The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Those with concerns...



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 4 2012, 1:43pm


Views: 7199
Those with concerns...

This is NOT a bashing thread its for those with concerns to voice them about what we have seen so far, or people who have some input to help relieve those concerns. If you don't like the views here and just want to criticize please just move on...

From what we have seen so far from trailers and production vlogs it seems they are really trying to tell us these films are in the same spirit as the LOTR films but from what is actually shown they seem to have very little in common other than they are supposedly set in middle earth. I as well as others have concerns only from what we have seen so far, as well as rumors of things that just sound off compared to the caliber that LOTR established a decade ago.

Compared to Peter Jackson's own LOTR...

1. middle earth just seems brighter and more colorful and less "real" (very noticeably so IMO)
2..some of the dwarves, new creatures, and bad guys just look very cartoonish (again opinion) compared to the more realistic approach they took last time
3. the visual effects just don't seem to mesh with the scenes in some of what we seen in the trailer (Wargs looking like they were painted on top of the scene)
4. and so far the overall tone from riddles in the dark the overall showing of the dwarves just seems too comical, is this a comedy or an action adventure fantasy film?

Yes I know the Hobbit is a lighter tone book but PJ is the one who wanted the Hobbit to fit his model of the middle earth he created over a decade ago. As it seems at this point the films will not flow from one series to the other very well or the flow will be stretched thin, "like butter scraped over too much bread" It seems the tone is more in line with the source material but the dialogue and slapstick demeanor is not in line with what Tolkien wrote IMO. (Falling in a river doesn't need to be over the top laughing matter to be entertaining)

it seems to me while technology may have improved, but the quality of we have seen thus far IMO is not even as good as it was 10 years ago, Maybe PJ will pull it out at the 11th hour and the films will look great and similar to the middle earth we got with LOTR. But at this point its almost like we are entering some Alice in Wonderland/ middle earth hybrid. Which is not a good thing, I think 3-D and this new camera tech was the wrong way to go with the Hobbit, and they probably invested too much money in it. Instead of investing in other key aspects of these films. There are many defenders of PJ's choices, who hate hearing about the way things look to other people who do not like what they are seeing. Maybe they think we are being a buzzkill, but I see it more as genuine concern about seeing what we consider subpar compared to what we seen with LOTR. I know there are people already believing that these films will be bordering on the same greatness that LOTR had, they may or may not but it is yet to be seen. But I am genuinely concerned that this new version of middle earth is more about technological advances and seeing what "improvements" WETA has made (such as having Gollum so brightly lit in Riddles in the dark)


elevorn
Lorien


Oct 4 2012, 2:16pm


Views: 4745
personally

I haven't seen enough to really come to a judgment call on any of that yet. I think that you have some valid concerns, and I can certainly appreciate them. When I first heard that they were using new camera technology and 3d and whatnot I was quite concerned because I don't want this film to be a grand experiment in new technology. I also have not gotten over my sheer excitement at the trailer(s) to look carefully and critically at them.

As far as my opinion on the Gollum scene, it was always going to be a difficult lighting situation. Its a cave, no natural light, how do you film that?

There are places where the dwarves look cartoonish to me, but I don;t really have a problem with that as I have never actually seen a real life dwarf, so I can suspend disbelief for a bit on that. the great Goblin at the end of trailer looks terrible to me (then again so did the cave troll in FOTR, IMO).

Riddles in the dark is going to be comical moving to more sinister as the game progresses. That the way I read it in the book. the silly Hobbit matches wits with a very dangerous opponent, at first its a game, but then reality begins to set in that if he does not win, he dies. That's kind of the tone I get from the book as well. There will be lighthearted moments when Hobbits are involved (ie. Pippen and Merry at the broken gates of Isengard).

Overall, there is the chance we will see some of the over the top slapstick style in the movie, but I don't think it will dominate the film as it does at times in the trailer. There were little moments like that in LOTR movies, more in the EE than the Theatrical release, but they did not dominate the tone. I still think that it will hold to that sort of tone.

The pre-movie release merchandise and pictures and stuff of that nature I enjoy looking at but don't put a lot of stock in as far as representative of a final product. So...I'm not hitting the panic button yet, and probably won't, unless in the theatre I see something terribly wrong(First dwarf fart and I may walk out).



"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Oct 4 2012, 2:24pm


Views: 4617
Well


Quote
As far as my opinion on the Gollum scene, it was always going to be a difficult lighting situation. Its a cave, no natural light, how do you film that?


Dark places have been filmed before...This is not some sort of "first time ever!" thing, that PJ couldn't possibly get right because it's nearly impossible (reminds me of the "LOTR as unfilmable" defense of PJ's LOTR, which is true only because of CGI, not because of the story, which is inherently very cinematic).

An alternative to how PJ has done it is to just light the scene a bit less. Using Sting as a light source, or some other more subtle artificial source, would have been preferable, IMO.

While I am not as worried as sinister is about the final look, I do think that PJ has decided that the lighter tone of the book should be exaggerated heavily in the visuals, and this may not have been the best choice.

But then again, there are a number of design choices that I like better than what we saw in LOTR, such as many of the orcs. So, we'll see.



Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 4 2012, 2:33pm


Views: 4598
Ah but it is a basically negative and cynical thread

that skews the facts toward the dark and dismal side.

The Hobbit was never "part" of Lord of the Rings. It has always its own animal. The Hobbit is a fairytale and not high fantasy. Its style is different. Its vision of Middle-earth is limited and fanciful. Parts of it are cute, humorous and silly. I would expect any movies produced from this book to honor all of those qualities.

There is an old saw: Familiarity breeds contempt. I think that there is some of this at work here. I also believe that many false expectations have been clung to and cherished to the point that they limit the ability to see what is good.

I knew when Del Toro left and Peter announced his intent to film in 3D that we were looking at a horse of a different color. That feeling has grown with the passing of time but it has not been a negative thing for me. I think that these movies might just turn out to be the generational equivalent of what The Wizard of OZ was to the children of the 1930s-1940s-1950s-1960s...

I am looking forward to the the December opening. I think that I will not be disappointed by what has been put up on the screen. And though it will only follow the book's outline with embellishments from other sources within Tolkien's writings it will become The Hobbit and take us on the greatest adventure, an adventure filled with humor, pathos, and even grief. By its end we will know and love each and every one of the characters and see Middle-earth in a new and magic light. Just sayin'...Cool

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



Marionette
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 2:41pm


Views: 4438
3D

I think the way The Hobbit look has something to do with the 3D, but I remark, I am not an expert in cinema technology.

But the same happens with other movies: They look awesome in 3D, then I saw then in 2D in TV and they look a bit fake.
Yes, I have notice those movies doesn´t look as great as when I saw them 3D in cinemas. (But Avatar)
So I guess something of that happens with The Hobbit.

I don´t get the point about colors thought, I don´t see anything wrong with colors, or bright colors. The LOTR trilogy has color as well.


"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"
Queen



Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Oct 4 2012, 2:43pm


Views: 4583
If teh film ends up looking bad in 2D

Then it would have been a colossal mistake to film this in 3D.

But somehow, I cannot fathom that PJ wouldn't also make sure that the 2D version of the film is top notch. Especially for home viewing, which is still overwhelmingly a 2D experience.


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 4 2012, 2:45pm


Views: 4538
Book v film.


In Reply To
The Hobbit was never "part" of Lord of the Rings. It has always its own animal. The Hobbit is a fairytale and not high fantasy. Its style is different. Its vision of Middle-earth is limited and fanciful. Parts of it are cute, humorous and silly. I would expect any movies produced from this book to honor all of those qualities.


Whilst I agree with you that the Hobbit is a very different book than LotR, I don't see any reason for not retelling the story in the style of the later work, especially as this is something Tolkien set out to do himself, but only completed in part.

Any differences in style between the books can be explained, as Tolkien did, by them having different (fictional) authors. The Hobbit is seen through Bilbo's perspective, and reflects his (rather eccentric) personality and world-view. LotR reflects Frodo's (broader and better educated) perspective.

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


comandantedavid
The Shire

Oct 4 2012, 2:46pm


Views: 4642
Lighter tone (SPOILERS)

I am not concerned about the lighter tone, particularly for the first of three installments. Think about where this story is headed. By the end, our heroes will be in direct conflict with one another, and several main characters will die. How much more heartbreaking will it be to lose Thorin, Fili and Kili after three films with them than it was to lose Boromir after half a movie, or Theoden after two? Unlike FOTR, The Hobbit can take its time getting serious, and I think that's alright. In fact, a slower, gentler buildup through The Hobbit will probably enhance our experience of the LOTR trilogy, and of FOTR in particular.

On a related note: rewatching the LOTR trilogy recently, I was struck by the focus on Bilbo at the beginning and the end. When the elderly Bilbo declares at the end, "I'm quite ready for another adventure," I could see the young hobbit in the trailer running off with contract in hand. The whole saga is Bilbo's tale, in many ways. His courage, his pity, and his resilience set up the events that Frodo must endure (for which Bilbo is deeply sorry). Between The Hobbit and LOTR, we have a story about the effects of one generation's decisions on the generation that follows, for good or for ill.

Some of us have worried that The Hobbit film would be overwhelmed by LOTR's aesthetic, pacing, etc. I actually think that, if anything, LOTR will appear firmly grounded within the world of The Hobbit: with Bagshot row, Bilbo's trolls, Rivendell, Elrond, Galadriel, the wizards, Balin's tomb, Sting, Gollum, the Mithril rings, the Ring, Bilbo himself... Not until Rohan does LOTR move into truly new territory, and bring us finally out of the fairy tale into the world of Men.


DanielLB
Immortal


Oct 4 2012, 3:03pm


Views: 4532
A thread that starts with

"This is no a bashing thread" will soon turn into a bashing thread.

There's nothing wrong with bashing, of course. I have nothing to fully bash about (I mean air my concerns Wink) until I've seen the finished product.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



elevorn
Lorien


Oct 4 2012, 3:03pm


Views: 4576
oops

I didn't mean to imply it had not been done before. the amount of visibility described in the book is a frighteningly hard thing to imagine. If you're a director trying to make a movie that is not a horror film at heart, how does one do this scene. I get having just sting light the scene and it could work just fine, but when you invested so much money in actors, and CGI animators, I guess you want to be able to light things up a bit so you get every nuance you can. Having not scene the entire scene I can't speak to the look of it. The biggest I've seen the snippet was on my 32' tv hooked up HDMI to my computer, so I'm still holding off worry.



"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com


shadowdog
Rohan

Oct 4 2012, 3:04pm


Views: 4468
I don't agree

The Hobbit takes place in a more peaceful innocent world. Yes there are dark places and evil creatures; but the darkness that is Mordor has not yet spread out its hand to cover the world in darkness. From what I can see so far, Jackson has captured that more innocent world. I would be upset if The Hobbit took place in the exact same version of Middle Earth as existed in the LoTRs.


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 4 2012, 3:15pm


Views: 4462
lighting

I agree with you about the lighting, but this is an area where I never expected PJ to use the kind of approach that I prefer, since it's not his style, so it doesn't really disappoint me. I expect the main strength of "Riddles in the dark" to be in characterization and the interaction between Bilbo and Gollum and a progression from slight comedy to something more menacing and sinister. I also expect the use of music to be more prominent than the use of visual measures. If Jackson actually has decided to put more emphasis on atmosphere through visual cues, I will be pleasantly surprised.

The choice of brighter colours was made from the start I believe and seems to be something Del Toro and Jackson agreed upon as a way of differentiating The Hobbit from LoTR. How the tone of the story affects the rest of the visuals in the films remains to be seen (like you also note in your last paragraph).


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 4 2012, 3:16pm


Views: 4515
perspective

if someone thinks something is great before even viewing it, that experience is going to be totally different than someone who goes into viewing something with an indifferent attitude. Everything I have seen so far has been seen thru my eyes with that attitude. No expectations no preconceived notions, good bad or other wise. What I have seen though has caused concern from things that Peter Jackson has said and things I have seen in the glimpses we have gotten. I can say there are many things that I do like but just as many that give me concern.

I agree the Hobbit was never part of LOTR but the film makers are the one who want to tie it all together. I have said time and again that there are only a few characters between the two and I personally would be quite content if they were two separate film series if they stuck closer to the Hobbit source material.

I could care less about blockbuster status like WB or Peter Jackson do, the biggest thing I care about is how respectful it is of the source material. Which in some aspects it seems they are doing a very good job with it in others they are throwing everything completely out the window and making up their own version of things. Things such as making Bolg the Torturer of DolGuldur total made up whether people will admit it or not. Having to tie Sauron into everything bad in middle earth making him more important than he was in the Hobbit which was merely a footnote.(one or two sentences between Gandalf and Thorin and Gandalf's pressing business to the south that's it) Bigger picture I don't buy it, personally I really don't care about Sauron, or making the ring more important than it was in the Hobbit which was a burglers tool nothing more. But they seem to be taking characters in general that looked and felt real in the LOTR trilogy and making cartoonish versions of many of them in this version which doesn't give me any sense of it being realistic like LOTR was. IMO making it harder to be believable.

