Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Nalyd asserts that the decision to make "The Hobbit" into a film trilogy is a good thing. While I understand his position, I'm rather concerned that the result will be bloated beyond all recognition. While the extended edition was great for "The Lord of the Rings", "The Hobbit" is something like 1/5 the length. Two movies seemed acceptable. A lot of what links "The Hobbit" to "The Lord of the Rings" is contained within the latter work, either in Gandalf's explanations to Frodo or within the appendices. Without these, the Hobbit has an entirely different tone which would probably prove confusing and downright jarring to movie goers. Really, though, how do you get excited for this year's third when it's starting to look like it will barely cover Bag End to Rivendell? I'm sure that I'm overreacting, but I'd like to hear if I'm entirely alone in my dissatisfaction. (Finally, allow me to note that I realize Peter Jackson doesn't owe me anything. He can make however many films he likes, and I'll probably pay to see them. I'm posting this more because I was surprised to find myself at odds with the fandom, as well as because I think it's a worthy springboard for discussion of the series and adaptations in general.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'm in agreement with you on this. I understood the need for two films, but three is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Lauren CW Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 They had three extended cut Lord of the Rings and somehow still forgot Tom Bombadil entirely. If they forget ANYTHING from the Hobbit, with 3 movies, I will be forced to hunt down Peter Jackson and tar and feather him, chasing him out of the movie-making business for good. End communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 From what I gather, Tom Bombadil (including old willow and the barrow wight) was not forgotten but rather left out because they felt he didn't advance the plot in any way. That is not to say I am in agreement with the decision, but I do understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: δ³Σx² They had three extended cut Lord of the Rings and somehow still forgot Tom Bombadil entirely. If they forget ANYTHING from the Hobbit, with 3 movies, I will be forced to hunt down Peter Jackson and tar and feather him, chasing him out of the movie-making business for good. End communication. Peter Jackson forgot neither Tom Bombadil nor the scouring of the Shire. He didn't like those parts of the books, so he deliberately left them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Lauren CW Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 That's disgusting. It's like being the director of Harry Potter and saying you didn't like the part where Snape kills Dumbledore so you just leave that out. Well, it's half like that, given that part is a major plot factor whereas Tom Bombadil is more of a Middle-Earth Lore bit. But still! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't know. There is some interesting material relevant to The Hobbit yet outside it (e.g. Gandalf and Thorin's meeting is in Unfinished Tales, IIRC). If they make good use of extra-Hobbit-ular material, and full use of The Hobbit itself, and keep down the length of the films (no one says these all have to be the behemoth's the LOTR films were)...I can see this working out all right. Is it a GOOD idea? I have no idea. I would say I'm skeptical yet willing to give Jackson et al the benefit of the doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 I absolutely accepted that back when there were two. In fact, I'm sure he'll need to set some background with regards to Durin and the Lonely Mountain and dwarves in general (since Gimli doesn't really do that for us). I'd love to see him give a bit more personality to the company than "Bomber's fat, Balin's old". And once they're all out, I'm sure I'll be satisfied with the product. We can have a meet up to marathon all six extended editions back to back. In the mean time, though, it's looking pretty fragmented. (With regards to Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, I think there's strong reasons for excluding them. The story already takes a long time to get started and a long time to come to a close without them. What I didn't understand was changing Galadriel's gift to Sam from something awesome to something dull. It's not like it saved time to make it rope instead of a seed. But of course, everyone has a favorite part, and not every element can be included.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unflappable Drayk Death Knight Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Im pretty siked that they're making more movies to begin with. There's really too few fantasy movies in general. One of these days I really got to read one of those lotr books. Ive heard they're awesome but am not sure which one to read. Ive seen the movies too many times so Im not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 You might start with "The Hobbit". It's a short read and self contained. Even if you've seen the movies, it might be a bit strange to jump into the middle of the trilogy. Has anyone heard anything new about the Wheel of Time movie they're supposed to be working on? That seems like a nearly impossible task, given that the significantly shorter "Song of Ice and Fire" required a mini-series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Quote: That's disgusting. It's like being the director of