quote:Originally posted by Shan: The Goblin King still looks like he came out of "Where the Wild Things Are" . . .
You know, that was another thing I was wondering about. All the goblins (who look exactly like orcs, by the way) look more or less the same size, so how did this one get so big? Okay, you can say he got fat from being the king, but how is he so tall? And not just tall, but huge. This guy is like nine feet tall and all the other goblins are like 5 feet tall. That just felt kinda strange to me.
I really wish Jackson had gone with live action bad guys instead of CGI. It all looked so artificial, although as always I enjoyed Gollum. The part where Radagast is riding around with his rabbits was especially bad and fake-looking. Hopefully technology catches up soon.
That was Saruman's thing with the Uruk Hai.
IP: Logged |
Goblins and Orcs are the same thing. Goblins is considered the sort of quaint, old timey word for them, which Frodo makes fun of Bilbo for at a point or two in the literature.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Sort've, Tolkien was never satisfied with his portrayal of orcs and almost certainly I think we can conclude he wanted to make them more sympathetic at some point, maybe to the point of making them people with their own certainly once-noble civilization? But in the text and mythology as is he never got around to it.
Ideally if I were Tolkien, I would've made orcs a northernly high breeding people used to the cold but had a high death rate (like the Krogan in ME) and so decentralized and prone to in fighting that they couldn't threaten anyone until Morgoth got them under his sway.
As long as the orcs are canonically basically just tainted Elves there's very little wiggle room to make them multifaceted.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: She does have a number of passive powers that keep Lothlorien alive. Being an ancient Noldorin Elf gives her some powers akin to the Bene Gesserit Voice, in a sense, and wielding Nenya gives her the power to sort of make things around her alive and powerful, the power to ensure and thrive against decay. It's why Lothlorien falls apart almost as soon as she goes across the water. It also gives her some outright sheer power, which is why Tolkien said none could destroy Lorien with her there, lest Sauron himself come, and why she was able to single handedly lay bare the pits of Dol Guldur.
I don't know what half of what you just said means, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
It's okay, most of it wasn't English anyway.
You uber-geeked yourself by using a Dune mystic power to explain the LOTR mystic power. Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shan: The Goblin King still looks like he came out of "Where the Wild Things Are" . . .
You know, that was another thing I was wondering about. All the goblins (who look exactly like orcs, by the way) look more or less the same size, so how did this one get so big? Okay, you can say he got fat from being the king, but how is he so tall? And not just tall, but huge. This guy is like nine feet tall and all the other goblins are like 5 feet tall. That just felt kinda strange to me.
It made sense to me, that's why he was the king. Didya notice the smaller the goblins got, the stupider and more subservient they were? At least that's the impression I got, kinda like the Tallest in Invader Zim.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I'd like to learn more about the origins of the wizards. They seem human, and yet they live as long as elves. Remember that line from The Two Towers, where Gandalf mutters, "300 ages of men I've lived, and now I have no time!"
I was surprised to learn in this new movie that Bilbo's mother was a Took, so he must have been a close relative of Peregrin (Pippin) Took.
He isn't a close relation, the Tooks are a huge family.
Elves don't age.
Wizards aren't human, they are Maiar...basically wise spirits. They can move things along, but can't use magic to effect great changes directly. They protect Middle Earth for influences that should not be there in the first place.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little off topic: does anyone know if/when it will be possible to watch Hobbit in China? I am in Xiamen right now, just came from Kunming, and both cities have no Hobbit. I want to see it! I can't find an answer on the Internet, too...
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would, but I have only one entry visa. And Hong Kong is technically abroad. Thanks a lot, I have something to look forward to (otherwise I'd have to watch it on DVD when I come back home, and I think it's you-wanna-watch-it-in-a-theater kind of movie). Thanks again!
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, my understanding is that half of the legislative council is elected while half is appointed. Whether the appointments are more influenced by local oligarchs or by Beijing is a matter of debate, and practically speaking, is not too different. The chief executive is effectively picked by Beijing.
But more relevant to Syzmon, for most purposes of international trade, travel, and law, Hong Kong counts as "abroad" with it's own currency, laws, passport, and immigration policy. So he would need a multiple entry visa (to re-enter China, probably not to enter HK), prices for flights tend to follow international norms rather than domestic, HK has no censorship structure as in China, and the film distributors are different.
You will, however, probably have to pay out-the-nose to watch The Hobbit since it is a long film in 3D which will likely trigger additional fees on both counts.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, my understanding is that half of the legislative council is elected while half is appointed. Whether the appointments are more influenced by local oligarchs or by Beijing is a matter of debate, and practically speaking, is not too different. The chief executive is effectively picked by Beijing.