I've said it before when Peter Jackson stuck to what Tolkien wrote his films were great and when he wrote whole sections of his own made up material his films were at their weakest IMO. Thats why I have concerns about all this made up information that is being included. The changes of characters involved in places and events they were never written into by Tolkien. I lack the faith in Peter Jackson that some people have, nothing personal I don't personally know the man. Sorry if I feel PJ's writing is not even close to the same caliber of Tolkien's and that I found the 3 plus hours of made up content in LOTR to be the worst parts of that trilogy.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 4 2012, 3:19pm)


comandantedavid
The Shire

Oct 4 2012, 3:32pm


Views: 4508
I don't know about that... book SPOILER

... Theodred's funeral and Theoden's mourning are among the most moving scenes in all three films. And not part of Tolkien's original vision. Now when I read The Two Towers, Theoden's conversion/healing/waking up/what-have-you seems sort of trite by comparison. Just an example.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 3:41pm


Views: 4329
Characterizations in Film 1

sinister71 wrote: if someone thinks something is great before even viewing it, that experience is going to be totally different than someone who goes into viewing something with an indifferent attitude.

But it's okay for you to think something is bad before even viewing it?
That's certainly how I read your OP. Clearly, you realized it yourself or you wouldn't have added your "this is not a bashing thread" disclaimer.

The reality is that the first film SHOULD be more innocent, childlike, and, in your words, "cartoonish." A brilliant way to present the trilogy is to capture the children's tale nature of Tolkien's work and then slowly but surely transition into the darker and more mature themes present in the LOTR by the end of film 3.

I recall how the portrayals of Merry and Pippin were bashed for being juvenile and one dimensional in FOTR. But, lo and behold, when the entire trilogy played out most Tolkien fans found their overall portrayal endearing. That's because key characters in films have story arcs. But when you are telling a story in multiple films, you're not going to get a complete picture in a single theatrical release. The same will be the case with The Hobbit trilogy. None of us here will be able to authoritatively judge the film version of The Hobbit and its characters until we've seen all three films, much less one film---and certainly not, as is the case here, a couple 2-minute trailers.


(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Oct 4 2012, 3:43pm)


Owain
Tol Eressea


Oct 4 2012, 3:49pm


Views: 4311
Mods up.//

Smile

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


digibrink
Registered User

Oct 4 2012, 3:50pm


Views: 4418
Dwarves don't realize what they are getting in to

I always felt like the Dwarves started out their adventure with Songs and thoughts of Gold and reclaiming their home, etc. It is easy to be in Hobbiton and be cheerful and have no worries and fool around. I feel like Thorin is probably the only one who knows how difficult it is going to be and that death is a reality of their quest.

So it makes sense to me it will start out with the dwarves fooling around and not taking things seriously, even laughing off the Trolls (haha - that was close!), before seeing Smaug and and the Goblin armies and realizing that things just got real.


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 4 2012, 4:01pm


Views: 4283
Hobbit vs LoTR

I think it's only realistic not to expect that these films will feel like LoTR, at least as far as the first film is concerned. The tone of the films might change when we get further into nr. 2 and to nr. 3. It's only reasonable IMO to expect quite a bit of comedy mixed with action in the first film, especially as a way of identifying with the characters.

Both The Hobbit and LoTR have the same concept art designers, so I expect many of the places to look similar visually, but since The Hobbit is set in a more innocent time, it's natural that they try to differentiate it from the look and feel of LoTR in several respects. The choice about brighter colours, if my memory serves me right, is a choice that was made early on when Del Toro still was the director and has been kept as a way of differentiating The Hobbit from LoTR.

Seen in isolation, I understand that parts of the trailer might give a cause for concern, but I think it's wise not to worry too much based on the trailer, or any rumours. In the trailer we see so many things out of context and just for a split second.

When they're talking about having LoTR mesh with The Hobbit, it seems to me that they're talking about slightly expanding the context of the story in the Hobbit films so we see that it's clearly set in Middle Earth and is part of it's history, not about having exactly the same tone and feel as the LoTR films. But the use of music, the landscapes, the cultural diversity in the designs and the measures they use to develop the characters I expect to be mainly the same, so my theory is that those who liked Jackson's general concept of story-telling in the LoTR-films ought to like The Hobbit films as well, even if they haven't got the same scale and scope.

Not sure if I actually adressed any of your concerns, or in the way you wanted. I guess I've changed from slighly worrying to feeling more relaxed about the films in general.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 4 2012, 4:02pm


Views: 4754
Tolkien did not complete the rewrite of the Hobbit because he realized that it would

destroy the essence of the book. I do see lots of reasons for not recasting The Hobbit as a previous chapter of The Lord of the Rings. They all seem rather obvious and have been discussed at length here on TORn so I will not bother to list them. I think that Peter realized the differences and honors them by giving us The Hobbit's view of Middle-earth which is a shade off from the darker Lord of the Rings.
The conceit that the story teller altered the world view works to a degree but I propose a further idea. Magic was leaving Middle-earth. The Elves were departing. An age of Man was fast becoming a reality. Like Lothlorien there was a golden autumn that declined from the time of Bilbo to that of Frodo. This accounts for the difference of vision.
* * *
Requiem for Lothlorien

At dreaming’s end a scything wind
Lays silver limbs to Winter's blade,
Feeds golden leaves to hungering earth,
Draws snow to cover summer's grave.

Then silent night, new bitter born
Falls cold upon this breathless wood
Where spring once held for an age of Man
And all that dwelt within was good.

Now comes the Lady last of all,
Fairest of her fair and ancient race,
Walking soundless through the deepening dark
Starlit tear-lines drawn down her ageless face.

All have passed and here where it all began
She seeks solace in the memory, surcease and sorrows end.
In doubt of what her choice has wrought
In thought of that which might have been
She climbs the hill where they first met.

KS

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



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 4 2012, 4:04pm


Views: 4322
actually I have viewed everything

with an open mind. not going into it negative or positive. contrary to what anyone wants to believe. My disclaimer was for those who want to dismiss those who have concerns or feel negatively about what we have actually seen. And not feel the need insult those who have concerns or to try and make everything rosey and perfect with these films. Not everyone is going to be optimistic about these films, Its no secret I'm not, and I do not apologize for that, but I still have concerns about these films especially since Peter Jackson himself said these films are going to have the same feel as his LOTR trilogy. which I do not see at this point. I'm glad I see some of the lighter tone but it seems to be becoming too slapstickish for my taste. there is a difference between making characters realistic and cartoonish, realistic characters IMO would have been better in cartoonish situations than having to try harder to believe these characters are real (in film).. Like I have said I don't need to be chuckling all the way thru the films.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 4 2012, 4:08pm)


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 4:22pm


Views: 4240
People with this viewpoint should read...

...the book "Lila" by Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". In that book he discusses the distinction between "static" quality and "dynamic" quality. If one goes to listen to a singer, for example, and he or she sings only the same familiar songs, then while you might enjoy yourself somewhat, you'd also have the nagging feeling that something was missing. This is because the experience was all static: there was no _dynamic_ element. Thus if I went to see the movie "The Hobbit", and every scene followed exactly from the book, then I would definitely feel that something was missing. For me, some of the most impressive scenes in the LOTR films were those in which the writers used their creativity to imagine things that were only alluded to in the books, or that happened offstage: Gandalf's fall with the Balrog, Boromir's death, Arwen and Aragorn. Of course, there were times when it didn't work, but that's the risk you take in being dynamic, just as the singer takes a risk when she sings a new song that the fans haven't heard before. In adapting Tolkien to the screen, the source material virtually has to be modified; if you tried to film The Lord of The Rings page by page, it would just be a boring mess. Would you really want to film Frodo sitting around Bag End for two or three weeks, as Tolkien wrote, before departing on the quest? No, you would write the scene as Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens did: this is urgent, dangerous, and Frodo has to leave immediately.

Thus I'm really looking forward to seeing the dynamic additions to The Hobbit: the White Council, Tauriel, Radagast, the history of Dale. I have a feeling that they will be my favorite moments from the films.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.

http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u538/dwellerindale/th_tauriel_7_1_zps2b536564.jpg


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 4 2012, 4:27pm


Views: 4378
I think PJ is in a no win situation

The Hobbit has a lighter feel, as in, not the high medieval drama of LOTR with epic battles etc, but is a fairy story, so the look should reflect this, but at the same time be recognizably Middle Earth, it has some of the darkness of LOTR in places but its mostly about a little Hobbit and bumbling Dwarves. So do you have a brighter lighter tone or dark and moody tone? Its a balancing act. Perhaps the colour palette will start bright and golden and slowly edge towards the blue scale and become darker? Maybe up to Rivendell the skies will be blue and the light golden? perhaps the journey afterwards will become wet and miserable dark and dangerous towards Trollshaws? its just my supposition.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 4 2012, 4:37pm


Views: 4307
you speak wisdom.

and I would have to agree on all points.

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



Beren0nehanded
Bree


Oct 4 2012, 4:55pm


Views: 4276
Lighter Tone and Such

In regards to the idea that PJ is making TH too light and cartoon-ish, I shared your concern, especially after the latest trailer relase, BUT, I had a very enlightening conversation with my younger brother that changed my usually stubborn mind.

TH was originally meant for children! As a children's book it must have a lighter tone compared to the epic that is the LotR. While its understandable that this isn't easy to come to grips with because both stories take place in Middle-Earth, the books, and seemingly the movies too, have slightly different broad target audiences!

I now compare this theory to the three old and new Star Wars trilogies to explain why so many people hate the newer trilogy. The older trilogy was meant for young adults/adults IMO and when that generation got older and saw the new trilogy (which was probably meant mostly for young adults/children hence jar-jar binks) they were outraged! How could a trilogy that takes place in the same universe as the older triology feel so different! Because of different target audiences!

I hope people at least take this into consideration when watching TH Smile

Don't be hasty.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 6:08pm


Views: 4077
Open minded?

sinister71 wrote: actually I have viewed everything with an open mind.

I realize that until the first film comes out, there is nothing much of any real substance fans have to discuss here--so the trailers are going to get a heck of a lot more scrutiny than is normally the case with movie trailers. But with all due respect to the OP, an "open minded" fan does not express concerns about cartoonish characters, too comical a tone, poor CGI, and unrealistic feeling Middle Earth sets two months before the film is released!

It's your right to express concerns about anything. But I would advise "those with concerns" to be careful about twisting yourselves up into knots with anxiety and worry....over a 2 minute trailer. It's a tribute to the genius of JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson that we all care so much. But discussing concerns based on a trailer that may--or may not--be legitimate issues when we finally see the full feature film is, IMHO, a recipe for an avoidable ulcer.

(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Oct 4 2012, 6:11pm)


stoutfiles
Rohan

Oct 4 2012, 6:52pm


Views: 3738
I'm worried that this film is for the mainstream adience

-Shorter, lighter, and funnier than LOTR. While the book is this way, I feel they will take it too far.

-Remember that scene is Episode III of Star Wars when Chewbacca was needlessly there? I feel like we're getting a lot of cameos like that, making Middle Earth feel very small. At least Star Wars had the sense to leave out Young Han Solo, please do the same with Aragorn. He is not important to this story.

-Gollum. He is a terryifying character in the book. I am worried he will not be in the movie.

-Dwarves. If mostly all of them are comic relief, I will get annoyed quickly. Bombur is your comic relief, anyone else being goofy just makes dwarves look goofy as a whole. They ruined Gimli, please don't ruin the race of Dwarves.


Fŕfnir
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 6:56pm


Views: 3576
That's true ! We can only judge the trailer in itself !

I don't really like that trailer, the music and the rythme are not of my taste, but I can't say for the films for now. Even a 10min sequence of the film would probably not be enough ! If I only had seen of tRotK the battle at the black gate sequence, with aragorn's speech, if think I would have been sure this movie was crap.


There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 7:32pm


Views: 3621
beating a dead horse

poor Bill the pony, leave him alone! Angelic

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien

"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas


There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Oct 4 2012, 7:35pm


Views: 3639
a thousand times yes

I feel Tolkien makes it very clear these Dwarves are way in over their head from the get go. I mean really, what were they planning to do once they reached The Lonely Mountain?

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien

"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas


Dlanor da Great
Rivendell

Oct 4 2012, 9:58pm


Views: 3628
Yes, i fully believe that ....

...the movies will progress to a different tone and color palate as the LOTR trilogy did.
Especially when you consider how the FOTR felt different from TTT and ROTK which both largely took place in the world of Men.
Just based on how PJ handled the LOTR trilogy, I think those who are concerned of the tone of The first Hobbit movie should take heart in the likely hood that the tone will be more fantasy and light hearted until we reach the 'real' world of Men in the next two movies.
The second and third Hobbit movies largely take place in the rather moody looking Laketown where you will find a brooding Bard and the corrupt Master of Laketown. Plus considering how dirty the dwarves appear to get in the blogs , and the Tragedies that happen, I pressume to expect less "cartoonish" looking characters.
And ,of course, the evil characters Smaug, the Necromancer and the Non-CG orcs I will expect to be more menacing then the Great Goblin, cave trolls and Gollum.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 4 2012, 10:01pm


Views: 3562
One can only hope so//

 


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 4 2012, 11:07pm


Views: 3578
I fully agree with the need for openmindedness

And just such commitments as we have here not to pre-judge the films before we have seen them. I was recently in the position of having an acquaintance tell me about this short story he had written about Pinocchio eating porky pies while his pants were on fire and it occurs to me that if I hadn't adopted the sort of neutrality and openmindedness which is exemplified in these posts, well, I would have thought the whole thing was a load of baloney.

