The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Bloom Confirmed!



Nocalas
The Shire

May 27 2011, 4:27pm


Views: 4708
Bloom Confirmed!

See Peter J's page, great news!


Welsh hero
Gondor


May 27 2011, 4:29pm


Views: 2444
yep. For some atleast

But after a certain someone let some casting news slip, I was hopping he'll talk about it

Twitter: @IrfonPennant

(This post was edited by Welsh hero on May 27 2011, 4:31pm)


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 4:34pm


Views: 2351
For those who don't have Facebook accounts...

... here's what PJ posted:


Quote
"Ten years ago, Orlando Bloom created an iconic character with his portrayal of Legolas. I'm excited to announce today that we'll be revisiting Middle Earth with him once more. I’m thrilled to be working with Orlando again. Funny thing is, I look older—and he doesn’t! I guess that's why he makes such a wonderful elf."




Sil
The Shire

May 27 2011, 4:34pm


Views: 2271
Collider interview

But Orlando already told us himself in an interview in April that he'll be back and that he received the script too.
http://collider.com/mark-ruffalo-the-avengers-orlando-bloom-the-hobbit/84723/


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 4:34pm


Views: 2384
Bad news for me.

I was still hoping that Orlando won't come back to ME and Legolas romance with Itaril won't happen. How naive I was.


Sil
The Shire

May 27 2011, 4:37pm


Views: 2305
no Facebook accounts needed

We don't need a Facebook account for this (I don't have one either), but thanks. Here's the link:
http://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ/posts/10150265634081558


(This post was edited by Sil on May 27 2011, 4:37pm)


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 4:37pm


Views: 2215
Yeah, but now it's officially confirmed by PJ...

... so that seals the deal Wink

I can't wait to see Legolas again! Wheeeee! BlushSly



Sil
The Shire

May 27 2011, 4:39pm


Views: 2248
me too

Yeah, I was hoping for another announcement too.


Nocalas
The Shire

May 27 2011, 4:42pm


Views: 2277
I feel

that it won't be him, any serious romance would have to be referenced in the trilogy. It would seem strange. I really hope there is no real romance at all but one involving Lindir for example would make more sense to me!


Estel78
Tol Eressea

May 27 2011, 4:45pm


Views: 2232
There's no confirmation that the "young elf lord" is Legolas. //

 


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 4:46pm


Views: 2222
Thanks Sil

I forgot that PJ's FB page is public Unimpressed



Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 4:48pm


Views: 2263
There is not any other young elf lord in Mirkwood in the cast.

And woodelves didn't have any dealings with Rivendell elves at the time of Bilbo's adventures.

(This post was edited by Symbelmine on May 27 2011, 4:49pm)


Pipe Dream
Gondor


May 27 2011, 4:51pm


Views: 2186
Good news!

I'm for it, I think it makes sense for the films, and why not? He should be there after all.

"There is a long road yet," said Gandalf. "But it is the last road," said Bilbo.


Sil
The Shire

May 27 2011, 4:52pm


Views: 2225
Yes, but...

Elrond didn't actually travel to Rohan in the middle of a war just to deliver a sword either, so... Tongue


Estel78
Tol Eressea

May 27 2011, 4:57pm


Views: 2142
We don't know about every role yet. As for your 2nd point, movie does not equal book in every regard. //

 


Patty
Immortal


May 27 2011, 5:01pm


Views: 2193
I really, really think it's too soon to conclude that this romance, if it is to happen...

will be with Legolas. Don't lose hope.

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



Patty
Immortal


May 27 2011, 5:02pm


Views: 2235
Now, Pete, we know you know...

the e in Middle-earth is a little e. Cool

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 5:08pm


Views: 2210
Heehee! We crazy fans will pick anything apart won't we! :o) //

 



chrismortega
Bree


May 27 2011, 5:08pm


Views: 2129
Meh

 

"NEVER TRUST AN ELF!"


Wraith Buster
Gondor


May 27 2011, 5:08pm


Views: 2123
That's great

It wouldn't be the same in Mirkwood without the prince there.Smile

Pedich Edhellen? Lau? Hria cuilë.

End of line.


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 5:13pm


Views: 2195
Maybe he did ;)

Let's see... since Elladan and Elrohir didn't accompany Aragorn and all to Gondor, they probably stayed back and fought in Rivendell.

Elrond, on the other hand, accomplished two purposes by leaving Rivendell. First, he gave Anduril to Aragorn and gave him the push to "cast aside the ranger". Second, he then went to Lothlorien, which probably had to fight a more formidable force than what might have been sent to Rivendell (seeing as Lorien is a stone's throw away from Dol Guldur as compared to Rivendell), and finally went along with Celeborn and Galadriel and overthrew Dol Guldur.

Utterly Unsupported Theory... but I like reconciling things for my own mind's peace Wink



Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 5:16pm


Views: 2096
I'm sure Sil was talking about the book



Patty
Immortal


May 27 2011, 5:17pm


Views: 2101
I thought you'd like that, Earl!

Cool

That used to be my gauge as to if someone were a real fan or not--that they knew the second e was a small e.Sly

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



(This post was edited by Patty on May 27 2011, 5:19pm)


Sil
The Shire

May 27 2011, 5:52pm


Views: 2082
Yes

I just wanted to point out that they have changed the storyline before, they could do it again, so I wouldn't go as far to say there's no way a young Elf Lord from Rivendell could get to Mirkwood (or vice versa).


(This post was edited by Sil on May 27 2011, 5:53pm)


elpana
The Shire

May 27 2011, 5:55pm


Views: 2085
I'm for it also!

I agree. I think it makes perfect sense to have Legolas in this. Very happy Mr. Jackson finally confirmed Orlando Bloom's inclusion in The Hobbit.


dormouse
Half-elven

May 27 2011, 6:00pm


Views: 1159
No,no,no,no, Symbelmine.....

.... I really think you're beating yourself up about this unnecessarily. There has been absolutely nothing to link Legolas with Itaril - no leaks, no rumours, no nothing. It's just fan speculation. We don't even know there IS an Itaril. If there is, and if she has a love interest - both points still speculation - the only supposed leak to suggest that this might happen specified an Elf Lord of Rivendell - and we do have another of those in the cast - Lindir. And we still don't know the whole cast.

I truly don't think they will mess with an established character like Legolas in that way - it's almost as if you're willing it to happen.


The Grey Wanderer
Lorien


May 27 2011, 6:06pm


Views: 1074
There is no Itaril in the cast yet either...//

 


Sil
The Shire

May 27 2011, 6:12pm


Views: 1105
Itaril

And I really hope there won't be. Somehow I don't like this character, she's too much like a Mary Sue to me.


Estel78
Tol Eressea

May 27 2011, 6:14pm


Views: 1058
Personally, i'd have nothing against a cool elf chick. ;) //

 


Loresilme
Valinor


May 27 2011, 6:33pm


Views: 1045
Yay!

I hope to see more of Orlando-as-Legolas again too.

Thanks for sharing the 'official' announcement!


Loresilme
Valinor


May 27 2011, 6:42pm


Views: 1105
How does that work?

Thanks for posting the link. But how is it that I can view his page when I don't have a Facebook account? Are there special 'public' Facebook accounts (I guess so?).


Nesse
Lorien

May 27 2011, 6:53pm


Views: 1072
I agree with you Dormouse...

nothing has been confirmed about the romance and it might not even be with Lego if it does happen...I'm glad he's back. I for one cant wait to see the movie or at least the cast in their make up and costumes yay!


Kyriel
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 6:59pm


Views: 994
Rivendell has no Itaril. Rivendell needs no Itaril. //

/


Those left standing will make millions writing books on the way it should have been. --Incubus


sphdle1
Gondor


May 27 2011, 7:09pm


Views: 1016
Yes he did

I saw it right there in the movie Tongue

Anyway, maybe it the young elf love interest will be a new made up character played by Johnny Depp!? Shocked

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


May 27 2011, 7:10pm


Views: 1041
Yeah, it's likely that

Johnny Depp's newly made up elf character will be Itaril's love interest...TongueSly

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 7:16pm


Views: 1031
Johnny Depp in The Hobbit?

You are kidding us.


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 7:22pm


Views: 1026
In the movie yes,

but not in the book.


Gaffer
The Shire

May 27 2011, 7:37pm


Views: 1059
Ooooo! Yeah! And then... and THEN...

Tom Cruise will play Gollum's newly made-up love interest!! He's short enough that they won't even have to use special effects for him! Didn't PJ mention something about a love interest for Gollum in that one interview that one time?

----------------------------------------------------
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
--Solid Jackson-- (from Terry Pratchett's "Jingo")


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 27 2011, 7:52pm


Views: 1002
This is such a shock!

Legolas back and now he has a daddy and little sister.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Garfeimao
Rohan


May 27 2011, 7:56pm


Views: 1034
There may well be two made up characters

Legolas in Mirkwood makes sense, he's the Prince after all, whether he was in the book or not.

But the possible romance between a made up character like Itaril and an Elf Lord would be more acceptable to book fans if the Elf Lord were made up as well. This is where I think they may have been going with the possible casting of Benedict Cumberbatch who just screams Elf Lord without makeup.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 27 2011, 7:58pm


Views: 948
Itaril is from the Woodland Realm and nit Rivendell.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Gaffer
The Shire

May 27 2011, 8:02pm


Views: 940
Jacsparowil from Oank-ah Forest...//

 

----------------------------------------------------
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
--Solid Jackson-- (from Terry Pratchett's "Jingo")


_V_
Lorien


May 27 2011, 8:43pm


Views: 958
I'd have been very annoyed if they couldn't get Bloom

 

ReVolution of Evangelion

"Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name, but what's puzzling you, is the nature of my game"


Formerly known on TORN as "Draug the Unspeakably Violent"



PattyJB
Rivendell


May 27 2011, 8:53pm


Views: 901
Excellent news!

I am so pleased!


willowing
Lorien

May 27 2011, 9:07pm


Views: 937
Quiver and arrows! Orlando is back....

At last! a confirmation by Peter himself to announce Bloom's return. It can't get any better than that.


hutch
Rohan


May 27 2011, 9:48pm


Views: 910
right.

they mayve been toying with the idea but had some realizations that not every film needs a romance. anyway im glad Leggy will be there...still hoping for Aragorn in fact i wish TH began with the whole Fellowship sitting by a fire and some one telling this tale. a brief but harmless cameo by the 9 Walkers. Alas...


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 9:50pm


Views: 921
You are right when you say:

"But the possible romance between a made up character like Itaril and an Elf Lord would be more acceptable to book fans if the Elf Lord were made up as well. This is where I think they may have been going with the possible casting of Benedict Cumberbatch..."

It's a question if Peter, Fran and Philipa cares more for nerds, Tolkien fans, Tolkien, the true story and canon stuff more than for Orlando Bloom teenage fangirls who are already disappointed that "Orli" didn't have a love interest in LOTR because according to them "Orli" is so "hawt" that it's not natural when he doesn't have a romance in the movie.


duats
Grey Havens

May 27 2011, 9:58pm


Views: 862
Oh good

Now we don't have to put up with anymore interviews where Bloom dances around the question that everybody already knew the answer to Angelic.

Of all the cameos from LoTR characters, this one at least makes some sense, so I am fine with it. And I say that as someone who was not much of a fan of Bloom's Legolas.

However, I could do without another "look how cool I am" Legolas moment in these films.


(This post was edited by duats on May 27 2011, 9:59pm)


kiwifan
Rohan

May 27 2011, 9:59pm


Views: 921
Earl, now you're getting me all confused again...

