I feel I need to state I am impressed with Chevalier and MS knowledge on the subject. I hope my previous comments were not taken as belittling to this discussion. This was a great forum and I was glad to read material from a couple that were so well versed. Thank you.
Raising (or perhaps is it Resurrecting?) this thread from torpor, given that the next installment of The Hobbit reaches theaters THIS coming Friday.
I, for one, am DEFINITELY going to see it. I've been salivating ever since I saw the first trailer, and with the second one it's only gotten worse.
No doubt the movie will infuse material from other sources, as did the first one. Curious what you all have read or heard. I personally don't mind spoilers, but others do, so make sure you announce that before replying, if you know anything.
They keep mis-pronouncing 'Smaug'. I have always pronounced it 'smog', like the factory pollutants from the days Tolkien grew up in. He considered it a great evil, so I wasn't surprised to see he named the dragon after it.
I've been told that the voice for Smaug (I pronounce it the same as you do, SX) is Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor who played Khan in the most recent Star Trek film.
I've been told that the voice for Smaug (I pronounce it the same as you do, SX) is Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor who played Khan in the most recent Star Trek film.
-Lanthorn
Yes, I'm sure that is correct as I've seen several official posts on FB stating as much.
I've always pronounced it "smog" in my head, but I'm pretty sure the "correct" pronunciation (as JRRT intended) was indeed "smowg" (rhymes with cowg). I'm at work right now, but tonight I'll try to look up a reference in the Letters or Annotated Hobbit - I think he clarified this at some point. He derived it from Old English of course - same root as Smeagol, I think.
Very excited about the movie! I'm not sure if I'll see it on the first day this year, but will see it as soon as possible.
A friend of mine who is a movie critic just posted his review of The Hobbit: Smaug today. He admitted it was a fun adventure, but was highly critical of the lack of character depth.
I understand his point that a movie should stand on its own apart from the book, but since I know the characters well from the book, I'm looking forward to the great action adventure he claims the show is.
Smaug got great screen time and he was thoroughly well-done, I thought. Lots of action, and even though it doesn't follow the book (neither did the first film), still a wonderful film.
MUST see it again...and again, at the very least...and perhaps a fourth time at the 2-3 dollar movies before it's gone...
-Lanthorn
p.s. yes, it seems we gotta wait ANOTHER full year for the final installment; damn that Peter Jackson!
Yes, I agree - Smaug was great. I didn't really like his head in the trailers, but it was all good when seen as a whole.
I really liked the movie as an action adventure. I did not appreciate all the changes P.J. made from the book, as they seemed completely unnecessary. On its own, there was nothing wrong with the story as presented in the movie. However, since it was based on such a good book, I don't see the benefit of all the stuff he added at the expense of stuff he left out.
SX, completely agree that the trailers did NOT do that dragon justice. I especially liked how he moved in the film, and how his head spikes raised up and down (esp. when he was agitated or prior to breathing).
Wondering what age category, based on a rough estimate of Smaug's approximate size, he would have. Any ideas???
I have to say, I hated the latest installment of the Hobbit movies. Oh I loved Smaug! He was, imho, the epitome of a dragon; large, cruel, utterly contemptuous of any life beneath him and that breathe weapon of his was awesome. Seriously, seeing him come crawling down the mountains of gold or that "falling gold piece" scene....yeah those were pucker factors! But so much was unnecessarily added that I was just bored. And while I understand he wanted to make it child friendly, I think he did a disservice to the dwarves. I will now await my punishment for stepping against the party lines.
Uptognomegood, I am sure you aren't the only person who has these opinions (it seems SX agrees, for instance), and I would hope nobody would fault you for expressing those views, even if they, in turn, disagree. Debate and discussion are the cornerstone of Canonfire! after all.
Jackson did a really good job matching Orlando Bloom and the man playing Thranduil as son and father. Thranduil reminds me of the typical Celenian elf with his isolationist views.
For some odd reason, Smaug reminds me of Shere Khan the Tiger from Kipling's "The Jungle Book" in his attitudes towards Mowgli, and basically the rest of the animal kingdom (haughty, egocentric, ruthless, malevolent, etc).