LR


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 12:21am


Views: 3436
I think that they WOULD have become such generational classics if they had kept the number of films

down to 1 or 2 at most. I think three is too many for a sit down holiday classic. But we shall see.

About many of the other things I agree. I am fine with the colour being lighter and brighter. It should be. It is that kind of story. I am fine with some of the villains (goblins in particular) looking a little cartoonish, so long as the CGI is flawless. I do have concerns about shortcomings in the CGI with the wargs, and I don't like that evidently animitronics are out for the films.

I hope the increased colour and flare will also come with a greater incorporation of Gandalf's magic from the books. Wink

In Reply To
that skews the facts toward the dark and dismal side.

The Hobbit was never "part" of Lord of the Rings. It has always its own animal. The Hobbit is a fairytale and not high fantasy. Its style is different. Its vision of Middle-earth is limited and fanciful. Parts of it are cute, humorous and silly. I would expect any movies produced from this book to honor all of those qualities.

There is an old saw: Familiarity breeds contempt. I think that there is some of this at work here. I also believe that many false expectations have been clung to and cherished to the point that they limit the ability to see what is good.

I knew when Del Toro left and Peter announced his intent to film in 3D that we were looking at a horse of a different color. That feeling has grown with the passing of time but it has not been a negative thing for me. I think that these movies might just turn out to be the generational equivalent of what The Wizard of OZ was to the children of the 1930s-1940s-1950s-1960s...

I am looking forward to the the December opening. I think that I will not be disappointed by what has been put up on the screen. And though it will only follow the book's outline with embellishments from other sources within Tolkien's writings it will become The Hobbit and take us on the greatest adventure, an adventure filled with humor, pathos, and even grief. By its end we will know and love each and every one of the characters and see Middle-earth in a new and magic light. Just sayin'...Cool


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Oct 5 2012, 12:25am


Views: 3549
It feels like Star Wars all over...

I'm sorry -it does. I have this really bad gut feeling (That I am never really wrong about) that these films will bomb. They WILL make money but WONT be viewed as masterpieces. Unsure

The Parallels between Lucas and Jackson are too many to ignore...

Both made brilliant trilogys that everyone loved! But they had MANY people around them pulling alot of the strings... Not anymore.
Both made millions from their films = great success (Went to their heads)
Both decided that even though everyone LOVED the originals they would change the tone of their new films (cheap laughs like jar jar stepping in poo/bird poo sliding down Radagasts face)
Speaking of tone, Star Wars was brilliant with the action/adventure feel and so was LOTR's...so why turn the prequels to both into very lame comedies??? Answer? Both directors got older and their humor got worse...
Both wated to PUSH their technology with the new films (Putting it ahead of the story)
Both used cgi to death to the point where the poor actors had to do the majority of their craft infront of green screens!! Ask actors how they feel about this?? And in doing so BOTH sets of prequels will feel sterile! Real locations win everytime!!
Both are about the money...a trilogy for the Hobbit???
Horrible prequel designs (check out the dwarves and the jedi council etc)

I'm sorry -this is how I feel. Star Wars broke my heart. I was looking forward to 3 films where we got to see the rise of the Empire, real jedi, great locations, Vader!, etc and all we got was the WORST acting you will ever see in film and characters you didn't care about and...um...er...gungans??? Yeah that's better than seeing Stormtroopers and rebels getting into it Mad

The Hobbit feels the same way... Peter has stuck these guys infront of green screen, added very stupid comedy (Think if you already feel this way from the trailer -how worse will the films be with an extra 50 wise cracks!!) ,barely any of the characters look how they were described in the books etc etc etc

Hope I am wrong.

P.s -If you think I am wrong about the money part just WAIT until the films are 2hrs or 2.5hrs just so they can release 3hrs EE's!! And they will Frown


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 1:22am


Views: 3451
But you are arguing for the elevation of CGI details

Over the film aesthetic, and the substance. You should not over-light a scene just so you can show off the fact that your CGI team renders pores, or hair, extremely well. That's just not good film-making, IMO.

And in the end, CGI still tends to look far more convincing in poorly-lit environments. The cave troll, for example, vs. the wargs and oliphaunts.


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Oct 5 2012, 1:37am


Views: 3502
Too many parallels?

You don't know the man, how do you come to the conclusion success has gotten into his head? How do you know Hobbit will be a comedy with lame jokes? How do you know he's putting technology ahead of the story? That's it's all about money? I could go on and on. It's pretty absurd to be honest. Sorry, have you seen the video logs? He's not putting actors in front of nothing, there are sets, green screen is being used for backgrounds, for set extensions primarily. LOTR had tons of green screen and CGI as well.

I can't even say for sure all that stuff holds true for Lucas. I don't know him. He might be just a talentless director that got lucky with the first Star Wars, the only one he directed from the old trilogy btw.


(This post was edited by Estel78 on Oct 5 2012, 1:41am)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 5 2012, 1:47am


Views: 3340
not that I agree with everything he said

But to be fair there are scenes in some of the Vlogs showing some actors in front of green screen only Vlog 8 with Legolas springs to mind right away right near the end of the Vlog... I do see some parallels but I'll wait till I see the films before I say for sure they will end up like Star Wars episodes 1, 2, and 3


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Oct 5 2012, 1:53am


Views: 3435
They did that in LOTR as well sometimes.

For instance, due to the height differences of races, when they needed to insert Gandalf into a dynimac shot with a Hobbit, sometimes McKellen had to play in front of only green screen. Or i think the scene in which Legolas takes down the Mumakil there was nothing there, just the actor, at least in some shots.


(This post was edited by Estel78 on Oct 5 2012, 1:54am)


Bombadil
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 2:30am


Views: 3589
okay..why not just relax and try Not of over-analyize

I'm going with Fresh Eyes

Feelings about Lighting
Feelings about Content
Feelings about Characters
Feelings about Storylines
Feelings about Adaption
Feelings about Mood
Feelings about the Book

Just get in The...way.
Ive waited a long time for this and I refuse to be dissapointed.

Something is Better than Nothing?
after...45 years.
Bomby


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 4:38am


Views: 3480
Because

Some people find all that stuff in your list to be important, and a part of what they enjoy, or don't enjoy, about films.

Let's just relax and accept that people have different opinions on things. It'll make everything easier.


flowww
Bree

Oct 5 2012, 6:56am


Views: 3358
But...

those things totally make a movie what it is, and when it's a film that happens to be based on a story we love as much as The Hobbit, I care all the more how well they treat it. One of the reasons the LOTR films were as successful as they were (for a lot of Tolkien fans) was the careful choices they made.

Having standards about art is a good thing. I mean, why be into Tolkien, in particular, at all if standards don't matter? Like, why not just forget about The Hobbit and see some other random popular film, if standards don't factor into one's enjoyment? Tolkien stands out because his work reaches heigher heights than a lot of the lazy genre fiction out there - if he hadn't treated it as seriously as he did, and gotten as quality results, we wouldn't be talking about it today.

And sorry, but (in my opinion) Something is so not better than Nothing, when something really special ends up getting diminished or trashed. The Star Wars prequels, for instance, pretty much stained the Star Wars saga in a lot of fan's eyes, and I have to admit that I would much rather those films weren't made at all.


Anyways, I have several misgivings about how the films are looking so far, but honestly, I still can't get past the beardless dwarves! Like that alone suggests such a wrongheaded attitude to their approach for this film, while destroying the 'realism' of its world, that I have a very bad feeling about it (and I really, really hope I'm wrong, and will gladly admit it if I am).


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 5 2012, 6:59am


Views: 3392
No, he didn't complete the rewrite

because he realised lots of people liked it the way it was. It doesn't mean HE was happy with it personally, and in my opinion the rewritten fragments we have seen (including the summery version in the Silmarillion) are vastly superior to the original.

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


tolktolk
Lorien

Oct 5 2012, 7:10am


Views: 3417
Heh Lacrimae

I like the cut of your jib. This constant ridiculous melodrama is so very wearing - I really can't figure out why people insist on this masochistic behaviour. Still, at least in his indifference the poster is on this occasion adopting a civil tone and not referring to people on this forum as sheep, or desperately hoping for a backlash against Peter Jackson (!)


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 9:25am


Views: 3235
Just a note on The Wizard of Oz

it was, at the time of its release in 1939, both a critical and commercial flop. Too many people had read the books and starred, as children, in theatrical productions of Oz in the 39 yrs before the film came out, for them to welcome this lavish Hollywood production with open arms. (in this aspect, intestingly, the parallels between TWOZ and TH are intersting--75 yrs for a film adaptation and lots of fans starring in shcool productions.) They fretted about the parts of Baum's novel that had been removed, often at the expense of story (for example, the Emerald City sequence was targeted for special ire--instead of a biting political allegory, with such things as the green glasses for Oz's denizens and the Wizard changing appearances for his individual audience with each of the four being altered to become a silly musical seqeunce and a uniform fear-inducing Wizard). In the minds of most adults who saw the film, all its brilliant technical innovations came vastly at the expense of story. Victor Fleming had taken a complex, naunced, Lewis Carroll-like narrative and turned it into a juvenile Hollywood muscial (yes, the adult fans took Oz as seriously as we take Middle-earth.) Yes, the film did get an Oscar nomination for BP (back when it was 10 films) but that was mainly due to the Technical Branch votes, and Judy Garland got a special Oscar, and the Wicked Witch was praised, but the vast majority of rank-and-file critics and adult audience were less than enthused and box office was low.

The film was shelved, and not until the mid-1950's when a new generation discovered it on TV did it finally begin to gain critical respect, and those same children who had loved it in the theater were now the ones writing the critical reviews. the fact that the 1950's were also the dawn of the Golden Age of the Hollywood Musical, with such artists as Rogers and Hammerstein bringing respect to the art form at a time when Red-baiting was hurting Hollywood's artistic quality, didn't hurt either. In this atmosphere, a proper appreciation of Oz's merits as a *stand-alone film*, as opposed to the Hollywood adaptation of a much-loved novel, was much easier and necessary to making the film the classic it remains.

you might be interested to note that such classics as Disney's Snow White and Pinocchio also started out as commerical flops. While critically praised, and given a rapturous Hollywood premierie, the film was pulled from theaters after 2 weeks b/c it was too controversial--it was scaring kids so much that ushers were complaining about having to clean up seats where litle kids had wet their pants from fear (the scene where Snow White runs through the forest from the Huntsman being a particularily difficult scene for kids.) As for Pinoke, even adult audiences found it just too dark and depressing. (Even today, Pinocchio is a masterpiece...it i my favorite of all the Disney films, followed by Fantasia, and BATB.) Like OZ and SW, it had to wait another generation to be fully accepted.

Just a note for adult fans of today's franchises...


(This post was edited by Sunflower on Oct 5 2012, 9:30am)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 5 2012, 12:13pm


Views: 3250
This film

could be the most perfect in the world technically, it could follow as faithfully as possible to the source, it ould have the best actors known to mankind, but if it lacks that mysterious and indefinable 'something' that magic I saw in LOTR, it will fail for me. That magical something you cant buy or cgi into place, I have faith that PJ will give us it in bucket loads, but then I am an optimist.


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Oct 5 2012, 12:14pm)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Oct 5 2012, 12:43pm


Views: 3267
Mods up!

This.


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Ż Victoria Monfort






(This post was edited by Eleniel on Oct 5 2012, 12:43pm)


Beutlin
Rivendell

Oct 5 2012, 1:15pm


Views: 3261
Nonsense

a.) Peter Jackson does not own any of the rights for Tolkien's legendarium. George Lucas on the other hand owns Star Wars.

b.) The tone of "The Hobbit" is vastly different from "The Lord of the Rings". Jackson did not create this distinction. The original Star Wars trilogy was full of childish, non-sensical humour too (C-3PO, ewoks).

c.) How do you know that "The Hobbit" will put the technology ahead of the story? Have you seen the film yet? Are you one of the editors, working on the film right now?

d.) "The Lord of the Rings" used plenty of CGI shots too.

Could "The Hobbit" share the same fate as Lucas' prequel trilogy? While I think it is unlikely, the possibility exists. The thing is, a lot of adolescents who liked/loved the LOTR trilogy could be dissappointed with the Hobbit, just as many people who had loved Star Wars as children hated the prequels. The original Star Wars trilogy was full of moronic humour, awful dialogue, shallow characters and a world view created for eight-year-olds...people just started complaining when they saw the same stuff again as adults. Yes...the prequel trilogy accentuated the weaknesses, but the fact remains that the whole prequel franchise is hugely popular with children - and Star Wars is for children. A similar reaction could happen with "The Hobbit". It could be regarded as a childish, less gritty version of the Lord of the Rings. While a lot of people might not like this, "The Hobbit" is just that: A light-hearted fairy-tale.