... wasn't Dol Guldur overthrown at the time of TH (when they drove out the Necromancer), more or less prior to the Battle of the Five Armies? Did it need overthrowing again some sixty years later during the Ring wars? I'm thoroughly confused (maybe I should refrain from joining discussions in the middle of the night) Unsure

'Goodness gracious, you really are a messie!' 'Oh no, I'm not, these are all just mathoms...'


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:06pm


Views: 902
Delurking...

...because I'm just so pleased about this. :D I know it had become more and more obvious over these past few months (he must be so sick of the Hobbit question by now...) but I couldn't let myself relax until it was confirmed. I've been praying for at least a cameo for soooo many years. Laugh


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:08pm


Views: 913
I have never

heard anyone say Legolas should have had a love interest, and I've been in the Legolas/Orlando fandom for a very long time.
I really think you're being a little paranoid about this, we've seen nothing to even hint at such an (admittedly horrific) situation. Smile


kiwifan
Rohan

May 27 2011, 10:08pm


Views: 908
I agree with you on the first point, Garfeimao,

.... it would definitely be more acceptable to us purists Wink to have this Itaril character linked with an equally 'made up' character (even though I for one do not require some sort of chick flick romance in Middle-earth --- even if I have knitted the odd sweater or two in my pastEvil) So I hope Legolas is safe from entanglements with females, even if she's a cool elf-chick to please Estel78...

But to my eyes (even though it should be 'ears'), Benedict C. does not 'scream elf lord' --- not anywhere near handsome enough (sorry, B.C), and only imagine that long face with long straight hair (none of the Elves seem to have wavy, much less curly hair) --- ugh!

'Goodness gracious, you really are a messie!' 'Oh no, I'm not, these are all just mathoms...'


Patty
Immortal


May 27 2011, 10:14pm


Views: 881
Aha, another lurker ferreted out!

Welcome, Seuvilen! Now, don't go away. We promise we'll get Peter to cast someone else you'll like!Laugh

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 27 2011, 10:15pm


Views: 901
Welcome to the realm of the delurked.

May you remain visible.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 10:17pm


Views: 882
"I have never by Seuvilen Post: heard anyone say Legolas should have had a love interest, and I've been in the Legolas/Orlando fandom for a very long time".

Wow then you probably visit some cool sites of Legolas/Orlando fandom.
Unfortunately I've read many times fangirls' opinions(on You Tube, Fanpop...etc) "he should have had some girl", "he should have ended up with Eowyn"...and many more nonsense.

(This post was edited by Symbelmine on May 27 2011, 10:20pm)


kiwifan
Rohan

May 27 2011, 10:23pm


Views: 896
what is the definition of a lurker?

... someone who has watched the boards forever but not registered in TORn, and eventually just couldn't stand not to be able to add his or her two cents' worth so went and registered and joined the fray (like me, not so long ago but feels forever, in a positive sense)?

or:someone who registered some time ago but never voiced an opinion out of all kinds of apparently not so good reasons?

or: I'm completely beside the bridge and need clarification Unsure

I just want to know if I have to live with the ugly knowledge of having been a lurker, or may go to bed feeling good about myself Wink

'Goodness gracious, you really are a messie!' 'Oh no, I'm not, these are all just mathoms...'


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:28pm


Views: 868
Ah well

I try not to read YouTube comments, too often has my mouth dropped open in astonishment at the very strange things I'm seeing. The place seems to bring the weird and (not so) wonderful out. For the sake of my sanity I stay away. :D
Seriously though, I'm as appalled at the idea as you are, but I really don't think PJ is going to listen to comments like that, if he's even heard them. Just try and stay positive. Wink


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


May 27 2011, 10:31pm


Views: 888
Nice, finally a confirmation.

Wasn't exactly a shock, but it's nice to know we'll be seeing Leggie again. They may have to use a little more makeup on Orlando though, I think he has aged slightly around the eyes. I was hoping for a dual announcement for Christopher Lee or Benedict's role.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


May 27 2011, 10:32pm


Views: 850
Uh oh.

And...Here...We...Go!..

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:35pm


Views: 871
A lurker...

...is one who stands ominously in the shadows, watching everything that's going on, but never uttering a sound... Evil

Or else they're like me and are just rather quiet and find it easier to listen than talk. Smile

Really, it's people who watch but don't participate. A bit rude I suppose, but ya'll are just so interesting. Wink


(This post was edited by Seuvilen on May 27 2011, 10:36pm)


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 27 2011, 10:37pm


Views: 810
Welcome!

It's nice to see you on the discussion boards, Seuvilen. :)

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 10:38pm


Views: 866
Not easy for a person who is negative by nature to be possitive...

But yes, I can at least hope PJ will use Legolas' character tastefully in The Hobbit movie.
I would like to see some interactions between him and his father. Hoping for a good relationship. Not an abusive Thranduil as how he is often portrayed in fanfictions.


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:39pm


Views: 801
Ha ha

thanks, I'm actually thinking about making a list to start sending strong thoughts Peter's way, but he's already cast so many people I'm pleased with I fear asking for more will just be greedy. Tongue


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:41pm


Views: 843
Thank you, I will do my best

(but making noise is slightly against my nature.) We'll see how long this lasts. Wink


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 27 2011, 10:46pm


Views: 832
For my part

I am desperately hoping they can use Legolas to flesh out Thranduil's character, since although he is called wise in the book, he isn't presented that way at first, and certainly appears to have little in common with the Elf Lords (and Lady) in LOTR. As his son, Legolas could be in a position to question him on his treatment of the Dwarves, desire for treasure etc.


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 10:58pm


Views: 815
Yes, I'm interested in Legolas' reactions

to Thranduil's acting too.


KAOS82
Rohan


May 27 2011, 11:10pm


Views: 821
well...

it was in the air that he would come back to ME, now we have to wait to hear some rumors about his role, firstly I think it was just a cameo, but now I think Legolas will retail his place in TH, with or without Itaril

TÚRIN TURAMBAR DAGNIR GLAURUNGA & NIENOR NÍNIEL


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 11:20pm


Views: 823
better "without"

His character MUST be kept as he is.
Not fanfiction about him , please.

(This post was edited by Symbelmine on May 27 2011, 11:25pm)


KAOS82
Rohan


May 27 2011, 11:24pm


Views: 819
I know your point

but I'm not PJ, imho Itaril is not necessary (even Legolas was not) let'see...

TÚRIN TURAMBAR DAGNIR GLAURUNGA & NIENOR NÍNIEL


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 27 2011, 11:30pm


Views: 857
Yes, but Legolas is a different case than Itaril.

He is at least canon character and Mirkwood is his homeland....No need to say that. We all know it. It would be strange if he didn't appear there although he isn't important and necessary for the story of The Hobbit.

(This post was edited by Symbelmine on May 27 2011, 11:32pm)


Kyriel
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2011, 11:57pm


Views: 847
*bows before the master*

That is just so wrong (meaning just so right!) on so many levels. Sly


Those left standing will make millions writing books on the way it should have been. --Incubus


Kyriel
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 28 2011, 12:07am


Views: 774
No worries

We're a friendly much here...mostly. Just pull up a comfy chair and never mind the Legolas (er, Spanish) Inquisition. Wink


Those left standing will make millions writing books on the way it should have been. --Incubus


Finrod
Rohan


May 28 2011, 12:07am


Views: 909
Legolas is *not* a prince!


In Reply To
Legolas in Mirkwood makes sense, he's the Prince after all, whether he was in the book or not.


No, Legolas is not “the prince”; rather, he’s the king’s son. These mean very different things in Tolkien. Tolkien never uses the word prince to mean son of a king. He does use the word, but it means something else when he does. A prince in Tolkien is never a king in waiting.

The oldest sense for the word prince in the OED is sense 1a, which is “A sovereign ruler; a monarch, king.” That’s exactly how Tolkien uses that word; he never uses it in the modern sense.

You wouldn’t expect Tevildo Prince of Cats to grow up to be the Lion King, would you now? :)

Plus when Tolkien means “the king’s son”, that’s exactly what he calls someone — not a prince. Think of all the people whom he calls “the son of the king” or “the king’s son”.

You can find this everywhere from Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth, and Faramir, Prince of Ithilien, all the way back to the princes of the Noldor in the First Age. Théodred was not a prince of Rohan; he was the son of the king.

Consider this quote from the Silmarillion:
Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words.
The sons of Feänor were not all of them heirs to any king, nor in fact were they any king’s son. Because of their damning oath, they were the Dispossessed, and the kingship passed over them to Fingolfin. Here’s another quote of a non-kingly prince, one of the same as just mentioned:
Huan it was that found Lúthien flying like a shadow surprised by the daylight under the trees, when Celegorm and Curufin rested a while near to the western eaves of Doriath; for nothing could escape the sight and scent of Huan, nor could any enchantment stay him, and he slept not, neither by night nor day. He brought her to Celegorm, and Lúthien, learning that he was a prince of the Noldor and a foe of Morgoth, was glad; and she declared herself, casting aside her cloak.
....
For now, believing that Beren and Felagund were prisoners beyond hope of aid, they purposed to let the King perish, and to keep Lúthien, and force Thingol to give her hand to Celegorm. Thus they would advance their power, and become the mightiest of the princes of the Noldor.
Here’s another Silmarillion quote:
Alone of the princes of the Noldor those of Finarfin’s house were suffered to pass within the confines of Doriath; for they could claim close kinship with King Thingol himself, since their mother was Eärwen of Alqualondë, Olwë’s daughter.
Again we have princes, but they are not kings in waiting. Here is quote from the Lay of Leithian:

But still there lived in hiding cold
undaunted, Barahir the bold
of land bereaved, of lordship shorn
who once a prince of Men was born

Barahir was a ranking member of his house, but he was not a king.

At the Council of Elrond, Elrond says:
‘It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled.’
You wonder why he mentions princes instead of kings. It’s because that word does not mean what you think it means. But Niccolò Machiavelli knew what it meant. :)

Here’s a quote from the Appendices from The Lord of the Rings, where we learn that being a king makes once a prince (and not vice versa!):
Rómendacil showed especial favour to Vidugavia, who had aided him in the war. He called himself King of Rhovanion, and was indeed the most powerful of the Northern princes, though his own realm lay between Greenwood and the River Celduin.
Here we have Faramir speaking to Frodo:
‘No, not because I choose,’ answered Frodo. ‘It does not belong to me. It does not belong to any mortal, great or small; though if any could claim it, it would be Aragorn son of Arathorn, whom I named, the leader of our Company from Moria to Rauros.’

‘Why so, and not Boromir, prince of the City that the sons of Elendil founded?’
Notice Faramir names his brother a prince of Minas Tirith. Do you see how this is unrelated to being some king’s son?

And finally, this quote:
There was also a strange Elf clad in green and brown, Legolas, a messenger from his father, Thranduil, the King of the Elves of Northern Mirkwood.
Notice there is no prince there. That’s because a prince in Tolkien is not an heir, but a ruler. Imrahil and Faramir were both “princes regnant”, meaning that they were rulers. They were not princes because they were prospective kings.

One last thing: it doesn’t make sense to have a king-in-waiting amongst the Eldar. There were truly immortal so long as Arda should endure. Even if they “died”, they would come again: Rex quondam, Rexque Futurus and all that business.

Last point: can anyone name a princess whom Tolkien wrote about?