Harry Potter and saying you didn't like the part where Snape kills Dumbledore so you just leave that out. I didn't like a lot of the changes either, but Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire are bad examples because the former would have ruined the mood and the latter would have ruined the ending. Quote: Really, though, how do you get excited for this year's third when it's starting to look like it will barely cover Bag End to Rivendell? Where do you get "Bag End to Rivendell" - linear estimate? I suspect that most of the extra stuff comes from showing the Gandalf side plot (Dol Guldur, Sauron, etc.) between the time they entered Mirkwood and the Battle of Five Armies. If he's going to do that, then the plot structure starts to resemble LotR, and the Parting Of The Fellowship would be a natural end for the first part. (Actually, that would make part one similar to Fellowship Of The Ring: Leave the Shire, go to Rivendell, enter a cave in the Misty Mountains, get attacked by orcs goblins orcs (dammit), advance to next savepoint, get split up.) The second part could then deal with the concurrent Gandalf/Dwarves/Bilbo plots in Mirkwood, possibly even up to the battle of Esgaroth. The third one would have the Battle of Five Armies (and stuff leading up to it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Goldengirl Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: Death Knight Im pretty siked that they're making more movies to begin with. There's really too few fantasy movies in general. One of these days I really got to read one of those lotr books. Ive heard they're awesome but am not sure which one to read. Ive seen the movies too many times so Im not sure. Either start with The Hobbit or The Fellowship of the Ring. Jumping into any series anywhere but the beginning, even if you know some of the backstory from other sources, can be jarring. I'm baffled to see The Hobbit stretched into a trilogy. I understand why having only one movie wouldn't work, since this is Tolkein we're talking about. However, I should think two movies would be adequate to cover the story. The only way I could see this being functional is if the movies themselves are shorter in length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 ...OTOH, "Bag End to Rivendell" in LOTR would have been more than enough for a feature-length film, and make more sense as far as having beginning and ending points appropriate for cinema. If he's taking 3 movies to do the Hobbit, surely that's an admission that doing LOTR in 3 was a foolish idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Enraged Slith Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It was supposed to be two movies until Jackson and his higher ups realized they could milk it for three. There really isn't any other explanation. If the "richness" of the story had called for a third movie the first time the scripts were laid out, the producers would have been more than ecstatic to greenlight it. It's not like this is some unknown property handled by an inexperienced director; the profit is already there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The Atlas of Middle-Earth shows how drawn out the first part of the journey to Rivendell was. Even if you take a Jeff Vogel approach to changing geography, the time was much longer than Lord of the Rings to accomplish the same distance. Stretching it to 3 movies really is dragging it out even if the book staged a major battle in just a few chapters and Peter Jackson wants to make that over an hour of the last movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: Slarty ...OTOH, "Bag End to Rivendell" in LOTR would have been more than enough for a feature-length film, and make more sense as far as having beginning and ending points appropriate for cinema. Ew, no. The Fellowship of the Ring may have been long, but it found the balance between getting all the plot in (Tom Bombadil doesn't count as plot, only as a random encounter) while still maintaining a fast pace (IMO, a better pace than the book which takes forever and a day to get going). The Two Towers movie cuts a huge chunk out of the book and pushes it into the Return of the King movie with the result that the second movie is mostly irrelevant because it's all about Helm's Deep while the third movie has to condense scenes that are either plot important or really, really interesting (the ultimate fate of Saruman, Frodo and Sam crossing the plains of Mordor, for example) to the point there's nothing interesting about them. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I agree, at least in part. I think the real problem is that LOTR was not written to be a set of live action movies. The real charm of the first "book" (i.e., the first half of FOTR) is in the exposition of the Ring's story, its history, and its effects on Bilbo and on Frodo. But these are the parts that translated least well to the movie: some of the subtle details of Bilbo's time in the Shire, his departure speech, all of "The Shadow of the Past" as well as Aragorn's tale in the Prancing Pony, in addition to the occasions where Frodo puts the ring on. Skipping Bombadil made sense given the format. I also thought that expanding Arwen's role was a good idea and, for the most part, it was done quite well. I'd say, give Aragorn and Arwen the chance to do a bit of exposition on their own, maybe covering some of the things Bombadil said, which Arwen, being an Elf, has an excuse to talk about. With these minor expansions, you could easily split FOTR into