You're right of course. I was just oversimplifying because it's a soar point for many folks in Hong Kong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But more relevant to Syzmon, for most purposes of international trade, travel, and law, Hong Kong counts as "abroad" with it's own currency, laws, passport, and immigration policy. So he would need a multiple entry visa (to re-enter China, probably not to enter HK)
That's exactly what it means, unfortunately. I can go to Hong Kong without any visas, but I wouldn't be able to go back to mainland China. It's the same with Taiwan- although Taiwan actually IS an independent state.
Did you know, that hatrack is banned in China! To get to the forum I have to connect via VPN server You probably know about facebook and youtube.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the orcs in LOTR were people too.
Goblins and Orcs are the same thing. Goblins is considered the sort of quaint, old timey word for them, which Frodo makes fun of Bilbo for at a point or two in the literature.
No....similar, but not the same, IIRC.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom Shippey, a philologist and preeminent Tolkien scholar, notes that goblin was the word used by Tolkien in The Hobbit, although even in that work he did make use of orc. However, the philologist and Old English-lover in Tokien grew dissatisfied with the relative newness of goblin (documented only since the 1500s) as well as its probable Latin origin as cobalus. Preferring an Old English word, he lifted the word orc from Beowulf, where it appeared in the compound words orc-neas ('demon-corpse') and orc-thyrs (thyrs meant something like giant). (J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of The Century, pp. 87-88)
Posts: 47 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: It's the same with Taiwan- although Taiwan actually IS an independent state.
More independent than Hong Kong, less independent than Palestine now
quote: To get to the forum I have to connect via VPN server
How is that going these days? I've heard there's increasing work going into interfering with VPN connections now.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes 5 minutes to connect, connection is slow. I made a speed test- ping via VPN is like 480ms, without 80ms, downloading (but that depends on the place I am in, in my flat now though:) 340kb/s (sic!), without 8000kb/s. I don't know if it's a problem of interfering or simply distance.
And about independence- I would have to study the subject more closely, but at least my Taiwanese friends claim to be Taiwanese Chinese, never PRC, never ever. And Taiwan has a strong military. And it's not like the PRC can raise taxes or anything in RoC. But then economic influence is gigantic, probably. I don't know about palestine, but I would compare Taiwan to Ukraine. Russia stops sending gas and they're in big trouble. But then, so is Poland and the rest of Europe...
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was more joking about Palestine's ascension to nationhood in the UN whereas Taiwan, well, hasn't. I'm not sure there are any good modern parallels to Taiwan's situation. Ukraine doesn't really work.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the orcs in LOTR were people too.
Goblins and Orcs are the same thing. Goblins is considered the sort of quaint, old timey word for them, which Frodo makes fun of Bilbo for at a point or two in the literature.
No....similar, but not the same, IIRC.
What exactly is the difference? In LOTR, either Sam or Frodo makes a comment about how Bilbo called orcs goblins. And for that matter, Tolkien referred to the goblins of the Misty Mountains and Mt. Gundabad as orcs when referring to the assault on Erebor in the War of the Ring.
I've yet to note a real difference.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orcs were cousins of goblins, and were stronger and tougher.
In earlier works they were referred to as different creatures, but in LOTR is seems that he had merged the terms.
By the time of Turin they were the being referred to as the same race, with sub-species, some which were stronger and more suited to direct warfare.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I don't remember that breakdown, especially in the Silmarillion. Where is that written about?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing about goblins in Silmarillion at all. I checked on google books. The only time they're mentioned is like this "Orcs (goblins)..."
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Generally they are the same race and are not two different creatures, but the conceptual distinction was present in the Hobbit. The goblinoid race was bred by the fallen Vala Morgoth from captured Elves during the First Age, long before the time of the Rings- Sauron never knew how to continue corrupting Elves, had lost the ability to, or just didn't need to as the goblinoid race was self-perpetuating. By the time of LotR, the two breeds were somewhat conceptualized as that "goblins" were a smaller, weaker breed, usually living underground and may simply have referred to location, as the chief in the northern Misty Mountains was the "Great Goblin", and definitely was a large, bipedal, goblinoid creature compatible with physical descriptions of orcs and uruks later. The orcs seem to have been a more versatile breed or group, generally stronger and larger, and used to breed the Uruk-Hai. The Uruks could operate in the sunlight with no penalty, but it dazed, blinded, and confused the lesser goblinoids. Even though Tolkien really does not distinguish between these two terms, he injects enough of a conceptual difference that the writers of the movies picked up on it and worked it into the story.
and another posted a letter by JRRT:
quote:
Your preference of /goblins/ to /orcs/ involves a large question and a matter of taste, and perhaps historical pedantry on my part. Personally I prefer /Orcs/(since these creatures are not ‘goblins’, not even the goblins of George MacDonald, which they do to some extent resemble). Also I now deeply regret having used Elves, though this is a word in ancestry and original meaning suitable enough. But the disastrous debasement of this word, in which Shakespeare played an unforgiveable part, has really overloaded it with regrettable tones, which are too much to overcome. I hope in the Appendices to Vol. III to be able to include a note ‘On translation’ in which the matter of equivalences and my uses may be made clearly. My difficulty has been that, since I have tried to present a kind of legendary and history of a ‘forgotten epoch’, all the specific terms were in a foreign language, and no /precise/ equivalents exist in English. ....