…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.
The Silmarillion, pp 150-151
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




(This post was edited by Finrod on May 28 2011, 12:17am)


shadowdog
Rohan

May 28 2011, 12:12am


Views: 774
Besides

Elizabeth has his heart. Wink


Leto
The Shire

May 28 2011, 12:27am


Views: 766
You mean the one at

AICN back in the first Age?


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 12:55am


Views: 976
Finrod you are a true uber-geek

and I mean that in the very best way.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



duats
Grey Havens

May 28 2011, 1:00am


Views: 924
Not just the eyes

He has a little age around the mouth as well.


squire
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 1:09am


Views: 988
Well argued!

You're right. But that won't stop the screen writers from calling him a prince if they want to. Especially for the Hobbit films, I think they see Tolkien's text as a starting point, rather than as a script 'bible'.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 28 2011, 2:05am


Views: 922
I had forgotten that.


In Reply To
The oldest sense for the word prince in the OED is sense 1a, which is “A sovereign ruler; a monarch, king.”



Didn't Queen Elizabeth I refer to herself as a prince? Or am I misremembering?

I wonder when the shift happened between the old meaning of 'prince', and the current one?


Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 28 2011, 2:18am


Views: 957
Princess?

"Little Princess Mee
Lovely was she
As in elven-song is told:
She had pearls in hair
All threaded fair;
Of gossamer shot with gold
Was her kerchief made,
And a silver braid
Of stars above her throat.
Of moth-web light
All moonlit-white
She wore a woven coat,
And round her kirtle
Was bound a girdle
Sewn with diamond dew."

That's the one I can think of, right off: the poem from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and other verses from the Red Book.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




taekotemple
Grey Havens


May 28 2011, 3:17am


Views: 927
When you open a facebook account:

You can set it to certain levels of privacy. If you set it to public, anyone can see, even those who don't have an account. This is the default setting for facebook, so those of us who have one and want more privacy (like me), we have to adjust our account settings.

So if someone on here wants to share a picture they have on their facebook account, and they offer a link, you can see it if you don't have an account. Otherwise, you have to be their friend on facebook. Good news for those who don't intend on or desire to ever open a facebook account!


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 28 2011, 3:21am


Views: 917
Is there a degree of leadership then in Tolkien?

I see your point, and recognize Tolkien's use of the older meaning of the word Prince. So, if a Prince is a leader or ruler and a King is a leader or ruler, is one lesser than the other? Or are they accorded the same rights and privileges amongst their peers?

I suppose the difference between using the term as a leader and using as a king in training may depend on whether a land is ruled by an ancestral monarchy or something a little more along the lines of a council of elders chooses from amongst the next generation's noble sons.


I love the academic discussions that pop up in even the most unexpected threads.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


squire
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 3:24am


Views: 888
Mee too

I thought of that poem as well.

For other uses of the term 'princess', I find that Tolkien is very reserved. I thought of the story in the LotR Appendix A of the King of Gondor who marries his son to the daughter of a Northern chieftain - the union that led to the Kin-Strife. She is never referred to as a Princess. Interestingly, in Unfinished Tales, in the 'Tale of Cirion and Eorl', Christopher Tolkien in a footnote refers to that same young woman as "a princess of the Northmen". Not a phrase his father would have used, if Finrod is right!

In the 'Tale of the Mariner's Wife', also in Unfinished Tales, it is said that Erendis in her rustic self-imposed exile was known as "...Emerwen Aranel, the Princess Shepherdess." I would love to know if the Elvish word Aranel, translated here as "Princess" and obviously derived from the root word Ar-, King, means "female King" or "daughter of the King."

Finally, a point in the screenwriters' favor. In The Hobbit book, Bilbo exclaims that Gandalf's reputation includes getting hobbits involved in "...dragons and goblins and giants and the rescue of princesses..." The context suggests that 'princesses' here refers to storybook princesses, i.e., the daughters of Kings whom the heroes get to marry at the end of the tale. Perhaps in The Hobbit, but not The Lord of the Rings, the terms "Prince" and "Princess" have their more modern meaning of children of a King.

But that interpretation only works if the screenwriters establish that The Hobbit film takes place in a slightly different version of Middle-earth from that of LotR. And everyone on this forum seems to agree that that is not the way the film is going to go. In which case, Legolas should definitely not be called a Prince of Mirkwood!



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


taekotemple
Grey Havens


May 28 2011, 3:24am


Views: 911
We don't know much of anything about Itaril at all...

... so I wouldn't say it's fair to assume she's going to be a Mary Sue. However, I'm hoping that they don't overdo trying to shove a female character into parts of the story where it's really not necessary.

It also just seems odd to have Itaril be a love interest for Legolas. I don't think PJ, Fran, and Phillipa lack the savvy it takes to realize you don't want to mess with such a major character to the point where fans go so up in arms. I mean, really, I don't want to see The Hobbit: the wannabe Twilight Saga. That would be competely unfair to Tolkien's writing.


taekotemple
Grey Havens


May 28 2011, 3:32am


Views: 884
Scary, isn't it?

Especially because some of the same fangirls who would want him to have a love interest are likely the same to rip to shreds the woman who plays the love interest because they wish they were that woman. Scares me for Orlando's wife's sake at times.

Scary story: A few years ago, my aunt took my cousin Ellen and her little girl to Macy's to check the wedding registry for another cousin, Wendy, so they could get her a wedding gift. Ellen's daughter was fooling around with names in the wedding registry and put in "Orlando Bloom." Apparently, several women actually took the time to create an imaginary wedding registry and submit it to Macy's. This was definitely well before Orlando was even dating his present wife.

I have faith that Pete, Fran, and Philippa are smarter than that, but you never can tell for sure until they are ready to show us.

I hope you're doing well Symbelmine! Smile


taekotemple
Grey Havens


May 28 2011, 3:41am


Views: 890
Don't forget about him jumping on a couch, declairing his love for Gollum!//

Wink


Ruijor
Rohan


May 28 2011, 5:39am


Views: 904
Mae govannen Legolas! (As if I am that much surprised...)

I can pictures those crazy 3D arrow shooting... Cool


Barrel-Rider
Bree

May 28 2011, 6:19am


Views: 903
Crazy Arrows

I just hope that the appearance of Legolas in TH is not just 'crazy arrows'. I would like to see a development in character study between Legolas and his father. It will also be interesting to see how Legolas treats the dwarves when they are imprisoned.
Perhaps the first on screen appearance of Legolas will be when the dwarves are arrested (now there is a thought).
Where will the first appearance of Legolas be in The Hobbit?


RoseCotton
Lorien


May 28 2011, 6:37am


Views: 911
Who are these 'Tolkien purists'...

And what is their complaint?

LA Times website: Orlando Bloom is back — whether Tolkien purists like it or not.

I agree with you that it makes sense for Legolas to appear.

I can fully understand 'Tolkien purists' balking at substantial (and arguably gratuitous) plot or character changes (e.g. a somewhat different Faramir, thereby causing Frodo to be taken to Osgiliath and, by the way, revealing the One Ring to the winged nazgûl there), but the inclusion of a character who quite plausibly should have appeared in The Hobbit novel anyway... well, I just don't really understand the problem.

It feels to me that if Tolkien had written The Hobbit novel as a prequel (i.e. that he actually penned TH after LOTR had been completed), that The Hobbit would quite plausibly have included an appearance by Legolas. In fact, I think that if the writing order of the two novels had been reversed, Tolkien readers would've thought it odd that Legolas didn't appear in The Hobbit novel.

Is the issue that Tolkien purists are said to have just what the papers say, or do such purists have a real issue with the appearance of Legolas (as a matter of principle) in The Hobbit movie(s)? If they do, what's the nature of that in-principle issue?


Elizabeth
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 7:26am


Views: 871
A prince is a ruler of *something*.

When I was growing up, a popular genre was "Mythical Kingdom" novels, such as Graustark, the Prisoner of Zenda, etc. The mythical kingdoms (often actually referred to as "Principalities", meaning their ruler was a Prince) were always somewhere in eastern Europe, and all small. Most of these books were written in the early 20th C, when the boundaries of eastern Europe were vague and in flux.

Kings seem to rule fairly major countries. Princes rule smaller countries, or semi-independent portions of countries, such as Ithilien. Charles Windsor is Prince of Wales. He is the son of a Queen, but as I recall, at some point in time he was granted the title Prince of Wales, in a ceremony at Caernavon Castle in Wales; it was a customary office, but not automatic.






Sign up now to lead a chapter discussion in LotR "The Return of the King" Book V! Discussions start June 5!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'

(This post was edited by Elizabeth on May 28 2011, 7:28am)


bookgirl13
Lorien


May 28 2011, 8:02am


Views: 856
Courtesy titles

Thank you for that well-argued piece. It reminded me that the titles of heirs (and other children) of hereditary rulers and peers in the UK at least are generally courtesy titles, rather than belonging to that person himself. The heir would be granted the use of the subsidiary title in their father's repertoire. So a king would have princes/princesses; dukes would have marquis, earls vicomtes. Often, especially with the royal family, the children will be granted their own titles so that their children will have their own claim to a title. This often happens on marriage - so William is created Duke of Cambridge, and Kate is Duchess of Cambridge. He was also created Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus by the Queen at the same time. As I understand it, his first son, if the Queen is still alive, will be known as the Earl of Strathearn.

It looks as if Tolkien did not use this idea of hereditary privilege residing in courtesy titles. So the only people called princes were rulers in their own right of a land, where Prince is a title, or it was used as a generic description for leaders of a people, such as Fëanor's children. For Tolkien a title had to be merited and not just granted because of an accident of birth.

Seeing as how the elves were deathless even when killed (in most instances) the idea of heirs, waiting to step into their shoes and assume leadership is not going to be a factor here. It therefore makes less sense to use these courtesy titles.


dormouse
Half-elven

May 28 2011, 8:14am


Views: 912
A prince isn't only a ruler of something.....

That's one meaning of 'prince' but the other meaning 'son of a king (or of a prince)' has been in use for centuries. Prince Charles was created Prince of Wales when he was still at school - he was 11, I think - he heard the announcement on the radio with the rest of his class. It was confirmed in the ceremony at Caernarvon when he was 21. But he had the title 'Prince' from birth, just like his brothers, uncles, cousins and generations of our royal family going back centuries. The official announcements that were posted on the palace gates for his birth and those of his siblings and others actually stated that his mother 'has been safely delivered of a Prince' - not 'of a son'.

So Finrod isn't quite right. 'Prince' can mean the son of either a king or another prince - someone royal, in any case - and that isn't a modern misunderstanding. The word has been used as a royal title for centuries, applied to men, boys and even infants who didn't rule anything but were related to someone who did. But Finrod is absolutely right that that isn't how Tolkien uses it. He (and Machiavelli) were using the word in the sense the OED defines as:
'a person whose authority is paramount, a ruler, a chief, a leader, a commander' - and in that sense it isn't necessarily royal at all.


Kyriel
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 28 2011, 1:18pm


Views: 809
"nit" being the operative word here

As in "picking" Evil


Those left standing will make millions writing books on the way it should have been. --Incubus


Beutlin
Rivendell

May 28 2011, 1:59pm


Views: 812
The word "Prince" derives from the Latin word "princeps, -cipis, which

in turn is a mix of the words "primus" and "capio", meaning "taking the first position"
The word "princeps" has several meanings:
I. the first, at first; most distinguished
II. the leader; agitator
III. (as a title) ruler, emperor; prince (= a young aristocrat)


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 28 2011, 3:06pm


Views: 804
I've seen quite a few comments...

