|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Those ruins Gandalf is exploring would appear to be Dol Guldur, and that thing that he is fighting is actually very intriguing - I initially assumed it was just some sort of Orc but if you step frame-by-frame you can see that it appears to have a long bushy beard, which is not very orc-like. It also seems to be a bit tougher than regular Orcs for it to be giving Gandalf that much grief. Fascinating indeed. I'm guessing this could be a scene towards the beginning of the movie detailing how Gandalf found Thorin's father in Dol Goldur and got the map and key from him.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Here are a few excerpts from Tolkien's letters on the nature of Tom Bombadil: "Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?" (This was in reference to more possible stories taking place in Middle Earth) "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." "Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any objective save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron. He has no connection in my mind with the Entwives. What had happened to them is not resolved in this book. He is in a way the answer to them in the sense that he is almost the opposite, being say, Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality." Hopefully that gives more of an idea as to what Tolkien was going for with Tom.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
I think it's also said that if they left it with Bombadil, he cares so little for it that he would likely throw it away or misplace it, which would of course also end up in it finding its way to Sauron.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
With his weird songs and silly dancing he basically is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 10:24
|
|
|
The Balrog is a maiar, just like Sauron. The balrogs never really worked for Sauron, so I don't imagine he would have been compelled to bring it to him. He probably would have tried to use it for himself, but I believe it's stated somewhere that the only one that can use it to its true potential is Sauron. I don't think even orcs would have brought it to Sauron. When the order went out to capture hobbits, if I recall neither Saruman or Sauron told them precisely why they wanted the hobbits. No one can resist the ring, so I think if the orcs were ordered to get the ring instead of hobbits they would have tried to keep it for themselves and I imagine entire units of orcs would kill each other in an effort to claim the ring. I think the only servants that would have actually brought the ring to Sauron were the Nazgul.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember Tolkien flat-out stating that at the Cracks of Doom absolutely no one would have been able to resist the ring. That's why it was so amazing that it was destroyed, it came down to a slip of a foot. Pure chance. And yeah, balrogs were specifically stated in the Silmarillion to be spirits of fire.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Tolkien said in one of his letters that the ent-wives likely either actually died out or were corrupted into trolls.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
I myself am hoping they don't portray the dwarves entirely accurately. By that I mean I hope they portray them as a bit more competent. I've been reading through the Hobbit again recently and until the Battle of Five Armies they don't really do...anything. The trolls completely dominate them. When they're escaping from the goblins Gandalf does the majority of the fighting. When they're escaping from the spiders they're far too groggy to be of much use. They have to be rescued from the elves' prison, and they're too scared of Smaug to do anything but force Bilbo to go in ahead of them and do all the talking. I realize this isn't supposed to be a very serious story like Lord of the Rings, but I feel like Tolkien portrayed the dwarves as a bit too useless. They're like a bunch of movie versions of Gimli except they do far less fighting. Although in that respect I suppose the portrayal of dwarves between the five movies would be a bit more consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Outside of missing its mark, isn't it also pretty unusual for an arrow to be able to be consistently retrieved unbroken after being used? I don't know arrows that well so I could definitely be wrong, but it seemed like a thing to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Yeah, this is the first I've heard of a final version of Isildur's death where the ring made him scary to orcs rather than invisible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:I always felt that there is nobody, not Gandalf, not Galadriel, or anybody else, that could have destroyed the ring willingly. It grows in power and influence not only the longer you hold it but also the closer you get to where it was created. By the time Frodo got to the Cracks of Doom in the book (can't recall if they showed this in the films or not) he literally couldn't think of or see anything but the ring 24/7. It was that powerful. I remember Tolkien writing pretty much exactly that in one of his letters. The influence of the ring was so strong at the Cracks of Doom that no one could have resisted it. That the ring was destroyed was entirely by a chance brought about by pity. Something that I don't see people bring up enough is just how screwed Middle Earth really was. Sauron even without the ring had the forces and influence to conquer all of Middle Earth. Had Gollum not slipped, had Bilbo and Frodo not shown pity, the army outside the Black Gate and then the rest of Middle Earth would have been absolutely screwed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I was always under the impression that whoever went to the Grey Havens became immortal. Nope. Immortality is reserved only for elves, and no one but Illuvatar himself can change that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Octy posted:Is it ever explained why Illuvatar was such a dick as to only allow immortality for elves? I mean, surely those poor hobbits deserved it too? He didn't look at it as a dick move. When men die they go "somewhere", and then when the world ends all those spirits of humans will get to participate in creating the next world. I don't think we have any idea what happens to dwarves and hobbits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
I feel better knowing that hobbits will have some part in creating an entire world.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Am I completely off or is that the same tower where puberty-age Sauron has that epic werewolf battle with Huan in the first era? Nah, the tower where that battle took place was over in Beleriand, west of the Blue Mountains. Which is currently at the bottom of the ocean.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
As I recall, Tolkien himself was unsure. He didn't really like separating The Lord of the Rings into three volumes. Here's what he has to say about it in a couple letters. The second he seems more sure of himself, but still a bit conflicted: The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous - it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dur, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol. Then in the second letter: I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading. There is, of course, actually no real connecting link between Books III and IV, when cut off and presented seperately as a volume.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