Ceterum censeo montem artis magicae atrae esse delendum.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 1:32pm


Views: 3308
Tolkien made his own choice not to finish the rewrite of The Hobbit

an as to superiority of text, that is just a matter of style and taste. It depends if you want the Hobbit to remain "The Hobbit" or be incorporated into "The Lord of the Rings". Tolkien chose not to change "The Hobbit's" style, plain and simple.

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



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Oct 5 2012, 1:33pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 1:50pm


Views: 3154
If you are stopped at the relative beardlessness of the dwarves

then you have not seen much of what has been revealed. I suggest letting go of these small things and to quit getting in your own way. The movies Peter makes will be what they are. We will see if Mr Jackson's vision works when the product is completed and presented.

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



triptrap
Lorien

Oct 5 2012, 1:56pm


Views: 3323
atmosphere

so far i really do have only minor concerns.
The most important thing will be if the hobbit can achieve to pull us back into the world of middle-earth and give us a feeling for the new and different cultures.
The second trailer failed completely to do that imo, caused by the music. Seeing it with shore's music attached can do it, also looking through all the pictures realeased i do get a feeling of middle-earth.

Another thing that for me will really do it is the acting. In this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMjCr_vSE8
the small part from 4:46 on with bilbo in rivendell just gives me chills, you get a real feeling of the small hobbit that starts to become an adventurer. the bit with bilbo in front of rivendell looking around is so utterly lovely. He looks around and his head tips down a little and a slight smile appears on his mouth like he is finally thinking: Yes, this is it, i don't know how i got into this but i'm ready Smile great moment


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 5 2012, 3:15pm


Views: 3679
Largely comercial

The publisher didn't see a need, and if you don't lean on Tolkien he was far to easily side tracked to finish things (very much like Leonardo Da Vinci).

And it make a lot more commercial sense to make The Hobbit in the style of LoTR, because the many people who enjoyed the movies but not the books would want to know why Middle Earth had been turned into a twee childish fairytale.

For a professional writer, telling one book in the style of another is a standard exercise. You could do The Hobbit in the style of Dracula, or in the style of Lady Chatterly's Lover, or in the style of a Hayes manual, or in the style of Finnigan's Wake or 20000 leagues under the sea, or [squelch]*

*Fardragon stamped on by a giant foot in the style of Monty Python.

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 5 2012, 3:50pm


Views: 3620
I reckon

Nitpickery is a slippy slope, you start innocently enough complaining about Bunny Sleds and if you are not careful it can spiral out of control and one day you find yourself growling Khuzdul at folk in the street and dumpster diving for Rings.
Crazy


Fŕfnir
Rohan


Oct 5 2012, 3:55pm


Views: 3543
What do you mean ? Some people don't do it ? //

 


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 5 2012, 4:08pm


Views: 3506
Just a note on Bambi

whoever made that film was a sadist. It traumatized me as a child, I remember running weeping from the cinema when Bambis mother died in the forest fire, I have never got over that scene no matter how old I get, it scarred me for life.
Frown


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 5 2012, 4:13pm


Views: 3399
In the Spirit of Tolkien....Or not.

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that the following concerns that sinister71 had with the trailer are, in fact, legitimate and reflect observations that some fans will actually have after seeing Film One:

sinister71 wrote:
1. middle earth just seems brighter and more colorful and less "real" (very noticeably so IMO)
2..some of the dwarves, new creatures, and bad guys just look very cartoonish (again opinion) compared to the more realistic approach they took last time
...
4. and so far the overall tone from riddles in the dark the overall showing of the dwarves just seems too comical, is this a comedy or an action adventure fantasy film?


Think about it, If JRR Tolkien had written The Hobbit after writing LOTR, wouldn't book fans have had the exact same criticisms about the Professor's story:
----Too bright and cheery
----Too unreal; more of a 'fairy tale'

----The dwarves seemed too comical
----Characters like the trolls and Gollum come off very cartoonish.

Ironically, PJ and the film makers are in a no win situation. Try to be faithful to the spirit of the book and get blasted for "not being enough like LOTR" or present films more like LOTR in tone and plot from the beginning and be blasted for "not being true to the spirit of Tolkien."

My expectation is that the film makers are going to make Film One more like the original children's tale; Film Two will be a transition film with the first part of the film continuing with the same tone through the spiders and then becoming increasingly 'adult fantasy' as the dwarves reach Laketown. Film Three will be in the grand, epic style of the LOTR. In this way, Jackson pays homage to Tolkien and helps bridge the great divide in the tone of the Professor's two great literary creations.

(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Oct 5 2012, 4:18pm)


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 5 2012, 6:50pm


Views: 3404
Questions

Since you have concerns, what kind of input do you think would help relieve these concerns?

Does it help thinking that the style of the films might change in the course of the trilogy for example? (Considering that also the book The Hobbit starts out in a lighter vein and becomes more historical later on)

Are there some parts of the trailer(s) or other material you´ve seen so far that you see as an example of a style or treatment that you´d like to see more of?

Supposing that the first film is a mix of comedy and action adventure. Would that be a problem for you? If yes, could you say something specific about why that would bother you? (I´m just interested in hearing what you think)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 5 2012, 8:11pm


Views: 3414
I loved

the tone, the music and the aesthetics of the first trailer very much, it gives me the goosewobblers every time I watch it, who's to say there wont be more of same in the film as a whole?
If you (nobody in particular) dont like bunny sleds, when they come onto screen, just close your eyes and hum a happy song until it goes, or get a friend to give you a nudge so you can open your eyes, if your friend is a purist you might find yourself falling into a 2 hour slumber cos he hasnt given you the nudge, I am sure Howard Shores music will sound good though. sweet dreams.


Ethel Duath
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 10:02pm


Views: 3493
O.K., that poem gave me chills. Thanks Kangi!

Got anymore?Smile


Ethel Duath
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 10:11pm


Views: 3321
"growling Khuzdul at folk in the street" :D This is off-topic, but

how I would love to be able to do that! Cool

I understand Tolkien didn't develop that language very much--or am I mistaken? Does anyone here know?

Great comment, by the way.Smile


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 5 2012, 11:23pm


Views: 3476
You are welcome.

I do not have any on me rignt now. Writing from Nexus 7 pad.

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



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 6 2012, 12:40am


Views: 3290
to be honest

i thought the first trailer was well done, with tone and content, the dwarven singing gave me chills... Then we got rumors about the necromancer and the horrible idea of Zombies or undead orcs. They obviously didn't research Tolkien's meaning of the Necromancer which in that day and age was referring to Black Magic/Sorcery Not bringing things back from the dead. Then we got trailer number two which in many instances to me anyways seemed very cartoonish in comparison to trailer one. The wargs look awful, more like rodents who are not actually a part of the scene just painted on top of it instead of a part of it. Radagast just looks disgusting IMO was it really necessary to have him portrayed as a hobo covered in bird crap? then there are the implications of Sauron playing a larger role in the films than in the book.(spiders attacking Radagast's home and his comment about a great evil has awakened... I just HATE the idea since it is all made up from a very few sentences of what Tolkien wrote. Honestly I don't think Peter Jackson can write in a style becoming of Tolkien there is no feeling of history nor depth in his modernized dialogue so I feel when he stuck to the blueprint Tolkien gave him he did a rather good job where he stumbled was making it up as he went along with his own material. Plus we get happy peppy Smeagol in a scene that should IMO be tense, dark, and creepy with very little comedy, not a comical scene with brief elements of creepy. Gollum's talking to himself in ROTK was god awful to watch and felt forced instead of something natural.

Lets see why do I find too much comedy bad? well personally I never saw the Hobbit as comedic sure some funny spots here or there but nothing slapstick and OTT. And certainly not laughing every 10 minutes I think the Hobbit would have been perfect in the tone given to us in LOTR just a more straight forward version, like the book. The hobbit was a much more linear tale which really only needed minor tweaking if done in the style of LOTR IMO. There are plenty of serious moments in the book i always felt Riddles in the dark was more serious than comedic. PJ just doesn't know when to dial things back, if he's gonna make things comedic he will push it past the point of funny into overkill like he did with Gimli in LOTR. There was plenty of serious material with Gimli and what we got was a parody of Book Gimli on film. It just concerns me going comedic we will get more of that same scenario with multiple dwarves.


Ring-Bearer
Rivendell


Oct 6 2012, 3:10am


Views: 3191
Agreed with Bomby

Though the feel of Middle-Earth based in the trailers is not the same, and there may be much left out or things not needed put in, we have waited many years for The Hobbit to be made into a film. My only concern is new characters and others that were not in the book, but based on PJ's earlier work, I'm not too worried about the outcome. He has an authentic respect for Tolkien and his work.

'What are we holding on to, Sam?'
'There's good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for!'


'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!'


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 6 2012, 4:29am


Views: 3462
A further note on Bambi:)

I'm sorry you were traumatized...{{{Big Bosie HUGS, ElanorEvil}}} but if it's any comfort to you, the book it is based on is MUCH darker. Hard to believe that, but it's true. I wish I coulf go into detail, but I'd only give you the creeps. Let's just say that it shows, in stomach-churning detail, what *really* happens when Man enters the Forest. Disney hinted at this in his cartoon, but the book goes much further. What Uncle Walt preferred to keep "offscreen" was depicted there.

Have you read Watership Down? Not seen the movie, but read Richard Adams's novel. Remember Captain Holly telling the story of what happened to the rabbits' origional home warren? That begins to evoke it a liitle.

It's funny...that scene..Bambi' mother's death (and I can tell you haven't seen the film since; she didnt die in the forest fire; she died much earler in the film, shot by hunters--but she dies "off-camera" so to speak, and that adds to the effectiveness.) didn't affect me until i got older. the silence of the aftermath (no music) along with the beauty of the sftly falling snow....Disney might not have been a sadist, but he certainly a genus:)


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 6 2012, 7:55am


Views: 3281
ok

Your fears about the amount of comedy (in the first film) is:

When PJ first starts to go into comedic mode, he won´t be able to restrain himself and the execution and angle to the comedy will be bad.

We will get comedy along the lines we got with Gimli in LoTR, which felt like a parody.

Your fears about other parts of the first film is based partly on the bits you´ve seen and partly on rumours.

________________________________________
I agree that Jackson mostly does not seem to have a sense for dry wit or reserve when he uses humor. But I think some of his humor works all the same (Sam in particular and much of what we saw of Pippin). I don´t feel like we´ve got much to go on concerning his approach to the dwarves, though. With Bombur I think we might get some of the same humor we got with Sam in the trilogy.

As to the nature of the source material, I actually think there´s a lot of comedy in the first part of The Hobbit, so it should come as no surprise if there´s plenty of comedy in film 1, but mixed with action. That does not necessarily mean that the rest of the films will continue in the same vein.

When it comes to the rumors you´ve heard, well, it comes down to how much store you set by rumors. How much concern should rumors cause when the same rumors never have been substantiated or confirmed?


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 6 2012, 9:46am


Views: 3186
Oh I do enjoy a bit of research.

Could you say more about your own research into "Tolkien's meaning" of the name The Necormancer? It's super to finally have revealed exactly what Tolkien meant by the name but it would be even better to understand how we know this.

LR

PS in passing could you also say when "that day and age" is?


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 6 2012, 12:14pm


Views: 3394
thanks Sunflower

Evil Yes I read Watership Down as a kid and that traumatized me too. Frown There was Myxomatosis in England at the time I read the book years ago. I now tend to avoid little fluffy animal stories. 'The Yearling' film made in the 40s with Gregory Peck, made me physically sick.
Crazy


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 6 2012, 1:11pm


Views: 3182
Canon

sinister71 wrote: They obviously didn't research Tolkien's meaning of the Necromancer which in that day and age was referring to Black Magic/Sorcery Not bringing things back from the dead.

Didn't do their research??? That's just wrong, period. Hate to always be a contrarian, sinister71, but the meaning of necromancy has always been associated with various forms of raising the dead, either spiritually or bodily. While there are obviously variations of the Black Magic theme, there is absolutely nothing that Tolkien wrote or said that would restrict or limit the latitude the film makers have in using what Tolkien, himself, has given them.

As we all know, Tolkien never used words lackadaisically. He used the term, Necromancer, for a reason---so if the film has orc zombies, don't complain that it's not canon. Nothing to be found in Tolkien's writings that would preclude it.


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 6 2012, 2:34pm


Views: 3212
well, that seems quite a stretch to me

Is there anything in Tolkien´s writings that suggests or supports Sauron raising the spirits of the dead in the manner of zombies or the like? He could imbue creatures like the Nazgűl with terror and direct them through his will. He could create visions to terrorize and ensnare or bewilder others (like when he trapped Gorlim in the chapter about Beren and Lúthien), but that´s a different thing from actually raising those who are dead bodily.