... on Peter Jackson's Facebook saying "but he's not in the book" and like yourself, find it bewildering. Legolas is the only additional character who makes more sense to have included rather than left out. After all, a large part of the book involves his people, and the only elf that's named is the butler! I've always been convinced (well, from my first post-LOTR re-read of The Hobbit) that Legolas is in there, indeed I like to think that he's one of the "Elf Lords" protecting the King at the end of the battle.

Perhaps the reason some people don't like the idea of Legolas returning is because Orlando Bloom is such a "big star" now (even if he has spent these last few years doing indie movies) and fear that his inclusion will overshadow more important things. Even as a self-confessed OB fangirl, I don't want his appearance to be gratuitous, I'm a Tolkien fan first and foremost. Wink But as I said above, he could easily be used to serve the plot, and I have every faith that he won't detract from what matters. (I try to think positively these days Wink)


DrDeath153
Lorien

May 28 2011, 3:37pm


Views: 754
With all respect to your substantial knowledge...

I think everyone gets the way Tolkien used the phrase and the person you were replying to simply used it in what you would define as a more modern sense as shorthand to mean 'heir to royalty or nobility'. I'm not trying to castigate you here, but your comprehensive post on such a minor point does come across as a touch patronising and 'show's up' the person over a mistake that actually wasn't one.

Dr Death


Annael
Immortal


May 28 2011, 3:45pm


Views: 802
This reminds me of all the fuss about "Morwen" in The Two Towers film

The conjectures ran wild. And then she ended up with what, two lines and about 30 seconds of screen time?

Maybe Itaril is Legolas's mother!

TOOTL (where are you? sorely missed!), who is an actor in RL, once told me that if a bit-part actor gets a line in a movie, they get more money, and if their character actually gets a name in the credits they get even more (plus it looks better in the CV). Peter could just be being kind to an actress here, as he was to Robyn Malcolm.

Obversely, Orlando's part could be a cameo, since he needs neither the money nor the recognition; a nod to fans and to the future. Same with Elijah. My guess is all these characters will take up almost no time onscreen.

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


DrDeath153
Lorien

May 28 2011, 4:01pm


Views: 707
Exactly my thoughts

I wasn't a particular fan of Orlando's 'Wood' Elf, but given the nature of this story i'm glad to see him back- of all the characters eligible for a cameo Legolas has the biggest claim. However, like you Duats, it would be a disappointment if PJ insisted on inserting a 'Leggie-moment' just for old times sake, particularly since this cameo is likely to have something of an upstaging effect just by it's mere presence. It would be preferable to give Legolas a specific 'job' in this film, either as a kind of Gamling figure to Thranduil (his squire or retainer in effect) or captain in Thranduil's army, or as the leader of the elves with the fires or as Thranduil's emissary to the White Council.

I'm not too keen on the notion of going into any great depth in his relationship with Thranduil beyond it being made clear Thranduil is his father- neither character would benefit from a subplot either creating tension between them or overstating affection, and considering they are nobility or royalty, i think such humanising of the characters would rob them of a bit of their dignity. A love interest too would do that, though to be honest, and i hope Symbelmine will forgive me- i thought that if anything leaving Legolas single would stimulate fangirl activity: his continued eligibility would fuel the fires of Mary-sue fanfiction and fantasies. Or is it that your supposition of his continued singleness would imply he is gay, thus putting an end to the majority of Legolas romance fan-fiction? What if they gave him a much older wife? A real Anne Bancroft type....

Dr Death


Annael
Immortal


May 28 2011, 4:17pm


Views: 740
a comment on Purism

Tolkien said he wanted "to create a new mythology for England." The thing about mythology is that it changes over time. The Greek pantheon we know evolved out of hundreds of local gods & goddesses, and then the Romans took it over and changed it again. Look at how the Arthur legends have morphed through the ages and keep on morphing to reflect current consciousness. Guinevere a warrior? Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave!

My impression is that while Tolkien told his story from the point of view of the Elves and the Hobbits, the voices now lost to us, Peter tells it from the point of view of Men, the future. His viewpoint overlaps Tolkien's most of the time, but there's always an area that Tolkien sees that he doesn't and vice versa, because they aren't standing in the same place. (If this idea intrigues you read the hermeneutical philosophers like Gadamer).

So yes, he puts a different twist on it, and he adds stuff in that wasn't in the books because Tolkien never saw things that way. Malory added all kinds of things to the Arthur legends that aren't in de Troyes, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy his version - or Tennyson's, T.H. White's, or Mary Stewart's, or Bernard Cornwall's. Personally I dislike Tennyson's misogynist Victorian view, but I don't dispute his right to have written it. Similarly, I don't have a problem with people not liking Peter's take on the story. But Tolkien opened the door to other interpretations himself when he placed his story in the mythological realm.

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


Ainu Laire
Tol Eressea


May 28 2011, 4:44pm


Views: 689
That would be acceptable, more than a Legolas romance, I think. //

 

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


Ainu Laire
Tol Eressea


May 28 2011, 4:49pm


Views: 733
I have to agree

If you always suspect the worst in situations with as little information as we have, Sym, you'll start aging prematurely :-P Don't panic until we have more information :)

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


Ainu Laire
Tol Eressea


May 28 2011, 4:53pm


Views: 750
Spend more time on these boards

You would be surprised.

I respect the desire for a Hobbit as a stand alone and not connected to LOTR beyond what is in The Hobbit, but with the same director, cast, and most of the crew as LOTR, it was never going to happen. Most have realized this; others don't seem to have realized this.

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


Ainu Laire
Tol Eressea


May 28 2011, 4:56pm


Views: 765
Some of his lines in LOTR were fabricated by PJ and the scriptwriters

As were several of the battle moves- sort of like fan fiction.

This case of movie fan-fiction will not necessarily be romantic. Don't call out the end of the world until it actually happens. Tongue

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 5:05pm


Views: 739
As in a small typo

that involves not sleeping for four days.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 5:13pm


Views: 727
For my part

I don't want Leggy in the films, and it goes beyond the fact that he isn't in the book.

The Gimli -Legolas friendship works because both characters are a generation removed from the actual incident. Neither was there, neither partook in it. They can move past their prejudices because they realize that the other person never really wronged them. To make Legolas take an actual part in the jailing of Thorin and the others puts a completely different power dynamic into the mix.

Additionally, I thought some of Leggy's stunts in ROTK were over-the-top and I fear a repeat.

I realize that not everyone is going to agree with me, but some acknowledgement that I'm not just contrary for the sake of being contrary around here would be nice.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


shadowdog
Rohan

May 28 2011, 5:13pm


Views: 733
I don't mind him being in this story,

Just so long as this time around, somebody is assigned to keep reminding Orlando to put in his blue contact lenses. LOLWink


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 5:25pm


Views: 756
Through it all one thought has been with me.

Legolas was called a Prince-ling in the film Trilogy and how Jackson used Prince has much more baring on the likely future role of Leggy in the Hobbit movies than anything JRRT did.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



RoseCotton
Lorien


May 28 2011, 5:34pm


Views: 748
I asked the question...

(namely, 'what's the nature of that in-principle issue?'), and it'd be rather strange if I had any problem with people coming up with sensible, well-reasoned reservations about Legolas's involvement in The Hobbit in response! Smile

So, for what it's worth (probably not much! Wink)... it wouldn't have occurred to me to think you were just being a contrarian.


Eledhwen
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 28 2011, 5:39pm


Views: 713
I think they care most about making a good film

And a film that's true to the spirit of the book, if not always the letter. I'm certain they don't give two hoots about the Orli fangirls.

Boardwalk in mangroves


dormouse
Half-elven

May 28 2011, 5:46pm


Views: 729
Well, how about....

.... I think that's a very good point you make about Legolas and Gimli being able to move past the emnities engendered by the past because they weren't personally involved. It's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

The only contradictory points that occur to me are that we don't actually know that Legolas wasn't in the Battle of Five Armies - as Thranduil's son it's logical to assume he might have been, even though Tolkien hadn't created him as a character when he wrote about the battle. Also the emnity of Elf and dwarf pre-dates the battle by a long way.

I'm happy to see Legolas appear in The Hobbit (but I agree about the stunts!).


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 5:47pm


Views: 719
No problem

I should have explained that grump a bit more, anyway. I know your question was out of sheer curiosity, but it seems to me that purist has become something of an insult around here. It seems to be used to dismiss those who object to certain changes and gives some people a reason not to listen to their arguments.

I know that wasn't what you meant when you used the word, and my grump wasn't directed toward you and I'm sorry for not being clear about that.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


RoseCotton
Lorien


May 28 2011, 6:00pm


Views: 721
Thank you for clarifying...

And just to say, I really used 'Tolkien purists' because that's the phrase used by the media claiming that 'they' are unhappy with Legolas's inclusion in The Hobbit movie(s).

I'm sure I could have my own fair share of grumps about what sometimes seem to be arbitrary deviations from canon, but it just struck me that Legolas's being in The Hobbit wasn't so abhorrent (at least, not to this 'purist'), despite the newspapers' insistence that it is! Smile


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 6:32pm


Views: 729
Canon versus Fan Fiction.

I have been told, in no uncertain terms, that all contained in the Lord of the Rings films is Movie Canon and therefore (it would seem) not definable as fan fiction, as the professional producers/authors had the legal and legitimate rights to change whatever they saw fit. This will be true for Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" as well. Peter will do what ever he thinks will work well and insure that the two epic 3-D fantasy movies that he and a cast and crew of thousands are creating (or should I say sub-sub-creating) will pack and repack the house to the tune of several billion (with a "B") U.S. Dollars. If romance is the ticket, it will be there. If Legolas firing arrows like a Gatling gun is seen as desirable, it will be there. Little of what we say will effect the outcome.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Bound
Rohan


May 28 2011, 6:56pm


Views: 730
Totally Expected, Kinda unwanted but completly makes sense...

I know my opinion has been covered by a lot of people already. I would just say - We knew this was coming, it makes sense but personally I don't want/ need Legolas. Not because of his character and what that means to the Lord of the Rings, but largely because I think Orlando Bloom is a bit of plank when it comes to acting. He just about got away with it with the Lord of The Rings, because he was playing an elf, but in everything else he's been in - he's just so wooden. But hey, i'm not super annoyed that he was cast, I presume his part will be small enough.

The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed


Flagg
Tol Eressea


May 28 2011, 7:10pm


Views: 727
OK

There's really nothing to say that hasn't already been said a hundred times in the last few months – the barrage of 'Will Legolas be in The Hobbit' news items and discussion threads saw to that. I'm glad he's back – his presence makes perfect sense in accordance with the story as written, so who's to complain if he pops up at the Elvenking's halls or the Battle of Five Armies?


Estel78
Tol Eressea

May 28 2011, 7:17pm


Views: 668
What he said.


In Reply To
I would just say - We knew this was coming, it makes sense but personally I don't want/ need Legolas. Not because of his character and what that means to the Lord of the Rings, but largely because I think Orlando Bloom is a bit of plank when it comes to acting. He just about got away with it with the Lord of The Rings, because he was playing an elf, but in everything else he's been in - he's just so wooden.