two shortish movies rather than one overly long one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Bombadil from a plot development view point was the first time that Frodo stepped up as a hero to rescue Sam from Willow and to attack the barrow wight. Before that he was drifting along as a deliveryman holding the Ring until it could be turned over to someone else. All of the Fellowship of the Ring is split between background information and the rise of Frodo as hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The problem here is that LotR is a novel in three volumes that became a trilogy of films. The Hobbit is a simpler, shorter novel in one volume. The fact that it has bloated to the same length as LotR doesn't bode well. —Alorael, whose hope is that faithfulness will be ditched in favor of dragging in bits of The Silmarillion and especially emphasis on all the not quite Hobbit material that builds into LotR. Seeing more of the Necromancer and Dol Guldur would be completely inauthentic and probably very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Juan Carlo Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I think two films is even stretching it. My concern is one of tone: the charm of the hobbit is that it is primarily a light, whimsical, children's fantasy. Adding a bunch of stuff from the LOTR appendices is going to completely mess up that delicate tone. Of course the very existence of LOTR does make the Hobbit much darker in retrospect, but I still don't think this means that the adaptations can be approached in the same way. I think Guillermo del Toro could have pulled off the balance between the darkness that LOTR casts over the Hobbit (in retrospect) and the fairy tale whimsy (which is the Hobbit's primary charm) just right (Del Toro's nailed this delicate tone in films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Devil's Backbone"--both of which are pretty dark, but at the same time very much children's fairy tales), so it's a shame he left the project. In contrast, Jackson's approach to Middle Earth tends to be straight forward realism, which worked well with LOTR, but isn't something that will work with the Hobbit without completely destroying what made the book so appealing. If he tries to make Hobbit in the style of the LOTR it will just come off as anti-climactic and kind of silly in an unnecessarily self-serious way. Plus, I also fear unnecessary bloat and fan service. Do we need to see every character from LOTR make a cameo? No, but it will happen. The extended edition of Fellowship was just right, I think, but the extended editions of Two Towers and ROTK had serious, serious, problems with momentum. There are scenes which stop those films dead in their tracks and they just play as incredibly bloated to me. So I fear a 3 film, 6-9 hour version of the Hobbit will just be a tedious mess. I mean, if you break down the story structure of the Hobbit I could perhaps see it being cut into two films (pre mirkwood as the first film, and everything else as the second), but I don't see how it could be cut into three without ruining the flow of the narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Juan Carlo Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Plus, I don't miss Bombodill at all. Purists may scoff, but I've always thought he seemed out of place even in the books. It seemed like Tolkein was just starting to write the books and was still figuring out what exactly he wanted to accomplish and the sort of tone he wanted to set. So the Bombodill sections have always been kind of jarring to me, not only in tone, but in momentum (they stop the first section of Fellowship dead in its tracks). I did miss the scouring of the Shire in the movies, though, as its absence kind of undermines some of the book's biggest themes in some really big ways. As many endings as ROTK had (most of which were unnecessary fluff like Hobbits cuddling, award ceremonies, and Sam flirting/getting married), I actually don't think keeping the scouring would have been much longer. I think Jackson was just worried that having a conflict like that at the end of the film would make the destruction of the ring anti-climactic, but if they framed it as the narrative conclusion of the Hobbit's own growth as individuals (i.e. overcoming their own fear and insularity to do good) I think the scouring could have worked as an ending. Originally Posted By: Dry Language —Alorael, whose hope is that faithfulness will be ditched in favor of dragging in bits of The Silmarillion and especially emphasis on all the not quite Hobbit material that builds into LotR. Jackson doesn't have the rights to adapt the Silmarillion. They wanted to get them, but the Tolkein estate refused. So they will only be able to adapt stuff from the LOTR appendices, which actually aren't all that long all things considering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I don't blame him for making it into three movies. That's three times more chances for Oscars right there then just one movie. Plus, people will pay to watch it as three movies so it should be sold as three movies. Making money is what our economy is all about after all. I find no fault in his making money by having three movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Originally Posted By: Randomizer Bombadil from a plot development view point was the first time that Frodo stepped up as a hero to rescue Sam from Willow and to attack the barrow wight. Before that he was drifting along as a deliveryman holding the Ring until it