Okay, I've finally seen the movie . . . but just once. So, here are four quick things:
1. The "she-elf" -- Tauriel -- is no where in the book . . . but you already knew that.
2. Legolas is "alive" at the time of The Hobbit, but he doesn't figure into the story.
3 & 4. Gandalf does get captured in Dol Guldur, but that happens in the Silmarillion. He is captured, learns that the Necromancer is really Sauron, escapes, discovers Thrain -- Thorin's father -- in the dungeons of Dol Guldur, obtains the map and key from Thrain, then gives them to Thorin, setting Thorin upon his quest.
The problem is that's exactly how they started the first Hobbit movie. So the scene with Gandalf facing the Necromancer/Sauron shouldn't even be in the movie.
I can tell you more after I see the movie again.
But I did Google the movie for information. It seems that Jackson and del Toro freely admit that they're mixing all of the books together and adding their own "personal" touches . . . like the "she-elf, Tauriel.
Looking forward to more of your commentary, M-S. I wonder why Sauron kept Gandalf prisoner instead of merely destroying him. Sounds like a 'bad move' to me. Why leave any enemy behind to foil your plans later? A typical blunder normally seen in comic books...
Perhaps Sauron was incapable of destroying Gandalf at that time. (?)
There were different levels of "power" amongst the Maiar. Before ever coming to Middle Earth, Gandalf admitted that he did not have the personal power to face Sauron one on one. (Gandalf was known as Olórin, in Valinor, where he was, in particular, a servant of Manwe).
But at the "moment of time" in which this scene occurs, Sauron didn't have his ring. He had poured much of his personal power into the ring to give it the power over the other rings.
Perhaps, without the ring, he didn't have the "strength" to kill Gandalf.
In addition, as a Maiar, only Gandalf's manifested body could be destroyed, not Gandalf himself, which is one of the reasons he came back as Gandalf the White. (It's a little complicated, but I can elaborate if you'd like).
I'm "weak" on The Hobbit and "descent" on The Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is my book. It's my favorite of Tolkien's works.
Much of what I know of the movies is based upon the fact that Jackson and del Toro are mixing the books up. So I readily recognize the parts that come from The Silmarillion. _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
Perhaps Sauron was incapable of destroying Gandalf at that time. (?)
There were different levels of "power" amongst the Maiar. Before ever coming to Middle Earth, Gandalf admitted that he did not have the personal power to face Sauron one on one. (Gandalf was known as Olórin, in Valinor, where he was, in particular, a servant of Manwe).
But at the "moment of time" in which this scene occurs, Sauron didn't have his ring. He had poured much of his personal power into the ring to give it the power over the other rings.
Perhaps, without the ring, he didn't have the "strength" to kill Gandalf.
That thought occurred to me, but wasn't sure if Sauron was THAT weak, or Gandalf THAT powerful...
Quote:
In addition, as a Maiar, only Gandalf's manifested body could be destroyed, not Gandalf himself, which is one of the reasons he came back as Gandalf the White. (It's a little complicated, but I can elaborate if you'd like).
Nope, I get it. He 'leveled' and achieved more power after his battle against the Balrog.
Quote:
I'm "weak" on The Hobbit and "descent" on The Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is my book. It's my favorite of Tolkien's works.
Much of what I know of the movies is based upon the fact that Jackson and del Toro are mixing the books up. So I readily recognize the parts that come from The Silmarillion.
Methinks some day I may have to read The Silmarillion.
Any other musings you'd wish to share? I'm 'listening.'
Mystic, it occurred to me last night that if Gandalf cannot be killed (only his corporeal form, to use gaming terms, like a Planar creature on the Prime Material), how was it that Saruman was killed in "The Return of the King?" Both wizards were White wizards, after all, and Gandalf always acknowledged the power of 'The White Wizard' and most powerful member of his Order (at least, until Gandalf achieved that same ranking).
This doesn't make sense to me unless I overlooked something...