(This post was edited by Estel78 on May 28 2011, 7:17pm)


Bound
Rohan


May 28 2011, 7:18pm


Views: 686
He :)

Wink

The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 7:43pm


Views: 704
Well

You're right that Tolkien never specifies, but I think it's also fair to assume that the reason Tolkien creates a son of Thranduil is to give us someone on par with Gimli, someone who never took part. Otherwise he could have given us any other random elf we passes (Glordindel, Haldir, one of Elrond's sons, perhaps). He creates a character specifically tailored to be Gimli's match: both wronged by the father of the other, neither involved. Once Legolas becomes involved with Gloin's capture we get all kindsof messy oppressor/oppressee connotations. Gimli has to forgive someone who outright wronged his father but Leggy doesn't have to give up anything in return.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


dormouse
Half-elven

May 28 2011, 8:05pm


Views: 691
Ok, that's a fair point...

.... but if you follow that line, how has Legolas been wronged by Gloin? In the Council of Elrond it's the other way round, "you were less tender to me" - though I've always assumed he was talking about the Mirkwood elves in generally rather than Legolas personally.

I don't know why Tolkien made Legolas a son of Thranduil - clearly it was important to have an elf among the Fellowship but I think you could build up as good a case for saying that he wanted a Mirkwood elf to distance the character from Rivendell and Lorien. And an elf like Glorfindel would have been too powerful. I don't know - I'm just thinking on the hoof here.


taekotemple
Grey Havens


May 28 2011, 8:09pm


Views: 685
I think you have a fair point.

My only argument is, does the inclusion of Legolas in the film require that he is directly involved in the capture of Bilbo and the dwarves?

I think if they choose to directly involve him in that way, then I fully agree with your argument. It creates an even bigger barrier that would likely have made it a bizarre thing for Gimli to accept being a member of the fellowship with Legolas in particular.


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 8:42pm


Views: 664
You're right that it will depend on how PJ uses him

I hope that the role is a small cameo, but I'm willing to wait and see how it all turns out. I'd just prefer that PJ had avoided the whole mess, but I understand the need to tie the films together.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 9:15pm


Views: 618
Well

First, I think it's important that it wasn't Legolas who was directly wronged, like Gimli. It's their fathers who both felt attacked and who passed that anger onto their sons.

Thranduil lays out his problems pretty succinctly in Barrels out of Bonds. It's a crime to wander his kingdom without permission. They were using his road. The dwarves troubled his people 3 times in the forest. And they roused the spiders. It was the final straw that they refused to answer questions - very impolite :)

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


kiwifan
Rohan

May 28 2011, 9:19pm


Views: 651
hear, hear...

... and may you be proven right when the films come out Smile

PJ and co. didn't knuckle down to New Line when making the LotR trilogy, why should they do so now, just for the sake of potentially selling a few more tickets/dvds/blu ray discs/other merchandise? I guess all we can do is hope that they will continue to stay true to the spirit of the book TH, although what with developing the White Council/Necromancer storyline, they will have to make up a lot of stuff, and there's where un-Tolkienesque things might (repeat: might, not necessarily will) slip in. Let's just hope they know what they're doing and not get our knickers in a twist about it.

The thing I wonder about is: How far has Guillermo del Toro influenced the script(s), and would he have stayed as faithful to the spirit of Tolkien as PJ, Fran and Philippa?

'Goodness gracious, you really are a messie!' 'Oh no, I'm not, these are all just mathoms...'


macfalk
Valinor


May 28 2011, 9:39pm


Views: 633
But Arwen

If Leggy is not in Mirkwood during the events of The Hobbit... then were is he?



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Sil
The Shire

May 28 2011, 9:46pm


Views: 662
Itaril as Mary Sue

Itaril's possible Mary-Sue-ness is mostly based on that old and not-confirmed casting call that circulated on the net more than a year ago. That description just screams 'Mary Sue', it looks like something written by a 13-year-old in a very bad fanfic. Especially if that elf lord she falls in love with would be Legolas. I hope it turns out to be completely unfounded.


Sil
The Shire

May 28 2011, 9:49pm


Views: 767
Mirkwood

Mirkwood is quite large, he could be for example on border patrol somewhere else, not necessarily meeting Bilbo&Co.


macfalk
Valinor


May 28 2011, 10:01pm


Views: 748
Surely

As the king's heir he wouldn't be stationed at some random place when important events are unfolding.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 10:13pm


Views: 842
Important events?

A bunch of vagabond dwarves don't seem that important and if Leggy was already away then he wouldn't be recalled right away. Additionally, since Elves live so long and die so seldom do they even put the same importance on being heir to a throne?

I don't know where Legolas was, but his friendship with Gimli makes far more sense to me and works better thematically if he's not there, imo.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Symbelmine
Rohan


May 28 2011, 10:35pm


Views: 737
I'm glad you made this point:" since Elves live so long and die so seldom do they even put the same importance on being heir to a throne?"

I noticed some people say Legolas is Thranduil's heir and even think he is supposed to become king when Thranduil decides to go to "retirement".
Legolas didn't behave as a heir. We know after the war of the Ring he didn't live in Mirkwood anymore, he found his own colony(by Thranduil's permission), lived independently and later left ME.

(This post was edited by Symbelmine on May 28 2011, 10:37pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


May 28 2011, 10:53pm


Views: 745
I would differ with your opinion

and say we know nothing.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Nocalas
The Shire

May 28 2011, 10:59pm


Views: 728
Perhaps

as Commander in Chief of Mirkwoods forces he could be away South near Dol Guldur..?


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 29 2011, 12:25am


Views: 680
not quite contrary

I see where you are coming from in regards to the power dynamic between Gimli and Legolas, and yet, even if Legolas wasn't involved in the actual jailing, his father was and that is just part of what happened in his home. So it is already part of their dynamic, whether it was written that way or not. Historically it happened and they were both alive at the time it happened, present or not.

So if PJ and the writers have taken that into account, maybe they will have Legolas represent the Mirkwood Elves at the White Council, hence having him gone from Mirkwood when Thorin and company are detained.


As for Leggie action, yes, it got way silly by ROTK. I'd be very happy if that sort of showmanship didn't appear at all in The Hobbit.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 12:28am


Views: 761
Legolas

I'd like to put a word in here for those "purists" who aren't pleased about the notion of Legolas in The Hobbit.

First, I'd like to say something about how purists are treated on these boards. It is well known that the ToRN site is generally supportive and complementary of Jackson's efforts; that's fine, but it is important to realise that there are Tolkien's fans and interested folk out there who have genuine and legitimate issues with Jackson's handling of the films. They are not ignorant, stupid, wanting the films to fail, hateful, evil, rash, debased, or false fans; they are real people and they have a reasonable point of view. I am one of them and I have no problem with calling myself a purist. (another tactic I often see used is the attempt to define purists away; to essentially imply that no such people exist. Unsure They do, and I'm one of them).

Further, the notion that Legolas-in-the-Hobbit is justified by the timeline is merely that: a justification. It is not a reason. In fact, there is no a priori reason for extraneous characters to be included in The Hobbit at all. So far, we have Legolas, Galadriel, Radagast, Frodo, possibly Itaril, Drogo, Primula etc. There is no reason for the inclusion of all these characters, and their mere presence (regardless of screentime) will detract from the other characters, including most notably Bilbo and Thorin. The default assumption about these films should not be the presence of LoTR characters; their insertion is a choice by Jackson et al. that may be harmful to the fidelity of the story and the development of the other characters.

The inclusion of so many characters is often justified by the idea that since Jackson has a right to do something, it follows that we should automatically support his choices, because he is the filmmaker who has (supposedly) put "Tolkien" on the big screen. This semi-reverential attitude is unhelpful. If all filmmakers were treated like that, criticism would cease. We have a right to criticise Jackson, and not be shut down for by the casting of aspersions. Jackson's choices are not always good ones, and in my opinion this is one of them. Even without these characters, the audience will be under no delusions about the world we're being introduced to again.


(This post was edited by Bombadil21 on May 29 2011, 12:35am)


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


May 29 2011, 12:41am


Views: 739
The producers/writers/director are in an interesting predicament.

Do they try to please the purists (by the way, there is nothing wrong with being a purist, I myself am a Star Wars and Star Trek purist)? Or do they instead focus on the broader swath of people who will see the films? I realize that only a small percentage of the viewing audience will have read or even care about Tolkien's novel, or have any interest in ever reading it. Most people going in will have nowhere near the knowledge that many on this board have about Tolkien, and I think the filmmakers and studio know that. The game is to try and find the proper balance of being true to the book, and introducing concepts/plots/characters not in the book. The way I see it is filming the book as is would never work, critics would hate it, most audiences not initiated with Tolkien wouldn't understand why it's so simplistic, but fans of the book would cheer it. All I know is I certainly wouldn't want to be Peter Jackson or the writers/producers at this point, everything they do is scrutinized and questioned. There is no win-win situation really. Someone will always be unhappy with his choices.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 29 2011, 12:45am


Views: 703
Yes, Legolas' father was involved

and so was Gimli's. That's exactly what makes them equal in this.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 12:49am


Views: 704
Appeal

It of course makes sense that Jackson should "appeal" to a broad range of folks; that's his job. All the old arguments about purists being unrealistic hold no water, in my opinion. Even as a purist, I understand perfectly well that Jackson is making a film "for the masses" as it were. However, I don't see that this justifies, let alone makes it necessary, to include Galadriel in The Hobbit, for example, or Legolas. A degree of fidelity to the original text is warrented given this is an adaptation (calling itself The Hobbit). You may argue that Jackson is already being true enough, but that assumes the original text is just a starting point from which to go out and extrapolate. Why, then, call the film The Hobbit at all? Why not just make a brand new and original fantasy movie? Is the inclusion of Legolas necessary for the translation from book to screen? No, I see no reason to suppose that it is. It is unecessary and indulgent.


(This post was edited by Bombadil21 on May 29 2011, 12:52am)


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 29 2011, 1:12am


Views: 755
literature versus cinema

Not a single person can be perfect in any endeavor, including adapting a book for the screen. I don't know too many people who thought the LOTR films were a perfect adaptation, but where PJ had earned the respect of most fans is that it was much closer and better than any previous adaptation of this source material or most any other source material. The films need to be judged on everything, the acting and sets and music and scripts and costumes and effects and editing and so many other departments. In this regard, the story is just one piece of the puzze. Of course, without a good script with proper character development, pacing and moving the story forward, it doesn't matter how pretty the costumes are or how many special effects there are. But there can never really be a film adaptation of a book that is exactly like the book.

The storytelling needs between a book and a film are sometimes very different. In a book, depending on whether your are writing in first person or third person, you can read what characters are thinking during action sequences or dialogue scenes, etc. But in a film, all you have is dialogue and acting to let you know what is going on inside a characters head, unless you do voice over narration. And to do that dialogue and acting, you need characters to speak and interact with each other. This sometimes means bringing in extra characters just to move the story along, to give the exposition or provide the emotional touchstone needed to resonate with the audience. These are the changes most fans of the books have had problems with, since they are oftentimes made up characters or discussions. But to tell the overall story, in a film, they have been necessary.

As to the decisions to include or remove existing characters from Tolkien's canon, or include made up characters, I'm quite sure the scripting team has had long debates about every single plot point. But they can't make every fan happy, one choice will make this person happy and that other person extremely unhappy. They can only worry about what makes sense to them, what moves their story forward in a manner that is both logical and understandable. And while you say there is no reason to add these characters, there were most definitely long discussions on adding people and why, we just aren't privy to those discussions.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 1:30am


Views: 735
Disturbing Implications


In Reply To

As to the decisions to include or remove existing characters from Tolkien's canon, or include made up characters, I'm quite sure the scripting team has had long debates about every single plot point. But they can't make every fan happy, one choice will make this person happy and that other person extremely unhappy. They can only worry about what makes sense to them, what moves their story forward in a manner that is both logical and understandable. And while you say there is no reason to add these characters, there were most definitely long discussions on adding people and why, we just aren't privy to those discussions.
I wholeheartedly agree with your first two paragraphs.

