orc caves. That is a very good clivehanger. The end for the second movie can be the fight against Smaug; that's a good final. But I wouldn't know how to spend 90 minutes (or more knowing Peter Jackson) on the time before the battle of the 5 armies. Since the attack of the orcs came surprising, I don't see how a plot can be built up in that movie. There I see the most need for rewritting; maybe there can be the fight with Dol Goldur can happen, and we get to see the orcs active much earlier. Maybe team Evil (Sauron/the orcs) get a point of view character and more named characters so their story can be told?

Traab
2012-09-16, 04:21 PM
I wouldn't know how to split the movie in three parts. I would let the first one end with Bilbo escaping through the door of the orc caves. That is a very good clivehanger. The end for the second movie can be the fight against Smaug; that's a good final. But I wouldn't know how to spend 90 minutes (or more knowing Peter Jackson) on the time before the battle of the 5 armies. Since the attack of the orcs came surprising, I don't see how a plot can be built up in that movie. There I see the most need for rewritting; maybe there can be the fight with Dol Goldur can happen, and we get to see the orcs active much earlier. Maybe team Evil (Sauron/the orcs) get a point of view character and more named characters so their story can be told?

I honestly think the resupply they get from beorn, to the flashback to dol guldir, and the trip through mirkwood, would make for a very solid film. Not sure if the proper cutoff point would be the escape from the barrels, or maybe just the aftermath of the spider fight and the capture by the elves.

grimbold
2012-09-17, 12:51 PM
I honestly think the resupply they get from beorn, to the flashback to dol guldir, and the trip through mirkwood, would make for a very solid film. Not sure if the proper cutoff point would be the escape from the barrels, or maybe just the aftermath of the spider fight and the capture by the elves.

this
i feel like with some dramatization (And maybe a slightly fixed spider fight) this could go very well

Welf
2012-09-17, 01:08 PM
I honestly think the resupply they get from beorn, to the flashback to dol guldir, and the trip through mirkwood, would make for a very solid film. Not sure if the proper cutoff point would be the escape from the barrels, or maybe just the aftermath of the spider fight and the capture by the elves.

I think Smaug's dead needs to be the final of a movie. He is a interesting villain, and a movie should take its time to build him up.
I change my idea where the cut off should be; for the first movie it should be the escape from the elves. Then the theme for the first movie can be Bilbo's growth into an actual hero. This happens in three acts; first opportunity throws itself at him with the ring; then he gets out of a situation with the spiders, and then he actively works out a plan with the escape from the elves. When he arrives at Laketown he is read for the dragon.
Movie two would be about Smaug; building him up as villain, with the confrontaions between him and Bilbo, and finally the attack on Laketown.
Maybe movie three can be about Bilbo's further growth from hero to strong character, and him finding wisdom. Instead of facing an outward enemy, he has to confront Thorin, a friend. But that and the battle of the 5five armies are not enough to fill a movie I think, so no idea what to do with that.

Starbuck_II
2012-09-17, 03:45 PM
But that and the battle of the 5five armies are not enough to fill a movie I think, so no idea what to do with that.

No, I think there batte could be.
The battle could take a long time if you show every moment. The cartoons always fast forwarded through the battle. They felt the blow by blow wasn't needed (Helm's Deep in LotR showed a blow by blow as a example of showing).

Welf
2012-09-18, 02:38 PM
No, I think there batte could be.
The battle could take a long time if you show every moment. The cartoons always fast forwarded through the battle. They felt the blow by blow wasn't needed (Helm's Deep in LotR showed a blow by blow as a example of showing).

True, but the battle was the final point of the movie. The battle meant something, and we saw both sides from the beginning. We saw the good guys being weak, learning to like them, and saw the bad guys growing in strength, and what they would do when they win. That created a conflict, that found its solution in the battle. I don't see how that can happen before the battle of the 5 armies. There's conflict between the man, elves and dwarfs, but that conflict isn't solved between them, but by ganging up against the orcs and Thorin dieing.

dehro
2012-09-19, 03:43 AM
trouble with trying to figure out how the movies will be divided is that we have 0 idea about what's going to be in the third one... I am under the impression that the first two are kind of self sufficient because that's the direction they'd been working in for years..which means tha the plot for the Hobbit should be exhausted in them.. and that the third one is.. who knows? filler + battle against the necromancer + other Silmarillion stuff maybe?

Muz
2012-09-19, 10:44 AM
trouble with trying to figure out how the movies will be divided is that we have 0 idea about what's going to be in the third one... I am under the impression that the first two are kind of self sufficient because that's the direction they'd been working in for years..which means tha the plot for the Hobbit should be exhausted in them.. and that the third one is.. who knows? filler + battle against the necromancer + other Silmarillion stuff maybe?