As far as I can see necromancy is associated with many different things. One is simply being a sorcerer who performs black magic, as it was understood by The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Another is being a fortune teller or someone who tries to gain knowledge by raising or summoning the spirits of the dead. According to wikipedia it could both be interpreted as someone summoning an apparition of the spirits of the dead as well as raising them bodily. There are several other associations and corresponding rituals as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy

But anyway it seems to me much more plausible considering how Sauron´s magic is described both in The Silmarillion and how magic is discussed in LoTR that we´re most probably talking about black magic and about summoning apparitions or phantoms of the dead, not raising people from the dead bodily. Equating necromancy with sorcery and black magic creates a distinction and opposition between Sauron and the wizards (Istari), whose magic is different. In LoTR Galadriel talks with Frodo about the difference between the bewilderments of the Enemy and enchantment, and Faramir talks about the difference in effect between the works of Sauron - including the visions they invoke - and the effect of seeing something which is really there.

But all of this aside, I haven´t heard anything confirming that orcs will be raised from the dead in the films, so it´s not something I worry about.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 6 2012, 2:54pm


Views: 3199
Canon

elostirion74 wrote: Is there anything in Tolkien´s writings that suggests or supports Sauron raising the spirits of the dead in the manner of zombies or the like?

Tolkien made the decision to use the 'The Necromancer' to describe his villainous warlock, not Peter Jackson. Are you and sinister71 going to convince us that the Professor didn't understand the Latin origins of the term?

Let' be honest here, zombies may not suit your personal tastes, but they don't violate Tolkien canon in any way, shape, or form.


(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Oct 6 2012, 2:56pm)


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 6 2012, 3:20pm


Views: 3184
well

I´m not talking about Tolkien not understanding the origins of the term; I´m talking about how I interpret it and why. I find an interpretation more convincing and plausible when it is corroborated with and supported by examples rather than just saying you can choose whatever aspects of the meaning of a word that you like.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 6 2012, 3:39pm


Views: 3235
canon

elostirion74 wrote: I´m talking about how I interpret it and why.

As long as you admit it's just your personal feelings, you can believe and say whatever you want. I just don't like, "it's against canon" complaints when when there is absolutely nothing out there that anyone can point to that supports that view.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 6 2012, 6:56pm


Views: 3336
I found this, I think its from the letters?

 ''Long ago, few faithful remained, while many gave themselves over to the black sorcery of Sauron's temple to Melkor at Armenelos. Thus deceitful Annatar spread a morbid obsession with death throughout Numenor, making the noblest among the races of Men resentful of Iluvatar's gift such that the more they clung to life, the more life slipped away from them. Eventually, through efforts ever more frantic, unnatural, and illicit, they brought down upon themselves a very world-shattering doom, as the tales speak of in the Akallabeth.''

I think Tolkien would have been fully aware of the meaning of the word he was using, so we have to assume he meant the Necromancer to have something to do with the dead.
I always got this necromancy confused with Angmar and the Witch-King. I had these pictures in my mind of undead armies attacking the northern kingdoms.The Nazgul were certainly not living creatures. As Wraiths , one might regard them as dead, or perhaps more accurately undead creatures, ie creatures without life but animated by the dead spirits of the Men that they once were. Sauron was able to use the Nine Rings to bring them to this state and bind their dead (or undead) spirits to his will.
Maybe it had something to do with a combination of the Nazgul's undead status and the Barrow-wights' connexion to that era. I bet he did practice a bit of Necromancy every now and then. The Nazgul have been mentioned, and remember that even the Witch King managed to recruit a bunch of Wights to infest the Barrow Downs. Exactly how is not made clear, elvish fea, victims of Morgul blade stabbings or old fashioned zombies, who knows?


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Oct 6 2012, 7:03pm)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 6 2012, 8:05pm


Views: 3039
Not from Letters

I could be wrong, but I think that is just something that someone wrote at another forum, although it is not inaccurate.

The best example of Sauron performing Necromancy that I can think of is contained in the Lay of Lethian, as John Rateliff points out in The History of the Hobbit.

For instance:

Men called him Thu, and as a god
in after days beneath his rod
bewildered bowed to him, and made
his ghastly temples in the shade.
Not yet by Men enthralled adored,
now was he Morgoth's mightiest lord,
Master of Wolves, whose shivering howl
for ever echoed in the hills, and foul
enchantments and dark sigaldry
did weave and wield. In glamoury
that necromancer held his hosts
of phantoms and of wandering ghosts,
of misbegotten or spell-wronged
monsters that about him thronged,
working his bidding dark and vile:
the werewolves of the Wizard's Isle.
(Canto VII, lines 2064-2079, HME III, 227-8)

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 6 2012, 9:56pm


Views: 3179
as I said in my post, I found the quotes,

but I dont know the source, I just thought they were pertinent to the question in hand.


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 7 2012, 12:36am


Views: 3160
hmm

I was in a hurry when I wrote my earlier post. What I actually wanted to say was: "I´m talking about how I interpret Tolkien´s use of the word necromancy and why I interpret Tolkien´s use of it in this way".

It´s true that I dislike the idea of Sauron using zombies. To me it seems that this understanding of necromancy is very foreign to how Tolkien describes Sauron´s use of magic both in The Silmarillion, in LoTR and in his letters. I´ve made some examples to support my point, referring to how Tolkien focuses on Sauron/The Enemy conjuring phantoms, visions of horror and the like. I don´t remember any writing of Tolkien that focused on actually raising people from their grave in the way we think of zombies. Even with The Paths of the Dead, which is the one example where I feel less certain about the nature of the army that follows Aragorn and his company, Tolkien writes about a chill of ghosts, a shadow host and the shades of men.

One could argue, of course, that Tolkien never specifically wrote: "Zombies don´t exist in my universe!" But when he wrote about Sauron´s magic, it seems quite clear to me that he focused on the spiritual aspect of necromancy as well as keeping someone alive in an undead state, in a shadow world, rather than just using his powers to raise people from their graves.

It seems like you imagine it otherwise, or find this aspect of Sauron´s powers much more open to interpretation than I do.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 7 2012, 12:58am


Views: 3418
Barrow wights would be one example to consider to the contrary

Though the answer as it seems to me is that we simply have no idea why Tolkien chose the name or what it meant in his mind. As ever I would very much argue it is open to interpretation.

LR


(This post was edited by Lacrimae Rerum on Oct 7 2012, 1:00am)


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 7 2012, 1:09am


Views: 3155
well

For me there´s a big difference between being able to/using your powers to raise people from their graves like zombies and giving people unnatural long life, so that they do not actually die, but pass into a shadow world between life and death. Tolkien writes in one of his letters that the Nazgűl do not have great physical powers, their powers reside in the unreasoning fear they inspire, like ghosts.

Zombies as they´ve been described and portrayed in films and literature seem to me far too literal to resemble Tolkien´s descriptions of the effects and nature of Sauron´s magic (or The Witch King´s magic).

Judging by your quote, it seems to me that Sauron played on the fear of death among the Numenóreans, creating a cult of rituals, sacrifices and sorcery intended to deceive the Numenóreans into thinking they actually could and even had the right to escape death and prolong their lives beyond their natural span.


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 7 2012, 7:14am


Views: 3363
You probably know this.

Barrow Wights just means barrow men. Prior to Tolkien, their was no connection between the word "wight" and undead. The Barrow Wights are described by Tolkien as evil spirits that entered the Barrows of old kings in order to defile them, not the reanimated bodies of the kings themselves, so their "undead" status is open to question.

The only 100% certifiable undead are the Dead Men of Dunharrow, and they are spirits, who (it is speculated in the book) have no power to physically harm the living.

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


geordie
Tol Eressea

Oct 7 2012, 9:10am


Views: 3175
No problem -

- I think you presented the quote fairly; stating that you thought it was from Tolkien's letters, and not saying outright that it was from Tolkien himself. I admit I found it unlikely; I don't think JRR would use the phrase ' they brought down upon themselves a very world-shattering doom'.

And Voronwe was right in pointing out that it most prob'ly comes from an online forum; a quick google of the first sentence gives us this webpage -

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/archive/index.php?t-1311.html

One thing this does show is that it's easy to pluck stuff off the net; and that it's important to find out where it comes from, in order to ascertain what is Tolkien and what is not. I'm thinking of those web-pages with so-called 'Tolkien quotes' - few if any give citations, and all too often folk will repeat what they find there without question. At least that's not so in your case, and I'm grateful for that.

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Oct 7 2012, 9:12am)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 7 2012, 10:41am


Views: 3240
I'm not sure I would agree with that.

"Wight" has had supernatural meanings for more than a thousand years. Although "undead" is a later word, "wight" has also been used in the same space prior to Tolkien.

The Barrow wights were certainly "dark spirits", but the most common reading by a long chalk is that those spirits entered the remains within the barrows and animated them.

"A shadow came out of dark places far away, and the bones were stirred in the mounds. Barrow-wights walked in the hollow places with a clink of rings on cold fingers, and gold chains in the wind." Etc etc.

I'm uncertain about the requirements to be a "certified" undead but the Nazgul presumably also fit the bill as Tolkien uses the term for them (specifically the WK)

LR


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 7 2012, 11:52am


Views: 3171
So

Wheel-wrights, ship-wrights, and so on are supernatural? Well, I always thought the Cartwrights on Bonanza where a bit fishy!

Clearly, in order to be certified as undead, you need a death certificate. Which means the Witch King doesn't qualify, since, like an old soldier, he didn't die, he just faded away.

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 7 2012, 12:15pm


Views: 3206
*Scratches head*

Apologies if I implied that the supernatural meaning is the word's only meaning. Of course that is not my intention.

LR


Tim
Tol Eressea


Oct 7 2012, 1:10pm


Views: 3038
Not that clear-cut.


In Reply To
Clearly, in order to be certified as undead, you need a death certificate. Which means the Witch King doesn't qualify, since, like an old soldier, he didn't die, he just faded away.


Clearly this is open to interpretation, I can say that in no way is a wraith "alive" and thus they've crossed over into a form of "un-death" - beings who can corporally effect the living long after they've stopped taking breath. The undead are not merely zombies or vampires, folks. The Witch-King most certainly qualifies as "undead" in my mind and so do the barrow-wights.

A strong argument could be made that the Nazgul are animated bodies, feeding off of and controlled by a powerful supernatural spirit. They no longer feel emotions like a human, don't eat like a human, don't age as a human. Their existence depends on the strength and presence of a separate supernatural entity. They are merely extensions of this supernatural force and the will and personalities of who they once were are gone. Who they once were is dead.

King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?

Tim: There are some who call me... Tim?

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 7 2012, 2:59pm


Views: 3258
yes sorry for any confusion

I will reference my sources better next time, I was just being lazy. Drat that Google and its seductive siren calls! Crazy


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Oct 7 2012, 3:01pm)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Oct 7 2012, 4:24pm


Views: 3424
Wight =/= Wright

While I agree that wight has not always implied (or even meant) "undead," its usage does suggest something more than just "man" or "person." In my opinion, "wight" evokes ideas such as "dweller," "denizen,' "soul," and/or "spirit" ... those subtle states of being that purely physical descriptions seem to miss.

Its usage prior to Tolkien, to me, is along the lines of "soul" as in the phrase "she is a kind soul" rather than "she is a kind person;" the first phrase isn't speaking of an actual soul, but it is saying more about the state of being than the second phrase. As such, and in this sense, it is pretty clear why Tolkien chose the word to name whatever it was that was "living" in the Barrows.

Now as for "wright," that's an entirely different word. Though similar, according to the smattering of etymological research I've done, they are completely unrelated -- they are not derived from each other nor do they share a common source. However I admit I didn't delve deeply into the origin of either word.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Oct 7 2012, 4:30pm)


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 7 2012, 5:02pm


Views: 3309
canon

While this has been an interesting discussion, the point I have made remains unchanged: Tolkien has given Peter Jackson incredible latitude when it comes to how he chooses to depict 'the undead' in The Hobbit.

You may or may not prefer it and it may or may not fit your personal ideas about the appropriate depiction of the undead in Middle Earth. But you cannot argue it's 'not Tolkien' and against book canon.


Magpie
Immortal


Oct 7 2012, 5:43pm


Views: 3198
etymology

wight:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wight
wight (n.)
O.E. wiht "living being, creature," from P.Gmc. *wekhtiz (cf. O.S. wiht "thing, demon," Du. wicht "a little child," O.H.G. wiht "thing, creature, demon," Ger. Wicht "creature, infant," O.N. vettr "thing, creature," Swed. vätte "spirit of the earth, gnome," Goth. waihts "something"). The only apparent cognate outside Gmc. is O.C.S. vešti "a thing." Not related to the Isle of Wight, which is from L. Vectis (c.150), originally Celtic, possibly meaning "place of the division."