Your last paragraph, however, contains some disturbing implications. No doubt, there were long debates, and no doubt, it is difficult to please every fan. The disturbing implication seems to be that we shouldn't presume to question the writers' choices because we ourselves were "not privy" to their undoubtedly long and arduous discussions. I think this is wrong (once again, another tactic that seeks to disallow and silence criticism): it is perfectly possible to debate and hold opinions on the decision to include or remove certain characters. Their reasons are pretty transperant anyway; clearly they intend on "bridging" The Hobbit and LoTR to some degree by the inclusion of LoTR characters. They clearly wish to "epicfy" the story to a degree and expand its geopolitical significance. There are good and reasonable arguments against all these creative choices (none of which were a priori necessary).


(This post was edited by Bombadil21 on May 29 2011, 1:32am)


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


May 29 2011, 2:37am


Views: 698
They've decided to include the Dol Guldur sub-plot.

I believe that's the reasoning behind having Galadriel in the films, along with Radagast and Saruman. It helps to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LotR and sets up Sauron as the chief villain later on. If they didn't include the Dol Guldur plotline, most folks would probably be disappointed that Gandalf is only in the films for a short time, and seems to disappear and re-appear without notice. It would be confusing to not show what he's up to, or what his point for leaving is.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 2:45am


Views: 675
Gandalf


In Reply To
I believe that's the reasoning behind having Galadriel in the films, along with Radagast and Saruman. It helps to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LotR and sets up Sauron as the chief villain later on. If they didn't include the Dol Guldur plotline, most folks would probably be disappointed that Gandalf is only in the films for a short time, and seems to disappear and re-appear without notice. It would be confusing to not show what he's up to, or what his point for leaving is.


Oh for sure, the immediate reason for the inclusion of Galadriel et al. is the Dol Guldur subplot, but as you say, the inclusion for that is supposedly justified by the belief that "It helps to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LoTR and sets up Sauron as the chief villain later on." While I see the reasoning, I disagree with it. The Hobbit is not about Sauron (if the filmmakers wished to develop Sauron's story they could have included a more sophisticated back story in LoTR films), nor is it about Gandalf's adventures (Bilbo's own personal 'growth' if you like, is partially faciliated by Gandalf's strategic disappearences; when he goes off somewhere, the focus is on the unlikely hero, Bilbo). That Gandalf "seems to disappear and re-appear without notice" is part of his charm. As for filmgoers, there is no reason to suppose they would be confused; even for those unfamiliar with the book, Gandalf's depatures help to keep him in his place as one of the side characters of the story, which he is, or should be.


lurtz2010
Rohan

May 29 2011, 3:22am


Views: 664
I can't believe anyone could think that way for the movies

If all you want is what's in the book then just read the book. The movie will have everything that was in the book but with more epicness to go with it. and why do people say Gandalf disappears all the time? he only leaves once, the troll sequence doesn't count.


Annael
Immortal


May 29 2011, 3:31am


Views: 638
that would explain

completely missing Kyriel's joke.

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 3:36am


Views: 674
Seriously?


In Reply To
If all you want is what's in the book then just read the book. The movie will have everything that was in the book but with more epicness to go with it. and why do people say Gandalf disappears all the time? he only leaves once, the troll sequence doesn't count.


Seriously? You "can't believe" that people have different opinions to your august self? Mad Come on. Your condescending notion that I should just "read the book" in unhelpful - I'm as interested as anyone in seeing the movies, but I'm hoping for and I'd like them to be reasonable adaptations of the novel they are purporting to adapt. Your argument is both rude and inconsiderate.


lurtz2010
Rohan

May 29 2011, 3:52am


Views: 662
lol didn't mean anything by it

the movies will be a reasonable adaption to the book...2 movies for 1 book is proof of that and I'm sorry but I do think adding the white coucil stuff will make the movies better


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 29 2011, 4:51am


Views: 656
Let me step in here

and remind everyone that we don't allow name-calling on the discussion boards. Please refrain from making comments about other posters, and instead discuss the topic at hand.

If there are more personal comments made in this sub-thread then it will be removed.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 5:12am


Views: 631
Okay


In Reply To
the movies will be a reasonable adaption to the book...2 movies for 1 book is proof of that and I'm sorry but I do think adding the white coucil stuff will make the movies better


Well, that's fair enough if you think that. I just don't agree with you Sly. But this is getting off topic - my original point was to say that there are those for whom many of these change, including Legolas-in-the-Hobbit, are not welcome news. Indeed, the films could turn out to be good and well scripted (of course I hope they are) but that doesn't necessarily mean they will work as adaptations. It's my view that the LotR films tended to become incoherent when they crept away from Tolkien's narrative (let alone the thematic elements) especially in The Two Towers, so fidelity does have bearing on overall film quality. If they're gonna do this whole White Council sequence, I hope they script it pretty well.


(This post was edited by Bombadil21 on May 29 2011, 5:13am)


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 29 2011, 5:14am


Views: 662
Not silence, just focus the criticism

All that can happen between the fans is debate, and not very educated debating at that. After all, none of us are privy to any of the creative decisions and therefore we are all in the dark, debating half truths, innuendo and rumor. Criticism only works when directed at the creative team, they are the only ones able to address your questions properly, and to consider the concerns. The rest of us are just guessing what is in, what is out, what might be changed, and what will remain as written. You claim there is no good reason for any changes and the creative choices behind them, not a priori necessary, but I believe the mere act of 'adaptation' makes it necessary by it's very defintion. So I will take the opposing discussion a posteriori, which uses experience and empirical evidence for justification, since cinema is an experiential event.

Personally, I see no reason to get all upset over what I don't know. And worrying about things I can't control is just a waste of my energy. When the films come out, or at least we start to see images and trailers, we will begin to see what changes may or may not have been made and only then can a real debate begin. But constructive criticism on these message boards is somewhat misplaced, because none of us are in a position to do anything about it. In the end, it's all just opinion anyhow.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 5:23am


Views: 616
Criticism


In Reply To

Personally, I see no reason to get all upset over what I don't know. And worrying about things I can't control is just a waste of my energy. When the films come out, or at least we start to see images and trailers, we will begin to see what changes may or may not have been made and only then can a real debate begin. But constructive criticism on these message boards is somewhat misplaced, because none of us are in a position to do anything about it. In the end, it's all just opinion anyhow.


We do know that the White Council sequences will be shot in some form, therefore it is reasonable to criticise them, surely? And yes, more debate will take place when we know more, of course, but we already know quite a bit, and I see no reason not to put forward opinions based on that which we do already know. Regardless of how "well" they execute the White Council sequences, it's not, and has never been, in The Hobbit. Regardless of how well it is shot, we know that the fundemental narrative has already been radically altered. This is certainly fair game for criticism; I don't need to see the film in order to know already that The Hobbit on screen is going to be very different from the Hobbit on print.

As for the notion that "constructive criticism on these message boards is somewhat misplaced", because "none of us are in a position to do anything about it" - this seems to be another argument to shut down the debate. Criticism generally is rarely constructive, most criticism - reviews, blogs etc. are written in response to artistic works in order to critique them. I'm criticising decisions that have already been publically announced because I don't agree with them, not because I have the power to change them. I'm also criticising what I see as bad arguments in favour of those decisions, also because I don't agree with them. Telling me that my critique is a waste of time, or not "constructive" I think misses the point, with all due respect.


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 29 2011, 5:43am


Views: 580
Yes, changes are necessary in adaptation

But surely we can agree that that doesn't mean ALL changes are necessary or even good?

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Bombadil21
Bree


May 29 2011, 5:47am


Views: 648
Discriminating between 'necessary' (so called) changes and egregious ones


In Reply To
But surely we can agree that that doesn't mean ALL changes are necessary or even good?


Exaclty, it is possible to discrimitate reasonably between those changes that might seem warrented and those that are egregious. Given what we know about the nature of the changes to The Hobbit already, I think it is perfectly possible to offer criticism.


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 29 2011, 6:47am


Views: 838
Correct

And by the same logic, not all changes are bad either.

For those positing the theory that any change to the text is bad are not taking into account that until we see it executed, we aren't really in a position to judge it's merits. It sounds more like fear of the filmmaker's failure, which is a valid point. I'd hate for the film to bomb, it's probably one of the reasons PJ was happy to not be directing at first, the pressure to succeed must be intense.

But I can't be the only Tolkien fan who scours the appendixes after reading the books, because I'm just not ready for the story to be over. The ability to see some backstory for the White Council, the Goblin/Dwarf war and Smaug's initial appearance at the Lonely Mountain is quite exciting. But again, the actual execution will determine if it works or not. It could prove disasterous or brilliant, but to say they shouldn't even try seems a bit shortsighted. The Hobbit, after all, is a children's story, told in a rather simplistic manner, and very episodic. To give it a broader appeal, it needs filling out a bit.

In fact, as written, it would make a better TV series, with the Unexpected Party acting as the perfect pilot, and then each chapter afterward making for an episode. It is also told from Bilbo's perspective, and that's rather hard to maintain over the course of an entire film, where it would work in a series. So the first change, before anything else, will be the perspective. And once you change the perspective, you change how much of the story is told, and this is just in relation to subject matter directly from the book. But by changing perspective to some of the other characters, you also open up the ability, in a logical manner, to bring in action not witnessed by Bilbo. Claiming it is not necessary to add action we know happened just because it wasn't in the written text ignores the natural curiosity and interest the fanbase has in the source material.

The idea that filmgoers who never read any of the books can't possibly be confused has probably never sat in on a test screening for a film and noticed how much people miss in any film. It's amazing how many details are misunderstood in films, which is the reason they do test screenings in the first place. So there will be exposition and scenes added to clarify motives and actions because it must be there for those who have never read the books or the appendixes or any of the other supporting books. And backstory for what has always been offstage action will be included because it helps fill out the story and gives more insight into characters and what is going on in this story, and what happens in the future stories. But to say it's not necesary because it wasn't in the original book is simply ignoring the difference between book and film storytelling. What those changes are or should be is debatable, but the necessity of the changes isn't.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 29 2011, 7:05am


Views: 840
Strangely, I don't see anyone in this thread positing that *any* change to the text is bad

I only see people suggesting that some changes are bad and that this might be one of them. You're welcome to disagree, obviously, but you seem to be suggesting that none of us should be talking about The Hobbit AT ALL until we've seen it?

And for the record, I didn't say the inclusion of Legolas was unnecessary just because he's not in the book. I gave pretty specific reasons for my disagreement and I see Bombadil21 doing the same.

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Draupne
Forum Admin / Moderator

May 29 2011, 8:43am


Views: 805
Shouldn't that be "Rivendall and/or Itaril have no pants?" /

 


dormouse
Half-elven

May 29 2011, 9:00am


Views: 791
But doesn't it depend how far we can tell, at this stage....

... what effect any given change will have on the story. Take your own point about the later friendship of Legolas and Gimli, each finding that they can move on from an old rivalry in which neither was personally involved. It's a valid reason to worry about the inclusion of Legolas in the film at the time of the dwarves' imprisonment. But as somebody pointed out, we don't know for sure at this stage that Legolas will be involved directly with the dwarves. It may be that the filmmakers have thought of this too, and are using him in some other way which may or may not work in the adaptation - that's the bit we can't judge until we've seen it or at least, have found out more about it.