I don't think it's a matter of tacking on extra stuff at the end so much as recutting what they already have, though.

dehro
2012-09-19, 11:40 AM
I don't think it's a matter of tacking on extra stuff at the end so much as recutting what they already have, though.
I'm kinda hoping that to be the case..however..PJ knew what he was doing very well when he tackled the LOTR to filmify it, managing to not only shoot 3 movies at the same time but also bring modifications on the fly and being mostly on top of things... could he really have so grossly miscalculated his planning with regards to 2 movies..no, scrap that..we've been shooting too much stuff, let's make it 3 instead?
I'm thinking this should have become apparent fairly early in the process of shooting/production.. the very late timing of the announcement that after all there are going to be 3 movies is.. odd.

Zea mays
2012-09-19, 11:51 AM
So, a new trailer. :smallcool:
http://www.facebook.com/TheHobbitMovie.

They are expanding on Gandalf's side adventure. I guess we'll see some of the buildup for the battle with the necromancer in this movie.

Also, the dwarf do seem like quite a party.

Rake21
2012-09-19, 11:59 AM
So, a new trailer. :smallcool:
http://www.facebook.com/TheHobbitMovie.

They are expanding on Gandalf's side adventure. I guess we'll see some of the buildup for the battle with the necromancer in this movie.

Also, the dwarf do seem like quite a party.

Huh, up until now I thought this was about a Dwarven a Capella group... I'm a little disappointed now.


All kidding aside, it looks pretty good. I'm really looking forward to it.

Muz
2012-09-19, 12:07 PM
I'm kinda hoping that to be the case..however..PJ knew what he was doing very well when he tackled the LOTR to filmify it, managing to not only shoot 3 movies at the same time but also bring modifications on the fly and being mostly on top of things... could he really have so grossly miscalculated his planning with regards to 2 movies..no, scrap that..we've been shooting too much stuff, let's make it 3 instead?
I'm thinking this should have become apparent fairly early in the process of shooting/production.. the very late timing of the announcement that after all there are going to be 3 movies is.. odd.

He did a good job of making LOTR into 3 movies, but note that there was a whole bunch of stuff cut for the theatrical releases that went into the extended DVD cuts. I'm viewing the 3-movie Hobbit as something he wants to do so as to keep that "extended" stuff in on the big screen.

Also, after viewing the trailer, the wargs seem to actually look like wolves rather than mutant hyenas. :smallsmile:

MLai
2012-09-19, 11:14 PM
Does this mean my Warg action figures are invalidated?!?!?? :smalleek::smallfurious::smallfrown:

Traab
2012-09-19, 11:19 PM
Im not so sure I liked the part with gandalf talking to galadriel, or whoever it was and him talking about how he brought bilbo along for hope or some such thing. What the hell did gandalf need hope for? He wasnt on a quest to do something like, I dunno, destroy the one thing that is keeping sauron tethered to this plane of existence, he is trying to get a group of dwarves moving on their quest to go feed themselves to a dragon like a bunch of morons. "Oh sure 100+ years ago a much younger smaug wiped out my entire clan barring a few survivors, but im sure the 13 of us dwarves will be more than able to handle an even older and stronger version of smaug. After all, we brought musical instruments!"

Xondoure
2012-09-19, 11:41 PM
Im not so sure I liked the part with gandalf talking to galadriel, or whoever it was and him talking about how he brought bilbo along for hope or some such thing. What the hell did gandalf need hope for? He wasnt on a quest to do something like, I dunno, destroy the one thing that is keeping sauron tethered to this plane of existence, he is trying to get a group of dwarves moving on their quest to go feed themselves to a dragon like a bunch of morons. "Oh sure 100+ years ago a much younger smaug wiped out my entire clan barring a few survivors, but im sure the 13 of us dwarves will be more than able to handle an even older and stronger version of smaug. After all, we brought musical instruments!"

And Frodo wasn't brought along for courage? :smallconfused:

MLai
2012-09-20, 06:25 AM
So basically PJ is gonna epic-fy The Hobbit and it's gonna feel all awkward?

But hey! We get to see the Necromancer!
http://nicholasburgess.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Eggplant_wizard_Captain_N1.jpg
When I was a young 'un reading The Hobbit, I always pictured him like this. Just taller and with long witchy fingernails. And shinier.

Traab
2012-09-20, 07:36 AM
And Frodo wasn't brought along for courage? :smallconfused:

Frodo was brought along because noone else was either willing to hold the ring, or capable of withstanding its allure. Bilbo was brought along because gandalf is a very strange old man that apparently is able to tell that a fat tiny gentleman of leisure would make for an excellent hero with a bit of experience.

