THE HOBBIT ~ Discuss and Spoil!
- Thread starter Jan Van Quirm
- Start date
One thing I did find interesting in the film was the decision to make orcs and goblins different species. This is of course how they are portrayed works inspired by The Hobbit and LotR such as Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer and of course the books of Terry Pratchett but as I understand it Tolkien meant orc and goblin to be interpreted as two names for the same creature. Not really a criticism of the film as I think it works. The slightly comic goblins of The Hobbit do seem quite different to the more menacing orcs of LotR. It does however beg the question of what happend to the goblins before the events of the movie version of LoTR.
In the cosmology of Arda/ME goblins are orcs and orcs are goblins, but over the course of the timeline (tens of thousands of years) there are cultural and physical increments in their development.
Essentially the orcs/goblins of the LotR are from a different strain to those in TH. The ones you see in the Trilogy are largely those who have remained directly under the sway of Sauron (and Saruman as influenced/corrupted by him). Away from Moria/Khazad Dum the goblins/orcs of the Misty and Grey Mountains as seen in TH are feral and remnant populations that have been separated from Mordor at earlier points in time in the First Age (we're in the Third Age in the trilogy and TH) and around 500 years earlier when the Witchking's realm of Angmar fell.
Orcs are not necessarily completely defined in either of the books - the Uruks (the Isengard orcs, but also of Mordor) are of a different 'strain' that arose when the Witchking fled to Minas Morgul and needed bigger, stronger goblins to fight the men of Gondor so they are essentially goblins 'bred' for size, musculature and intelligence. In the more ancient times there were also very large aggressive goblins but these were slightly different in nature, being 'Boldogs' - evil spirits who took on a grossly exaggerated goblin form and led the normal ones into battle. These were a little like the Eagles (the supersized ones) in that they were apparently immortal but 'fixed' in their shape. It is possible that The Great Goblin and Azog (and Bolg) were Boldogs rather than regular goblins, but in TH they were leaders who were, at that point, independent of Mordor and Sauron and kings in their own right.
Essentially the orcs/goblins of the LotR are from a different strain to those in TH. The ones you see in the Trilogy are largely those who have remained directly under the sway of Sauron (and Saruman as influenced/corrupted by him). Away from Moria/Khazad Dum the goblins/orcs of the Misty and Grey Mountains as seen in TH are feral and remnant populations that have been separated from Mordor at earlier points in time in the First Age (we're in the Third Age in the trilogy and TH) and around 500 years earlier when the Witchking's realm of Angmar fell.
Orcs are not necessarily completely defined in either of the books - the Uruks (the Isengard orcs, but also of Mordor) are of a different 'strain' that arose when the Witchking fled to Minas Morgul and needed bigger, stronger goblins to fight the men of Gondor so they are essentially goblins 'bred' for size, musculature and intelligence. In the more ancient times there were also very large aggressive goblins but these were slightly different in nature, being 'Boldogs' - evil spirits who took on a grossly exaggerated goblin form and led the normal ones into battle. These were a little like the Eagles (the supersized ones) in that they were apparently immortal but 'fixed' in their shape. It is possible that The Great Goblin and Azog (and Bolg) were Boldogs rather than regular goblins, but in TH they were leaders who were, at that point, independent of Mordor and Sauron and kings in their own right.
Jan Van Quirm said:
You think so? I'm into my 8th massive post on the Tolkien forum trying to explain to real 'lore' experts why there's nothing that much wrong with showing Radagast having guano-welded hair and driving a super-charged rabbit sled all over Eriador
The thread's HERE in their movie forum but there's a mixture of people in there 3 of whom (besides me - I'm Jano Snowthorn on there ) are pretty hardcore lore nuts and are having a hard time wondering why Jackson's not sticking to the book word for word practically
To be fair there are other forums on there where people have more of a sense of humour and have some fun with the genre or will at least admit that not everyone can enjoy the books on a purely academic level like wot they do...
) are pretty hardcore lore nuts and are having a hard time wondering why Jackson's not sticking to the book word for word practically To be fair there are other forums on there where people have more of a sense of humour and have some fun with the genre or will at least admit that not everyone can enjoy the books on a purely academic level like wot they do...
spideyGirl said:
Went to see it last week with my lad in 3d and special effects messed with my eyes at times, think i might prefer to see it 2d tbh but loved it nonetheless 
P.S is it wrong to fancy one of the dwarves? http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2225907712/nm2636108 :shifty:
P.S is it wrong to fancy one of the dwarves? http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2225907712/nm2636108 :shifty:
He passed me in the street the other day, took me a few seconds to work out where I knew him from
Jan Van Quirm said:
The thread's HERE in their movie forum but there's a mixture of people in there 3 of whom (besides me - I'm Jano Snowthorn on there ) are pretty hardcore lore nuts and are having a hard time wondering why Jackson's not sticking to the book word for word practically
To be fair there are other forums on there where people have more of a sense of humour and have some fun with the genre or will at least admit that not everyone can enjoy the books on a purely academic level like wot they do...