I really don't think anyone here is saying that Peter Jackson is beyond criticism, or that people who love the book shouldn't be concerned about the faithfulness of the adaptation. Of course they should, we all are (apart from the 'film first' people, of course, who also have a valid viewpoint). It's just a matter of how far you can condemn something which, in all honesty, we still know very little about. We can raise and discuss concerns - I don't see any grounds for being more definite at this stage. Take the example of Legolas. In one of Bombadil21's posts he said 'there is no a priori reason for extraneous characters to be included in The Hobbit at all.' Well, I think perhaps there is, or there might be. Filmmakers have to be so much more specific than novelists. A novelist might write 'he picked up a cup' and leave the cup to the reader's imagination; a filmmaker has to decide what shape and size it is, and what colour, and does it have a pattern or a chip or crack. Tolkien could mention in general terms that there were elves in Mirkwood and men in Laketown; Peter Jackson has to decide how many men and how many elves and what do they look like and what do they wear, and is any one of them going to say or do anything (they'll look a bit wooden if they don't!).... To my mind that is an a priori reason for adding extra characters in a film adaptation. Does one of them have to be Legolas? No, but there are valid reasons why one of them might be and if there are also dangers for the later story in including him at this stage, I'm not in a position to say whether or not the filmmakers have thought of those dangers and tried to avoid them.

The inclusion of Legolas might be good or bad. If's he's skateboarding down stairs again I'll be complaining too, but for now I'm just curious to see what they have in mind. I didn't like all the changes they made for the LotR films but there were some I really appreciated because it felt like being given new glimpses of that world I've always loved - the funeral of Theodred is one added scene that springs to mind. I'm another reader who is always left craving for more after reading Tolkien's books, and devouring the Appendices and Histories for any extra crumbs of story. So for now I'm in wait and see mode, hoping that whatever it is they're doing in New Zealand it will be sympathetic to Tolkien's writing. And in the meantime I'm happy to come here and chew over what they might be doing.


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


May 29 2011, 9:18am


Views: 757
Couldn't agree more. Very well stated.//

 

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


May 29 2011, 9:22am


Views: 823
You bring up a great point about the difference between novelists and filmmakers.

I don't think those of us who aren't filmmakers really understand all of the incredibly painstaking work that is put into all the details which have to be debated for the film. How should the dwarves really look? What should Mirkwood look like exactly? How many people are in Lake-town? These are the things filmmakers lose sleep over even before they start filming. Just another reason I have all the respect in the world for the people willing to take on rich literary worlds such as Middle-Earth.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Seuvilen
The Shire

May 29 2011, 12:58pm


Views: 749
See, now you've got me torn

because I agree 100% with you re. Legolas and Gimli's friendship, but my head-canon has always been that Legolas is in some way involved in the events of The Hobbit, and have never had a problem squaring that with later events. After all, it's Thranduil who's in charge, Legolas doesn't necessarily have much, if any influence over things, so why should he take responsibility for his father's actions?
As others have said, I suppose it all depends on how he is used in the films; I certainly don't think his should be a major role and it's probably better if he doesn't come face to face with the Dwarves. I don't see any need for him to either, there are numerous ways he could be useful (to the furthering of the plot) without getting in the way.

And yes, by ROTK the stunts had become ridiculous. Unimpressed


Ainu Laire
Tol Eressea


May 29 2011, 4:29pm


Views: 703
That's only the beginning

Not only do they have to decide on look, but they have to decide on lighting, camera angles, and pacing. Pacing can make or break a film. That is one major change not often acknowledged by people: PJ completely changed the pacing of TTT and ROTK by mixing Frodo's and Sam's stories with the others. It was a change that worked very well with the film format in a way I don't think Tolkien's format would have worked as well.

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


Flagg
Tol Eressea


May 29 2011, 5:37pm


Views: 706
I don't think that argument holds water


Quote
You may argue that Jackson is already being true enough, but that assumes the original text is just a starting point from which to go out and extrapolate. Why, then, call the film The Hobbit at all? Why not just make a brand new and original fantasy movie?

I've heard this suggestion a few times before and it's always seemed a bit shaky to me. The notion that a filmmaker should abandon an adaptation simply because their vision is somewhat different is something I've always found perplexing. It's clear that Jackson and his colleagues fell in love with Tolkien's world and sought to create their own cinematic version of it. Film adaptations are by their very nature extrapolations – this isn't like a comic book, where you can literally recreate every panel if you wish; the look of Middle-earth and its inhabitants, the sets, the costumes, the creatures, the props, the various races' distinctive aesthetics, the camera angles, the colour palette – the entire visual aspect of the film – must all be fabricated by the filmmakers using nothing but the author's sparse descriptions and their own imaginations as a base. The original text is always the starting point.

The reason they're still calling this extrapolated film The Hobbit is that the name is a very good description – Bilbo Baggins is still the main character, he still sets out on a journey across Middle-earth with Gandalf and a band of thirteen Dwarves, he still holds palaver with the dragon Smaug. Fans of the novel will go to the film expecting to see these things brought to life, and they will not be disappointed – it's all there. What purpose could possibly be served by renaming the film? Would The Wizard really be a more fitting title, as some White Council critics have snarkily suggested? No, this is still essentially The Hobbit; a half-hour of Dol Guldur shenanigans doesn't diminish that.

Do you really think Jackson's desire to add some peripheral subplots is enough to preclude him from adapting The Hobbit in the first place – that he should start from scratch and create his own fantasy world? How could that satisfy him if what he wants is to show the White Council battling the Necromancer in Dol Guldur? I don't want to see generic movie wizards facing off against a generic supervillain in a generic castle – I want to see the Tolkien version; the one Jackson is filming right now. Perhaps that's unfaithful to the book – perhaps I'm not a real fan – but that's what I want to see! I won't attempt to convince you that the White Council subplot will make for a worthy and fitting addition to the story of The Hobbit – I can accept that you're the sort of person who just wants to see the book filmed – but let's discard this idea that anyone with a revisionist attitude to adaptation should not make adaptations. If all filmmakers were source-material purists, some of the greatest films of all time would never have been made.


Bound
Rohan


May 29 2011, 7:12pm


Views: 680
100% Agree...

I'm not gona spend a huge amount of time repeating you but I agree 100% with what you said. The simple fact is that the movie should be called The Hobbit, because the story of the hobbit is the same.

I'm at a loss of why some people are so surprised / apposed / confused by the changes that we already know about ! Have the complainers seen Lord of The Rings ?? We know how Jackson works, We've seen how he's expanded characters, and removed stuff and moved things around.

The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 29 2011, 7:56pm


Views: 681
At a loss?

Yes, the filmmakers have to make changes; this is the nature of adaptation. Yes, the filmmakers have their own reasons for those changes. But to suggest that this excuses any and all changes seems strange to me. The fimmakers had very good reasons to include XenArwen in their scripts, but that didn't make it a good change.

Those of us who've spoken out against certain changes have our own reasons for disliking them. Whether it's changing the tone of the story, stealing screen time away from the main narrative, or adding a new and messy dynamic to the Leggy/Gimli friendship, can we all at least acknowledge that we're not just flailing around for something to be contrary about?

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Bound
Rohan


May 29 2011, 8:06pm


Views: 682
Of course...

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else's opinion’s aren't just. I agree that you are people aren't just saying they don't want these changes just for the sake of being difficult or whatever. I wouldn't even claim that people who have these opinion’s are purists or whatever. Everyone has the reason for wanting something or not wanting something - and they are well with in their rights to discuss them here.

I was merely saying that people who seem surprised by any potential changes should be aware that it is apart of the process - we know how Peter changed things in Lord of The Rings. Some things worked, others didn't. I personally felt that he got the balance right and hope he'll do the same again.

The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed


Flagg
Tol Eressea


May 29 2011, 8:17pm


Views: 702
I don't think the allotment of screen time is an issue

While the other examples you cite (tone and Legolas's relationship with Gimli) are of course legitimate concerns, I don't think the idea that the new subplots will have a parasitic effect on the main storyline is a real threat. The Hobbit book is much shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings volumes, so the more expansive film adaptation will be required to add plenty of material to keep the original storyline from growing bloated and stretched (too much butter and all that). We don't want a Deathly Hallows 'camping fatigue' situation; now there's a film that could have benefited from some healthy fabrication.


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 29 2011, 8:23pm


Views: 651
Whether you agree with them or not, I'm just making sure that people realize there are reasons //

 

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


taekotemple
Grey Havens


May 29 2011, 11:18pm


Views: 700
This brings a few things to mind...

I'd say that the only film I've ever seen where the on-screen adaptation was almost completely exact to the book was "Like Water for Chocolate." I read the book, and finished reading it in only slightly more time than it took to watch the film.

This is an incredible rarity, that a book can so easily be translated into film. One of the things that helped it, though, is that it wasn't a fantasy novel.

It's part of the nature of fantasy and science fiction that there is a lot of explanation to do so that the reader/viewer can understand the different way people live in the stories, the different technology or lack thereof, the different cultures that don't exist in our real world experience. This does create a big barrier between getting a fantasy or science fiction novel onto the big screen. There are explanations of things in the novels that aren't needed in the film because it's just as easy to show them. And sometimes, the reverse is true, you need to explain certain things in the film that can be taken for granted in the book.

My understanding is that some of the things that are being added to The Hobbit may not be directly from the story, but from the appendices, much like there were some things from the appendices used in the LotR films. To me, even if it deviates from the direct novel, it is part of Tolkien's thought and intention for his stories about Middle earth.

I find that I do tend to get concerned when things are added to the story that aren't from Tolkien's writing, like the presence of Itaril. But while I do have my concerns about Legolas, especially after reading what Arwen's Daughter so astutely pointed out, there is also a certain logic to it as well. Legolas is a Mirkwood elf, son of the elf king of Mirkwood, and elves are long-lived. So it's not entirely far-fetched that he'd be around. It's just that the writing team have created a sticky situation where they do need to consider Legolas' presence impacting his relationship with Gimli.

I'm a big fan of interesting adaptations of pre-existing novels, plays, etc. Some of my favorite film versions of Shakespeare's plays aren't exactly accurate to the time and place in which they were written. But they are interesting views. I like what the writing team did with LotR, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with The Hobbit. Perhaps this is why I try to not get too involved in conversations about what Itaril is going to be like, and that I'm one of those that tends to say things like, "we can't be sure of that yet, we won't know until the movie comes out."

I like adaptations. I really do. There have even been some times when I've preferred the film version to the original source novel... I think the Twilight films, though I'm not a huge fan of them, are much better than the books they were adapted from. I also prefer Jackson's version of The Lovely Bones over the novel. I've definitely seen some bad adaptations as well, but I do know that from Jackson & crew's past films, I have more faith that they will honor the book well enough to make a great film.


LordMaximus
Rivendell


May 30 2011, 1:33am


Views: 640
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I'm glad someone has given this film a go and make it as good as possible. Seems a lot of people think they could do a better job of not only adapting a book but actually fillming a movie. The biggest problem you have associated with adapting a book if you ask me is the ever changing dyanmic flow of time in a book verses a film medium with a constant speed. Something is just going to come out in the wash.

I can't see how Legolas can be integrated as a 'major' character in the film without dramatically changing the story but why leave him out at the same time? Isn't the most likely explaination going to be the simpliest? He is going to have a small part and not impact the overall story dramatically.