It doesn't specifically say that Gandalf was captured; it's a matter of semantics, which I'll get to below. He went to Dol Guldar twice, well, three times if you count when the White Council drove Sauron out. The first time he drove the Sorceror out, at that point suspecting, but wasn't sure that the Sorceror was Sauron. Given that Gandalf drove him out, Sauron must have been in a much weaker state, although he had already cast his shadow over the Greenwood and it had become known as Mirkwood. Then, when the Sorceror returned, the White Council was constituted and after some time Gandalf went to Dol Guldar a second time. This time it appears he went to infiltrate and confirm his suspicion that the Sorceror was Sauron, since he went "...at great peril." Like MS says, that was when he found Thrain and got the map and key to the Lonely Mountain. It does say that Gandalf "...discovered the truth of his fears, and escaped." You could read that either way, as in he was captured and escaped, or put himself in great peril by infiltrating the dungeons of Dol Guldar and managed to escape, unless maybe there's something more specific in the Unifinished Tales?
Lanthorn, to answer your question, Saruman, like Gandalf and Sauron, couldn't really die, but he became non-corporeal, a spirit was doomed to wander without form, unless he could somehow gain the power to do so, like Sauron did after he was killed in the destruction of Numenor, and after Elendil cut the One Ring from his finger at the Siege of Barad-dur, but the story kind of assumes he didn't, especially considering how it stated how much his power was diminished before he was killed.
Smillan, thank you for the clarification and answering my question!
Next one: why was Thrain kept alive? I thought that Azog wanted to destroy the entire line of Durin? Why keep the map and key, unless the orcs (and thus Sauron) meant to use it? I gather that Smaug had already allied himself with Sauron at this point, but don't remember that in the book. This must have been creative license on part of Jackson.
SPOILER ALERT if you have NOT read 'The Hobbit.'
I am assuming that the 3rd installment of "The Hobbit" will include Smaug's death at the hands of Bard with the black arrow, followed by the war over the riches between the elves, men, and dwarves, and, finally, whatever else Jackson has in mind that he plucked from 'the Silmarillion.' I imagine that involves the full manifestation of Sauron...
Smillan, thank you for the clarification and answering my question!
Next one: why was Thrain kept alive? I thought that Azog wanted to destroy the entire line of Durin? Why keep the map and key, unless the orcs (and thus Sauron) meant to use it? I gather that Smaug had already allied himself with Sauron at this point, but don't remember that in the book. This must have been creative license on part of Jackson.
Actually, no, the idea of Smaug allying with Sauron comes from Tolkien. It's actually a bit of retconning by Tolkien. I think it appears in one of the appedices to the LotR, although I can't be sure of that. In that, it becomes the whole reason for why Gandalf backed Thorin's quest to get rid of Smaug, because he didn't want Smaug and Sauron to team up. So, in Tolkien's version that never happened, although who knows what the Jackson version may be.
In Tolkien I don't think destroying the line of Durin was on Azog's plate. I'm sure it would have been fine with him, but he just more wanted to hang onto Moria and do whatever orc chieftains do. Also, in the books, by the time of the events of the Hobbit, Azog is long dead.
Sauron captured Thrain to get the most powerful of the seven rings of the dwarves from him, but as far as why Sauron kept him alive, probably due to the reasons you guessed, although why Thrain would still have been in possession of the map and key in the prison of Dol Guldur is kind of beyond me, but there's a lot that Tolkien doesn't explain. Maybe he knew where they were, and he told Gandalf, who then retrieved them before making his escape.
Spoiler for those who haven't read The Return of the King
At the end of the story, Merry and Pippin return to the Shire and find that Saruman's Uruk Hai have taken it over. They lead the other hobbits in overthrowing the orcs. I seem to recall that they defeated Saruman at that time as well, chasing him out of the Shire. I remember being irritated that Saruman was killed in the movie, as that is not how I remember it from the books. I remember that the Ents kept Saruman imprisoned there, but don't remember how he got to the Shire from there.
He talked the ents into letting him go by turning over the keys to Orthanc. They thought he wouldn't be a threat. I was disappointed they didn't include the Scouring of the Shire in the movies.
As Smillan has pointed out, it was not Azog that had Thrain a prisoner, it was Sauron.
The Maiar we know as Saruman was more powerful than the Maiar we know as Gandalf. "The White" had nothing to do with their "station," but with their connection to Middle Earth. Radigast was sent to "protect" the flora and fauna of Middle Earth, thus "the Brown."
Smillan has hit on it, sort of, Gandalf returned as "the White" because Illuvatar willed it so. It is one of the very few times that Illuvatar intervened directly with Arda (Earth). Most such matters are left to Manwe, which is why Manwe was sent to Arda to begin with.