could be turned over to someone else. All of the Fellowship of the Ring is split between background information and the rise of Frodo as hero. The willow and barrow-wight technically could have been included without Bombadil; I think they even might have been if not for length and distraction. Bombadil himself, though, is essentially a cartoon character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Prince of Kitties Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I was happy with Jackson's decision to remove Bombadil, though I would have liked to see the barrow-wight. The Scouring of the Shire, though, I was not so happy to see removed. I've always felt there was something really harrowing and accurate about it - a grain of uncomfortable truth lodged in the fantasy archetype. Then again, it's been quite a while since I read any of the books. I tried to pick up Fellowship recently, and ended up putting it down because Tolkien's fairy-tale style really grated on me. So it's possible that I'm seeing things through the rose-colored glasses of my teenage years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Among all the various additions and subtractions and modifications that Jackson made in his films, it's interesting to me how polarizing Bombadil seems to be. I've seen a fair number of people who just about feel it was an abomination to leave him out, and a comparable number of people who really seem to dislike the character and were pleased that Jackson left him out of the films. Why is Bombadil so polarizing? Seemingly moreso than other changes Jackson made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 When I first saw the movie, I was a recent fan of the books and nerdraged at every detail Jackson left out or changed. "It's pronounced Cuiva nwalca Carnirasse nai yarvaxea rasSELya, not RASselya, you hack!" (Okay, maybe exaggerated.) So leaving out the Scouring of the Shire was unforgiveable. Eventually I realized what it would've done to the movie. Around half an hour of screentime would have been devoted to a plot that was completely separate from everything so far - Sauron, the Ring and all that stuff. To grope for an analogy, it's like Harry defeating Voldemort two thirds in and then spending the rest of the story persuading McGonnagall to let him graduate despite missing the final year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgeoning Battle Gamma Cpt. Charles Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I agree. The scouring of the Shire would have been very anti-climatic for the movies. I enjoyed that part of the book very much, but it would not translate well into the films. I look at the movies and the books as seperate entities, more or less. Peter Jackson didn't always follow the book exactly, but that's ok, the movies were still good. Douglas Adams pretty much made four remakes of the same story, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. First a radio show (tell me if I get the order wrong), then the books, then the television show, then the movie. They weren't all the same, but each was good by itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had more versions: Original BBC broadcast in UK BBC broadcast world wide - needed to change reference to the worst poetry because the poetess complained book version stage play - done by someone else television series text computer version book reprint of the original radio broadcast scripts comic book movie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 The TV series is probably my favourite version of H2G2, closely followed by the radio series (for which I have all the scripts and the original broadcasts on cassette (and CD, for ease of use nowadays)), and then the books. As far as Bombadil goes, I complained heavily at the time that 'Fellowship' came out, but in hindsight I think I was only doing that to be a jerk. The movie works better without him than it would with him, and he's a mood-breaking character, for sure. That said, I like the stand-alone Bombadil story that's in one of my books I'm too drunk to look for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Holy smokes, I only knew of the tv show, books and the movie. I read the books first after my dad recommended them to me, then bowed the tv show from a friend. I thought the movie show was rubbish after seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Haha, the movie is kind of bad, sure, but it has the fjords moment and Freeman, so it gets some brownie points. But yes. Radio show; it's fairly easy to find on Amazon or eBay or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Originally Posted By: Randomizer text computer version Oh wow. This was almost my first text based computer game. It took me ages just to get past the first part, because I didn't know what a buffered analgesic was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I can't wait to see what the next great medium is after video, just so everyone can get angry about adaptations all over again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Originally Posted By: Jerakeen Originally Posted By: Randomizer text computer version Oh wow. This was almost my first text based computer game. It took me ages just to get past the first part, because I didn't know what a buffered analgesic was. Considering H2G2 is the top Google result, and the first non-fictional use is number six, I'm guessing most people don't. And OMFG that babelfish. Back to the topic, there was a Hobbit text adventure as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 