Saph
2012-09-20, 07:39 AM
Frodo was brought along because noone else was either willing to hold the ring, or capable of withstanding its allure. Bilbo was brought along because gandalf is a very strange old man that apparently is able to tell that a fat tiny gentleman of leisure would make for an excellent hero with a bit of experience.

Maybe Gandalf had taken a look at Bilbo's character sheet and noticed that he'd rolled great for his stats.

Plus, you gain XP SO fast when you're a 1st-level character in a higher-level party. Just so long as you can stay alive the first few combats . . .

dehro
2012-09-20, 09:20 AM
Frodo was brought along because noone else was either willing to hold the ring, or capable of withstanding its allure.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.. is what Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say.

Bilbo was brought along because gandalf is a very strange old man that apparently is able to tell that a fat tiny gentleman of leisure would make for an excellent hero with a bit of experience.
that's more like it :smallbiggrin:

Muz
2012-09-20, 01:40 PM
Im not so sure I liked the part with gandalf talking to galadriel, or whoever it was and him talking about how he brought bilbo along for hope or some such thing. What the hell did gandalf need hope for? He wasnt on a quest to do something like, I dunno, destroy the one thing that is keeping sauron tethered to this plane of existence, he is trying to get a group of dwarves moving on their quest to go feed themselves to a dragon like a bunch of morons. "Oh sure 100+ years ago a much younger smaug wiped out my entire clan barring a few survivors, but im sure the 13 of us dwarves will be more than able to handle an even older and stronger version of smaug. After all, we brought musical instruments!"

Given the little smile Gandalf has when he says it, I'm not entirely sure his answer is meant to be 100% serious. Or maybe he's realizing that Thorin's quest is a long shot, and Gandalf is laughing at the absurdity of his own answer. (Thought to himself: "Why DID I send this poor hobbit? I suppose it was a silly thing you did, old Gandalf, you and your hobbit fascination...")

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well here, but hopefully someone gets my point. :smallsmile:

Traab
2012-09-20, 03:48 PM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.. is what Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say.

that's more like it :smallbiggrin:

I disagree. Frodo, in the book, had held the ring already for quite some time. He had shown resistance to its influence, and considering bilbo was able to let it go after what, 30 years of owning it? It made sense to let frodo take it when he volunteered to do so. Especially since he had managed to get it to rivendell in the first place when gandalf got waylaid. They couldnt let boromir take it, he wanted to use it. It couldnt be held by an elf or dwarf due to racial mistrust, gandalf flat out refused to touch the dang thing, and merry and pippin were morons. Frodo was the only reasonable choice. This was a totally different situation than The Hobbit. In The Hobbit, Gandalf shows up, virtually forces bilbo to join up, and gives no reason other than mystical wise man mutterings about how there is more to him than you guess. He pretty much randomly picked a fat nervous hobbit who had likely never been more than 2 miles from his house before and tossed him out on a quest that could have lead to a horrible death. If he had an actual reason to pick bilbo, he never really shares it with the rest of us.

snoopy13a
2012-09-20, 04:14 PM
Frodo was brought along because noone else was either willing to hold the ring, or capable of withstanding its allure. Bilbo was brought along because gandalf is a very strange old man that apparently is able to tell that a fat tiny gentleman of leisure would make for an excellent hero with a bit of experience.

I think Bilbo was brought along because Gandalf wanted a non-dwarf in the party--particulary one who wouldn't succumb to greed. Elves were out of the question and most men could be as greedy as dwarves.

Gandalf had been good friends with Bilbo's grandfather, his two maternal aunts, and his mother* so Bilbo was on the top of list. Maybe Aragorn would have been a better choice, but he probably wasn't available and the dwarves may not have accepted him.

* It is hinted that Bilbo's mother may have gone on adventures with Gandalf.

Frodo was the clear choice as ring bearer because he already had it and was doing a fairly good job of resisting its influence. Also, hobbits seemed to be most resistant to the ring.

Finally, Merry isn't an idiot. The film adaption really butchers his character. He's actually responsible. He organizes Frodo's feigned move to Buckland, and he gathers the supplies for the trip out of the Shire. They ride on Merry's ponies and eat Merry's food.

Pippin is the irresponsible one, and that is mainly due to his age. Pippin has not yet "come of age." He is still in his irresponible "twenties" while Merry has the reputation as a responsible adult. Farmer Maggot treats Merry with the upmost respect--and not simply because of who Merry's father is.

I once read an essay which compared the fellowship to a sort of family. Gandalf was the father and Aragorn was the oldest brother who takes charge in the father's absence. Merry was the responsible middle child who gets overshadowed while Pippin is the youngest child.