A very weak Sauron is still "out there," somewhere. You might recall that I wrote, on page 2 of this thread:
Quote:
However, this is contingent upon one important thing: With the destruction of the One Ring, Sauron was broken, not killed. In order to gain power over the three Elven rings -- which he had no hand in making -- he had to pour much of his personal power into the Ring. With the destruction of the Ring, he returned to being a "shadow" of his former self, as in the war he fought against Isildur. So, if his "shadow" is "nearby," it's likely that these Trolls will still withstand sunlight.
Sauron is still "running around" somewhere -- a "shadow" of his former self -- but he's powerless to affect much, though he could still possibly influence.
I doubt Illuvatar is going to bring back Saruman or Sauron -- Illuvatar does "punish" evil, as is seen by the actions of Manwe.
Thanks, Smillan. Yes, The Scouring of the Shire. I was also disappointed that Merry and Pippin didn't get a chance to show how badass fighters they had become by kicking the orcs and Saruman out.
The folks in the Shire called him"Sharky," not Saruman.
More brief:
All of the Balrogs were Maiar -- like Gandalf -- who went over to the Vala, Melkor's side -- unlike Gandalf. The Balrog in Moria could kill Gandalf, for real . . . and he did.
Gandalf died.
Given that Gandalf was "good," his spirit returned to "heaven," to Illuvatar. It was Illuvatar, himself, that sent Gandalf 'back, until his task was done.' As Gandalf's creator, Illuvatar no doubt instilled in the "new" Gandalf the power to "remove" Saruman from his position.
The Balrog is simply "gone," it's spirit dissipated. Such is the end of evil.
The Vala, Melkor, created the race of dragons. Smaug was descended from these. Sauron was Melkor's lieutenant, all of Melkor's minions obeyed Sauron, including the Balrogs and Dragons.
So, following a resurgent Sauron would have been second nature to them. Gandalf knew this and could not allow Smaug to unite with Sauron, as Smaug would. Nor could he allow the Balrog of Moria to do so, which it would have.
That's the one bit of Tolkien's retcon of The Hobbit that I never liked. I would have preferred that Gandalf was just doing Thorin a solid instead of working out some master plan to keep Smaug and Sauron apart. Not everything he did was part of some master plan, after all this is the dude who spent some time and energy putting on firework shows for hobbits. That's just a personal preference of mine though.
Happy Birthday, MS! You're not getting older, just wiser.
On the "Thrain" side, remember that was their mandate . . . from Manwe himself.
They were to advise and "talk people into doing" whatever needed to be done. The Valar had not forgotten Middle Earth, but neither was Sauron worthy of their direct attention.
Still, the Valar did not want the Istari using undo displays of power to convince people. They were not to do for the people of Middle Earth what the people of Middle Earth must do for themselves. That's one of the reasons they did not send a Maiar capable of directly confronting Sauron. It wasn't their job.
So the Greater Plan was always foremost in their thinking -- until Saruman decided to "think" otherwise, of course!
Hey MS, I know you've probably read The Children of Hurin, but have you heard the talking book version read by Christopher Lee? It's pretty awesome. Worth checking out from the library.
The Maiar we know as Saruman was more powerful than the Maiar we know as Gandalf. "The White" had nothing to do with their "station," but with their connection to Middle Earth. Radigast was sent to "protect" the flora and fauna of Middle Earth, thus "the Brown."
OK, so the color of the wizard's robe denotes his (her?) connection to Middle-Earth. There are four colors, right? White, grey, brown, and blue. Do you recall what each color represents?
The Maiar we know as Saruman was more powerful than the Maiar we know as Gandalf. "The White" had nothing to do with their "station," but with their connection to Middle Earth. Radigast was sent to "protect" the flora and fauna of Middle Earth, thus "the Brown."
OK, so the color of the wizard's robe denotes his (her?) connection to Middle-Earth. There are four colors, right? White, grey, brown, and blue. Do you recall what each color represents?