----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wight
Wight is a Middle English word, from Old English wiht, and used to describe a creature or living sentient being. It is akin to Old High German wiht, meaning a creature or thing.[1][2]
In its original usage the word wight described a living human being.[3] More recently, the word has been used within the fantasy genre of literature to describe undead or wraith-like creatures: corpses with a part of their decayed soul still in residence, often draining life from their victims. Notable examples of this include the undead Barrow-wights from the works of J. R. R. Tolkien and the wights of Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.
The English word is cognate with other Germanic words such as Dutch wicht, German Wicht, Old Norse vćttir, Swedish vätte, Danish vćtte. Modern High German Wicht means 'small person, dwarf,' and also 'unpleasant person,' while in Low German the word means 'girl.' The Wicht, Wichtel or Wichtelchen of Germanic folklore is most commonly translated into English as an imp, a small, shy character who often does helpful domestic chores when nobody is looking (as in the Tale of the Cobbler's Shoes). These terms are not related to the English word witch. In Scandinavian folklore, too, wights are elusive creatures not unlike elves, capable of mischief as well as of help. In German and Dutch language the word Bösewicht or Booswicht points out an evildoer, "Bösewichte haben keine Lieder" means they (do not make merry) are unpleasant folk.

----

also see: http://onelook.com/?w=wight&ls=a

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wright

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wright
wright (n.)
O.E. wryhta, wrihta "worker" (Northumbrian wyrchta, Kentish werhta), variant of earlier wyhrta, from wyrcan "to work" (see work). Now usually in combinations (wheelwright, playwright, etc.) or as a common surname. Common West Germanic; cf. O.S. wurhito, O.Fris. wrichta, O.H.G. wurhto.

----

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wright

Etymology 1
Old English wyrhta, from West Germanic *wurhtjo (as in Proto-Germanic *wurkijanan), from Proto-Indo-European *werǵ- (“to work”) (English work). Cognate with English wrought.
[edit]Noun
wright (plural wrights)
(obsolete) A builder or creator of something.

----

also see: http://onelook.com/?w=wright&ls=a

_____________

I will admit, I found myself a little confused when I saw 'wright' being discussed alongside of 'wight' but I hadn't read every post so I thought I might have missed something.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 7 2012, 6:01pm


Views: 3201
Happy animal stories

Oh, dear. Sorry Elanor if I scared you further-that was not my intention:).
You don't have to give up on animal stories though! There are some good ones with happy endings. Have you ever seen "Born Free"? It came out in the late 60's--'69 I think--and its score won an Oscar. It's based on a true story, about a couple working in the Serengeti who decide to adopt an orphaned lion cub and what happens when they try to release it back into the wild. The ending is so beautiful that I found it hard to believe that it was a real story. And, of course, the gorgeous music....I often think that the folks at Disney refed this little gem when they were making "The Lion King"--it's a classic. Well worth a look!

And for everyone else...I'm munching the popcorn, hugely entertained by a patented TORn digression on a topic that most other folks skim through, or at least argue with half or a quarter of the literary knowledge and passion...:)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 7 2012, 7:19pm


Views: 3218
Wind in the Willows

 I still drive round the countryside going Poop Poop!!


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 7 2012, 8:31pm


Views: 3014
Barrow-wights

I´m glad you used the example of The Barrow-wights, since I consider examples important. A Barrow-wight is a specific kind of wights with different connotations than just wights in general, which Magpie´s etymological post shows (in which wight also was used about unpleasant creatures that are hardly more uncanny than gnomes). Both from the quote you´ve given and from what I can glean from different traditions and notable stories about barrow wights, it is associated with spirits animating the remains of a barrow, so here I agree that we have an example which seems clearly open to the kind of interpretation that we´ve discussed.

The story of LoTR in itself also says several concrete things about these wights, giving the wight the ability to perform spells and connecting their spells to objects within the barrow.

I can´t say anything about requirements to be undead, as I haven´t got any clear idea about what the term means. As to the nature of and the powers of the Nazűl, they are explained by Gandalf and Aragorn in LoTR and elaborated on by Tolkien in his letters, and it´s made clear that they are controlled by Sauron and are extensions of his malice (unlike more independent evil creatures).


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 7 2012, 8:54pm


Views: 3321
William Horwood wrote a sequal

In which Mr Badger dies...

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 7 2012, 10:34pm


Views: 3121
WOT!

Laugh say its not true!


Phibbus
Rohan


Oct 8 2012, 2:31am


Views: 3328
Booooorn Freeeee!

As free as the wind blows...

You just shorted my nostalgia circuit recalling that—and all those animal movies/shows from that period. Just in the lion category, you had Born Free (later a TV series), Clarence the Cross-Eyed Lion (and then the series, Daktari,) and the animated Kimba the White Lion (which, I think, was even more a direct model for The Lion King.)

Then, of course, there was Flipper... and Gentle Ben... and... I'm showing my age.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Oct 8 2012, 2:49pm


Views: 3178
Black Beauty,

Skippy the Kangaroo, Julia and the White Horses, and Lassie. Wink Rhubarb and Custard and The Wombles of Wimbledon Common. and not forgetting the Banana Splits.


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Oct 8 2012, 2:51pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 8 2012, 3:26pm


Views: 2982
well since Tolkien was a linguist...

I would assume he found these instead of bringing back the dead to life...

Necromancy is derived from the Greek νεκρομαντία, nekromantía, and is associated with black magic

However, since the Renaissance, necromancy has come to be associated more broadly with black magic and demon-summoning in general, sometimes losing its earlier, more specialized meaning. By popular etymology, nekromantia became nigromancy "black arts"


Dictionary definition:
1. a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art. (notice it says communicating, not raising or creating Zombies)
2. magic in general, especially that practiced by a witch or sorcerer; sorcery; witchcraft; conjuration.


Taken directly from an online occult magazine
http://www.rendingtheveil.com/necromancy-dark-art/
"Amongst all the various names for magical practices, the word necromancy is probably the most foreboding and sinister. No doubt that such a practice was diabolical and associated with the blackest forms of magic. Popular folklore and belief defines necromancy as divination performed through the conjuration and manipulation of the spirits of the dead. The most outrageous form was the exhumation and reanimation of a corpse, which many often think of today when defining this term."

while it does claim reanimating a corpse it also calls it outrageous probably meaning most extreme and what people think of today, not ancient which is what Tolkien researched

"The origins of necromancy occurred in the far distant past, long before the time of antiquity. It was a system of divination that was ultimately derived from the pious observances paid to the dead at their tombs. It isn’t hard to imagine a person going to the grave site of some great kinsman and in addition to giving offerings and oblations, to ask for assistance with some family crisis. So the practice of necromancy probably stemmed from a natural desire to seek help from one’s departed ancestors. Thoughts about the value of advice or prophecy given by the dead varied considerably in antiquity. Some believed that the dead had resources beyond the ken of the living; others (like Homer) believed that the dead knew no more about things than when alive. Necromancy may have been derived innocently enough from funeral observations, but it’s also likely that it had a separate shamanic origin."

And since Tolkien did his research in ancient languages, not modern ones. Almost every source I found referring to ancient necromancy said Black magic, not all said anything about raising the dead other than communicating to find out the future.... I would assume he is referring to the older definitions of the word not what modern times has come to accept as what the word involves...

I know it fits with modern audiences but if it were the "done in the spirit of Tolkien" it would i am sure would use the oldest definition of the word instead of something more modern. On a personal note I think the idea of Zombies and undead other than spirits is tasteless and tacky in comparison to what Tolkien wrote. Think what you want but I prefer to think when Tolkien created the light or good wizards Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman...etc. he also created Black wizards or sorcerers to counter their goodness with evil not necessarily raising the dead. I think that was probably the furthest thing from Tolkien's mind.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 8 2012, 3:28pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 8 2012, 6:42pm


Views: 3010
I'm afraid that if you trouble to look beyond internet rubbish like this

You will find that raising the dead has been associated with necromancy since before Christ, so not awfully modern. Lucan has a particularly graphic description which may be more illuminating than online occult magazines.

As for the rest, I'm afraid it is mostly not true. "Nigromancy" simply means "Necromancy" (OED) and simply represents a shift in form not meaning.

You argue that the broader meaning of "black magic" is later, but then state that you feel sure that Tolkien intended the more ancient meaning, having already claimed that Tolkien simply meant "black magic".

"They obviously didn't research Tolkien's meaning of the Necromancer which in that day and age was referring to Black Magic/Sorcery Not bringing things back from the dead."

Alas this makes no sense.

As ever when someone puts "in that day and age" it seems to suggest that the author isn't very clear on when that might be. Here there seem to be three possibilities:

At the etymological roots of the word in the 3rd century, by which time records of raising of the dead as part of such processes were already old.

Or within the pseudo-historical traditions of ME in which the raising of the dead featured strongly. You may find it tacky but creatures such as the draugr from Norse sagas were surely familiar to Tolkien and reflected in his own walking dead (the barrow wights).

Or at the time Tolkien was writing where the English usage of the word had included ideas of raising the dead for hundreds of years (e.g. Swift in 1709 - "The General, who was forced to kill his enemies twice over, whom a Necromancer had raised to life")

So I'm afraid the notions that you know what Tolkien intended is, of course, utterly unsupported. You can opine freely, but opinion it is, and the notion that anyone who disagrees hasn't done their research, is patently false.

LR


(This post was edited by Lacrimae Rerum on Oct 8 2012, 6:43pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 8 2012, 7:08pm


Views: 2957
we can agree to disagree

since it is quite obvious you like the raising the dead and having zombies running around middle earth. I feel its tasteless and NOT what Tolkien meant. Raising spirits is one thing but reanimating the dead is something altogether different. which I still feel is not what Tolkien meant.



In Morgoth’s Ring – The Later Quenta Silmarillion (11) Of Re-Birth and Other Dooms of Those that Go To Mandos CT – acting as his father’s editor – finally let’s us in on the secret that has been teasing us since The Hobbit was first published.
Morgoth’s Ring was published in 1993 – The Hobbit in 1937 (revised edition 1966). So, 56 years on the ‘Necromancer’ and his secrets were finally revealed. Yet, given the restricted circulation of HOME 10 it is highly probable that millions of Tolkien fans do not yet know quite what Tolkien meant by ‘the Necromancer’ other than its more general sorcerous application.
In Morgoth’s Ring the story finally unfolds!
1. To understand the unfolding we have firstly to become familiar with two terms: fea (pl. fear) and hroa (pl.hroar) or hron / hrondo (pl. hroni)
2. fea (pl. fear) soul, indwelling spirit , of an incarnate being
3. hroa (pl.hroar) or hron / hrondo (pl. hroni) body (of an incarnate being)
4. We also need to understand that the fea (spirit) is unable to be coerced or forced. Thus it cannot be made to go to Mandos even if it has been properly summoned. The summons may be refused.
5. Those fear (spirits) that refuse the summons and remain in ME wander homeless in the world- they have no personal hroa (body) or hroar (bodies) to inhabit. Many haunt trees, or springs, or hidden places that they once knew.
6. Not all of those who refuse the summons are kindly – many are stained by the Shadow. Indeed, the refusal of the summons is in itself a sign of taint.
7. The Valar who rule Arda have thus forbidden the living to commune with the Unbodied, though the latter may desire it, particularly the more evil sort.
8. Some of the Unbodied are filled with envy, bitterness, and grievance and some of these were enslaved by Sauron, and even though he is gone, they still do his work.
9. They do not speak truth or wisdom and for the living to call on them is perilous.
10. Attempting to master them and binding them to one’s will is wicked . They are the practices of Morgoth, and the necromancers who do this are followers of Sauron.
11. The evil Unbodied will possess the hroa (body) of a living person if possible. So communing with them is doubly perilous as it could involve the loss of one’s hroa (body)
12. The evil Unbodied, if given friendship by the living may seek to eject the fea (spirit) of the living person and occupy their hroa (body). The resultant battle can either cause grave injury to the living person’s body, or result in its actual possession by the Unbodied, and the dispossession of the living person’s fea or spirit.
13. The Unbodied may try and plead for shelter, and if allowed to enter the hroa (body) of a living person will seek to enslave and use both the fea ( spirit) and hroa (body) of the living person for its own purposes, ultimately probably expelling the original fea (spirit)
14. Sauron is said to have done these things, and to have taught his followers how to achieve them- hence his name ‘Necromancer’.

in the Lay of Leithian in the passage which describes Beren’s and Finrod’s approach to Tol Sirion, and description of Sauron’s(Thu’s) occupation of it. There, besides commanding a host of spirits, he is also attributed the power of injecting spirits into the bodies of monsters(wolves)



More useless internet nonsense taken from someone who did research from Tolkien's writings, but still I see no mention of actually raising and reanimating dead corpses.. I merely see possession of the living be they human or animal by a dead spirit...



(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 8 2012, 7:17pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 8 2012, 7:30pm


Views: 3131
Again you fail to understand.

It has nothing to do with what I like or not. Your position is that you know what Tolkien intended (and that those who disagree are wrong). Mine is that you do not. What you feel is of course up to you.

Not that it matters to the above, but the barrow wight would be an example of a dead body being animated by a dark spirit (following in the Norse tradition that I mentioned). Though you are under no obligation to like barrow wights of course.