I really liked it. But I love the books and the other three movies, so that's not really unexpected.
My top three cinematic Scenes: 1. The riddles in the dark sequence 2. The Stone giants battle 3. The Thorin/Bilbo moments near the end
My complaints: I loved the first 40 minutes of Fellowship, because we were getting character development and a painting of the shire. The meeting at Bag End shouldn't have lasted 40 minutes in the Hobbit. It really dragged for me. The dwarves escaping death was just so strangely cartoonish, especially when meeting the goblins. The conflicting tones really bothered me. And I think a lot of the CG went a little overboard.
But I stand by that the movie got more right than it did wrong. It was always going to be difficult to follow the Lord of the Rings movies.
posted
I liked this movie myself. Also Thorin was rather handsome yet racist, but him and Kili remind me of heavy metal viking musicians and I like them if they are not racist. I am just cross that they must stretch this story so much.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The LOTR had a great hero--Aragorn--who commanded, fought, and even loved at the appropriate times in the appropriate ways.
Thorin, and to a lesser extent Bilbo seem to be flawed heroes. Thorin isn't the best leader, and isn't the best fighter--except for that race through the goblin tunnels. Yet when pushed to extremes he has these sudden What Would Aragorn Do moments, and he charges into battle. Its like Peter Jackson wants him to be Aragorn, and he tries, but he just isn't there yet and fails.
Even Bilbo, out on the burning tree limb, or hiding invisible while listening to the dwarves, or even while holding sting over Gollum, has a moment to think "What would Aragorn do? Hmm? OK, I'll do that."
I think I'll put that on my list as well. Today, as I'm working, I will consider "What would Aragorn do."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing totally wrong with that. Thorin is supposed to be a flawed hero. One of the bigger moments of the book is at the end when Thorin realizes how much of a fool he was for so long, especially in how he treated Bilbo. Part of what I didn't like about Bilbo's badass attack moment at the fir trees was that Thorin seemed to regard him in a much better light, and that's something he isn't supposed to do until the very end. He spends most of the book being petty and snippy. But he's still brave and skilled, despite not being as nice as Aragorn. I think the difference is that they're both skilled warriors, but Aragorn is also altruistic, which is a trait Thorin decidedly lacks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think its meant to make the scene where he cusses out Biblo for taking the Crystal a little more tragic.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think its meant to make the scene where he cusses out Biblo for taking the Crystal a little more tragic.
The Arkenstone, you mean?
Yeah, I'm betting on your theory. Jackson handles the raw emotions around betrayal very well...remember the scene where Gollum convinces Frodo that Sam ate all the lembas bread?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really a great movie watched last month online with my friends. We enjoyed this movie a lot.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
My copy of the DVD version of The Hobbit arrived last week in the mail, thanks to Amazon--just four days after the release date via ordinary shipping. Price including shipping was $17.95. I liked it even better than when I saw the movie in the theatre, even though that was in 3D and 48 frames-per-second. Maybe part of it was I could hear even better since I used headphones with my computer's DVD player. I also have a high-resolution monitor.
The second disk contained over two hours of production features, for some reason called "blogs." It was delightful to see the wonderful New Zealand countryside again, this time many additional places not seen in the Trilogy. New Zealand has fantastic scenery, amazingly varied for such a small country. It was a pleasure to see all the people and actors behind the scenes. Many actors from the Trilogy were in this movie. Cate Blanchett does not seem to have aged at all! Elijah Wood still looks like Frodo (appears in the first part of the movie, since the story of The Hobbit was supposedly told for his benefit).
At one point they used ten helicopters at once to haul people and materials to remote mountain locations, and five helicopters were commonly used. Several times they showed the five helicopters flying in formation. At other times they used up to 240 ground vehicles, including a fleet of big semis. This was besides huge sets that rival Universal Studios, and rebuilding Hobbiton this time with permanent materials (for the tourist trade). I don't know how much they spent making this movie, but it must have been a staggering amount. But since they'll make billions, who cares? (I read that despite mixed reviews, they took in $900 million worldwide--and this is before all the DVD sales, etc.)
The second movie, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, is predicted by some websites to be released December 13, 2013. There are reports that a third installment will be released in the summer of 2014, There and Back Again (that was also the operating title for the second movie until they settled on The Desolation of Smaug), but I would think that after Smaug is desolated, there is not much more of the story to tell. Can they make an entire movie that is just denouement? I kind of hope that Peter Jackson keeps it down to just two installments.