-Lanthorn
Each of the wizards (Edit: except for the Blue Wizards) was sent by a different Vala, so the colors could represent that affiliation: Saruman was one of the Maiar of Aulë the Smith; the first Blue Wizard, Alatar was a Maia of Oromë the Huntsman, and his friend who accompanied him, the second Blue Wizard, was presumably a Maia of Oromë also, though this is never explicitly stated by Tolkien; Gandalf was a Maia of Manwë, King of the Valar; Radagast was sent by Yavanna, Queen of the Earth and Aulë's wife.
I've been composing a review of the movie, but it's very long, so won't post it now.
Just a brief sidenote - none of the content in the movie is from The Silmarillion, because Jackson et al don't have the rights to that book, or even Unfinished Tales, which does a little Hobbit backstory I think. They ARE using lots of material from the LOTR appendices, which includes the story of Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree. That's a passage worth reading. While Gandalf, as M-S points out, has a mandate to counter the Enemy, I don't think he has a full-on master plan here. The Dragon bothers him, as he fears (rightly) what it might do when Sauron reveals himself. But he didn't seek out Thorin. The rest is more a result of their "chance-meeting," though Gandalf hints that there's more than chance in it. He urges Thorin to take his advice, and to take Bilbo, because he has a strong feeling (a "foretelling" I think he calls it) that Bilbo must go with them, that if he does not, the quest will end in disaster.
I just read something recently about something that people assumed the would have added into one of the movies, but they couldn't because it was exclusively from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. Now it's bugging me that I can't think of it.
Just saw the newest trailer off iMbD and really getting psyched for this final movie. Thinking that Smaug doesn't get much screen time in this one ( ) but the focus will truly be on the convergence of the five different factions all vying for Erebor's wealth: elves, humans, orcs, and wondering what the other two armies may be. Eagles? Surely Smaug isn't an army unto himself...or is he?
...the five different factions all vying for Erebor's wealth: elves, humans, orcs, and wondering what the other two armies may be. Eagles? Surely Smaug isn't an army unto himself...or is he?
In the book, the five armies were human, elf, dwarf, goblin, and giant eagle. Of course, it appears that PJ has substituted orcs for goblins in the movie.
Went to Barnes & Noble yesterday and flipped through one of the visual companion guides. It was noted that the overall dimension for Smaug was 140 meters (!) in length from tip of snout to tip of tail!!! I cross-referenced this with the Monstrous Compendium (yes, I admit I'm a nerd) statistics for a red dragon and discovered that Smaug EXCEEDS the maximum total length for a GREAT WYRM dragon!
Just bought The Hobbit and forgot how simple and quick a read it actually is...unless, for some reason, I got an incorrect copy.
-Lanthorn
It is essentially a children's story in the traditional format of fairy tales, which some people think is a bad thing. It's my favorite of the books, pretty much because I love fairy tales as much as I love gritty, bloody, take-no-prisoners, Game of Thrones-style works in the fantasy genre. Don't get me wrong; I love the Lord of the Rings, but I love the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, the Tale of the Children of Hurin, and even Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major more.
I also saw it on opening night, but have been hesitant to post because I am somewhat ambivalent to The Battle of Five Armies.
First, I can enjoy it as a story unto itself. It is Peter Jackson's story. He told a story that makes sense by itself, but it is not Tolkien's story. I appreciate the added drama and the ending for its own sake - it makes sense for this particular story. But, it's not Tolkien's story.
I was expecting Tolkien's story. It was advertised as Tolkien's story. I didn't mind Jackson's minor changes in the previous movies - poetic license is usually a good thing. But, what he gave us in The Battle of Five Armies was his own story, not the Tolkien story that he led us to believe it would be.
I can see your point, SirXaris. In truth, I think your point could hold true for pretty much all 3 "Hobbit" films, then, given all the extra stuff that was infused into those movies. The actual book is very scant on detail and one movie alone would have sufficed if it followed the novel.
Overall, I was very happy with the movie, but I can appreciate, and even agree with, your point that it was a large embellishment on Tolkien's work.
.....
First, I can enjoy it as a story unto itself. It is Peter Jackson's story. He told a story that makes sense by itself, but it is not Tolkien's story. I appreciate the added drama and the ending for its own sake - it makes sense for this particular story. But, it's not Tolkien's story.