LR


Tim
Tol Eressea


Oct 8 2012, 7:51pm


Views: 2964
Looking at the evidence, I fail to see what the problem is

It's saying here in your example that spirits are inhabiting bodies. From the evidence, the original person is dead. From the evidence (take the Nazgul for example) the body changes into something that is not human and more related to death and decay.

How is this in any practical sense different from a zombie?

Most zombie movies I've seen don't really go into the HOW but the results are the same. The original person is gone. The body changes into something more related to death and decay. Supernatural animation is involved.

Do we see any examples of a whole person, completely natural and life-like in appearance, who has been possessed by Sauron or another spirit? Not that I'm aware of. The barrow-wights, the Nazgul, are not critters that will pass for living beings as they stroll through town.

Middle Earth is a dark place. A good chunk of its inhabitants are Elves who have been horribly mutated by Sauron's old boss Melkor (Morgoth). Mountains are hostile sometimes. Trees try to eat you. Men are cursed so they cannot be released even in death. Werewolves and vampires exist (Sauron takes on the form of both).

To each their own, but I don't find zombie-anything a stretch.

King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?

Tim: There are some who call me... Tim?

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 8 2012, 8:31pm


Views: 3013
And you don't know Tolkien didn't mean Black magic / Sorcerer its all open to interpretation

Almost all definitions I have read refer to Black Magic and Sorcery where not all of them refer to raising the dead or reanimating corpses, most do however only refer to communicating with the dead to find out about the future

But the Barrow wights are not reanimating the dead with the spirit of the corpse which is what some are implying necromancy is. They are evil spirits or demons inhabiting dead unanimated corpses who's spirit is gone or inhabiting someone that is living taking away their will.

Due to his inspiration from Hrómundar saga Gripssonar, during the writing of LOTR Tolkien at first foresaw a link between the Wights and the Ringwraiths, initially describing the Black Riders as horsed Wights, but the suggestion that they were the same kind of creatures was dropped in the published work. In the final work there remained a link between them: the wights were now spirits sent by the Witch King.

The Barrow-wights themselves are based on a similar creature in Germanic Mythology known in Norse as Draugar (the singular being Draugr).
They were said to be evil spirits residing in the bodies of dead heroes and kings and usually (but not universally) unharmed by conventional weapons. In such cases a hero of great strength and bravery. The defeat of a Draugr was not always permanent; they could return to plague the living if certain actions were not performed after the Draugr was vanquished. The usual means of destroying a Draugr was to cut off its head and to burn the body, for only then would the evil spirit be prevented from returning to the body.
Another, probably related, creature from Germanic and Slavic folklore was the Mahr (also called an Alp), a vampire-like creature that was said to rise from its barrow after dark to plague the sleeping and drink their blood. The primary way to vanquish them was to open their Barrow to the rays of the Sun, much like the Barrow-wight from Tolkien's mythology.
A very similar creature in Japanese mythology is the onryo, as they are undead spirits which dwell in darkness and are seemingly affected by the Sun. The onryo of Japan are deceased women, and have returned to Earth in a desire for vengeance. These spirits can also possess the living, the dead, and the undead.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 8 2012, 8:35pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 8 2012, 8:39pm


Views: 3212
Absolutely correct.

And exactly what I stated earlier on in this thread:

"Though the answer as it seems to me is that we simply do not know why Tolkien chose the name or what it meant in his mind. As ever I would very much argue it is open to interpretation."

Perhaps you missed it.

And I don't follow what your point is regarding the barrow wights. I'm not sure your random copy and pasting is helping the argument to come across, for me anyway.

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 8 2012, 8:55pm


Views: 3159
the point is

the Barrow wights were not, nor ever were, raised from the dead, they are long dead evil spirits or demons that inhabit the dead (and sometimes living) but there is no necromancy involved.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 8 2012, 9:07pm


Views: 3141
Good grief.

Whether or not that fits with one's definition of necromancy is neither here nor there (though to say "there is no necromancy involved" is again an entirely personal view)

If you remember you said:

"but still I see no mention of actually raising and reanimating dead corpses.. I merely see possession of the living be they human or animal by a dead spirit..."

The barrow wights are clearly an example of this. They are corpses re-animated by evil spirits (on the impetus of the WK, probably).

You seem to be arguing against the proposition that Tolkien's meaning of the term "The Necromancer" must have included the idea of raising the dead because of the existance of the barrow wights. No such proposition has been suggested.

LR


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 9 2012, 12:23am


Views: 3085
Reanimating the Dead

If anyone is "reanimating the dead" in this thread, it's a self-anointed Tolkien Purist putting words in the Professor's mouth from the grave.

This discussion is a classic example of using "It's not in the Spirit of Tolkien" as a club to hammer home a purely personal point of view. If fans don't end up liking Jackson's depiction of the undead in The Hobbit, they have every right to complain. But Tolkien, not Jackson, gave Sauron the name, "The Necromancer." So without ANY notes or letters from the Professor on the parameters of Sauron's necromancy, PJ and Company can't be criticized for deviating from the "Spirit of Tolkien."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 9 2012, 12:43am


Views: 3195
Yeah I know

Tolkien had so many undead walking around in middle earth didn't he? I clearly must have missed all his work on Zombie orcs and undead... Crazy But as long as PJ putting them in makes you happy that's all that matters I suppose Tongue


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Oct 9 2012, 1:21am


Views: 3117
Who would have thought

that they might put Zombies in the Hobbit.

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



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Oct 9 2012, 1:23am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 9 2012, 4:47am


Views: 3043
That is a type of Necromancy and zombiedom, though. I don't mean to challange

your general notion, and I generally agree with you on many things, but a dead body/ a corpse that is re-animated by an evil spirit/unhoused demon, is still for all intents and purposes a zombie or otherwise undead/living dead creature. I think it is common enough in zombie and undead lore that the creature shuffling, or creeping about to drink the blood and devour the flesh of the living is NOT your dearly departed friend Eddie. As so many books, movies and stories would put it, "That isn't Eddie. Not anymore!" The Spirit moving the bones is the method of re-animation and the technical truth of the undead creature, but on the surface it is still, for all intents and purposes, an undead/living dead monster.

In Reply To
the Barrow wights were not, nor ever were, raised from the dead, they are long dead evil spirits or demons that inhabit the dead (and sometimes living) but there is no necromancy involved.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Fardragon
Rohan

Oct 9 2012, 7:36am


Views: 3143
It's zombies in particular which don't seem very Tolkien-ish

We have unsubstantial ghosts, living beings that have faded, and possibly evils spirits using corpses as puppets.

We don't see the D&D idea of flesh-robots: animated corpses with no mind or spirit at all. Nor do we see a specific spirit of a dead being reanimating it's own corpse, as appears to be the case with Azog.

A Far Dragon is the best kind...


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 9 2012, 11:34am


Views: 3071
It seems that you have missed them.

Tolkien has animated corpses, undead wraiths and ghosts.

LR


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 9 2012, 11:59pm


Views: 2938
Yet, for all intents and purposes, I think that most people would still consider

a dead body re-animated by an evil spirit to be, essentially, a zombie, unless the spirit started doing things well beyond normal zombie behaviour. . . then it might be deemed a lich, a ghoul, a vampire, a haint etc. etc., but, in any event, undead and or living dead still seems to apply well enough, though I am not particularly keen on the idea of an undead Azog running around.

In Reply To
We have unsubstantial ghosts, living beings that have faded, and possibly evils spirits using corpses as puppets.

We don't see the D&D idea of flesh-robots: animated corpses with no mind or spirit at all. Nor do we see a specific spirit of a dead being reanimating it's own corpse, as appears to be the case with Azog.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 10 2012, 12:59am


Views: 3327
LOL

Lacrimae Rerum wrote: Tolkien has animated corpses, undead wraiths and ghosts.

Don't confuse these Tolkien scholars with the facts, LR. Smile


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 10 2012, 3:47am


Views: 2983
You two can be so mean, lolol

So many zingers in your posts. lol.

In Reply To
Lacrimae Rerum wrote: Tolkien has animated corpses, undead wraiths and ghosts.

Don't confuse these Tolkien scholars with the facts, LR. Smile


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 10 2012, 3:34pm


Views: 2996
evidence

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but looking at the evidence we see that Tolkien never wrote about Sauron raising orcs from the dead. Why then should such an invention be made in a film, when the orcs clearly fill a very different purpose in Middle Earth than being a supernatural enemy? If the film makers wanted more supernatural, undead enemies, they can use creatures from Norse folk tales, which fit Tolkien's world better than typical zombies, like Barrow-wights.

The Barrow-wights are the only creatures described that really fit the bill of creatures similar to zombies. I don't agree that Nazgűl and Barrow-wights are the same either. The Nazgűl are men who end up being controlled by Sauron through their possession of The Nine rings, who live beyond their span because of their Rings, and who devote themselves to sorcery and black arts and gradually become more and more ensnared by Sauron's deceits and phantoms. When speaking about the Nazgűl, it's most helpful IMO to look at what Tolkien wrote about how a Ring of Power affects mortals ("The shadow of the past" and to look at what Aragorn and Gandalf says about their nature ("A knife in the dark", "Many meetings") and what is written about their origin in The Silmarillion. It's true that the Nazgűl don't live in the waking world like ordinary people do and are not alive in the ordinary sense, but they have never actually died and then been re-animated from the grave either.

But anyway all of this is very theoretical since we do not know anything about what will actually be in the film. I don't even know if there will be an undead Azog or Nazgűls rising from crypts or in what context we will see it, so I'll just treat these unconfirmed rumours for what they are for the present.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 4:51pm


Views: 2941
Thank you

at least your post is civil and not condescending, Smile

wish I could be correct 100% of the time like others around here even though it is OPINION plus I still have yet to find Zombies by today's standards, Although I can see where people can twist evil spirits possessing corpses into Zombies because that is what they want Crazy


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 9:04pm


Views: 3036
Why not call it an Orc-wight

If the term zombie is the difficulty. It is, after all, a term applied only by us.

Some Orcs may well have been "supernatural", however, in the sense of being maiar.

I agree with all you have said about the Nazgul. Tolkien does use the term "undead" of them (well the WK at least).

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 9:20pm


Views: 3139
well...


Quote
Some Orcs may well have been "supernatural", however, in the sense of being maiar.

you would think Tolkien would have mentioned them if there were.Angelic



Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 9:27pm


Views: 2967
I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Tolkien would have mentioned them?

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 9:32pm


Views: 2977
Orcs or as they were referred to in the Hobbit Goblins

having supernatural powers.... I don't recall reading about any


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 9:38pm


Views: 3013
Have you read Morgoth's Ring?

You can also find references online. The only "supernatural" power referred to is longevity, but maiar are themselves supernatural.

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 9:46pm


Views: 3044
were talking common place orcs and Goblins here

I don't remember the names Azog or Bolg being mentioned in there..But I will admit its been a while....Even if they were mentioned in HoME as being supernatural, since it's not in the appendices of LOTR or the Hobbit story proper Jackson can't use any of the HoME material without risk of getting sued.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 10 2012, 9:47pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 9:54pm


Views: 3004
I don't follow.

I'm referring to the possibility that some Orcs may have been supernatural in the sense that they were maiar, in response to the suggestion that orcs serve an entirely non-supernatural purpose in the stories.

You then said that you thought Tolkien would have mentioned this but now, presumably, realise that he did and embarked on another non-sequitur.

What have the names Azog, Bolg or the film rights got to do with the above?

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 10:09pm


Views: 2933
where in the hobbit or the appendices did he mention them?

I must be missing that in the material the Peter Jackson is allowed to use... HoME is off limits to be used for his films. We are discussing the films and the material they can use for said films here. In the material PJ is allowed to use I see no mention of Zombie Orcs/Goblins or supernatural orcs anywhere. Personaly I don't care what Peter Jackson wants to include, its about what he can include, the Tolkien estate can sue him for using material outside the Hobbit and LOTR. You really think he's gonna take that chance? I'll buy that theory of Zombie orcs or supernatural orcs if you can point it out in the text that Jackson is allowed to use, the Hobbit and LOTR. Just find me one sentence where it refers to Azog or Bolg as being anything other than ordinary run of the mill large powerful goblins/orcs. Heck just find me a sentence about Bolg being "the torturer of Dol Guldur". Otherwise I think the idea is bogus and nothing at all in the "spirit of Tolkien"


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 10:22pm


Views: 2965
I can't quite believe that you cannot follow the thread of the argument.

And therefore can only assume you are being obtuse, as the alternative would be unkind.

If you would like a separate discussion on whether Azog is a likely candidate for a Maia-Orc and how the films might allude to similar ideas without encountering rights issues, I would be happy to have it. You might perhaps find and read the relevant essays first and then we can discuss.

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 10:26pm


Views: 2927
no I follow

I want specifics in the text that Jackson is allowed to use. Thats all essays and information not included in those sources simply do not matter since Peter Jackson can not use them. This pertains to the films not what Tolkien wrote in his many other writings. Pertains to the films and what can be used in them. or are you missing the point?


