Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 17

[regwec]

Sorry to hear about Billy.

On the evidence of that photo, one might suppose that the original design was replaced in order to avoid copyright infringement on Warhammer's "Troll Slayers".

 

[Victarion]

I think its a bit silly that the source material would have to tiptoe around the derivative garbage.

 

[InCali]

I think its a bit silly that the source material would have to tiptoe around the derivative garbage.

Do you mean Troll Slayers or PJ's movie?

 

[regwec]

I think its a bit silly that the source material would have to tiptoe around the derivative garbage.

Yes, except that the design looks so specifically similar to the derivative garbage that its inspiration by the original source material is questionable.

 

[InCali]

Yes, except that the design looks so specifically similar to the derivative garbage that its inspiration by the original source material is questionable.

Right. The point I was trying to make is that the source material is the book. The derivative (garbage being a subjective term) is the movie and other stuff. I think the Tolkien family is safe from lawsuits.....

 

[regwec]

Certainly, though PJ and the studio vicariously may not be.

 

[Victarion]

Do you mean Troll Slayers or PJ's movie?

I was referring to their original design for Dane being similar to Warhammer.

 

[Marvolo]

Certainly, though PJ and the studio vicariously may not be.

Yeah the estate has zero to do with that design. It would be PJ and the studio that would catch heat if any copyright infringement suit was filed against the film for using that design.

Here is a trollslayer for those who are wondering what they look like:

And here is Dane:

 

[Iceman]

They do look very similar!

 

[Octoberist]

Is it true about that lawsuit? or was that just speculation?

 

[Marvolo]

Is it true about that lawsuit? or was that just speculation?

It was just something a member brought up. The hypester pointed out the similarity and said that could be a reason for the cgi redo of the character. So Dane wouldn't look like one of Warhammer's Trollslayers. So there is no actual evidence of any lawsuit.

 

[InCali]

It was just something a member brought up. The hypester pointed out the similarity and said that could be a reason for the cgi redo of the character. So Dane wouldn't look like one of Warhammer's Trollslayers. So there is no actual evidence of any lawsuit.

Not to be picky (even though my wife will tell you differently), but the name of the dwarf is Dáin (Ironfoot). It's probably prounounced like "Dine" as the "ái" (without the accent mark, this is for sure) is a dipthong bringing together (approximately) "ah" and "eee" to form what we would call a long "I". The accent may actually indicate that Dáin should be pronounced in two syllables. I think it sounds like "Day In" or "Da In", but am not 100% sure. In this case, "Glóin" would be pronounced "Glo In" (without the long "w" sound after "o"; that sound gets picked up by the "I" after it). The "I" in "in" may not be exact. What we're sure about is that Peter Jackson got the name pronunciation wrong in his movies so it's natural to just accept his knowledge as fact.

 

[regwec]

Smeagol should also probably be pronounced Smey-ah-gol, or something like that, but it is strange to the ear.

 

[InCali]

Smeagol should also probably be pronounced Smey-ah-gol, or something like that, but it is strange to the ear.

Yeah.....probably so. "e" should sound a lot like "eh" (the "y" sound gets picked up by the following "a"). Tolkien made good use of the international phonetic alphabet (which is invariably close to the spanish language pronunciation of words). Many times, you can use a spanish pronunciation of the words and the result is remarkably close to how they should be pronounced.

Smeegol is used a lot, but it doesn't seem to follow Tolkien's rules. I know the language rules aren't always hard and fast and it depends on the etymology (origin) of the word so it's easy to get fooled. Tolkien also made room for regional pronunciations/dialects so that further complicates an already complicated subject.

I think we can pretty much all agree on Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam t:

The pronunciation of "Gandalf" is a little more interesting and depends on the etymology of the name.

 

[Vartha]

the Hobbit still going strong over seas
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http:...e9Phz3wFFSGdkZ9yWKfmWcspqLFisvEuqdwAW6G1g&s=1

 

[Vartha]

hahaha
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Little-Kid-Suspended-Brazen-Use-Lord-Rings-Magic-69536.html

 

[Silvermoon]

hahaha
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Little-Kid-Suspended-Brazen-Use-Lord-Rings-Magic-69536.html

Spoiler

Poor kid.

 

[InCali]

hahaha
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Little-Kid-Suspended-Brazen-Use-Lord-Rings-Magic-69536.html

I am not often at a loss for words. You can teach creationism, but don't pretend or be imaginative; especially if you are almost an adult (well, 9 is pretty close....like half an adult). I think someone in the school district "really" needs to stop and think about what they're doing (Assuming they can really think; which, in this case, appears doubtful.).

I'm just glad he didn't also get a replica of the ring of the witch-king, give it to his friend, and tell him that particular ring would turn him into his soulless slave for eternity. He might have gotten the death penalty....

 

[Spider-Who?]

Aragorn would still have been very young- about ten years old by the chronology of the book, though the movies seem to warp this a bit. In any case, I think he would have been far too young to have earned his "Strider" monicker amongst the men of Arnor.

Subtlety is hardly one of PJ's virtues, but he could still have included the same kind of cross-reference without making a mess of the mythos if he has been less on-the-nose. Had Thranduil said something like-

"Go now- seek out the Dunedain of the North. I foresee that a great leader of men will arise from those few".