I was expecting Tolkien's story. It was advertised as Tolkien's story. I didn't mind Jackson's minor changes in the previous movies - poetic license is usually a good thing. But, what he gave us in The Battle of Five Armies was his own story, not the Tolkien story that he led us to believe it would be.
Well Put.
I (like others) have found the round-tabling of Tolkien in this thread wonderful! And as Sir Xaris points out (spot on by the way) it is Peter Jackson / Hollywood's rendition... as to where that line resides is undetermined, but even as discussions for the "new trilogy" that was to be come the "Hobbit", I wondered how they would stttttreeeaaaaaaaatttccccchhh that story (essentially one book, save some Silmarillion footnoting) into THREE full length movies... I now have my answer.....
Like Sir Xaris (and many here and elswhere) I found the collective shows entertaining but flawed in there faithfulness to the original. The LOTR trilogy of movies while not perfect either, at least seem to stay rooted.
I found the 3rd Hobbit (Battle of Five Armies) to be disappointing in several ways.
**** SPOILER ALERT*****
1> Smaug's appearance for all of 12 minutes of the beginning of the movie left me wondering "WHY WAS THAT SIMPLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE END OF THE SECOND PICTURE?????" And (geek moment ahead) Smaug is a wyvern?? WTF
2> Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, & Saruman's battle was well done, but I thought Lady Galadriel's part would be more.
3> the appearance at the end of the Eagles and Beorn was less than the climatic event than I had pictured, as was Thorin's demise.
4>Legolas & his father, Thranduil, was good for dynamics, but don't recall the "shameless plug" seek out the ranger strider written anywhere in the story (though admittedly its been 10 plus years since I have read it)
5> the dwarf / elf "romance" of Kíli & Tauriel (which, I think Tauriel never was a character?) was questionable and not sure where this was needed. IT further seemed to be a blatant attempt by Hollywood to follow similar pathing of "Twilight & Hunger Games" love interest triangles.
6>Thorin's madness was depicted about as well as Cujo's was in film. Both afflictions are better left to the reader to discern "how it looks".
All in all it was entertaining, but I was left with the feeling that it was simply a Hollywood ploy to extract the money for 3 movies that could have easily been 1 or 2.
It's nice to have been missed . . . and I see that I have been!
First; this is Tolkien . . . NOT Dungeons and Dragons. You must not think in Game terms.
Tolkien made it very clear -- for instance -- that Goblins and Orcs were one and the same. The names are used interchangeably, just as they are in the real world. Orcs and goblins are the same creature, which name you use depends on the Real World mythos you are referring to. That's how Tolkien used them; sometimes "Goblin" and sometimes "Orc."
References to the Monsters/Humanoids of D&D do not apply to Tolkien's works.
In the Simarillion's, Index of Names, we read:
"Gandalf: The name among Men of Mithrandir, one of the Istari; see Olorin . . .
"Mithrandir: 'The Grey Pilgrim,' Elvish name of Gandalf (Olorin) one of the Istari . . .
"Olorin: A Maia, one of the Istari (Wizards); see Mithrandir, Gandalf . . ."
It then refers us to pages 23 and 24 of The Silmarillion:
"Wisest of the Maia was Olorin. He too dwelt in Lorien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna and of her he learned pity and patience . . . But of Olorin . . . he loved the elves, but walked among them unseen . . . In later days he was the friend of all the Children of Illuvatar."
"Gandlaf" was one of the lesser angels and existed long before Elves and Men and was closely associated with Nienna, "One of the Valier, numbered among the Aratar; Lady of pity and mourning, the sister of Mandos and Lorien."
"Valier" is the female form.
The Balrogs were also Maia and equate with "fallen angels."
As I've said (asked) before, why five Maia -- Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast and the two Blue Wizards -- could not deal with one Maia -- Sauron -- Tolkien never explained. I think it was a simple matter of him losing track of his own story, as so many authors are prone to do. You will recall that, in order to control all the rings, Sauron poured most of his "personal power" into the One Ring. Without the ring -- which he didn't have -- he should not have been able to stand up to the five Istari, yet look at how easily he often bested them.
Also, while the Balrog was a Maia -- like Gandalf -- Gandalf was supposedly armed with a magic sword and a magic ring; Narya, the Ring of Fire. Thus Gandalf told the Balrog that he was the "Keeper of the Secret Flame." How it is that a Maia armed with a magic ring and a magic sword could not overcome a single Balrog -- without himself dying -- is another mystery Tolkien never explained.