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 10:36pm


Views: 2905
No it is not pertaining to the films. If you go back and re-read you will see that.

It is regarding the abstract purpose of Orcs in the stories.

However, when you have read the essays, I will be happy to discuss in the context of the films and to be specific, as I said, how Jackson might be able to allude to ideas which are in HOME without running into rights issues.

Unless we go and read then we are speaking from a position of ignorance.

LR


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 10 2012, 11:03pm


Views: 2966
well since I brought this thread up about concerns about the films

I guess it must be off topic... because I have concerns about the film not hypothetical situations in the stories. My concerns are with the films and what is being presented in them. There is nothing in Tolkien's works to tell us that Azog or Bolg are working for Sauron that I can remember, nothing to say they have supernatural powers, and nothing involving either of them with being zombies. Which if they are it strays from the source material that Jackson is allowed to use. or am I wrong? or maybe I'm ignorant as you say Crazy


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 10 2012, 11:27pm


Views: 2908
Yes the discussion about the possibility

Of Maiar orcs in the context of whether orcs were anti-supernatural was not in response to any of your posts.

There are certainly readings to suggest that the Misty Mountain Orcs may well have been under the influence of Sauron (you can find the quotes on this forum for discussion or in a mixture of LOTR and UT)

There are also possibilities of Orcs fitting a particular description being maiar. As it happens Azog does fit the description rather well and would seem a reasonable candidate (again you will find the necessary information in HOME). It is possible that Jackson is seeking to allude to similar concepts without infringing the rights.

The word zombie has not been mentioned in any of the film material. However some form of extended life may possibly connect to the ideas in the previous paragraph.

If you haven't read the material then, in an entirely not perjorative sense, ignorance is inevitable.

LR


(This post was edited by Lacrimae Rerum on Oct 10 2012, 11:35pm)


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 11 2012, 3:36pm


Views: 2976
hmmm

Well: why call something an orc-wight when it refers to something hypothetical which doesn't have anything to do with the actual orcs in the stories? Neither in The Hobbit, LoTR or the published
Silmarillion we find anything about orc-wights or orcs that would fit this description. I'm not very interested in speculations about "what might have been", but the stories that actually have been published.

I'm aware that Tolkien re-wrote and mused about changing or tweaking some of the concepts or ideas he introduced in his published stories. He also seems to have struggled with
several of the criticisms he got against the orcs, ("creatures that are considered irredeemable etc.) It's a long time since I've read anything of Unfinished Tales and the HoME material, but
much of what I've read in these works are simply might-have-beens, early concepts, abandoned ideas or Tolkien trying to develop or elaborate on (unexplored) parts of the stories, but failing to either finish them or produce stories which are reasonably self-consistent. This is also why I generally don't think they're a good basis for discussing Tolkien's written works nor an acceptable
source for adaptation of films. Much of these books seem more like a basis for exploring how Tolkien worked creatively, ideas he abandonded, how he developed his mythology (as well as LoTR) from its early basis, and projects he had for more individual works within the big tapestry of his mythology.

With regard to the individual works, I acknowledge a notable difference these more developed "individual stories" and the drafts Tolkien writes about different topics. The two lays of Beleriands and stories like "Of Tuor's coming to Vinyamar" and "Narn i Hin Húrin", "The mariner's wife" and the story taking place among the Druedain are much more consistent and developed than the series of brief drafts we get in the essays on The Istari and the palantirs and even "The Hunt for the Ring". Artistically they are works in their own right that I can relate to and consider suitable as a basis for discussion, since they are much more fully developed and have a greater sense of internal logic. When it comes to those parts of UT which are not self-consistent stories, I find that Tolkien's letters are as a rule much more detailed and satisfactory.

I haven't read a single page of Morgoth's Ring, so for all I know this might be a very different work from the others in the HoME series.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 11 2012, 5:59pm


Views: 3027
I tend to agree

But then one could just as happily ask why call it an Orc-zombie. One term is as baseless as the other.

The relevant bits of Morgoth's Ring are several essays (Myths Transformed) in which Tolkien discusses conceptions of the nature of Orcs, amongst other things. These are some of Tolkien's last recorded thoughts on the matter.

It is of course perfectly reasonable to take the position that what Tolkien published should be considered to have primacy. It is also equally valid to consider that his ideas developed over time and that later ideas supercede prior ones. In either case I think they are well worth exploring.

I'm a bit puzzled by the idea, in principle, that drawing on a wider knowledge of Tolkien's ideas for the adaptation of a particular work is "unacceptable" per se.

LR


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 11 2012, 8:21pm


Views: 2898
Now this is a good argument,

and one I can entirely agree with and support.

In Reply To
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but looking at the evidence we see that Tolkien never wrote about Sauron raising orcs from the dead. Why then should such an invention be made in a film, when the orcs clearly fill a very different purpose in Middle Earth than being a supernatural enemy? If the film makers wanted more supernatural, undead enemies, they can use creatures from Norse folk tales, which fit Tolkien's world better than typical zombies, like Barrow-wights.

The Barrow-wights are the only creatures described that really fit the bill of creatures similar to zombies. I don't agree that Nazgűl and Barrow-wights are the same either. The Nazgűl are men who end up being controlled by Sauron through their possession of The Nine rings, who live beyond their span because of their Rings, and who devote themselves to sorcery and black arts and gradually become more and more ensnared by Sauron's deceits and phantoms. When speaking about the Nazgűl, it's most helpful IMO to look at what Tolkien wrote about how a Ring of Power affects mortals ("The shadow of the past" and to look at what Aragorn and Gandalf says about their nature ("A knife in the dark", "Many meetings") and what is written about their origin in The Silmarillion. It's true that the Nazgűl don't live in the waking world like ordinary people do and are not alive in the ordinary sense, but they have never actually died and then been re-animated from the grave either.

But anyway all of this is very theoretical since we do not know anything about what will actually be in the film. I don't even know if there will be an undead Azog or Nazgűls rising from crypts or in what context we will see it, so I'll just treat these unconfirmed rumours for what they are for the present.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 11 2012, 8:53pm


Views: 2871
Well, much as I dislike some of the changes, if Bolg is going to challenge Gandalf, I damn sure hope he is presented as a demon orc

literally, and just a standard tough guy orc captain.

In Reply To
I don't remember the names Azog or Bolg being mentioned in there..But I will admit its been a while....Even if they were mentioned in HoME as being supernatural, since it's not in the appendices of LOTR or the Hobbit story proper Jackson can't use any of the HoME material without risk of getting sued.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 11 2012, 8:59pm


Views: 2813
I hate to keep giving fodder to non-cannon liberties. I REALLY do! Yet I think

Jackson could probably use the Wizards, The Barrow Wights, and even more so Shelob, to make the case. The Wizards, essetiall Angels taking shape as men, or manlike. The Barrowights, corpses re-animated by disembodied demons (Gothmog is that you? lol). Shelob, "an evil thing in spider form." The suggestion being that she is no true giant spider at all, but, like her mother, an evil spirit that has taken physical shape as a monster spider. With these as precedencts, an evil spirit in form like an orc is not so far-fetched. If the afore mentioned Gandalf vs. Bolg confrontation is going to be portrayed in a serious, challenging, one on one manner, I would rather it be Bolg the half-demon, or something of the sort, than Bolg the orc captain.

In Reply To
I must be missing that in the material the Peter Jackson is allowed to use... HoME is off limits to be used for his films. We are discussing the films and the material they can use for said films here. In the material PJ is allowed to use I see no mention of Zombie Orcs/Goblins or supernatural orcs anywhere. Personaly I don't care what Peter Jackson wants to include, its about what he can include, the Tolkien estate can sue him for using material outside the Hobbit and LOTR. You really think he's gonna take that chance? I'll buy that theory of Zombie orcs or supernatural orcs if you can point it out in the text that Jackson is allowed to use, the Hobbit and LOTR. Just find me one sentence where it refers to Azog or Bolg as being anything other than ordinary run of the mill large powerful goblins/orcs. Heck just find me a sentence about Bolg being "the torturer of Dol Guldur". Otherwise I think the idea is bogus and nothing at all in the "spirit of Tolkien"


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Oct 12 2012, 2:06am


Views: 2938
Filling in the blanks

sinister71 wrote: My concerns are with the films and what is being presented in them. There is nothing in Tolkien's works to tell us that Azog or Bolg are working for Sauron that I can remember, nothing to say they have supernatural powers, and nothing involving either of them with being zombies. Which if they are it strays from the source material.

The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien told of the adventure of Bilbo Baggins. During that adventure Gandalf the Gray left the company and gave a general explanation at the end of the tale about what he did while he was gone. Tolkien's stories from the LOTR appendixes and Unfinished Tales expanded on "the rest of the story." Now Peter Jackson is preparing to tell us the full tale in three feature-length films.

There is very little detail in much of Gandalf's side story and since the source book was written as a Children's Tale, it lacked a lot of detail too. So the screenwriters are going to be filling in a lot of blanks with their own inventions. The only point I have made in this thread is that the name 'Necromancer' gives Jackson a lot of latitude when he fills in the evil-doer blanks in the story.


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 12 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 2729
long answer

Since I haven't read the essays you're talking about, I cannot comment specifically about the ideas as ideas. Still an essay is an essay and not a story and for me the stories are the heart and the ideas only interesting because they throw light on or deepen one's appreciation of the stories. Do you find that new ideas or conceptions of orcs in these essays in any way resonate with or throw new light on the portrayal of orcs either in The Hobbit or LoTR? Or in The Silmarillion? Is there available any version of a story or part of a story where these different kinds of orcs are being portrayed or mentioned?

Of course it's possible to lead a purely theoretical discussion about how Tolkien actually thought of orcs and their nature. But without a reference to concrete stories or versions of stories, such a discussion quickly can deteriorate into mere speculation about possibilities - it takes place in what I would call a void. What such parts of essays show is how Tolkien grappled with and continued to reconsider fundamental ideas about orcs, but never actually managed to go any further with it in practice. You could never know if these conceptions of orcs would end up as one of those many drafts or thoughts which would be abandonded. What you're actually left with are the stories and versions of stories that Tolkien managed to write.

Christopher Tolkien wrote in the foreword to The Silmarillion that in his latest years Tolkien devoted himself more to theological and philosophical preoccupations of his mythology and his prose and poetry came more in the background. It strikes me that the essays you're talking about in Morgoth's Ring are part of this tendency. Christopher Tolkien also wrote that trying to show The Silmarillion as a continuing evolvement of over half a decade would only lead to confusion and submerge what is essential. The discussion about the development of Tolkien's ideas are only applicable to the understanding of The Silmarillion, since LoTR was never rewritten and the rewriting of The Hobbit was abandonded. With The Silmarillion you have many different versions and concepts for the same stories and there you can argue which versions should be considered to have primacy and which shouldn't. But if the story is to succeed as a story or cycle of stories it still needs a very disciplined approach, where you select versions which are compatible with each other and produce a reasonably coherent and consistent tale.

When you adapt The Hobbit, you adapt a story with its own internal logic and vision, and most of all you adapt a story and not a random collection of fragments and ideas. It's definitely useful to have a knowledge of Tolkien's ideas, but the main basis is the story you're trying to adapt, not speculations and thoughts put forth in essays that are not relevant to the story. By the way I've already accepted and understood that the adaptation of the Hobbit enhances and elaborates the context around the main story, but I still expect that what they actually put on film should lead back to hints, themes and ideas in the original story.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Oct 12 2012, 4:56pm


Views: 2973
Well it rather depends on what you find interesting but

For me yes. Tolkien offers several descriptions of the sort of characteristics which would differentiate maiar orcs from other orcs. Actually of all the orcs we know of Azog would be pretty near the top of the list of likely candidates, for me. So I find this a very interesting idea, although of course it is on,unnecessary of several possibilities.

As I say, it is a perfectly respectable position to take to say that the act of publishing confers primacy on a particular work (although it might be a shame to take too hard a line on that here as it would rather rule out the Sil). It also raises interesting clashes such as Treebeard's comment on Orc origins in LOTR vs Tolkien's specific refutation of those comments in his letters, the first being published by him and the second not, of course.

I think it is less easy to understand your points which seem to build to the suggestion that anything not in the form of a story can be safely ignored. I don't think this makes sense to me and if we tried a little experiment where I told you that the essays I mentioned started with the words "I once met a wizard who asked me for my thoughts....." I would be surprised if you felt that was sufficient reason to dramatically alter your views on the validity of what followed.

I think equally the notions of abandoned fragments which somehow didn't make it into practice is also not a notion I share. This would rule us out from considering almost everything he wrote, the Sil included, and I think there is much interest to be had.

Equally, whilst it is a viewpoint, I would tend to disagree with the notion that when you adapt the hobbit, as full an appreciation of the wider contexts of Tolkien's work as possible is not a good thing. To use your Silmarillion example I would tend to argue that it was just such a wider knowledge which enabled CT to pull the work together, rather than the absence of it.

LR