- I really wouldn't have many objections. It might even have seemed quite cool.

I think your example is better than the clunky one we got in the film, however, I think you example relies too heavily on people either having read the books or seen the extended cut (and remembering the two lines dedicating to Aragorn's history). No where in the theatrical films (that I recall) does it state that Aragorn is part of the Dunedain, so the casual movie goer might not realize who Thranduil is talking about. I think for the sake of clarity, Jackson made the right choice in name-dropping Aragorn/Strider, but the line itself definitely could have been written better.

 

[InCali]

I think your example is better than the clunky one we got in the film, however, I think you example relies too heavily on people either having read the books or seen the extended cut (and remembering the two lines dedicating to Aragorn's history). No where in the theatrical films (that I recall) does it state that Aragorn is part of the Dunedain, so the casual movie goer might not realize who Thranduil is talking about. I think for the sake of clarity, Jackson made the right choice in name-dropping Aragorn/Strider, but the line itself definitely could have been written better.

I think Jackson did stuff like this for no particular reason. Why did Legolas have to leave? Did it really make the story better? Is this what PJ calls "an interpretation"? I just see him changing things for the sake of changing them and telling a story other than The Hobbit.

Frankly, it felt to me like he just went through the motions on this one. For someone who knows the story, you sit there, watch it and say "Huh? What's the point of that?". For someone that doesn't know the story, they still don't know "a lot" of it after they leave the theater.

The book can be read as a standalone story without understanding all of the details that are brought into it and that's okay. The same is true of the LotR. You can read it, understand a little more of the minutae, but still not everything and that's okay too. I don't see it helping when you explain stuff that didn't happen (in the book) in the first place.

There is "plenty" of room for interpretation. Driving Sauron from Dol Guldur is a prime example of this (the details weren't covered in the book), but having Galadriel materialize and de-materialize?? It's not true to the character or even the spirit of the writings.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Don't know if anyone has seen these videos but they are so helpful in explaining the Ring and everything else

 

[InCali]

Don't know if anyone has seen these videos but they are so helpful in explaining the Ring and everything else

I think Peter Jackson watched these videos because that's just about all he got right.

 

[DKDetective]

I think Jackson did stuff like this for no particular reason. Why did Legolas have to leave? Did it really make the story better? Is this what PJ calls "an interpretation"? I just see him changing things for the sake of changing them and telling a story other than The Hobbit.

Frankly, it felt to me like he just went through the motions on this one. For someone who knows the story, you sit there, watch it and say "Huh? What's the point of that?". For someone that doesn't know the story, they still don't know "a lot" of it after they leave the theater.

The book can be read as a standalone story without understanding all of the details that are brought into it and that's okay. The same is true of the LotR. You can read it, understand a little more of the minutae, but still not everything and that's okay too. I don't see it helping when you explain stuff that didn't happen (in the book) in the first place.

There is "plenty" of room for interpretation. Driving Sauron from Dol Guldur is a prime example of this (the details weren't covered in the book), but having Galadriel materialize and de-materialize?? It's not true to the character or even the spirit of the writings.

Speaking of Dol Guldur, I always interpreted as an armed assault led by the Wise, not some magical commando mission by Gandalf, Galadriel, Saruman, Radagast, and Elrond. The place was a fortress, like Barad-dur on a smaller scale. Jackson's interpretation does not accord with any of the rules Tolkien set for his world.

 

[Venomfan]

I started listening to the BBC radio play that was recommended in this thread. I'm really enjoying it so far but have been surprised that so far (Grima just got the boot from Meduseld) it has been nearly identical to the films. I'd say the biggest difference so far is dinner at farmer maggots

my only issue with it is I cannot get past Aragorn's lisp, it drives me crazy

 

[regwec]

Speaking of Dol Guldur, I always interpreted as an armed assault led by the Wise, not some magical commando mission by Gandalf, Galadriel, Saruman, Radagast, and Elrond. The place was a fortress, like Barad-dur on a smaller scale. Jackson's interpretation does not accord with any of the rules Tolkien set for his world.

An interesting thought. I confess that I had always considered it to be a largely magical battle, as Sauron's presence in Mirkwood seemed to manifest in a general spidery malaise as opposed to legions of Orcs. The appendices of LOTR certainly say that Galadriel threw down the walls. PJ's mistake to my mind is to confine it all to a melee against respawning Nazgul.

I started listening to the BBC radio play that was recommended in this thread. I'm really enjoying it so far but have been surprised that so far (Grima just got the boot from Meduseld) it has been nearly identical to the films. I'd say the biggest difference so far is dinner at farmer maggots

my only issue with it is I cannot get past Aragorn's lisp, it drives me crazy

They are inevitably similar because they are adapted from the same book, but the radio adaptation uses its length better to build tension, scale and depth. Gandalf's fireside lesson to Frodo, the Council of Elrond, and the dark trudge through Moria are far better, to my mind.

And I love Robert Stevens as Aragorn. Slight lisp or not, his tired, chesty, yet aristocratic voice seems perfect for the role to me, and the bit in the Prancing Pony where he changes his accent from Breelander to Numenorean is one of my favourites.

Gimli is also miles better.

And the Nazgul's shriek.

And Frodo and Sam.

And Michael Horden has the most wizardy voice of all time.