Xondoure
2012-09-20, 04:20 PM
I disagree. Frodo, in the book, had held the ring already for quite some time. He had shown resistance to its influence, and considering bilbo was able to let it go after what, 30 years of owning it? It made sense to let frodo take it when he volunteered to do so. Especially since he had managed to get it to rivendell in the first place when gandalf got waylaid. They couldnt let boromir take it, he wanted to use it. It couldnt be held by an elf or dwarf due to racial mistrust, gandalf flat out refused to touch the dang thing, and merry and pippin were morons. Frodo was the only reasonable choice. This was a totally different situation than The Hobbit. In The Hobbit, Gandalf shows up, virtually forces bilbo to join up, and gives no reason other than mystical wise man mutterings about how there is more to him than you guess. He pretty much randomly picked a fat nervous hobbit who had likely never been more than 2 miles from his house before and tossed him out on a quest that could have lead to a horrible death. If he had an actual reason to pick bilbo, he never really shares it with the rest of us.

61 years of ownership.

Karoht
2012-09-20, 04:37 PM
He pretty much randomly picked a fat nervous hobbit who had likely never been more than 2 miles from his house before and tossed him out on a quest that could have lead to a horrible death. If he had an actual reason to pick bilbo, he never really shares it with the rest of us.I always seemed to think that he picked Bilbo because he would get along with the Dwarves better than anyone else in Hobbiton. Thereby making him the better traveling companion. Not sure how Gandalf would have known that other than previous dealings with Hobbits.
I can't back it up with a quotation or anything, just a vibe I got.

Traab
2012-09-20, 04:43 PM
Gandalf did mention bilbos family from time to time, implying that the took side of his family didnt mind having adventures, but that doesnt explain why gandalf didnt go after an actual took instead of bilbo. Like I said, I basically put it down to mysterious sage who knows things he has no way of knowing picking bilbo because he knows this particular hobbit can pull it off.

Xondoure
2012-09-20, 05:02 PM
Gandalf did mention bilbos family from time to time, implying that the took side of his family didnt mind having adventures, but that doesnt explain why gandalf didnt go after an actual took instead of bilbo. Like I said, I basically put it down to mysterious sage who knows things he has no way of knowing picking bilbo because he knows this particular hobbit can pull it off.

Bilbo in his youth was always the most interested in Gandalf's stories. Much like Frodo.

Androgeus
2012-09-20, 05:03 PM
Huh, up until now I thought this was about a Dwarven a Capella group... I'm a little disappointed now.

Don't worry, they just cut the trailer together so it would appeal to the fantasy/action crowd. The actual film is about a Dwarven acapella group and their struggles when their manager decides to add a hobbit to the group.

MLai
2012-09-20, 05:48 PM
They were marathoning pretty hard. Maybe they're starting a new thing - Ironman Acapella.

I thought dwarves hate running? Hobbits too.

Gnoman
2012-09-20, 06:14 PM
61 years of ownership.

Closer to sixty. Bilbo's 51st birthday was in Lake-Town, while he gave it up at his 111th birthday party. He's one of only two people who ever gave the Ring up willingly, and had it so much longer that Sam doesn't really compare.

Xondoure
2012-09-20, 06:37 PM
Closer to sixty. Bilbo's 51st birthday was in Lake-Town, while he gave it up at his 111th birthday party. He's one of only two people who ever gave the Ring up willingly, and had it so much longer that Sam doesn't really compare.

Well to be fair to Sam, the ring was much more desperate and far closer to the seat of it's power.

hamishspence
2012-09-21, 06:11 AM
Like I said, I basically put it down to mysterious sage who knows things he has no way of knowing picking bilbo because he knows this particular hobbit can pull it off.

In Unfinished Tales Gandalf goes into some depth on why he picked Bilbo. "Tookishness" is not enough on its own- a certain stolidity is needed as well.

MLai
2012-09-21, 11:44 PM
Gandalf was the original Party Manager consultant. He knew the party needed an Everyman with John McClane armor to stand a chance.

Every band of adventurers planning to go on an adventure should hire one. Every party should have an expert 2nd opinion on not just their tank/dps/support quota, but also personality chemistry.

grimbold
2012-09-25, 12:03 PM
Don't worry, they just cut the trailer together so it would appeal to the fantasy/action crowd. The actual film is about a Dwarven acapella group and their struggles when their manager decides to add a hobbit to the group.

this made my day :3

dehro
2012-12-19, 04:18 AM
I can't do it at all! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xly_lNW_2o4)

Dave Halfbreed
2012-12-23, 10:21 PM
Eh, I just wish they came out less than a year apart.