Bombadil21
Bree


May 30 2011, 3:23am


Views: 608
Bilbo and Gandalf


In Reply To
In fact, as written, it would make a better TV series, with the Unexpected Party acting as the perfect pilot, and then each chapter afterward making for an episode. It is also told from Bilbo's perspective, and that's rather hard to maintain over the course of an entire film, where it would work in a series. So the first change, before anything else, will be the perspective. And once you change the perspective, you change how much of the story is told, and this is just in relation to subject matter directly from the book. But by changing perspective to some of the other characters, you also open up the ability, in a logical manner, to bring in action not witnessed by Bilbo. Claiming it is not necessary to add action we know happened just because it wasn't in the written text ignores the natural curiosity and interest the fanbase has in the source material.

The idea that filmgoers who never read any of the books can't possibly be confused has probably never sat in on a test screening for a film and noticed how much people miss in any film. It's amazing how many details are misunderstood in films, which is the reason they do test screenings in the first place. So there will be exposition and scenes added to clarify motives and actions because it must be there for those who have never read the books or the appendixes or any of the other supporting books. And backstory for what has always been offstage action will be included because it helps fill out the story and gives more insight into characters and what is going on in this story, and what happens in the future stories. But to say it's not necesary because it wasn't in the original book is simply ignoring the difference between book and film storytelling. What those changes are or should be is debatable, but the necessity of the changes isn't.


It is also told from Bilbo's perspective, and that's rather hard to maintain over the course of an entire film

Why? the book manages it fine, as do plenty of films. Star Wars is very similar to The Hobbit in many ways - the journey of a parochial farm boy (in Bilbo's case a decadent bourgeouis) into the wide unkown. I would have thought this is exactly the kind of story that works so well on film.

Claiming it is not necessary to add action we know happened just because it wasn't in the written text ignores the natural curiosity and interest the fanbase has in the source material.

This sounds like special pleading to me. The natural curiosity of some fans (well I guess all are curious, but not enough for Jackson to shoehorn it into his films) is not enough to justify what amounts to made up stuff in The Hobbit. Surely there is enough material "in the written text" (as if there is any other text) for a Hobbit movie.

The idea that filmgoers who never read any of the books can't possibly be confused has probably never sat in on a test screening for a film and noticed how much people miss in any film... So there will be exposition and scenes added to clarify motives and actions because it must be there for those who have never read the books or the appendixes or any of the other supporting books

What I find interesting about your argument is that it is similar to arguments many purists used against the dumbing down of LoTR-film. If anything, there should have been a greater depth of exposition (artfully construed). Moreover, I realise all too well that audiences can be confused, but it is not the role of The Hobbit story to explain where Gandalf has gone - indeed the point is that he disappear and we are unnaware of his whereabouts. This is the great mistake I think the filmmakers/writers have made. They have conflated Bilbo's story in The Hobbit with the wider geopolitical story of Middle-earth, something that The Hobbit only ever glimpses.


Kimi
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 30 2011, 6:35am


Views: 591
Dior Aranel

"and there was born Dior Aranel the beautiful" - from the opening paragraph of Chapter 20, The Silmarillion. So it appears that aranel is not specific to male or female.


The Passing of Mistress Rose
My historical novels

Do we find happiness so often that we should turn it off the box when it happens to sit there?

- A Room With a View


(This post was edited by Kimi on May 30 2011, 6:37am)


Kimi
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 30 2011, 6:49am


Views: 607
According to the OED

"Prince" in the sense of "A male member of a royal family other than a reigning king" began in the 14th century, when the title "Prince of Wales" was first given to the oldest son of the King of England. Its use spread from there, to other countries and to other members of royal families.


The Passing of Mistress Rose
My historical novels

Do we find happiness so often that we should turn it off the box when it happens to sit there?

- A Room With a View


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 30 2011, 7:26am


Views: 564
Thanks Kimi. :)

I've been looking through some quotes by Queen Elizabeth 1 and found this:

"Ye may have a greater prince, but ye shall never have a more loving prince."


She wasn't loathe to minimise her femininity and have people perceive her as being more like a man:

"I have the heart of a man, not a woman, and I am not afraid of anything."

"I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England, too."


Given the hard road she took to the throne and the continual politicking around her, it makes sense that she would seek to cast herself as more than a 'mere woman', and certainly someone to be reckoned with.

Calling herself a prince, especially after a time when 'prince' was associated with males (as you found in the OED), reminds me of Hatshepsut wearing a false beard while she ruled Egypt as Pharoah.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 30 2011, 8:17am


Views: 618
I think you just negated your own argument

Yes, a child's book manages a single perspective story fine, but we won't be watching a book on the big screen. With all the story elements in the book, the only way to make it simpler for children to read and understand, was to simplify how many voices they heard, so we only see things through Bilbo's eyes. The point here being, this is a very hard affect to achieve. Similar to how Cloverfield was shot, all from the perspective of that camcorder. And over the course of two movies, this becomes so much harder. So, we will get parts told from Gandalf's perspective, and from Thorin's perspective, and Thranduil, and Bard and Smaug, and many others. And yes, all those perspectives could still just be things directly from the Hobbit text, or actions somewhat hinted at but not precisely spelled out. But it also leaves things open to expanding what everyone is doing, or has done, or will do. And when it comes to things like the White Council or Dol Goldur, Tolkien did write about that, did think it important to fill in, even if he didn't include it into a children's book.

Example: In the book, after Bilbo's encounter with Smaug, the dragon goes on a rampage and leaves the cavern and starts shooting flames at the Lonely Mountain looking for the Thief and his secret entrance. Bilbo and the dwarves hide inside the cave after shutting the door behind them, and hear Smaug smashing the side of the mountain, shooting flames, looking for the Thief and the secret entrance, but they never see it. After not finding them, Smaug leaves. They huddle there for a hours and hours, with no idea where Smaug is, whether he's come back or not and finally decide to head down the tunnel and into the main cavern in hopes of possibly sneaking past a very angry dragon. It is only later, once the armies besiege the dwarves that Bilbo is told that Smaug flew to Laketown, set it alight and that Bard finally shot an arrow into the one small open spot on his chest and felled the dragon. It's possible in the filmed version, this is exactly how it's played out and that during Bard's story we see Smaug approaching the town, scorching everything in his path, the burning of the town, the men fighting back, and the fateful shot that brings him down. But if we stick to Bilbo's perspective, we don't get to see Smaug looking for the Dwarves and Bilbo or his battering of the side of the mountain, because as written, we only hear that, not see it, because Bilbo is stuck in that pitch black cave. Boring, I want to see Smaug, not hear him.

I can't imagine this is how it will play out in the films. I'm quite sure we will see Smaug battering the side of the mountain,bringing down boulders and trees and setting it all on fire before we follow him across the lake once he decides he can't find the Thief on the mountainside. We will see him laying waste to the whole countryside as he goes, and people will run and scream and it will be mayhem. We will also see the militia try to fight back, and some will die, and the bowmen will start to loose their arrows. At this point, it's a coin toss as to whether we will see Bard fell Smaug at this point in the story, or whether we will cut back to the dwarves and Bilbo trying to determine what to do and gambling that a trip down the tunnel is the best idea, followed by Bilbo learning of Smaug's fate directly from Bard.

In the end, I'm convinced we will see something that Bilbo doesn't witness, and yet, it is something directly from the book. It's all about point of view and I personally can't wait to see the coolest dragon in fiction literature live up to his press.

Your Star Wars theory is a great example of a main character's journey, but Luke is not the only perspective we see. We have numerous sequences that are just the Droids, just Han and Chewie, just Leia and her captors, just Darth and Tarkin and other imperial troops and just Obi Wan, all sequences needed to help move Luke's story of self discovery along, and all sequences he never witnesses. So not quite as similar to The Hobbit as you would think, Bilbo is never really off stage, as it were. With the possible exception of when he's unconscious during the Battle of Five Armies, and even then, he's still onstage but not witnessing the story. But then, it's been 2 years since I last read the story, so maybe there is some other time that the story is happening and Bilbo is either not part of it nor witnessing it.

And just because you are not curious to see some of the storylines that Tolkien did write to fill in the backstory is not justification to leave it out either. I agree the proposed storyline of Itaril is made up, but the White Council and Dol Goldur are part of Tolkien's canon and therefore not made up. And while a lot of stuff happens in the Hobbit, and takes a while to read, on screen much of that will happen much quicker than you think. Sure, they could have decided to keep it just one movie, because that's about all the action the book would actually cover, but they decided not to leave plot holes. And yes, Gandalf's absence is a plot hole. Showing that background of where he goes doesn't have to change what happens to Bilbo and the dwarves. He leaves, they get lost, captured, escape, etc, and he goes off and meets with the White Council, they battle the Necromancer, and both storylines stay separate. I really don't see how including where Gandalf goes and what he does as hindering Bilbo's growth as a reluctant hero because it never actually affects Bilbo at all. You couldn't do that in a child's book, but you can do that in an adults movie.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


sphdle1
Gondor


May 30 2011, 12:15pm


Views: 559
Yeah, I know...I was just trying to be funny...I know, my humor is lame ;-) //

 

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


May 30 2011, 12:18pm


Views: 533
Yeah, I was kidding

Forgot to add a smilie to make it more clear.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


May 30 2011, 12:20pm


Views: 562
I like the sound of this

Tom even does all his own stunts, so that's a bonus. Sly

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Gaffer
The Shire

May 30 2011, 1:42pm


Views: 537
The mythological realm

I understand exactly what you're saying of course, and it makes perfect sense to me. But I have to wonder whether calling it mythology doesn't actually give purists more to argue about. I mean if you have a graph where "Fiction" is on the left end, and "Reality" is on the right, then it seems to me that "Mythology" would fall somewhere just left of the y axis (and "History" just to the right).

For my money, The Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction that Tolkien delighted in treating like a mythology. A great work no doubt, by a great storyteller, but fiction nonetheless. That leaves it wide open to interpretation. Especially when trying to make a movie out of it.

Mythology, on the other hand, tends to attract believers who can claim to know what's True without having to support that truth with reason. "Because it says so in the Book" is all the reason that's necessary, rendering discussion a useless exercise in jawflappery.

So while I'm right with you on your conclusion (that reinterpretation is allowed) I'm gonna stick with LoTR as "Fiction." It's a lot less dangerous that way. And having read said work of fiction dozens of times over the last 35 years or so, I'm ready to view it from a new angle, not to mention in 3D. Wink

----------------------------------------------------
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
--Solid Jackson-- (from Terry Pratchett's "Jingo")


Loresilme
Valinor


May 30 2011, 2:34pm


Views: 468
Thank you for the explanation!

I was never sure how that worked. That is very helpful, thanks Smile!


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


May 30 2011, 3:47pm


Views: 477
Just to point out that Bilbo & the dwarves hear about Smaug's death from Roac the raven well before they're beseiged //

 

My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


Garfeimao
Rohan


May 30 2011, 6:34pm


Views: 451
I couldn't remember how they learned

I just know that it was after they decided to go down the tunnel, unsure what they would find and if they would survive.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


LordMaximus
Rivendell


May 31 2011, 2:58am


Views: 488
Spot on //

Its pretty simple when you put it like that.


Crustbucket
Registered User

Feb 1 2012, 2:37pm


Views: 373
Legolas

My guess is that Legolas will lead a contingent of woodland elves to Dul Guldur and be Gandalf's confidant during the assault.
Will use a orc for a sled.