I remember the first story I tried to write like that back when I was a kid. It was horrible. I'm really glad that didn't become a habit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
I know Glaurung was able to paralyze Turin when he locked eyes with him, making it so that he wasn't able to save any of the elves that they were dragging away to slavery right in front of him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
The only part of the portrayal of Radagast I'm a bit uncomfortable with is the sled pulled by giant rabbits. It seems more like something you'd find in Narnia than in Middle Earth.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
I have no interest in the 24/48 discussion, but if people want to discuss it people are free to discuss it. If something new and interesting pops up about the movie I'm sure it will be discussed here. If -I- find something new and interesting about the movie I am free to post it here myself. As is anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Should have seen this coming when they made Kili the pretty one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:No, but I did find the complete lack of romance in all of Tolkien's work weird and off-putting so I don't really feel like this is a negative change. I admit to being confused as to why romance is a necessary ingredient.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
I wouldn't have been as annoyed about this if they hadn't felt the need to pretty up Kili for it, as I am pretty sure this is the precise reason they did that. Only pretty people for romances, none for guys with awesome beards.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
I don't think the Arwen stuff is bad because it already existed in the mythos, even if it wasn't visited heavily in the story itself. Not only did this particular romance not exist, it's also extremely unlikely to exist. Gimli and Legolas' friendship was supposed to be remarkable, and that only came about because they spent so much time traveling together. Elves and dwarves have bad history, and a big part of Gimli's initial resentment towards Legolas came from Thranduil's treatment of Gimli's father and companions. Now Kili's going to have a romance with a female elf that what, they just meet on the road or something? Love at first sight? Is he going to fall in love with one of his jailers? I mean I guess he looks more like an elf than a dwarf anyway so who knows? Man I am sperging.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The trees in Lothlorien are magic trees from Numenor and Tol Erresea that only Galadriel can grow apparently. I thought it was more that she just hated sharing. I imagine Sam was the first person in Middle Earth she'd ever given a seed to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
I did read the article but I guess I was too eager to sperg so that was forgotten as soon as I read it. How embarrassing, sorry about that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
I'm down with badass huge wild pigs being steeds.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
Wow, that's really nice. Are they only using that for Comic-Con? I hope that's the actual movie poster.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
The only trolls that they look like in Lord of the Rings were the ones that were statues, which is exactly the same ones these are. All the living trolls we saw in those movies were the noseless cave trolls, which are different from these guys that have noses, ears, and even beards it looks like. http://fi.somethingawful.com/is/img29/8114/cavetroll.jpg The cave troll. These are the guys we saw in motion in Moria and during the Siege of Gondor. http://fi.somethingawful.com/is/img502/8696/stonetrolls.jpg A figure recreation of "Mr. Bilbo's trolls", which we saw in the Fellowship film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
I believe Gibby is correct with them possessing a minor part of Sauron's powers. As I recall, the reason the elvish rings didn't work quite like the others was because they used Sauron's craft, but had no part of Sauron actually in them. The nine and the seven did though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
I don't know if Chris is saying the movie should have been different. Rather, I get the feeling his opinion is that he doesn't think they should be made into movies at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
I'm really looking forward to the Extended Edition of these movies. From what we've seen so far of production it seems like they have the same kind of camaraderie they had during the filming of Lord of the Rings, and the reason the behind the scenes for those movies was so fun to watch was because of that energy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
I can't see how any movie taking place after the quest is finished but still considered part of this series of movies isn't going to feel tacked on and unnecessary. I feel like something like this would do much better as its own thing, maybe a miniseries on tv.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
Well I'm wondering about that because I'm pretty sure all the things in the Appendices that take place around the time of or relevant to The Hobbit are already being covered in the movies we're getting. So I don't know what he could be referring to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
I should say that I would be completely okay with this if it was a standalone film meant to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. But because it appears that it will be included as part of The Hobbit films, I worry that it will tarnish the film for people, that this extra info will be viewed as too extraneous. Kind of like how people thought the end of Return of the King dragged on too long. I hope I'm wrong though! I have faith that PJ will be able to prove me wrong, I'm just worried at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
Yeah, as I recall the ending of Return of the King was a complaint a number of people had.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I've pictured them as walking trees since I first read the stories when I was 10.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Yeah, but that forest was the Huorns, not the ents. I always pictured the difference between the two is that while the ents look like trees, they still have faces and arms and legs. Pretty much like in the movie. But the huorns are just straight up trees that can move.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
I don't remember it going down that way, with Peter Jackson immediately wanting to direct again. I remember that Del Toro had to leave because he had another project going on. Then they put the call out for another director, with Peter Jackson saying he'd take up the helm if they couldn't find a suitable one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Why can't he just be a nature spirit? I guess it doesn't really matter either way, I just feel like nothing is really added by him being Illuvatar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 02:55
|
|