There were at least several different-genre'd computer versions of the HHGTTG, including the early Infocom text adventure described above, and several REALLY early etexts. I have a copy of the books in the format that was the closest thing 1987 had to a Kindle: a set of HyperCard stacks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 This conversation has prompted me to start reading the Hobbit again. I have noticed three anecdotes: 1. At Rivendell there is a mentioning of Elrond that goes like this: " He comes, into many tales, but his part in the story of Bilbo's great adventure is only a small one, though important, as you will see, if we ever get to the end of it." Which made me think he has a major roll somewhere in the end of the story, yet his only major role in the story is in finding out about the moon runes which appears a few passages later. 2. A verse in the elf song goes like this: "O! What are you seeking, And where are you making? The faggots are reeking, The bannocks are baking! O! tril-lil-lil-lolly the valley is jolly, ha! ha! " From what I loosely researched faggots are sticks and a bannock is a type of Scottish bread, why would sticks have a bad smell? 3. Near the end of the story Bilbo finds out that Gandalf was at some point at a great council of the white wizards and with them he was able to drive Sauron (then posing as a necromancer) out of the south of Mirkwod. Yet throughout his tales Tolkien only mentions three wizards (four if you consider Sauron) by name or description, which makes me think he hadn't yet thought up the idea that all wizards were in fact Mayar or ring bearers when he told his children this story . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Nioca Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Y? Bcaus, IDK he's on 3rd & IDC This conversation has prompted me to start reading the Hobbit again. 2. A verse in the elf song goes like this: "O! What are you seeking, And where are you making? The faggots are reeking, The bannocks are baking! O! tril-lil-lil-lolly the valley is jolly, ha! ha! " If you're thinking that "here's another homophob" then stop being so homosensitive I don't care about the insulting meaning because this is Tolkien we're talking about, just calm down and read on. From what I loosely researched faggots are sticks and a bannock is a type of Scottish bread, why would sticks have a bad smell? "Reek" can mean to put off any sort of fume, vapor, or smoke. Considering that another meaning of that fun little word* is "a burning or smouldering piece of firewood", this actually makes sense.*I'm aware of the various (and I do mean various, from what I understand, it can mean anything from baggage to cigarette butts to meatballs, along with the usual and above meanings) meanings and wouldn't be using it in any insulting context whatsoever, but I consider it best to err on the side of caution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 well this line of conversation sure brings back some old sw memories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Erasmus ...stop being so homosensitive... Really? Of all the ways you could have asked "hey, I don't get this line, what does it actually mean?" you went with that? Really? Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasoned Roamer Dire Hobbit Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Actaeon Has anyone heard anything new about the Wheel of Time movie they're supposed to be working on? That seems like a nearly impossible task, given that the significantly shorter "Song of Ice and Fire" required a mini-series I could see the wheel of time as a trilogy of movies: At least with Jordan we know there's a story he had to tell. It would need the right scriptwriter to handle the abridgement of course. With Martin I'm not so sure. His background is in TV writing and I have a strong suspicion that he doesn't know where his fantasy epic is going. Most likely like Jordan he is going to pop his clogs before the thing is done, but with no chance of anyone else completing the thing since Martin himself has no idea. "Winter is coming" is never going to be more than fluff (Martin is not an ideas man)... so in the end all we'll have is a (well written) historical pastiche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 3. There were 5 wizards sent to Middle-Earth and only 3 remain: Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast. The other White Council members include Elves like Elrond and Galadriel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Yeah, it's a meeting of the White Council, not a council of white wizards. It was led by Saruman the White, but that is apparently not where the name came from as it was named after a previous White Council, wizardless and formed by Gil-galad. I believe Cirdan was also specified as a member, but beyond those 3 wizards and 3 elves Tolkien said little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 As for the sticks reeking as smoking, in the context of the dwarves walking into Rivendell seems odd, but with the talk of bread taken into account might refer to the wood which heats the oven in which the bread was baking. As for the white council, my wording was a direct quote from the book, maybe you can chalk it up to Bilbo not being in the know and misinterpreting Gandalf's conversation with Elrond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasoned Roamer Dire Hobbit Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Faggots were bundles of sticks for starting a fire. I guess