By the way, Peter Jackson has lost a lot of weight. I didn't recognize him at first. That is good news for those of us who hope he lives longer to create more quality movies. Whether or not you like the way he handles Tolkien's stories, it is hard to imagine anyone else with the daring and know-how and organizational ability to have made the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Those same qualities are evident with The Hobbit, too. Who else could have done it?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're called blogs, I believe, because they're a collection of the production blogs he did and posted on Facebook and other websites over the last year or two. They weren't created specially for the DVD release. That will come later when he inevitably does four or five rounds of extended editions and special releases.
Of course Cate Blanchett hasn't aged; she's an Elf!
The "desolation" in Desolation of Smaug isn't a reference to what happens to him, but rather to what Smaug himself has done. Erebor and Dale are desolated by Smaug, and the reference is to the Dwarves entering this part of their journey.
After Smaug is killed is the Battle of Five armies, so there's actually still quite a lot of story to tell. Besides, somewhere between the end of this movie and the Battle of Five Armies is when the White Council attacks Dol Goldur, so it will be interesting to see how they cover that, and how hard Jackson tries to connect Hobbit to LOTR.
Jackson has actually put quite a few pounds back on. He lost a ton of weight a few years ago, he almost looked unhealthy, but some has gone back on during the shooting of Hobbit.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's probably a stress thing related to film production. David Jaffe, videogame director, talked about how he would put on weight during lengthy projects. Sometimes you really don't appreciate the complications of film production and what it puts some people through. Check out the the documentary "Burden of Dreams" It's nuts.
Anyway, can't wait for part two. Mirkwood, baby. Mirkwood. I hope they layoff of the slowmotion in this one--particularly relating to Smaug.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They already showed the desolation BY Smaug at the start of The Hobbit, so I expect the desolation OF Smaug would refer to his demise.
Of course, Jackson could make some stuff up for the third film, more things to tie the Necromancer to Sauron, maybe even get a cameo by Tom Bombadil in there. He could be put in anywhere, since he does nothing to advance the plot. Of course, that is why he was left out of LOTR.
I wonder how many donuts get eaten during production! Jackson should make a cop movie. Yeah, I did notice he put a little weight back on in the latter "blogs," but still nothing like the way he used to be during production of LOTR.
Lyrhawn, do you think they will really put out an extended release version? If they do, then I will have to get that. I wish they had announced something about it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Smaug is almost certainly dead by the end of Movie 2. They need a good climax, and what else could movie 2 end on? Oh, I guess the Necromancer?
If they finish everything at Dol Guldur, maybe. Skeptical, though. That also seems narratively wonky. Interweave your non-Hobbit narrative through all three movies or don't do it at all.
Nah. Movie 2 is Mirkwood/Laketown/Smaug. Movie 3 is excessively long 5 Armies battles and probably Dol Guldur battles too, and an hour of endings.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, do you think they will really put out an extended release version? If they do, then I will have to get that. I wish they had announced something about it.
He's already made reference to it. On the one hand you could just assume he will. On the other hand, he's creating a whole extra movie to shove material into, so one could also assume since they've really had to reach to come up with more material, they don't need extended editions.
But he's already said he has material for them. I won't be excited to rush out and get them, I already think the first movie was overlong and bloated, but it might be interesting later on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
List of action points in the book: 1st Meeting Dinner Trolls Rivendel Misty Mountains Goblin King Gollum Escape via Gandalf and Ring Burning Tree Escape via Eagles.
End of 1st movie.
Meeting Beorn (sp?) Entering Mirkwood/Gandalph leaves Bomburs Sleeps--Endless Mirkwood Trail Lost in Mirkwood Capture by Spiders Capture by Elves (Somewhere in here is when The White Council attacks the Necromancer) Escape by Barrels Reception By Bard and town.
This seems the natural place to end Movie 2 to me.
Trip to Smaug Finding the secret door. Theft of 1st trinket Smaug attacks and death of Smaug.
This may be where it could end--whats left?
Dividing the treasure--Arkenstone fight The Arrival of the first 2 armies--Bardlings and Elves. The Arrival of the other armies--Goblins and Wolves and Bats--and Iron Hill Dwarves and Eagles. Death of Thorin and others The trip home Losing his best silver as Bag End's sale is disrupted.
Without Smaug the 3rd movie seems short.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the White Council material is that big, then your second movie is also pretty big. I think ending the second movie with the death of Smaug has more punch, otherwise the second movie actually starts to look pretty boring action-wise. I agree getting to Laketown is a natural stopping point, but it's not very satisfying.
I'd suggest moving all the white council stuff to the third movie. Cover it at the very beginning while they're still futzing around in Lonely Mountain and then pull it back to the north.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You probably know about facebook and youtube.