) are pretty hardcore lore nuts and are having a hard time wondering why Jackson's not sticking to the book word for word practically To be fair there are other forums on there where people have more of a sense of humour and have some fun with the genre or will at least admit that not everyone can enjoy the books on a purely academic level like wot they do...
It's not like it's such an easy thing to film Tolkien's books. I think the efforts' results are amazing
That's why some of these fanatics really are canon nazis Crys - They can't tolerate even very trivial deviations from the books and as for daring to develop concepts or characters that have virtually nothing written about them in the entire body of writing on ME (and that is staggeringly vast to the point of being in cosmic proportions) - they go into hysterics at the thought of a wizard who rarely goes nears people at all looking a bit like a he's been living in a compost heap for several decades.
They seem to think that adaptations can't put in anything that's not in the books already 'in spirit' as well as literally written
They can't tolerate even very trivial deviations from the books and as for daring to develop concepts or characters that have virtually nothing written about them in the entire body of writing on ME (and that is staggeringly vast to the point of being in cosmic proportions) - they go into hysterics at the thought of a wizard who rarely goes nears people at all looking a bit like a he's been living in a compost heap for several decades. They seem to think that adaptations can't put in anything that's not in the books already 'in spirit' as well as literally written
My take on Tolkien is this: I admire Tolkien as the creator of modern fantasy literature and the writer who created many of it's tropes and archetypes. I can read and enjoy his books in an '"academic'' way but only in the sense of reminding myself of all the stuff that he invented and subsequent authors (including Terry Pratchett) "borrowed".
I can sort of sympathize with those to who come to Tolkien via the films as I heard the BBC radio adaptations of both TH and LotR before I read the books (still got the tapes up in the loft). For me The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is "based" on the book in the same way Captain America: The First Avenger is based on the original 1940s comics. It is an interpretation of a number of sources which can be enjoyed by modern audiences. Provided of course that they enjoy 3 hour films with gorgeous scenery and lots of scenes in which people fall off cliffs
I can sort of sympathize with those to who come to Tolkien via the films as I heard the BBC radio adaptations of both TH and LotR before I read the books (still got the tapes up in the loft). For me The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is "based" on the book in the same way Captain America: The First Avenger is based on the original 1940s comics. It is an interpretation of a number of sources which can be enjoyed by modern audiences. Provided of course that they enjoy 3 hour films with gorgeous scenery and lots of scenes in which people fall off cliffs
Just watched The Hobbit earlier tonight. Very good film, missing a certain je ne sais quoi that was in The Lord of the Rings, but otherwise very good.
Some observations:
*Is it me, or does Thorin seem a bit too much of an ar**hole? Understandably so, yes, but for someone who hurriedly re-read their copy of The Hobbit in preparation, he seems to be altogether too disdainful of Bilbo.
*Sylvester McCoy's Radagast was very different from the Doctor. Pretty good performance anyway.
*I've just realised that Martin Freeman (who is an excellent Bilbo, by the way) has portrayed three of the best loved characters in British literature now: John Watson, Arthur Dent, and now Bilbo Baggins.
*Barry frigging Humphries as the Goblin King. 'Nuff said.
Some observations:
*Is it me, or does Thorin seem a bit too much of an ar**hole? Understandably so, yes, but for someone who hurriedly re-read their copy of The Hobbit in preparation, he seems to be altogether too disdainful of Bilbo.
*Sylvester McCoy's Radagast was very different from the Doctor. Pretty good performance anyway.
*I've just realised that Martin Freeman (who is an excellent Bilbo, by the way) has portrayed three of the best loved characters in British literature now: John Watson, Arthur Dent, and now Bilbo Baggins.
*Barry frigging Humphries as the Goblin King. 'Nuff said.
I think Thorin's disdain for Bilbo is part of the expansion of his character. Just started re-reading the book and unlike the film he doesn't arrive at Bag End by himself but as part of a group along with Bifur, Bofur and Bombur. It' also makes a nice story arc for the first film with Bilbo proving his worth at the end.