they could "reek" because they'd be resinous new wood? From there the eytmology is that in elite private schools it was the job (called "fagging") of a junior boy to do this kind of thing for a senior. In the 19th C boarding schools were supposed to foster "manly virtues" which led to worries about homosexuality. Hence fag as an insult. Why did it start being used that way in America but not England (which was the original root of the word)? Probably because America today has a more homosexual culture (big emphasis on male body and anxiety about sexuality). Word is back imported over the last decade with the rise of the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Lilith well this line of conversation sure brings back some old sw memories Originally Posted By: Dead man Walking faggots are sticks Originally Posted By: Dire Hobbit Faggots were bundles of sticks for starting a fire. OMG you are both BANNED! (Obligatory historical note: http://pied-piper.ermarian.net/topic/13/162/p2#38 ) Quote: great council of the white wizards Quote: Yeah, it's a meeting of the White Council, not a council of white wizards. Yup. In any case, there weren't any "white wizards" - only Saruman (and later Gandalf) went by that title. The other wizards were grey, brown, blue and blue. Okay... dug out the Silmarillion again.Ever most vigilant was Mithrandir, and he it was that most doubted the darkness in Mirkwood, for though many deemed that it was wrought by the Ringwraiths, he feared that it was indeed the first shadow of Sauron returning; and he went to Dol Guldur, and the Sorcerer fled from him, and there was a watchful peace for a long while. But at length the Shadow returned and its power increased; and in that time was first made the Council of the Wise that is called the White Council, and therein were Elrond and Galadriel and Cirdan, and other lords of the Eldar, and with them were Mithrandir and Curunir. And Curunir (that was Saruman the White) was chosen to be their chief, for he had most studied the devices of Sauron of old. Galadriel indeed had wished that Mithrandir should be the head of the Council, and Saruman begrudged them that, for his pride and desire of mastery was grown great; but Mithrandir refused the office, since he would have no ties and no allegiance, save to those who sent him, and he would abide in no place nor be subject to any summons. Huh. This means that a) Radagast wasn't in there (didn't know that), no humans at all, c) there were other elves beside the three ring-bearers. Thranduil, possibly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasoned Roamer Dire Hobbit Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 If I remember right the two missing wizards didn't die, they just went off the map to other lands? And hope I don't get banned we are quoting Tolkien after all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dead man Walking As for the white council, my wording was a direct quote from the book Your point 3 above does not include any quotation marks and it clearly is not a direct quotation. Moreover, the second half of it Originally Posted By: Dead man Walking Yet throughout his tales Tolkien only mentions three wizards (four if you consider Sauron) by name or description, which makes me think he hadn't yet thought up the idea that all wizards were in fact Mayar or ring bearers when he told his children this story . makes it clear that you do not know what you're talking about. Tolkien made many references to five Istari (Wizards) and he did, in fact, name the fourth and fifth Wizards — Alatar and Pallando — in the Unfinished Tales. Sauron was explicitly not an Istari (Wizard). He and the five Wizards all belong to the category of the Maiar (not Mayar), but it's a fairly large category that also includes the Balrogs, among others. Finally, none of the Wizards were ring-bearers initially (and neither was Sauron). Among the Istari only Gandalf ever wore a Ring of Power, and that only at the closing of its history. Regarding the f-word issue: geez, guys. Tolkien's use of the word is obviously in reference to wooden sticks or logs. That did not require clarification. Since it has been brought up, I will mention that the etymology is a bit less straightforward than Dire Hobbit suggests: see for example EtymOnline's listings. However, this is probably not a good topic to pursue, considering that it was not brought up in a particularly respectful way. It's not really fun to hear hate language that describes you bandied about like this. I suggest that we all move on from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Aʀᴀɴ Huh. This means that a) Radagast wasn't in there (didn't know that), no humans at all, c) there were other elves beside the three ring-bearers. Thranduil, possibly? I believe Tolkien says elsewhere that one of the chieftains of the Dunedain, a few generations prior to Arathorn and Aragorn, was part of the Council. Thranduil, Celeborn, and Glorfindel are likely suspects for the other Eldar. Originally Posted By: Dire Hobbit If I remember right the two missing wizards didn't die, they just went off the map to other lands? They went further east, I believe, or maybe it was one east and one south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 ahahahaha slarty your link got censored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Slawbug Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 serious lol! apparently the autocensor only catches the singular, not the plural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.