Another point: As a Maia, Gandalf was far more powerful than Galadriel. How then did she drive away the Necromancer, while Gandalf was easily taken prisoner?
As for Smaug's size? Tolkien is not D&D.
As for Tauriel's appearance in the movie -- though she is not a character in the book -- allow me to remind you that . . . neither is Arwen. No, a girl that is not mentioned until the very last chapter of the third book of a trilogy is not a "character" of the story. Arwen took the place of Glorfindel, which didn't sit well with me. Glorfindel's presence in the story brought home several significant points, which were missing from the movies. Jackson's "save?" Only a reader of The Silmarillion would know this.
Hollywood's "blatant attempt" with Tauriel is the same as it was with Arwen . . . to make the movies quasi Chick Flicks to attract female viewers.
No, there are many discrepancies in the books and the movies.
Mystic makes good points about not comparing D&D to Tolkein's world (and vice versa), though I often find myself doing just that (hence, my dragon size comparison comment earlier).
As for the wyvern-like design for Smaug...I actually like it. From a zoological point of view (personal scientific bias), it makes total sense (even if the dimensions of size for a flying vertebrate do not). Vertebrate wings are modified arms and hands, after all, so I did not mind the design choice.
Tolkien's own drawings and paintings of Smaug depict a six-limbed dragon.
Haven't posted much the last year or so - I got this crazy idea to open a used bookshop and that eats a lot of time. Good to see the regulars still around!
Okay, I've finally seen the Battle of Five Armies, and my final opinion is, to paraphrase Patton Oswalt, if I actually had a time machine, I would go back to around 2006 or 2007 and kill Peter Jackson with a shovel, to stop him from making the Hobbit movies. That's how I would try to save history.
I recently bought the extended 3-disk boxed set of the 3 Hobbit movies, complete with deleted scenes added back into the films, along with background and behind the scenes footage.
Just curious Lanthorn, is it worth picking up? My wife and I enjoy the movies for entertainment value so I am curious if the extended versions add anything to the story.
I am still sad the movie wasn't closer to the book but, hey, what do you do.
B minus For LoTR movies and Hobbit movies, I would say. The films are badly paced. Slow. Too much extended hiking across NZ time. And when the action heats up, Jackson tends to overdo it , with too much emphasis on falling and jumping sequences. He really, really loves falling and jumping. A lot!
But the films generally look good and all contain some well realized, exciting, moving, or funny scenes.
His lack of fidelity to the source material tempts me to mark the grade a bit lower, but I am not a purist. Adaptations aren't usually going to be close copies of the literature.
He cut out parts I thought were very important, making room to insert new characters and scenes that I found less interesting than what he removed.
Okay, I've finally seen the Battle of Five Armies, and my final opinion is, to paraphrase Patton Oswalt, if I actually had a time machine, I would go back to around 2006 or 2007 and kill Peter Jackson with a shovel, to stop him from making the Hobbit movies. That's how I would try to save history.
Ah, rates it lower than I do!
Although I did think that one was the weakest of all his Middle Earth movies.
Just curious Lanthorn, is it worth picking up? My wife and I enjoy the movies for entertainment value so I am curious if the extended versions add anything to the story.
I am still sad the movie wasn't closer to the book but, hey, what do you do.
I liked the extra footage, deleted scenes, and the behind the scenes stuff. There was A LOT of deleted stuff from 'Battle of the Five Armies.' I don't regret spending the 60 bucks.
BTW, it turns out that Smaug was going to start off being the traditional 4-legged dragon with shoulder wings. It was Jackson who, at the last moment, changed the concept design to make him more wyvern-like in anatomy. Alas, this happened after they had already done the first film, and that's why you see a regular clawed hand while Smaug is overrunning Erebor's dwarves. In the later DVD release, the animators digitally replaced that clawed hand with the modified hand-wing we see now.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
But so much was unnecessarily added that I was just bored. And while I understand he wanted to make it child friendly, I think he did a disservice to the dwarves. I will now await my punishment for stepping against the party lines. 
I cross-referenced this with the 
